Comments on: Want to eliminate Psystar? License Mac OS X

Apple is still battling the maker of a computer using its operating system. Might its conflict be resolved if it simply dumps the lawsuits in favor of a licensing plan?

[istarman]

Remember the days of the clones? It ate sales of the Mac and also gave a bad experience of the Mac OS.

[plbyrd]

I worked for a printing company that adored their Mac clones. They used the money they saved to purchase the software they needed to do their work, and I supported these systems and never had a report of a single usability problem.

The author is correct about limiting the licenses, but I think companies like Acer and Sony should be included in the short list. Can you imagine how tremendously ecstatic and enthusiastic Sony would be about selling Viao systems with Mac OS X?

[catch23]

>>Can you imagine how ecstatic Sony would be about selling Viao systems with Mac OS X?

Can you imagine how fast Apple would be out of business if they let Sony make the money off the hardware?

[Mr. Dee]

I want people top see my comment, so I will post it in this thread.

Steve Jobs never said anything about OS X being a competitive advantage, he said that it would not work as good on PC's because Apple builds the software + hardware together work together from the get go. Michael Dell I have read would be pleased if he could get OS X on his machines but his pleas have gone unanswered. HP I am sure probably have tried but got the big no from SJ.

If Apple were to really support PC OEMs such as Dell and HP, they would also have to work on the hardware, probably a different brand from their traditional offerings that run Windows today. Also, that copy of OS X would have to very secured so it can't be reverse engineered to work on white boxes, meaning, it would have to work on Apple Dell and HP certified machines and not just any Dell or HP machines.

[kylebuttermore]

whats wrong with Psystar, it costs less and does the exact same thing... god damn fanboys....

[malogato]

The entire reason why apple doesn't want this to happen is because that it's going to cost them a fortune.


http://www.crackdancinginthestreets.com/applevshp.jpg

You'll see that you can buy an HP computer with equal or BETTER hardware for $1200+ where the macbook pro is $2799..

If you could legally install osx on that HP, why would you EVER consider buying the apple?

you can install osx on it, and it runs the same, but apple wants to tell you that it's illegal to do so.

oh.. and Don, you're simply wrong about the connection to first-sale. By your logic, a large portion of commerce in this world would be illegal. If I buy Buffy the Vampire Slayer on DVD from target.. I can't resell it?

[ObeliskMark]

OMG. Such a tired tired argument. We've been over this a million times. Oh wait, another attempt by CNET to title a blog post in such a way to lure the maximum number of hits. Doh!!!! Tricked again. Mark Hernandez.

[Perry_Clease]

Apple doesn't need to license OSX in order to get rid of Psystar

[cracm]

the current license is fine, get hardware you know that's supported and go download osx/86 from piratebay.

[Penguinisto]

An even better idea: buy the software first, then patch it and install it in a compatible machine. This way you don't have to pirate the thing, or run around advocating piracy, which is what you just did, genius.

[unknown unknown]

@Penguinisto why bother, you're a criminal either way.

[chris_d]

I doubt it would work. Most consumers don't know much about operating systems anyway. They buy a computer, not an operating system. Most techies don't understand that. And if the default on a HP or Dell is Windows, Apple's OS doesn't stand a chance. The power of being default is why MSIE still has about 70% usage.

One only needs to look back to IBM and OS/2 to see what happens when you go head-to-head with Microsoft for OEM sales: you lose. The company is an 800-lb gorilla and would no doubt intimidate any OEM into dropping the Apple OS. (Most operating systems are sold with a computer, so that's where you need the sales.) Then Apple's hardware sales dry up, and only a handful of consumers will buy it at retail due to its poor support from third party OEMs (drivers and such).

The other thing is that Apple wouldn't have the control over the user experience it does now, which is part of the selling point. Going to one company for support instead of playing pass the buck has its advantages.

[eldernorm]

Just a thought here.... vs "One only needs to look back to IBM and OS/2 to see what happens when you go head-to-head with Microsoft for OEM sales: you lose. The company is an 800-lb gorilla and would no doubt intimidate any OEM into dropping the Apple OS. (Most operating systems are sold with a computer, so that's where you need the sales.) "

Microsoft may be an 800 lb gorilla but now its standing on the interstate and as it plows into semi trailor after semi trailor, it just does not impress like it did when everyone was riding on a bike. :-)

Apple is now the 3rd-4th largest seller of computer hardware in the USA. And while it only sells 10-12 percent of computer systems, ........ (wait for it) it is sellling 60-70 percent of the high end laptop systems.

