Apple's motion to toss out a lawsuit filed by pesky Hackintosher Psystar was itself tossed out by a US District Court judge. Make that one exasperated US District Court judge. Apple's motion was straightforward. It asked the judge who will hear Apple's suit against Psystar in January of 2010 - William Alsup of the US District …
Which only goes to show that appearance of impropriety can be just as bad as impropriety itself. Whether or not the timing of Snow Leopard's release was deliberate, it seems this judge really doesn't like Apple's lawyers.
I'm still curious as to who is funding Psystar. It's certainly a shady organization, or seems to be.
Doesn't inspire confidence in a quality product!
"Alsup also implied that Apple had intentionally delayed the release of Snow Leopard until after the discovery period had closed"
This judge is a expert on when an OS is ready to ship?
I thought Snow Leopard was released early?
There was a bit of fussing among developers that Snow Leopard was released earlier than they were lead to believe, resulting in some applications not being fully 10.6 ready. This article claims the contrary, that Apple delayed release of Snow Leopard just to annoy this judge.
Had Apple released any earlier the developers would have been totally out of water. I doubt Apple delayed as claimed.
If this was Microsoft they'd already have said "Monopoly" and thrown away the key. Apple needs to realise that it's behaviour is just as bad.
And for the record I am neither an Apple fan or MS fan. I just like technology in general and the behaviour of both is reprehensible at times.
Restricting OSX to Apple Hardware IS monopolistic?
Surely it is?
No, the judge is probably no expert on when an OS is ready to ship. However, had Apple wanted to, I expect it could have asked nicely for the discovery period to be extended. I think the point is that Apple probably can be expected to be an expert on when its own OS is ready to ship, and Apple can be expected to be paying attention to when discovery closes.
(Haven't read the order, not licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction, void where prohibited, may cause cancer in lab rats, and other disclaimers, etc.)
Where does it end ?
Apple will be forced to release the iPhone code to run on Android hardware ?
Microsoft forced to release code so it can be modded and re-compiled to run on a PS3 ?
I don't own a Mac but I believe a manufacturer can control the IP of a "product" - someone else can't break down the product and insist on it being available separately for purchase.
Apple a monopoly?
Say it aint so. Im glad to see some things starting to go against crApple. Want to see them branded a monopoly just like M$ so we can have choice finally on what OS to run on what hardware.
@Anonymous Coward, James Melody
No, it's not monopolistic when you can just go buy a PC and install Linux on it.
OS X is *just* a f*cking UNIX clone with a pretty GUI. That's it. There's no magic. No mystery.
The *only* reason people buy Apple's kit instead of, say, a DELL or Asus box instead is because Apple has some good designers working for it at the moment. (This wasn't always the case and, if Jonathan Ive were to leave for pastures new, Apple might well drop the ball again. A corporation is the sum of the people who work for it. Nothing more. Nothing less.)
Psystar's claim that Apple have any kind of monopoly on "premium computers" utterly flies in the face of Sony. (No, seriously, have you *seen* how much Sony charge for some of their premium models?)
Apple are no more obligated to release and support—at great expense—their own damned software on competitors' hardware than Microsoft are required to produce a version of Windows 7 that runs on a 1992-era PC with a 386 DX CPU, Ad-Lib sound card and Cirrus Logic graphics.
"Apple's collecting rents on it's monopoly of premium computers."
That's a good legal tactic to pin your pirate computer aspirations to. Go for it, Dude!
tit for tat....
Didn't Apple pull some dumb discovery thing against them first? Something about removing some software thing during the discovery phase. Seems to me they thought hey lets try this and it actually worked.
Apple is still a tiny computer company but its other electronics have made it just big enough to sway the Apple friendly judges. If Apple continues to grow they should really be prepared for anti trust suites. The only reason they have been able to quell them before is because lets face it until recently Mac’s were nothing more than a glorified pc boxes and they made up such a small percent there was no monopoly.
