Print 134 comment(s) - last by Aloonatic.. on Jul 23 at 7:17 AM

Apple shows it will have no mercy for Mac clones

When Florida-based Psystar, a small startup, announced that it was going to make Mac clones for dirt cheap, many rolled their eyes -- they'd heard that line before. During Gil Amelio's tenure at Apple, clones were briefly allowed, but when Steve Jobs returned to the company he carried out a campaign to purge the market of every last clone.

So when Psystar announced a $399 Mac with strong specs comparable to a $949 Mac Mini desktop, many figured the end was near for the company. These thoughts were put on hold about whether Psystar would deliver, as some found a handful of evidence to indicate the company might be a farce. However, Psystar proved itself to be real, shipping units to reviewers. It also unveiled a small server lineup to compete with Apple's niche offerings in the server market.

During the time when the initial news of Psystar and its rebellion again Apple's death grip on its hardware surfaced, there were many reports of legal threats from Apple, but the company remained quiet.

Not anymore.  With Steve Jobs manning the helm, Apple filed suit against Psystar looking to destroy it as it has destroyed many which came before.  The suit was filed
July 3 in federal district court of northern California.

Apple accuses Psystar of violations on shrink wrap license, trademarks, and copyright infringement.  Much of this revolves around the fact that Psystar will preinstall OS X for you; a move which legal analysts said would put it in peril.

Details of the complaint are finally emerging.  In it, Apple tries to paint itself as simply fed up about missing components on the computers, allegations that Psystar was trying to promote itself as an Apple product, and claims that it was concerned about Psystar's quality control.

Psystar managed to slither along in past months despite some struggles.  Its credit card service cancelled its services when it found out what Psystar was dealing.  This left Psystar with no way of tracking the numerous orders it had received and sent, thanks to a combination of poor preparation on the company's part and false confidence in the credit system.

However, it looks like the twilight hour for Psystar is drawing near -- Steve Jobs and his company don't tolerate clones.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Please Apple
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 9:52:27 AM , Rating: 5
In it, Apple tries to paint itself as simply fed up about missing components on the computers, allegations that Psystar was trying to promote itself as an Apple product, and claims that it was concerned about Psystar's quality control.

We're not all as stupid as the people who buy your crap.

You want your OS on your hardware and you alone to sell it. Clones threaten to make people question your pricing since they can be offered at half or less than half the cost of your hardware. Just without the pretty case.

RE: Please Apple
By JasonMick on 7/16/2008 10:00:14 AM , Rating: 3
APPLE: Don't lecture me, Obi-Wan. I see through the lies of the Jedi. I do not fear the dark side as you do. I have brought peace, justice, freedom, and security to my new Empire.

RE: Please Apple
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 10:10:32 AM , Rating: 3
*waits for Master Kenobi's response* :)

RE: Please Apple
By RallyMaster on 7/16/2008 11:08:48 AM , Rating: 3
Your new empire?! Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic! To democracy!

RE: Please Apple
By vdig on 7/16/2008 11:17:38 AM , Rating: 4
What's with all the new trilogy quotes? It pales in comparison to the original trilogy, no matter what the franchise killers would like you to think.

"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."

RE: Please Apple
By therealnickdanger on 7/16/2008 11:44:00 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if Apple strikes down Psystar, they probably will not become more powerful... so as epic as that quote is, it really doesn't work here.

When in Rome.

RE: Please Apple
By DM0407 on 7/16/2008 12:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
What is stopping this company from changing their name, offering the same hardware, but making the user buy and install the software themselves... Sure it creates one more step in using a computer (god forbid Mac user's learn how to install an OS). But wouldn't that make them a legit company?

It seems that Jobs' only legal ground is that they are installing software on a clone. Let the user break the User agreement and then Apple would have to go after each individual consumer.

RE: Please Apple
By Scott66 on 7/16/2008 12:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
Mac users install operating systems everytime there is a new .1. Since XP came out I have installed 4 different Mac OS's. I have also reinstalled my XP many times so I could prevent the usual bloat crawl that happens to Windows over time.

RE: Please Apple
By Samus on 7/17/2008 1:16:49 AM , Rating: 2
i've had the same xp installation running on this very computer for 4 years. i can't say its ideal or clean, but it performs fine and is still stable. the only things that come to mind as being screwy are my codecs

RE: Please Apple
By misuspita on 7/17/2008 5:50:28 AM , Rating: 2
Since I've discovered Acronis, I've never looked back to reinstalling of Windows or programs. One solid back-up made 1.5 years ago and, whenever I feel the system is shakey boom! in 15 minutes is back, minus 3-4 programs I changed since than.