Yep thats right, the upper level systems are going major Apple. And that is where the profit is. Apple sold 1/2 the dollars as Dell last reporting quarter, yet made 4x the profit. It ain't good if you lose money on everything,,,,, no matter how much you sell.

Just ask mega company NORTEL. The major leader in Telco equipment, just fined Bankruptcy papers.

The bigger they are, the bigger the hole as they fall. :-)

Just a thouight.
en

[ckurowic]

Excellent point, Chris_d. Techies (I being one of them) certainly don't think this way, but it makes sense. If you get grandma out there to Best Buy to buy a computer, thats exactly what she is doing. Now ask her what OS it runs, she'll say: "its a computer???". I've heard that a number of times. However it brings up this point; its very sad that people assume that there is only one choice out there when it comes to computers.

[Michichael]

Elder, Is that volume or dollars sold? I mean sure when every system you sell is over 2-3k, selling half the systems still gives you a higher dollar amount. Just means there are twice as many people that aren't stupid or rich enough to buy a subpar machine for three times it's value.

[scottae316]

Well one thing you forget, IBM and Micosoft were partner in OS/2. They developed it part way then Microsoft withdrew. I cannot remember if Microsoft then came out with Windows or did a significant upgrade, with may OS/2 type components and code.

As for Microsoft intimidating anyone, HP sells Linux machine do they not?

[babbles42]

Why would you give your competition leverage over you? Let Dell and HP create their own OS! They compete with Apple to sell hardware. The software on those boxes is a key difference.

Without Mac OS, Apple would probably be out of the hardware business. The licensing fees would not make up for the non-existent or much lower profits from hardware sales. Less profit means less money to innovate and come up with things like an iPhone. And I do not mean "oh wow, those Apple guys are geniuses." They pull in higher profits and naturally have more money to use in making new things, due to their non-licensing of their OS.

Plus, c'mon -- Apple consists of control freaks (not always a bad thing!). :-)

[Warhaven]

Speaking of creating their own OS, I always thought Sony, of all companies, could really compete with Windows with the consumer market if they made their own dedicated gaming OS for PCs. Really, why do most people put up with all the crap that Windows is? It's the games. All those office and utility apps are available and cloned twice over for every other OS out there. Games are the only thing holding Windows to the home PC.

Now, Sony could really put a dent in home PC sales. They have the money and marketing to not be intimidated by Microsoft (they're one of Microsoft's two direct competitors to the Xbox) and they already offer their own PC and component manufacturing infrastructure anyway; so MS intimidating OEMs isn't going to hurt their OS adoption all that much. And if any company could build a sleek, streamlined OS geared for the best gaming experience ever on a home PC, it'd be Sony.

Granted, you could argue that that's what a PS3 is for, but gaming on a PC is really a whole different experience than a console hooked up to your TV. Games with a great amount of detail in the combat mechanics just don't work on a console and a joystick. You really do need a keyboard and mouse to play WoW. Plus, to the extent of mods, addons, and such that WoW and similar games employ, you can't really do that on a console platform either.

In summary: Sony should give us a dedicated gaming OS for desktop PCs. No embedded web browser. No embedded movie making crapware. No nonsense. I call it... EvolutionOS. The way gaming on a PC was meant to be experienced. (I think nVidia might have that tag line already, though.. .)

-Summer Glau

p.s. Look for me on Fox's new series, The Sarah Connor Chronicles!

[Penguinisto]

@Warhaven:

Just one small set of problems with regard to Sony: They seem to be incapable of building a PC or laptop without charging a price for the product that defies common sense (see also their Vaio line). They also can't seem to stop themselves from loading a ton of crapware into their existing PC/laptop line (again, Vaio). They're also in lust with DRM like you wouldn't believe...

Don't get me wrong - I'd play games on their gear, but I'm not so sure I'd trust my data to it without a complete hard disk flush and re-isntall (which I did with my old Vaio when I first got it - flushed the HDD completely and re-installed the OS).