If Apple continues to grow the way it does they should think about pouching Ms’s lawyers as the spend 90% of their time arguing anti-trust.
That’s right Apple with profit comes lawsuits especially if your business practices continue to be as “opaque” as they are now.
Anti-competative perhaps, but monopolistic? No. That's the same as accusing Nintendo having a monopoly over its platform. Can we just stop banding terms like 'monopolistic' around please? I'm not having a go (well I suppose I am!), but they are meaningless. Monopolies aren't unlawful at all - in fact its what every business *should* be trying to achieve! What *is* unlawful is what is termed anti-competative behaviour (anti-trust in the US). Things like price-fixing (ie severely under cutting competition because of market dominance) and blocking entry into a market are considered anti-competative. I don't think you can accuse Apple of having a monopoly here. Psystar could make and sell computers that are preinstalled with BSD, Linux, Solaris/OpenSolaris or even Windows, unless you are suggesting that Apples aren't Personal Computers (the capitals are important there). The legality of the EULA is actually being contested here, and this potentially has far reaching implications for every one that uses them. Personally, I think Psystar are in the wrong. Whilst Apple Macs *are* PC's, they are appliances, in a similar mould to XBox, PS3 and Wii or even a washing machine. By tying their OS to their own hardware, Apple are trying to protect their brand image - Which is currently percieved to be 'cool' (see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/28/coolbrands_2009/). Part of Microsoft's problems with Vista were OEMs installing it on underpowered hardware and peripherals manufactures not supplying updated drivers, for which Microsoft perhaps wrongly took a lot of flack. Sorry if I sound preachy, the misuse of "monopoly" is getting long in the tooth! Just a quick note to those that want to see Apple get a legal "kick-in" - careful what you wish for. The implications of this case are potentially far reaching and have ramifications beyond it's scope. And being a "fan" of any of these companies is pointless...
Grr. By their argument, everything is a monopoly. How dare Volkswagen put VW engines in its own cars (VW, Seat and Skoda). I expect Ford would be well within their rights to complain they can't buy VW engines for their cars.
This is crazy!
Of course Apple have the right to restrict you to using their hradware!
It's the same as Microsoft have the right to restrict you to using IE!
Oh, hang on, wait....
Could a lawyer explain why one of the above statements is OK and the other is not?
@Sean Timarco Baggaley
No, Apple's not obligated to release to or support any hardware but their own.
However, if that s/w runs on some other hardware, which I'm willing to sell & support, then I damned well ought to be able to, w/o getting sued.
And a Sony isn't a premium computer, just an expensive one.
The distinction has to be made between hardware and software here. Locking an OS to hardware has to be viewed as monopalistic - the statement about 1992 era PC hardware is null and void...
If you apply the Apple methods to MS software then MS could programatically and legally deny people from installing its OS on VMs and Apple hardware ... how would that go down? .. you can bet a lot of law firms would get rich from MS coffers.
What if Intel decided Apple were not to use their CPUs? - would Apple complain or go back to Power PC and be pretty much useless in todays society?
Apple need to relax their nanny approach to their software and (L)earn from its position... they design great stuff but act like a spoilt child sometimes.
Two bald men fighting over a comb?
I haven't seen the court documents, have you?
While sure, we as software developers know that no product is going to be 100% by release date and that dates get pushed back, I believe that there were statements made by Apple that would suggest to the judge that they delayed the shipping of Snow Leopard to keep it out of the case.
If you went on Pacer, you might be able to find them.
Regardless,their argument could have held merit, but their actions may have prejudiced the judge.
I'm not sure that Psystar's argument for their lawsuit holds water but IANAL.
I can buy a UK Sony netbook (with proper resolution and all) for less than £350. Hardly a premium price.
Their 16GB Walkmans can be found for under £99 offering superior sound quality and even comes bundled with none-throwaway headphones.
People moaning about Sony's apparent high price are just stupid who can't research for themselves. They have products that are expensive, no doubt about it, but so does other manufacturers (Dell, Lenovo etc.). But to say that you can't afford one is silly.