RE: Please Apple
By 4wardtristan on 7/19/2008 10:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
and without sp3/100+ windows updates :) theres another hour to your time!!

RE: Please Apple
By kelmon on 7/17/2008 3:34:35 AM , Rating: 2
Question: who would buy a computer where you need to install the OS yourself? If I buy a computer then I expect all the work necessary to run it to have been done by the supplier otherwise I might as well just build the thing myself. The idea of buying a "Mac" from Psystar where they provide the support is already unappealing for numerous reasons and adding this extra step wouldn't help matters. However, I would agree that not installing the OS on the computer probably would circumvent the EULA issues that Psystar are currently getting whacked with. It's just that if they don't install the OS, do they still have a business?

Finally, I will note that my old G4 PowerBook needed to have the OS installed when it arrived, which appeared to be normal practice. When started up for the first time the computer would display an image showing which CD needed to be inserted and it would then install the OS. Given this I was expected the same from my MacBook Pro but Tiger was already installed on that so the practice of installing the OS first appears to have gone. Anyway, the moral of this story is that you should know what you are talking about before throwing out comments like "god forbid Mac user's learn how to install an OS" and stop making assumptions.

RE: Please Apple
By vdig on 7/16/2008 12:44:59 PM , Rating: 4
The way I saw it, I figure if Apple feels the need to quash Psystar, that means that Apple felt them to be a legitimate threat. While Psystar could very well be struck down, where Psystar IS Obiwan in my scenario, who's to say an up and coming Jedi imbued with this Obiwan's lessons would become a new thorn in Apple's empire?

Obiwan the force ghost does not have a rematch with Vader either, therealnickdanger. He is dead.

... Pottergate.

RE: Please Apple
By MADAOO7 on 7/16/2008 3:22:33 PM , Rating: 3
You don't have to be a legitimate threat in order to be squashed. It's in the best interest of a company to be proactive rather than reactive. You gotta put on bug repellent before you go outside, not after you start getting bit.

RE: Please Apple
By theslug on 7/16/2008 2:33:37 PM , Rating: 3
If a quote from the newer trilogy applies to the situation better, who is to say someone shouldn't quote it?

RE: Please Apple
By jonmcc33 on 7/16/2008 11:18:59 PM , Rating: 1
OMG! Jason Mick somewhat replies in his own blog!

Hey Jason, how do you feel about the bug fixes with the new 10.5.4 release:

I didn't know that Macs were so buggy! I thought they "just worked"? Apparently it's all just a lie by Apple and their fanatics (like you).

RE: Please Apple
By theapparition on 7/16/2008 10:03:45 AM , Rating: 4
What's the big deal?

Anyone can build thier own "hackentosh" now anyway. Psystar's only problem was pre-installing OSX. They should have provided instructions and let the user take the burdon for license violations.

I'm not impressed with all.

RE: Please Apple
By marvdmartian on 7/16/2008 10:12:47 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe Psystar should've named their model "the Hac", eh? They might've even done a commercial or two, with a Justin Long clone! LOL

Seriously, as long as they can't prove the allegation of the "appearance of an Apple", and as long as Psystar didn't break the EULA for OSX, I doubt there's much that Apple can do, unless they just refuse to sell them copies of their operating system.

Like was said already, Psystar would've been much better to sell their systems bare, with instructions on how to make the OSX work on it. They could have marketed it as "OSX ready", and there really isn't anything that Apple could've done about it.

RE: Please Apple
By Aloonatic on 7/16/2008 10:21:23 AM , Rating: 3
Maybe iHak would be a better name? *cringes*

Perhaps they [Psystar] should move their operation to the EU and see how they get on over here?

I'm never quite sure how Apple get away with their system monopoly/complete control.

Or is it like Sony not letting anyone build PS3 clones?

They are just hardware and software (as any machine is) but any "clone" could harm their image and be less reliable?

Is it more of a case that the PC is the exception, where as Macs, xBoxes, PS3s etc are the rule?

/thinking out loud

RE: Please Apple
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 10:42:52 AM , Rating: 3
Sony does not sell the OS of their PS3. So to get it you'd have to illegally hack the system to get the firmware and OS off it to put it on a clone of the system (assuming you could get all the parts which you couldn't).