/P

[D3vildog699]

@Peng, Warhaven


I think that if sony wanted to get into the OS's business they should at least look at linux first before developing their own OS or at least offer it for free. They have a long way to catch up but it would be cool to see some new Competition when the OS hits the market.

Just my opinion of course but it would be nice to have a new player.

[malogato]

@Warhaven --- Nice to see the folks from xkcd hitting the forums again :-)

[docparkny]

The computers -the laptop and tower, are the crown jewels and are protected even from competition from iPhone/iPod Touch -notice the lack of bluetooth keyboards or any rumor of a keyboarded clamshell iPod touch. This will never happen. The Clone Wars were a terrible time for Apple with PowerMac eating its lunch.

[youneverknewme]

If the main objective is to kill Psystar then they should license OS X with so many strings attached that it effectively makes their only legal option a suicide mission.

Done and done.

[BK216]

they should license it out to more vendors. OSX on my HP would be cool

[pithenumber]

hackintosh it to your PC
it is as easy as ever these days

[AJ Pants]

These articles get more and more ridiculous as the days go on. In the improbable event Apple gives its OS to Dell and HP, how will the company ever prevent OSX going on any old sh*t box out there?

Apple runs a tight ship, always have done. They aren't about to blow it now for the sake of eradicating some pissy little company liky Psystar.

[Quest27]

Actually, Apple will lose money because once people realize that they can have the OS X experience for less than Apple's price point by buying from other vendors like Dell and HP, all but the die-hard Apple fans will go for the cheaper stuff, regardless of who's logo is on the machine. Apple shouldn't do this because right now they have a monopoly over Leopard, and that is why people buy a more expensive Mac, rather than a Windows PC. If Apple licenses Leopard, they (at least their Mac division) will go belly up.

[scottae316]

If you compare comparably built machines, i.e. processor, graphics, memory, etc. you will find Apples are not that expensive. Apple just refuses to build "cheap" computers.

[malogato]

@scottae316

http://www.crackdancinginthestreets.com/applevshp.jpg


The hp uses ALL THE SAME HARDWARE as the apple, except is has a bigger screen.

[techman21]

Licensing would only legitimize Psystar, but you may be right about their lack of ability to compete will well-known brands.

[The_happy_switcher]

Psystar, like Microsoft, need to die as companies--for the good of computing in general.

[rapier1]

Yes because competition is a bad thing. Ignorance is strength after all and we can all agree that war is peace.

[The_happy_switcher]

"Apple would be shooting themselves in the foot if the licensed OS X. " Feeling schizoid today, Rapier? Sounds like you agree with me in your later posts. I think you just like being contrary for the sake of being a jackass.

[rapier1]

Umm no. Your reading comprehension skills are deteriorating further. Perhaps you need to adjust you medication again?

[D3vildog699]

for the good of computing we have only one company making an OS, for which we have to buy their hardware?

Uhh.. and next wee need only blonde haired blue eyed soldiers...

[robcamp108]

Don, usually I appreciate your comments, but this one leaves me wondering. In a previous post, you predicted that Windows 7 would be a serious problem for Mac OS X and would decrease Apple's sales. Considering this, your comment that the times have changed and licensing the OS would be a good move makes no sense. A powerful and user friendly, user embraced OS from Microsoft would be the worst thing for Apple. Why would they risk a good thing to resolve this little issue? I think they are testing their strength in court and seeing how the court reacts to the arguments. Also, I think they are getting a feel of the already existing problem of Hackintosh in a commercial environment. I do not think they fear or worry about this one company.

I therefore do not agree with this column. There is more to this than meets the eye.

[eldernorm]

In general I think Don R. does not like Apple. Pretty much every article he writes with Apple in it puts them down. So I just take this article with a grain of sand...... a 12 lb grain of sand...!!!!!!! LOL

Just a thought.
en

[tdreher]

Apple is a hardware company, they use OS/X to sell their hardware. Selling OS/X doesnt even make sense.

[MSSlayer]

Apple is a hardware company? They design and manufacture the processor? Motherboard? Hard Drive? Video Card?