I'm a Physter
No, seriously. I read it like that. Just say it out loud to yourself.
Paris knows ALL about it.
If Apple made cars you'd only be able to drive them on iRoads and fuel them using iFuel.
As a Apple-tard/fanboi, I couldn't give a monkey's if Psystar win or not, and to a certain extent I actually hope they do win!
People will see how great OSX really is, then just like the 2nd hand souped up Escort was all you could afford when you were young, you grow up and realise you want the real McCoy and you save up and buy yourself a genuine Porsche.
'Cos just as the song says, "There ain't nothin' like the real thing."!
Anonymous Coward @23:44 GMT: "Grr. By their argument, everything is a monopoly. How dare Volkswagen put VW engines in its own cars (VW, Seat and Skoda). I expect Ford would be well within their rights to complain they can't buy VW engines for their cars."
<sigh> Don't you just love the way people seem to use spurious examples to try and prove a point? Nay, AC, Apple's action would be akin to Volkswagen selling you an engine but forbidding you to put it in anything other than a VW car. (and, btw, there is nothing stopping Ford from buying VW engines for their next car - except, of course, bascially admitting that VW makes engine) (and no, I don't care one way or the other - my car is neither a Ford nor a VW)
Apple should get its head out of it's lawyers' asses and realise they do not have the right to impose such a restriction. They *do*, however, have to right to restrict *support* only to their OS running on their HW. *That* makes sense. All they have to do is add a line in the T&Cs of both HW and OS that is you use a non-Appled piece of kit, your warranty is null and void as far as Apple is concerned.
But if I choose to try to run Leopard on a PS2, that's *my* bloody choice (and problem). After all, Apple seems to be only too happy to have people run Windows on their hardware - bootcamp anyone? Goose/Gander.
HEY, Where's TY??
I miss your arrogant, smug, mActard fanboi "get a life, get a mAc" comments. I'm sure you have something scathing to say about Pystar. Let's hear it!
This Apple vs Pystar case is getting more and more interesting.
~~Where's my popcorn?~~
Crap analogy, VW dont stop you putting another engine in their car, like apple, you can run windows, linux etc on a mac. Also VW dont stop you buying one of their engines and putting it in a none VW car, apple does, you are not allowed to install OSX on anything other than apple hardware. Also, ford could buy VW engines if they wanted, they could get themselves a manufacturing contract with VW to supply the engines for their cars if they wanted, i'm sure VW would be happy to supply them.
Read the comments by Simon Banyard 3 posts above yours.
The issue is really about anti-competitive behavior. When you're as big as MS it's a lot easier to
a) be anti-competitive
b) be found guilty of a)
Apple are not that great, just good.
Stop moaning about Apple prices please? If you don't like something, then don't buy it. Simple! You have the cash, it's your choice. Yes, it's overpriced, but so is a pair of Levi's from Regent Street, so are CDs from Virgin in Oxford Street. I go online I can pick stuff up cheaper, if I am willing to spend the time poking about and finding bargains.
If you don't like Apple, that's great! I don't like carrots, unpolished chrome or Care Bears ( *shudder* ), so I avoid them!
No one makes you buy carrots more than anyone makes you buy Apple stuff. There are a lot of products that to my mind often work better than Apple kit. Apple kit is about cachet and looks, with a slightly better record for reliability, but sadly underpowered and the average desktop is not designed to run Crysis! Oh by the way, I say all this as an owner of 4 Macs and a single PC server running Linux!
Your comments could illustrate the issue more plainly but not the way you think.
Ford isnt a good example as they dont generally use others tech. They do however provide thier tech for others ie Mazda. Mazda trucks are ford rangers with different badging and several of thier other vehicles are either based on ford drivetrains or are the same as thier trucks, duplicates rebaged. Ford has 0 issue with this as Mazda pays them big for the use.
