Comments on: Psystar responds to Apple suit, will countersue

The maker of Mac clones says it plans to sue Apple under two federal laws designed to discourage monopolies and cartels.

[professionaladventurer]

Of course Dell and HP can't use MS's OS without permission either. Now if Psystar wins, Any company can use any software for any hardware. What happened to selling your product only to the customers you want to. Psystar is basically for the right to resell Apple's OS. If Apple does not want them to be a customer so be it. You can't argue monopoly there, you get get the Mac OS at many, many stores .

[Gorbag]

I hope shyster wins. Apple should be forced to license the OS to all comers for the appropriate fee. Of course, the current package shyster's been using - the upgrade for current owners of Apple labeled hardware who already purchased a "full" copy of OS X is the wrong one. Luckily, Apple will finally be able to sell their "full" (non-upgrade) version for $2000. a copy, and shyster will of course have to make up the difference between what they bought and what they provided.

[Vegaman_Dan]

The moment Apple allows their product on non-Apple hardware, I would buy a full copy of the OS to put on a high end Dell or similar equipment that I have hanging around. Why? Because I can build a machine that outperforms the Mac on a hardware basis for a fraction of the Apple price.

That means Apple doesn't get that hardware money from me. But right now they aren't getting any OS money either.

The last purchase I made was $500 for a Touch. Prior to that was $400 for an iPod.

[JunkSiu]

What "anticompetitive"??

If Psystar really want to compete, then they should make their own OS, or build their own linux distro. Putting someone else work in a machine is don't justify the word 'competitive' in the same field.

Maybe they should look up the dictionary about competitive, compatible, clone, copycat or piracy before filing a counter suit.

If the court take Pystar's case it will be a waste of tax payer money.

[applusr]

What I am trying figure out is why does psystar think that Apple is a monopoly?
Isn't a monopoly a "exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices. " I don't think that Apple is exclusive in the PC market, and if they were a monopoly why did psystar wait until they went to intel they should have sued them when they were PowerPC.

[Perry_Clease]

" As a result of this court case, they may have to make the OS updates only available online or through some verification process to absolutely ensure that you are only installing the OS on the hardware it shipped with."

Mac users may remember the "software coupons" that came with Macs.

[bourgtai]

Anybody happen to remember what it is that makes OS X so reliable? Is it the fine-tuned drivers? What happens if Psystar wins this and Apple has to open their OS to any and every hardware firm that wants a piece of the OSX action?

My guess is that if that were to happen, Apple would get into contact with IBM for work on making OS 11 run on the Cell architecture, shortly after their shares were valued at half of what they are now.

[RompStar_420]

Apple should sue the crap out of those people, Psi_Idiots.

[humanssssss]

Apple sells their OSX to the public. Psystar buys OSX. Apple makes money selling OSX. Psystar makes money installing OSX on a machine to sell to me. Psystar makes money on the labor of installing OSX on machine. So the logic is this:

1) Apple makes money on OSX
2) Psystar makes money installing OSX

[digiguy23]

If Apple loses, they lose big time. A large part of their income, comes from selling Macs.

[oneoclock]

No you are wrong. This is a win win situation for Apple. In the unlikely event that Apple lose the case against Psystar, then they win the right to sell any music they like on iTunes even against the will of the recording companies who own the music. Right now, Apple cannot sell certain music because the copyright holders of that music do not allow Apple to sell it. This is the same situation Psystar is in.

[Foggy]

I know its a longshot but I pray Apple loses or at least is forced to sell their OS for clone manufacturers. It is high time that Apple stop being this elitist company who gets their own way on everything. I can remember way back in 1989 when personal computer prices were very high and I bought my first computer, my choices were to buy a IBM Clone made by the then leading mail order computer manufacturer Northgate for $2600, or an IBM for $5000 or an Apple for $7500. If Apple had sold their OS back then to clone manufacturers I dare say Microsoft wouldn't exist now or be a small player. It's time that Apple make itself financially available to the common man as they falsely claim to be in their ads.

[digiguy23]

You have no idea. do you?

[RompStar_420]

You people are F@#$ing stupid. Apple created a product, they invested billions and it's theirs. You can't force them to just hand that over, it would be one thing if OS X runned on all PCs, it only runs on a Mac, get a Mac or get a second job if you can't afford one.

Stick to your PC or go Linux.

I hope that Psi_diots#2 go out of business and the owner goes to jail, next to bubba, he'll learn how to use m&M for lipstick really fast.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Your argument is exactly the same as the European Union's for calling Windows a monopoly. Does this mean we can penalize and/or fine Apple millions of dollars a day too? :)

[humanssssss]

Apple sells their OSX to the public. Psystar buys OSX. Apple makes money selling OSX. Psystar makes money installing OSX on a machine to sell to me. Psystar makes money on the labor of installing OSX on machine. So the logic is this:

1) Apple makes money on OSX
2) Psystar makes money installing OSX

[Belinus]

I like how the Apply fanboys are coming out to defend the company. If Microsoft did the same thing, they'd be screaming "Antitrust!". The anti-trust thing might work because Apple is forcing you to buy their over-priced hardware as opposed to buying directly from Intel and other vendors. Apple systems are way over-priced compared to other vendors and and do-it-yourself systems.

[Stormspace]

If Psystar is only hacking the open sourced portion of OSX, then they are doing nothing wrong except for the EULA issues. If the EULA is deemed to be illegal then Apple will be in a tight spot. Apple has a lot to lose in this and they are certain to bring out the big guns to put this revolt down.