Apple does sell their OS for Macs. The hardware that Mac's run on is freely available as well. It requires no illegal hacks to get the OS to run on said hardware. Just some perfectly legal tweaks. Nor does the OS itself have to be hacked.

RE: Please Apple
By Aloonatic on 7/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Please Apple
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 3:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
If you could build a PS3 would someone be justified in installing the PS3 software if that stumbling block could be over come?

No. To get the OS and firmware, you need to illegally crack the system.

OSX is an OS legally available for sale. You can buy the disc legally. Yes it is assumed that you will be installing it on a Mac. A company cannot stop you from doing anything that is not against the law or their terms of service.

The only rule Psystar could possibly be breaking is if OSX has a stipulation in the EULA that it may only be run on Apple sold and approved hardware.

RE: Please Apple
By Aloonatic on 7/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Please Apple
By mikefarinha on 7/16/2008 6:16:20 PM , Rating: 2
I would liken this scenario to that of having a music CD produced by Sony only allowed to play on Sony players. If I want to listen to a CD produced by Sony should I be required to play it only on a Sony stereo when, for all intents an purposes, it can play just fine on a Toshiba stereo?

Your PS3 analogy would be more like having a Stereo that has music pre-stored on the system which wasn't intended to be accessed.

Now if Apple stopped selling standalone OSX packages in retail, then no one would be able to install OSX on anything other than a Mac, unless it was hacked.

RE: Please Apple
By Aloonatic on 7/17/2008 3:08:24 AM , Rating: 1
Apple have a right to sell what ever they want, with whatever strings attached, as long as it is clear what they are. They aren't misleading people.

There is a licence, which is protected by law to stop you from installing their software on any system. You know that. They don't pretend that you can install OSX on any machine.

Just because that is much easier to circumvent, i.e. a patch on your morals and a decision to ignore the law because it is easy, rather than go to the effort and have to have the required skill/knowledge to hack a consoles firmware does not make it OK.

Just that because it is much easier to ignore a licence than it is to ignore the technical difficulties of hacking something like a PS3 seems to make it OK to do so in many people's eyes.

Oh, and if Sony wanted to release music that could only be played on their players and you bought that music in that knowledge and there was a legally binding licence associated with it then why shouldn't they?

They wouldn't sell that many copies, and being a volume industry it's a business model that wouldn't work, but still, they could if they wanted to.

But for my ratings sake, yeah, companies should invest a lot of time and money into technology, marketing and so on and then let DailyTech readers and others rip that off, pirate, copy and use their work in whatever way they feel like because it suits them....

RE: Please Apple
By bohhad on 7/18/2008 11:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
damn right. if i bought and paid for it, i'll do what i please with it.

RE: Please Apple
By Aloonatic on 7/23/2008 7:17:17 AM , Rating: 2
I hope you don't get angry with someone whilst chopping up some veg and decide to do what you want with the kitchen knife in your hands, as you have bought it so can stab away, regardless of what the law says.

if i bought and paid for it, i'll do what i please with it.

Great that the law doesn't apply to you, must be a wonderful feeling???

RE: Please Apple
By frobizzle on 7/17/2008 11:47:09 AM , Rating: 2
I would liken this scenario to that of having a music CD produced by Sony only allowed to play on Sony players.

Shhhh!!! Not too loud! If Sony hears this, they may try to enable it on their CDs!

RE: Please Apple
By kelmon on 7/17/2008 3:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
Yes it is assumed that you will be installing it on a Mac

It is required that you will be installing it on a Mac manufactured by, but not necessarily sold by, Apple. This is indeed specified in the EULA for OS X. Whether or not the EULA is legally enforceable, however, remains to be seen. Psystar are probably also in trouble because they are providing support by releasing their own versions of OS X updates hosted on their own servers; updates to applications like iLife, however, are still provided from Apple's servers.

RE: Please Apple
By rupaniii on 7/16/2008 10:58:35 AM , Rating: 1
You are mistaking a closed system for a monopoly.
Monopolies are a market concern.
Closed System is merely NORMAL for an electronics device.
You don't have a universal 'open' OS that goes on all MP3 players, cell phones, video game systems, or pc's. However, there is no monopoly, you can put your MP3's on whichever, or buy the same video games, for the most part, on any system, except for those items which are EXCLUSIVE as business concerns to the owners of those platforms. Cell Phones are THE ULTIMATE closed system, but, you can obviously choose to get cellular service from almost anyone, and they will give you a free phone usually or maybe even take your old phone with you.
The concern with MS is that they are the 'choice' for software development by many shady means how they got there. However, when you look at it, there ain't alot of software anymore.
The most competition is in graphic, video, and audio editing, and the MAC is preferred for most of that! The rest of the software: Web Development, Security software, etc, are mostly on mac too. The MARKET for Windows is bigger, so there are more games on Windows, which is a business concern, not a monopoly.