Apple is an OEM that makes its own OS, it is NOT a hardware company.

[rapier1]

I like cut and paste too!

[protagonistic]

It might make more sense if you got it right. It is OS X, not OS/X. I do own a Mac and I would probably buy another copy of OS X if I could install it on my IBM. But I do think it is a toss up as to whether they would make more or less money by licensing it. :-)

[Stufiano]

@msslayer

Apple designs to motherboard and chipsets for their computers. Even if they just modify them from previous designs that makes them a hardware company, not just a assembler.

[MSSlayer]

Writing software to specific hardware is different then designing the motherboards, chipsets, and processors.

[Stufiano]

@msslayer

Did I say anything about software? No. I said they design their mobos to go with the processors. With intel and ppc.

[tdreher]

@msslayer

Clearly you are confused

[tdreher]

@protagonistic

Sorry OS X, can you read it now or shall I retype the whole thing?
Anyway... You just made my point for me. Rather than buying a $2000-$3000 computer, now you will just buy a $200(?) piece of software. Or just pirate it.

[malogato]

Apple is a hardware and software company.

Their hardware, even spare parts that don't have the apple brand on them, cost 2-3x as much as anywhere else

http://store.apple.com/us/product/MA989G/A?fnode=MTY1NDA0Nw&mco=MjE0NzM5MQ&p=2&s=topSellers
750gb sata drive seagate 7200.11= $250

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148298
750GB sata drive seagate 7200.11 = $80

This example tends to hold true for mac products across the board.

The problem wth tdreher's statement is that it USED to be that the only way to get mac hardware was from apple. ALL of the hardware inside a mac today is able to purchased SOMEWHERE ELSE, at 1/2 to 1/3rd the price.

When I speak of hardware, I am omitting things like "shiny logo" and "specially curved metal covers"

I mean
Processors
Harddrives
Video cards
Motherboards
Ram
Sound Cards
optical drives
networking cards
Screens

(The 30" Apple cinema display uses the exact same PANEL as the 30" Dell)

If you take the logo off that apple macbook pro, (in my link) and un-case it (the metal shell around it which is an AESTHETIC feature) the guts of the machine cost about $800

[rapier1]

Apple would be shooting themselves in the foot if the licensed OS X. Apple is a hardware company that produces software to enhance their hardware sales. Abandoning hardware sales would be a disaster. Now, you can argue that Apple could continue to make their own hardware *but* if Dell and HP start to undercut them on the price of the hardware while delivering the same OS experience then Apple will see likely see overall revenue fall. Likewise, if the hardware wasn't tightly controlled you'll probably see more problems with the user experience - which is one of Apple's major selling point. This could end up seriously hurting the brand image.

[MSSlayer]

Apple is a hardware company? They design and manufacture the processor? Motherboard? Hard Drive? Video Card?

Apple is an OEM that makes its own OS, it is NOT a hardware company.

[rapier1]

Is it a hardware company? Yes, I would argue that it is. Do you really think they are buying motherboards off the shelf for their notebooks or rebranding someone else's phone for the iPhone? Yes, they are a hardware company - they may make a use of a lot of commodity components but they aren't 'just' an integrator.

[Penguinisto]

@MSSlayer:

Apple is a consumer products company - hardware, software, the works. They build *computers*, not just software.

[MSSlayer]

Yes, they buy all their hardware off the shelf. They are an OEM, not a hardware company. I know you are a moron, so I will excuse you for not understanding the difference.

[MSSlayer]

Penguin,

Until they design their own processors, hard drives, mobos, video cards, etc, they are not a hardware company. Unless you actually think they designed the Intel Xeon.

[tdreher]

Copy and paste? Check the time stamps buddy. I bet thats why you get paid the big bucks!

[danielwsmithee]

This sound like smashing a fly on your forehead by dropping an anvil on it. Yeah it would kill Psystar by eliminating the demand for it but it would also probably kill Apple. Licensing OS X would be a suicide for Apple.

[ewsachse]

Is C/Net the propaganda arm of Apple? This article is total drivel.

Trust me, corporate accounts have not stopped purchasing PC's from HP or Dell. Vista is not a disaster, no matter how many times you Apple clowns repeat the mantra.