[stalexone]

While I see why Apple may be moaning over this, shouldn't their stock price skyrocket even further if they are able to sell the OS as standalone?!?!?! Seriously there are so many computers out there that could use Mac OSX and each copy would still have to be paid for. This is how that other company made Gates the richest man after all. I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't some back-room strategy to release Mac OSX into the wider landscape but avoid the ire of Microsoft by saying "it wasn't our fault" since Microsoft did invest all that money in Apple years ago and does support Macs with Office. Ok, I'm full of conspiracy theories here...but seriously I think the time has come for Apple to release a standalone OS. Their Mac hardware is just not keeping up with the times and is underpowered and generic. That actually makes me not want a Mac. But I would buy OS X if I could run it on my own custom Quad Core Dual CPU system.

[sjregz]

If you dont like the way Apple plays then go back to your PC - I like Apple being in control of the hardware and the software. The reason Apple and their products are so popular is because they work and to have a company "Psystar" comes a long and try to benefit from that fact is the same thing a company did from Redmond, your know the one that been convicted of anticompetitive business practices.

[Penguinisto]

Funny, I have both a Mac and a PC - and they both run OSX.

[humanssssss]

Apple sells their OSX to the public. Psystar buys OSX. Apple makes money selling OSX. Psystar makes money installing OSX on a machine to sell to me. Psystar makes money on the labor of installing OSX on machine. So the logic is this:

1) Apple makes money on OSX
2) Psystar makes money installing OSX

[ckurowic]

Psystar hasn't a prayer of defeating Apple in court. Can you imagine how much Apple pays its team of lawyers? You're telling me a nothing of a company like Psystar can afford anything but a public defender? Good luck, boys, but you clearly violated Apple's terms of use and EULA. They are in the wrong, bottom line. Put your opinions aside and look at the facts here. I don't care if you dig Apple, or if you are rooting for Psystar, facts are facts and Psystar was wrong.

[Vegaman_Dan]

The company defending Psystar has a history of taking on Apple and winning before. You're right- they don't come cheap, but then I don't think Psystar is the one paying them. I suspect a sugar daddy is behind all this. Surprisingly, I don't think it's Microsoft or any of the other software OEM's. They stand to lose too if Apple's EULA is struck down since they have similar ones themselves that they really don't want lawyers to take that close of a look at.

I'm curious who is footing the bill on this one. Who stands to benefit most from defeating the EULA (other than the public?)

[humanssssss]

Apple sells their OSX to the public. Psystar buys OSX. Apple makes money selling OSX. Psystar makes money installing OSX on a machine to sell to me. Psystar makes money on the labor of installing OSX on machine. So the logic is this:

1) Apple makes money on OSX
2) Psystar makes money installing OSX

[ckurowic]

Remember that you do not own the software you have. You pay a fee to the vendor to use the software according to its EULA. Same with music. When you purchase a song on iTunes, you do not OWN the song. I'm not sure why this concept is so hard for people to understand. What makes you think you own your software or music?

[yacahuma]

why does apple resist?? Look what MS did and they are doing fine. Why not get OSX into every possible machine?

[ckurowic]

I think the main issue is drivers and stability. Mac OS 10 is so stable due to (in part) Apple controlling what hardware goes into their machines. They then get all the correct drivers for the hardware and off you go without hardware driver issues. PC's have to deal with thousands of hardware drivers, and some configurations work better than others as any PC builder will tell you. I think Apple chooses the best possible hardware configurations for stability (note I did not say speed or performance). Ever try to run OS X on non Apple hardware? Sure it works but thats about where it ends, the lack of driver support makes it extremely unstable.

[shawn1313]

Ha ha ha. Take that, apple, you evil, pretending-not-to-be-evil company!

[ckurowic]

Though I am against Psystar, something perplexes me. Steve Jobs has been quoted as saying that Apple is a software company, not hardware. Why are they so concerned with licensing Mac OS to other hardware manufacturers then? We can only speculate, but the main reason I can think of is that they consider the Macintosh an integral part of the user experience, it also makes Apple's job easier because they don't have to support thousands of hardware configurations.

[bugma302]

Random thoughts :

Of course Apple want you to buy their hardware - otherwise they have to admit they got it wrong 20 years ago by thinking selling PCs would make you the biggest computer firm in the world.

I'm not an OSX fan but Apple always put together a good whole package so the sum of Mac + OSX works well but at a premium. Would OSX on a clone be a better experience than Vista (or Linux Mint) on a half decent PC for the same price?

And I don't get the monopoly argument - do we have to wait for Macs to be 51% of the market before they are uncompetitive?

Legally I think Psystar is in the wrong - morally I always think Apple are. Every new launch of increasingly restricted devices makes me look back at the 1984 ads and chuckle all the more.

[humanssssss]

I don't think Psystar is in the wrong because Apple can sell their OSX at $1,239 a copy. That will force Psystar to not be able to sell their Open Computing at a good price to make money. The fact that Apple wants more people to buy their OSX is why they priced it at $129.

So here's the logic:

Apple sells their OSX to the public. Psystar buys OSX. Apple makes money selling OSX. Psystar makes money installing OSX on a machine to sell to me. Psystar makes money on the labor of installing OSX on machine. So the logic is this:

1) Apple makes money on OSX
2) Psystar makes money installing OSX