But for the MAC to be a 'monopoly' on something, it would have to be the only choice in a market. You could easily buy a copy of windows and put it on that machine. or put Linux on it. However ,the fact that you can't install OSZX OS on unauthorized hardware is merely the choice APPLE makes in designating themselves as a closed platform.
In Fact, the XBOX360 is a closed platform, while the PS3 is an OPEN Platform, letting you install 'Other Operating Systems' quite easily. No One would accuse Microsoft of having a Monopoly on Video Games. They merely have their share.

RE: Please Apple
By Aloonatic on 7/16/2008 11:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I regretted using the word "monopoly" as it normally gets people frothing at the mouth at the mouth and it wasn't really what I meant, which is why I added the /complete control bit too. /My bad

Closed system was probably closer to what I was looking for though, thank you.

I try to steer clear of Mac or OSX related articles as I don't really know too much about it.

Is it really quite simple to buy a copy of OSX and a "normal" PC hardware and hey presto, a Mak?

Or is there some of specific magical hardware that is needed which is closely controlled?

RE: Please Apple
By kelmon on 7/16/2008 10:59:04 AM , Rating: 2
Why would you think that Apple is doing something illegal? There is no law that requires a manufacturer to allow others to build copies that run the same software. That Microsoft licenses the Windows operating system to run on pretty much anything is their own choice, but just because they do does not mean that other have to. I don't think anyone is hopping up and down about HP making their own servers that run HP-UX and not licensing it for use on other manufacturers machines. But for some reason Apple is apparently a special case.

This case will at least show whether Apple has the right to restrict the use of their software to their own hardware.

Anyway, I suspect that your final line was probably right - the PC is a special case that we've all got used to. We think that because Windows and Linux can be installed on any computer we like that this right should be extended to all operating systems, if the hardware can run it. Perhaps that is just wishful thinking.

RE: Please Apple
By Aloonatic on 7/16/2008 11:17:02 AM , Rating: 2
I never said that they were doing anything illegal?

Just that they seem to get away without being investigated for stifling competition, which this article is essentially about.

If you read on (which you seem to have done) then you will see that I recognise that other manufacturers actually behave in a similar way, you can't go and build your own PS3 (if you had the requisite parts laying around of course) and no-one expects too.

Is it that just because a Mac resembles a PC (as consoles are increasingly doing also) that we think that it should be something that we can have as much control over and be free to knock up our own variants as we are used to being able to with the beloved Windows/Linux PC?

RE: Please Apple
By kelmon on 7/16/2008 11:34:25 AM , Rating: 2
Just that they seem to get away without being investigated for stifling competition, which this article is essentially about.

In a nutshell, they don't stifle competition. Software vendors are free to make software that competes with Apple's own products on the Mac or other platforms. If you decide to you can remove Apple's software without penalty. Equally, Apple does not try to prevent you from buying a Windows computer by, for example, threatening not to stock iPods in Best Buy if they sell Windows PCs. Now, it can be said that Apple is trying to stifle competition by not allowing Psystar to sell Mac clones but they are within their rights to do this because Psystar is using the OS X software outside of its license. If Apple licensed OS X to run on computers from other manufacturers and then took action to, for example, give their own computers an unfair advantage then that would be something to be investigated.

So, yes, I do think that our experiences with the likes of Windows colors our judgement as to what Apple is or is not allowed to do.

RE: Please Apple
By Esquire on 7/16/2008 10:21:48 AM , Rating: 3
I'm a Hac
and I'm a mac

Hey Hac what are you doing?
Same thing you are
Oh really, I'm making a song in garage band
Me two, it's great and after I will get cd's made it'll cost a thousand dollar for 1000 CD's, but i have all this extra coin scice i'm 1/3rd your price

RE: Please Apple
By DCstewieG on 7/16/2008 10:38:22 AM , Rating: 3
I'm a Hac
and I'm a mac

Hey Mac what are you doing?

RE: Please Apple
By krwhite on 7/16/2008 12:03:06 PM , Rating: 4
I'm a Hac
I'm a Mac

Mac: Hey Hac, you're screen is all rotated... What's up with that?