HP and Dell have as much desire to sell Mac clones as they do selling Linux desktop PC's. Sure it is a nice side project, but the bulk of their revenue comes from corporate Windows PC sales and retail Windows PC sales.

[eldernorm]

@ewsachse,
"Apple clowns"???? What kind of nut job are you?? Maybe just an MS troll that takes every chance to pop at Apple??

This article is actually anti-Apple, in case you did not read it. It talks of cheap hardware and great software.. Hmmm, like buying a Vista capable system... LOL

Apple controls both sides of the equation to better user experience. MS just sells stuff to make money. "Monetize the customer experience"??? And HP and Dell are in a race to see who can produce the cheapest crap.

If you like tinkering with your system all the time, fine, go MS, or better linux and Acer.

Just a thought.
en

[Kev_Orng]

If it was the propaganda arm of Apple, you wouldn't see articles repeating lame 10-year-old arguments for why Apple needs to do precisely the opposite of their corporate policy and immediately license their OS to other vendors to stave off imminent doom.

And trust me, this dude knows as much about Apple as he does about Windows, which is to say, he has an opinion that is based on experience, but that experience didn't scratch the surface too much. My eyeballs burn whenever I see an advertisement on CNET, because I know that a small part of my soul has just been ripped out to contribute to this guy's paycheque.

As for Vista being a disaster, I haven't tried it besides purposely freezing up a demo at Best Buy (open 12 apps, then fire up the flip 3D thing - locked up solid) so I can't really speak on the matter, but our IT guy has been swearing a lot more since he got a new Vista laptop last year. He's trying really hard to like it, but we have to close his office door during client visits now.

[The_happy_switcher]

Can you read?? The last few days the Fried and Reisinger articles are more like Microsoft propaganda pieces. Get a clue.

[tm_anon]

@ewsachse
What everyone else said makes sense, maybe you should take a lesson from one of them. As for why they're selling Linux desktop PCs, they wanted a change after the Vista crapfest MS sent out. Before that there really wasn't a call for something different and now there is. When MS loses ground, everyone else wins that much more. So far, the only OS that really doesn't coexist peacefully is Windows and the only users who tend not to coexist peacefully with others (on this particular thread) are certain Windows users (in other words, you). Vista was a disaster, is a disaster and will continue to be a disaster. First impressions count, especially in the software world. If something sucked the first time, you have to find a way to make it give a second first impression, if it sucks a second time, third first impression, if it still sucks give it up already. MS tried giving it a second first impression with their "mojave experiments". Notice the quotes? Still haven't seen any documentation for those so for all the hype, it was a publicity stunt only. They gave up after that and started sending out Windows 7 hype and you still want to say it wasn't a miserable failure. The only bad press I can see involved with Windows 7 so far is that they slipped up and connected the kernel with Vista. Now every time someone points to Windows 7 in a negative light, they're rehashing Vista arguments and they can simply point out that MS said it was Vista 2.0.
Is it any wonder people want change? I switched over to Ubuntu, others switched to Apple. We're all much happier, try joining our world.

[rbz275]

Apple IS a hardware company. Microsoft is a software company. Apple only has OS X to sell their hardware, along with software like Final Cut Pro and Aperture. Please understand that it is all TO SELL THE HARDWARE. There is a reason it is a bit more expensive. Does apple sell software? Yes. Does Microsoft sell hardware? Yes (zune and xbox). Does staples sell food? Yes but it is an office supply store, not a grocery store.

Apple is a hardware company.

[Drew.0]

With the release(and ridiculously strong reviews) of Windows 7 Beta and the upgrade assurance options already announced I only see HP and Dell's opinions of Microsoft going up. Not to menton, despite having a horrible stigma around it, the overall opinion of Vista seems to be moving up with SP1.

[stefanvolos]

Don,

How would Apple justify the considerable premium it still charges for its hardware if HP and Dell are producing machines that run OS X and cost significantly less? Don't get me wrong, I would just love to buy an iMac "clone" for $500-800 less than what Apple currently charges for it's top-end model (and the "clone" would probably even have a better chip set running its graphics) but I just don't see Steve Jobs ever letting that happen!