This is fairly common in the auto industry, Chrysler last year made a deal to use Nissan's CV transmissions and axles in thier jeep line. Chrysler's dodge line has full borrows from jeep and from other companies ie the Dodge Stealth is a Mitsubishi 3000gt, with a different body style same everything else, and several of Dodge's other models are a mix of tech from Mitsubishi and others. the Dodge Nitro is a Jeep Liberty with a body kit on it.
It goes on and on. Thsi isnt even remotely restricted to the auto industry it happens in every industry from tech to espresso machines.
Apple has been foolish ever since they let Steve Jobs return and have pretty well sealed themselves to be a Niche player in the pc market. Before Steve jobs returned there was a booming clone market that didnt impact Apple at all just the opposite they ganied share up to 18% at one point and were climbing, right before Steve Jobs came back, they were also instrumentel involved in the Phoenix project, which was to create unified formats and possible binaries between platforms: macOS, windows and linux. When steve came back he shut down the clones, pulled out of the Phoenix project and pulled Apple back 10 years, Apple went from 21% to less than 10% market share in less than 2 years.
I used to be a Mac guru back in those days and before as a Desktop Publisher and ImageSetter it was the way to go but after steve jobs came back i had no choice but to buy a pc to do my work as apple's market share had erroded to the point that my customers were giving me pc files more than Mac ones, and has anyone in dtp knows that although the mac could open the pc files their were muiple issues with the conversion, inluding major kerning issues, it was more work to open it on a mac and a waste of time then on a pc. I knew then MS would grow huge due to the fact apple quit competing and was happy to be a niche market propietary player.
Psystar is just trying to revive the clone market and has a basis in both apple's past and legal current, Apple had a claim originally with the clones as the hardware they used was only provided by motorola or later IBM for thier use and they were the only company besides the producers to use it. Now as they arre using the exact same hardware as and windows or linux pc and the OS is coded for x86 standard, they dont have this excuse. ill be intresting to see what happens.
Psystar - possibly the most stupid business model ever.
1) they loose the case they die.
2) they win the case, Apple re-organises itself so that its profit come from the software not the hardware i.e. put up the price of the software!!. Psystar die.
Either way Psystar die - I just hope there's an interesting fight over their records.
Just plain wrong
Apple has every right to protect its brand, IP, copyright and design rights. Their software is designed to run on the hardware it designs and it supports it too. How its brand image is affected by running on hardware that was not designed by them, and not supported by them, is only going to be detrimental to that brand.
I don't think Apple could be (for personal computers) described as a monopoly as its market share is in single figures. The analogy I like to make is with another consumer item, the LCD TV. You buy a crap TV, but its not a Sony TV, but it has Sony control software on board, which gives an otherwise poor product an air of legitimacy/prestige about it. But the product does not fully perform as you'd expect with a Sony TV, the product and its software is then dragged through the mud for such poor performance, people rightly point out that the Sony Software is not installed on Sony hardware. But it is too late now, it image is tarnished, misinformation and gossip can do the rest? Its brand image is damaged by a dodgy supplier trying to make a fast buck off someone else's success. If you don't like Mac's then don't buy them, If you do but can't afford one then either buy second hand or join the legions of moaners on how overpriced and crap they are. After all a Ferrari just has four wheels, an engines, some doors, why should it be more expensive than a Ford Focus? It must be a rip off? or could it be that someone designed it to be fast and as a total concept?
The American legal system, from you read in the press, appears to be either corrupt or incompetent. So I can't really see a good result coming out of this. I too would love to know who is the money behind Shyster and would be interested to know what their sales turnover is. At the end of the day the only winners will be the lawyers.
Its my ball and I'll do what I want with it.
The Day Apple open up thier OS run on other machines is the day Quality goes out the window. From a laymans point of view, because they control The hardware and the software, they can guarrentee quality.
The app store & iPhone OS Probably has the same strategy*: Quality control of the user experience is near on impossible on an open system, and the iphone, no matter how good, is on its limit performance wise, and when it starts jittering, crashing, and rebooting (Regardless of what application caused it) customers are going to start getting pissed with thier device, and lose faith in the quality- The argument in my mind is the same for OSX & Third party Vendors.