Hac: Yea. My SATA drive doesn't work either. Seems that you guys didn't implement the full spec of SATA. It can't find the root device either.. What's that mean?

Mac: Let's read the manual!

Hac: Bah. It's so hard to read with my head slanted this way.. You guys need to step outside the sandbox for a bit!

Mac: But I love the sandbox, it's so easy and fun!

PC Enters the Room

PC: Noob!

RE: Please Apple
By Misty Dingos on 7/16/2008 10:39:06 AM , Rating: 5
Hi I'm a Mac.
Oh hi I'm a PC.
Howdy strangers. I'm Hac.
Mac what are you doing with that gun!
Oh my god Mac you killed Hac.
Yea I did PC he acted like me and I don't like that at all. If you don't watch yourself I might try to kill you too.
Geeze Mac I didn't think you were like that. That is just sick. I have lots of friends from lots of different places. You are just crazy.
Just remember PC I don't like copy cats!

RE: Please Apple
By masher2 on 7/16/2008 10:42:59 AM , Rating: 2
Where's Justin Long when you need him?

RE: Please Apple
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 3:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
Where's a 6 where its deserved? :)

RE: Please Apple
By 325hhee on 7/16/2008 12:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, as long as they can't prove the allegation of the "appearance of an Apple", and as long as Psystar didn't break the EULA for OSX, I doubt there's much that Apple can do, unless they just refuse to sell them copies of their operating system.

The part that Psystar violated in the EULA was installing it on a non Apple machine. The EULA says it has to be an apple machine with an apple logo, etc.

What Psystar should have done was sell the machine. Give the option to buy it with OSX or Leopard, and the buyer has to install it themselves. So technically they're not selling an apple, they're selling a prebuilt machine, but the user is buying an apple OS with it. That's a loop hole they can't fight. And Psystar should label the machines apple ready, or compatible, or pc with apple capabilities.

It's all in the wording, Psystar didn't hire a lawyer to help with marketing the product. And if it weren't for the fact that people who bought those machines, and called apple to complain, the lawsuit may not have had happened. That's pretty much what did them in. I'm sure they didn't even note, call us for tech support, not apple.

RE: Please Apple
By bdewong on 7/17/2008 1:56:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think that this is such a complex situation. Being that the hack to get OSX installed on the PC was open source, Psystar was really only selling the service of installing that hack on a machine.

The test will now be if the EULA can stand up in court. Can it?

RE: Please Apple
By aharris on 7/16/2008 10:14:31 AM , Rating: 2
*tosses you a cookie*

RE: Please Apple
By Hare on 7/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Please Apple
By kelmon on 7/16/2008 11:43:06 AM , Rating: 2
Just to play devil's advocate, I will say that Apple's user experience isn't perfect. They're perfectly capable of introducing bugs (both hardware and software) which shouldn't be acceptable with a company that is supposed to control everything and have a limited number of hardware configurations to worry about. For example, OS X 10.5.3 introduced a proxy server handling bug that causes iTunes to crash. This bug still isn't fixed.

Incidentally, I think you've opened a can of weasels with that comment. I'd stand back if I were you...

RE: Please Apple
By Hare on 7/16/2008 12:06:10 PM , Rating: 4
I know that I'll get flamed but I don't really care.

I personally hate the latest OS X. They rushed it to the market and it just sucks. There has been so many broken things that it reminded me of the first OS X release.

I would also like to mention that I'm a happy Vista user with a gaming rig that was a lot cheaper than any desktop Mac and I definately wanted to pick the parts myself and assemble my own computer the way I wanted.

That was what suited me best. My dad on the other hand bought an iMac because he wanted a silent computer which didn't clutter the desk and works for him (MS Office, Email and multimedia stuff, composing videos etc). I think he made a good choice and is a happy Mac user without worries. I just don't get people like FitCamaro who label people for their personal choice. We all have different needs. If someone wants to pay more for a Mac what's the problem. I doubt he goes out telling BMW drivers that they are morons because they could travel from point A to B with a Toyota for a lot less.

RE: Please Apple
By kelmon on 7/17/2008 3:04:56 AM , Rating: 2
I'd mostly agree with you on that. Leopard definitely felt rushed with the release version, much more so than previous releases (I still hold that Panther was bullet-proof on release). I wouldn't say that it sucks since otherwise I'd have reverted back to Tiger. On balance I think it is a good release but there are certainly some rough edges that still need to be addresses, but these are tempered by features that improve greatly over Tiger. I am, however, annoyed that the rough edges existed at release and, worse, still exist now, over 6-months after the retail release. I rather suspect that the iPhone is to blame here but there's no proof.