[MSSlayer]

The problem is you can't by a competitive PC for $500-$800 then an Apple. Good luck finding a dual core xeon machine from Dell or HP that is not $500+ more then the high end Mac. Of course that Dell or HP is going to have substandard software from the OS down to the included apps.

[stefanvolos]

Dell:
http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/desktop-xps-a2420?c=us&cs=19&l=en&ref=dthp&s=dhs

HP:
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/series_can.do;HHOJSID=4gY2Jn2StHYmvsspBRv9nhvSfBBGHHJR290QBrjpxpQCpGgBchKl!912238200?storeName=computer_store&landing=desktops&a1=Category&v1=All-in-One%20PCs#CTO_CAN

[Kev_Orng]

@stefanvolos
You can make a case for the HP. I customized one to match the $1499 iMac, and although it has lower gHz, it has more Ram. Savings: $150 (after $150 "instant rebate") compared to the $1499 iMac

But the Dell... c'mon, it doesn't even have a dedicated graphics card until it hits $1899. Don't insult me by telling me there's value in a Dell.

And don't waste your time with proper workstations (not all-in-ones). I carefully compared all my options for months while coaxing my company to buy a new video editing suite, and the Mac Pro with Final Cut was cheaper and had higher performance than anything on the Windows/Avid side. If it didn't, it wouldn't have made it past the bean counters

[cracm]

the i7 has been out for a while now, no need for a xeon, plus the new phenom x4 .. both have comparable if not better performance in a single chip than dual xeons. also the new dual gpu 2900's .. photoshop seriously flies with this $1100 rig off newegg..

the problem with apple's boxes is that it's last years hardware at tomorrow's prices. no need for a xeon anymore and good luck upgrading your video card., or better yet, good luck upgrading motherboard and processor. closed o/s doesn't allow upgrade-ability. being a graphics professional, i have to upgrade my box a few times a year to stay ahead of the curve.

[umbrae]

Buying an proprietary system is bad whether it is HP, DELL or Apple. All these vendors are 3x times more expensive than the parts are, and they do tricks to ensure you cannot upgrade the unit yourself. You are basically over paying for equipment that you will have to throw away.

Build your own and you save money and can continue the upgrade process. You can do that with a PC, but not and Apple; however, these days there is no difference between an "Apple" and a "PC" besides the OS that runs on it. And unlike the commercials, not all PC's run Windows.

[protagonistic]

@stefanvolos

You might want to check that link again. But it is partly the fault of MSSlayer as the only Macs using Zeon processors is the MacPro which uses dual quad core Zeons. All the systems you linked to do not use Zeons. There is a difference. MSSlayer is correct that the Apple high end systems are very competitive and have been for some years now.

As one who is using a five year old dual processor G5, my money, come new computer time is going for a MacPro unless things change drastically in the next few months. There is no Apple premium on high end systems.

[pithenumber]

@protagnostic
your spelled Xeon wrong

[malogato]

@MSSlayer.. your challenge is CONSIDERABLY easy to pull off.

I recently priced a Dual Xeon (quad core x 2) server with 12GB ram and 4TB harddrive space that came in $4,000 less than the identical mac.

Dual Xeon Quad Core @ 2.93 Ghz (8 Cores @ 2.93Ghz)
12 GB, DDR3-1333

Dual R4870 - These are 1GB Cards, not 512mb - The mac only has 1 x 512mb card. so, 2 cards, with 2gb of ram in the pc, 1 card with 512mb ram in the mac

4 x 30" LCD panels with a faster response time than the apple cinema display

6 x 1.5 TB Sata drives (the mac can only have 4 x 1 TB) so.. 9TB in the pc, 4tb in the mac

Big honking silver aluminum case

2 x 24X DVD Burners (better than the opticals in a MacPro, only 18X)

$10,631

The mac price? $14,695

[malogato]

If I do an identical match to the MacPro Below (skipping the apple specific keyboard and mouse)

Two 2.93GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
12GB (6x2GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
2x NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 512MB
Two 18x SuperDrives
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard with Numeric Keypad (English) and User's Guide
4x Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel)

That's $14,645.00 @ Apple

The identical Non apple computer (except I couldn't find 18x optical drives, so I had to go with 22x)
(barring the logo on the case, screen, keyboard, and mouse)
is $9603