Apple don't make computers, they make consumer electronics, integrated products, just like every other piece of electronics hardware you have which has a software element, and I'm all for that because it near as dammit gives total control of the user experience under one major stakeholder: The creator of the product
Ive never heard anyone taking legal action against Pansonic because they make it impossible to put thier Microwave firmware on other manufactuers microwave, or because its not possible to flash a Sony ericsson with a Nokia ROM,
why is this any different? It's thier Property, and if they want to keep it to themselves, then fuck you! They should be able to.
Getting the balance right between Interoperability and SW/HW integration is whats its all about IMO, and I know that from A company's perspective its also about market share: And Why not? Thats what competition is all about : A Hypocritical statement when we talk of monopoly, i know, but why doesn't someone else step up and release an OS aimed at normal users? I suppose we have to wait and see about Google's Chrome efforts.
*As well as the huge revenue stream from app sales, of course.
Im a Psystar
I'm wearing a black-and-white striped shirt, a black beret and an eye mask, and I have a SWAG bag over my shoulder.
I'm a Psystar.
car example spurious
The whole car thing is totally spurious but illustrates the problem apple has.
I bought a Lotus, it comes with a Rover engine, I changed the engine for a better rover engine, then i changed it for a Honda engine. http://www.elise-r.co.uk/2009/08/07/honda-exige-lapping-snetterton-with-a-paddle-shift-sequential/
While I don't expect Lotus to actually approve/like/support what I did thats fair enough. Last thing they want is a version of their car performing much better than they can manage but i legitimately own the car. I can do whatever the feck I want with it, and if someone wants to then go on a sell kits to enable this to happen to other cars well thats up to them and again Lotus can do nothing about it. There is nothing Lotus can sell you that goes half as well as the converted cars out there, and yes it anoys them but thats just tough.
Last thing Apple want is someone kocking together a clone PC running OS10 that cost half the amount yet goes twice as well. Then users *might* finally figure out that what they are paying a massive premium for is just a glossy white/ali case and the sensible route would be stay with OS10 if that floats their boat and run it on a commodity, spec'd out of its head, box.
Anyone else who basically wants a shiny toy for loads of dosh can get down to the Apple shop and indulge in some mutual masterbation with the nearest Apple "genius".
P:S: Re: EULA
My PoV Is from a Sales perspective, not EULA. I Agree with Neoc's Comments regarding support, thats exactly how the EULA should read, but in terms of licensing and allowing others to sell their OS on third party machines: Its totally their choice if thats the way they want to play it.
Regarding the EULA, The majority of users don't want to do crazy things like Install an OS on an another device, or jailbreak, etc
For the minority, they should just do it, fuck the EULA, no one cares as long as you are not making any money out of it, break the rules and get over it. when was the last time you read an EULA properly? What, never? me neither.
Regarding the Mircrosoft comments: The sole reason they have such dominance (And shaky end user experience is precisely because they went down the SW and 3rd party Vendor route.
Re: Spurious #
> How dare Volkswagen put VW engines in its own cars (VW, Seat and Skoda). I expect Ford
> would be well within their rights to complain they can't buy VW engines for their cars.
Why would they do that? Ford have been putting the V6 diesel they developed with PSA Group (appears also in several PSA cars), the both VW and Ford have joined different groups to make a common People Carrier style car, VW used to sell gearboxes to Rover. Car manufacturer's often sell each other bits to use in different models - going back to BMW making Austin 7's under licence. And I haven't heard of any trying to stop kit car makers buying engines
"Crap analogy, VW dont stop you putting another engine in their car, like apple, you can run windows, linux etc on a mac. Also VW dont stop you buying one of their engines and putting it in a none VW car, apple does, you are not allowed to install OSX on anything other than apple hardware. Also, ford could buy VW engines if they wanted, they could get themselves a manufacturing contract with VW to supply the engines for their cars if they wanted, i'm sure VW would be happy to supply them."