Indeed, if you want to build your own PC then do it. No one should criticize you for doing so in much the same way that I don't expect people to criticize my decision to by a MacBook Pro. Each person is able to identify what is important to them and make a rational decision based on that.

RE: Please Apple
By FITCamaro on 7/17/2008 8:35:48 AM , Rating: 2
If your dad wants to buy an iMac thats fine. I personally though prefer to get more capable hardware at a cheaper price. Having a tower sit on the desk or on the floor isn't an issue to me. This isn't Japan where space is at a premium.

I am a function over form kind of person. I don't care what it looks like if its less capable than something else that costs less. You can paint a dog turd gold but in the end its still just a piece of crap.

Now if your dad bought an iMac because he likes OSX better thats fine. I only hate people who solely use Macs because they hate Microsoft or feel they're somehow better than the rest of us because they paid for an overpriced computer. And those that truly believe that OSX is more secure and more stable than Vista. It's not. Each has holes in different places. And recent security conferences have shown Leopard to be less secure than Vista.

By jbizzler on 7/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ehhhhhh
By rdeegvainl on 7/16/2008 11:11:37 AM , Rating: 3
But don't go thinking that Apple's prices are bad. Psystar was simply filling the gaps in Apple's product lineup. The Mac Mini costs more than it should because it's outdated and tiny.

So it should be ok to sell a small ps2 for 250? that is retarded.
Mac's are overpriced, let me compare the macbook pro to a configured toshiba satellite

Mac specs
2GB memory
2.4-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
200GB hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 256 MB
15 inch
Price $1,999.00 Straight from

Toshiba specs
4GB memory
2.4-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
2 200gbGB hard drives
DVD super-multi
ATI Mobility Radeon™ HD 3650 with 512MB
15.4 inch

Price $1,665.15
Configured here:

That computer blows the mac out of the water in price and it has superior components. Tell me that mac's hardware isn't overpriced. Cause I just haven't heard enough lies today.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By Omega215D on 7/16/2008 11:29:59 AM , Rating: 2
The MacBook has a longer battery life and it doesn't get thicker as you move toward the back. Plus it remains pretty quiet. Of course the MacBook air and the Mac desktops are another story and are definitely overpriced.

I guess there's also the convenience of being able to bring your macbook to an Apple store to let them deal with it. And before you all jump on me I'll let you know that I like Vista on my desktop rig and my MacBook for carrying in my backpack.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 11:57:21 AM , Rating: 2
I guess there's also the convenience of being able to bring your macbook to an Apple store to let them deal with it.

This is a hassle, not a convenience.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By rdeegvainl on 7/16/2008 2:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
The Toshiba barely gets thicker as you move torwards the back. 0.16 inch difference.
The convenience of taking the Macbook pro to a store, or the convenience of showing anyone knowledgeable in computers take a look at it. hmm.... I'm betting more people would be able to help the Toshiba.

Drop the SECOND 200GB hard drive, and you can upgrade the battery. from 6-Cell, 4000mAh, to 9-Cell, 6000mAh all for the same price.

Macs are overpriced for the hardware they sell you. No way around it.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By etshea on 7/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ehhhhhh
By rdeegvainl on 7/16/2008 1:44:23 PM , Rating: 5
Wow, we went from a 5.4lb macbook pro, to 6.2 lb toshiba. If that actually makes a difference, and causes you to not be able to carry it around, then i guess the over 300 dollar price difference is the least of your worries. Your still better off buying the Toshiba and use the 300 dollars to get a gym membership.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By Omega215D on 7/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: Ehhhhhh
By kelmon on 7/17/2008 4:00:15 AM , Rating: 2
There's a strong possibility that you are an idiot. No one is saying that the added weight of the Toshiba means that it can't be carried, simply that it makes it heavier and therefore less comfortable. If you never move your laptop then clearly this factor isn't important. However, any laptop user that has to carry their machine around will tell you that the weight IS important. The weight is a factor in your overall user experience. I doubt the weight difference is worth $300 but it is certainly considered to have value.

People place value of different aspects of a computer based on what they need. There's a strong possibility that the MacBook Pro was not designed for you, but that's not to say that it is not right for everyone.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By kelmon on 7/17/2008 3:19:17 AM , Rating: 2
I'd want to see a proper breakdown of the components and their "real" cost before making a judgement on this. For example, how do the screens compare, beyond simply size and resolution? The Toshiba is clearly made out of plastic and is considerably thicker. I've no doubt that the Toshiba is better based on the computing specification but that's not the only factors.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By krwhite on 7/16/2008 11:34:53 AM , Rating: 3
the Mac Pro is LESS expensive than equivelent PCs

Just put together the equivalent Skulltrail (dual sockets) system with the same components (fully buffered DIMM, etc) for $2,500.00 shipped. The Mac Pro is $2,799. That's $300 less; that difference would let you setup a VelociRaptor in the PC and keep that 320gb as backup.

Not trying to be annoying here, I just had a feeling you may have been mistaken there with the price. Although, in all fairness its pretty damn close if you were to buy a FULL copy of Vista or something.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By jbizzler on 7/16/08, Rating: -1
RE: Ehhhhhh
By ChronoReverse on 7/16/2008 12:56:33 PM , Rating: 5
Eh? You don't need to be a reseller to use the OEM version...

RE: Ehhhhhh
By jbizzler on 7/16/2008 1:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't make the comparision. Someone else did, and I pointed out the flaws in his comparison.

Skulltrail is the closest PC thing to the Mac Pro motherboard. It has certain desktop features the other server and workstation boards don't

RE: Ehhhhhh
By jbizzler on 7/16/2008 1:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
The license says you must distribute the system, which is defined as "a fully-assembled computer system leaves the control of system builder."

You built it, you can't have it.

You also have to put the sticker on your machine. Bet ya didn't do that!

RE: Ehhhhhh
By kmmatney on 7/16/2008 2:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
I've bought the OEM and kept it on my machine, without issue. I've even gone through 4 motherboard upgrades using the same license. On the last upgrade, I had to call up Microsoft to activate windows, but they gave me a new activation code - no problems.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By jbizzler on 7/16/2008 7:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
Well, whether or not it's possible is not the problem. Just because it works doesn't make it legal.

I guess it's pretty hard to say you can't use it yourself. I'm being super-picky here, but it says that when you distribute it, it has be be preinstalled with the OEM Preinstallation Kit, "OPK", and that has more terms with it.

The whole license is geared towards resellers. Using it is like walking into a store with no pants when the sign only says no shirt and no shoes.

Psystar was flirting with the law here too. If they think they really have a case against Apple that'd allow them to sell clones, they should have pushed it and made it legal before the sales.

If you don't have the courage to play Chess with a dragon, how can you have the courage to antagonize it?

RE: Ehhhhhh
By ChronoReverse on 7/16/2008 2:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm reading up on the documentation and I don't see that clause. Can you point me to it?

Nonetheless, this clause doesn't even matter. If you want to go "by the letter of the law", all you'd need to do if hand the computer to a friend and then have them hand it back to you. The OEM license allows the entire system including the OS to be transferred as one unit so the entire issue is avoided.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 3:05:01 PM , Rating: 3
Actually I do put the sticker on the machine when I build it. That way I don't lose the key.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By DASQ on 7/16/2008 1:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
I see what you did there, comparing Mac Pro to what is probably the single most expensive desktop platform available on the market.

Compare a Mac Pro to a server/workstation machine, because that's what it is.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By ChronoReverse on 7/16/2008 1:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
It's pretty hard to compare these things. The one edge Apple has is that they seem to get their CPUs at quite a discount.

Besides, you can't even build an equivalent workstation at Dell. Dell has different CPUs, workstation class GPUs, and a minimum 3 year next-business-day support. The latter two are particularly important for workstations and are very expensive things.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By DASQ on 7/16/2008 1:39:17 PM , Rating: 2
That's true I guess.

I mean you can just pick a $400 Tyan/SuperMicro/Intel dual socket motherboard and go from there...

RE: Ehhhhhh
By Screwballl on 7/16/2008 1:19:45 PM , Rating: 3
1) I can buy any Windows OEM from newegg or any other authorized warehouse or retailer.. it just means I handle the OS support myself, not Dell/HP/Toshiba/Lenova.... or I can download and install Linux myself and have the same level of support as I would using the Windows OEM, only cheaper.

2) You can buy a faster and better OEM or prebuilt machine from Dell, HP or any other OEM based system for the same or cheaper price than a Mac.

3) Microsoft doesn't charge us for Service Packs, Linux usually doesn't charge for anything unless you choose to pay for something.

4) Except on a server level , who the hell will use anything over 4-8GB at home in the next 5+ years? I can get a basic server board, an Opteron, use linux and get capability up to 64GB if you want to go that route.