You're missing the point. You're allowed to install Windows on anything, but VW would be miffed if you bought engines and then resold them in your own cars. Just 'getting a manufacturing contract' would mean Psystar could 'just' get a contract to install OS X. Except they can't, can they?
There's a difference between the end user squeezing OS X onto a PC / squeezing a VW engine you've bought into your Escort. Because you're not selling the end result on a commercial scale.
If Pystar want to risk it...
...then why not let them run Leopard on "illegal" kit. It will be Pystar who get the support calls, have to write the new drivers, do all the testing etc. etc. If I buy a Mercedes engine, can Mercedes block me from fitting to a Lada? Nope. It's still won't be a Mercedes, just a quick Lada (and in need to new suspension, chassis stiffening etc.)
As for an Apple monopoly...I can't see it. I can spunk just as much dosh on any other PC as I could on an Apple unit (Alienware springs to mind). True, price does not always make somehing "premium", just expensive and another brand doesn't have the fashionista caché of Apple, but who cares what the fashionistas think? Bunch of wankers.
So no, I don't buy the whole "Apple monopoly" bit. Unless Apple grabbed 75%+ of the market while I was asleep...? Nup? Thought not.
Apple are just making themselves look like monumental dicks, but it's their ball and if they want to play at petulant; that is their choice. It's a shame Pystar didn't take their money/energies and jump in behind a premium Linux distro, helping to making Linux usable by Joe Schmoe for the first time ever. But then, Linux tends to bring non-techies out in a rash.
So we're Apple just acting like a bunch of dicks. And short-sighted dicks too. They could easily license to Pystar, with strict controls over quality/how/where it's branded and at what price-point. That could leave Apple in the "more-money-than-sense" market, and Pystar grabbing at the lower-end of the market. This could help increase Apple share overall and surely that's a "Good Thing"(tm) isn't it?
Or are Apple simply worried about losing kit sales to Pystar et al?
Either way, Apple want to restrict the sales of their OS, they are not running a monopoly in any meaningful sense and it is thus their choice.
Oh -and to the idiots in the balcony: no one is asking Apple to release code, just license/allow install on non-Apple platforms. Source Code!=Run time.
The car industry is indeed a crap anology, the Ford Focus in Europe uses the same platform and engine as the Mazda 3, and the platform is also used in a Volvo I believe, and the Peugot 107, Citroen C1 and Toyota Aygo are all made in the same factory, they just change a few body panels, and they use an engine first used by Daihatsu.
VW & Ford
Some Fords use VW engines - Galaxy anyone?
@Gene Cash et al.
It is more about brand image. If third parties can sell OSX on their own (or other non-Apple) hardware, even with Apple refusing any warranty or responsibility, then if there are any problems the users will perceive it as an Apple problem.
Apple are protecting their image here, as well as their profits.
Also regarding the Ford / VW engine argument, it is relevant, yes VW could sell engines to Ford but equally they would be within their rights to refuse to sell VW engines to Ford, or even to sell them engines but then impose conditions on what Ford can do with those engines.
It only becomes a problem if there are no other viable options, such as with MS and their market share. Surely a company cannot be accused of monopolistic behaviour if it has less than 5% of a market, and certainly when one competitor has 90% or so of the same [OS] market.
Apple control freakery
Does Apple have the right to sell and profit from its OS ? Yes.
Does Apple have the right to sell and profit from its hardware ? Yes.
Does Apple have the right to force users to use only their hardware with their OS ? That's what the court will decide.
When there's non-Apple hardware capable of running Apple OS I don't see how it's reasonable for Apple to simply say it's not allowed to use that non-Apple hardware, any more than Microsoft saying Windows must only be run on Intel chipset PC's with a genuine Intel processor.
Saying Apple won't provide help and support for anything but their own hardware would be one thing, but to simply deny the end-user the choice is something else.
Forcing users to use only Apple hardware with Apple OS is anti-competitive against those non-Apple suppliers who have hardware capable of running Apple OS. Whether truly "monopolistic", I'll leave to the pedants of legal definition, but it seems to me they have created a 'monopolistic position'; they have a monopoly on what hardware may run Apple OS.
If you want to run Apple OS you have to buy Apple hardware and there's no reason for that other than Apple saying it has to be so. Simple as that. That is wrong to me.
people need to think
Apples OSX on Apple computers is a monopoly, true, but it is not a monopoly in the legal sense. In the same way Kellogg’s cornflakes in a Kellogg’s cornflake packet is a monopoly, but there is not legal case to make Kellogg’s sell its cornflakes to go into a Tesco own brand box.
In both cases you can put other things in the box (computer/packet), and you can put the contains (operating system/cornflakes) in a different box, (I'm ignoring that compatibility issues and EUA). if you want Kellogg’s cornflakes you have to buy it in a Kellogg’s box and pay what they are asking, same with Apples OSX.
Having said that Apple is selling OSX on its own, and then crying when people install it on computers that are not Apple, and saying it’s against the license. Back to my Kellogg’s analogy it’s like Kellogg’s selling just cornflakes then crying when Tesco put then in an own brand box and say look cheap Kellogg’s cornflakes as it’s not in the licence, despite the fact you can’t see the licence until you start to eat the cornflakes.
Oh I’ve called it Apple OSX as it does belong to Apple, a lot if it is open source I know, but not all of it. Anyway the real question is are EUA legal and why does only software have them? though films are trying to get them as well (DRM), music is beginning to give up.
Apple should sell their software as a Software download or update, so you have to have the previous version installed on a Mac. No Mac? No software. As previous people have stated they have a right to protect their brand. The Levi jeans analogy is a good one. Don't want to pay through the nose for Jeans with a badge that says Levi? want to pay supermarket prices? Then buy Tesco own brand jeans! But you want the kudos of a premium brand at a low price, then eventually it will have no value, in which case it will not be a "must have" for the fashion victims. Drag everything down to the lowest common denominator where price is everything and value and quality are nothing.
Apple are in the wrong here
It's not like they give thier operating system away they still charge money for it. So what is the problem? Sure they can choose not to support it and if they wanted they could break the compatability as it is their OS but it should be up to the user who paid for the software to decide how they want to run it
Who funds Psystar?
Steve Jobs obviously!
(where did that black helicopter icon go?)
re: @ Spurious - the one by the 'Mac guru'
"Apple has been foolish ever since they let Steve Jobs return and have pretty well sealed themselves to be a Niche player in the pc market. Before Steve jobs returned there was a booming clone market that didnt impact Apple at all just the opposite they ganied…"
Rubbish. The clones cannibalized Apple’s own sales and Apple was constantly playing catch-up with the clones.
As for the 21% market share percentage that you quoted as Apple as having before Jobs’ return, it’s a totally made up figure.
After Apple licensed its OS, by the end of 1997, the Mac OS US marketshare was 5%.
OF COURSE car manufacturers sell engines to one another, share platforms, share factories, own various brands etc. etc.
But they are all subject to agreements and deals. If Ford didn't want to sell you engines, you couldn't obtain a supply, stick them in your cars and slap a 'Engine by Ford' badge on the back.
If Toyota didn't want Lotus to use their engines, Lotus couldn't just bypass them and do it anyway.
Can't wait to see Psystar and his shonky 'Hackintosh' get royally fisted by Apple.
- Batten down the hatches, Ubuntu 14.04 LTS due in TWO DAYS
- Samsung Galaxy S5 fingerprint scanner hacked in just 4 DAYS
- Did a date calculation bug just cost hard-up Co-op Bank £110m?
- Feast your PUNY eyes on highest resolution phone display EVER
- Wall St's DROOLING as Twitter GULPS DOWN analytics firm Gnip