5) can you use the new nvidia GTX2x0 or 9800GX2 video cards in that Mac Pro? How about a AMD 4870 or X2? How about upgrading the CPU to a higher power Penryn when they come out? Do you have a full and complete choice as to the hardware you can use in a Mac? No? Mac HCLfail once again.

Don't get me wrong, Macs are good in their own ways, usually with the OS removed and Linux installed... or as a door stop... since you can upgrade almost any component of a custom or Windows based PC without being limited to a specific HCL.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By jbizzler on 7/16/2008 1:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. I was just pointing out that the Mac Pro hardware isn't over-priced. If you're not using all its capabilities, or it doesn't have abilities you want, then it's obviously not the machine for you. But from a strict hardware perspective, it's not overpriced.

The baseline isn't anyway. First-party upgrades suck.

You can, in fact, put a 4870 or 4850 in a Mac Pro, they just wouldn't run under Mac OS. Lots of people use the stock 2600XT (yuck) for Mac OS, but then use a better graphics card in Windows. I think this is a hassle, but it's possible. The bad graphics upgrades prices are just a supply/demand thing.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By Hare on 7/17/2008 12:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
1. Yes, and you can even look at the blank bios screen without paying a cent or doing anything.

2. That depends. The cost difference isn't big and when the Mac Pro came out, it was cheaper than the competition. You can google an Anandtech article about it if you don't take my word. And once again, please compare the cost to a machine with support (Dell, HP etc).

3. Apple doesn't charge either. They release new OS versions in a certain length cycle and no one is forcing you to move to a newer version and Apple continues to support to older OS versions. Updates are free. Btw. MS has also told that they are moving to shorter cycles based on their current experience with Vista.

4. Maybe the professionals that buy the Mac Pro? It's not meant for teens playing counter strike. It's a professional tool for 3D-animation, bus side advertisement photoshopping etc.

5. Of course you can. It has normal PCIe slots and you don't even have to worry about the PSU since it has the max. output of a small car. Lots of people have also changed their processors and overclocked their machines. Very few do because these are not your gaming rigs, these are tools.

RE: Ehhhhhh
By MScrip on 7/16/2008 3:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
> "Just put together the equivalent Skulltrail for $2,500.00 shipped. The Mac Pro is $2,799. That's $300 less."

Well, think of that extra $300 is the price you pay to use OSX. You may be able to compare identical hardware... but you can't compare XP or Vista to OSX. The Mac may be more expensive, but it lets you do something different that no other computer can do, use OSX.

You could hack OSX to run on... oh wait, isn't that what this article is about?

RE: Ehhhhhh
By gyranthir on 7/16/2008 4:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
What took so long?
By mmntech on 7/16/2008 9:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
Like everyone else, I'm a little surprised how long it took before they sued Psystar. I guess they underestimated the demand for them.

If Apple was smart, they'd take this lesson and introduce a cheap, low-end desktop Mac since there is obviously a big market for them.

RE: What took so long?
By niaaa on 7/16/2008 10:09:25 AM , Rating: 2
cheap like 700€ for a celeron based mac ?

RE: What took so long?
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 10:16:30 AM , Rating: 3
Isn't that somewhere around $1200 US?

Thats not exactly cheap. And he compares the Psystar machine to the Mac Mini which is $949 here. For $949 I can have a damn good gaming rig.

RE: What took so long?
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 10:17:52 AM , Rating: 3
And let me add that I can upgrade said gaming machine with more RAM, more hard drives, and a new video card or processor when I choose. A Mac mini you throw it away when its out of date.

RE: What took so long?
By robinthakur on 7/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: What took so long?
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 11:50:07 AM , Rating: 2
You can also build a small form factor PC with far better specs than a $949 Mac mini for far less than $949.

RE: What took so long?
By Hare on 7/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: What took so long?
By phaxmohdem on 7/16/2008 1:53:43 PM , Rating: 3
Ummmm $599 is the Basiest of BASE prices.. if you want to make your system useful (i.e. more than the base 640K RAM they give you), or a DVD Burner for that matter it'll cost ya.

Sure Mini is small and pretty, but its not made for people who do anything useful with their computers. If you buy a computer and never crack open the case one the whole time you own it, (And you're wanting a Mac), and you just want to do the basic Internet/Office/iGetaLife stuff, and form > function, then a mini might be for you.

Otherwise you're boned. IMO, if the Mini had a front USB and Firewire port it would be infinitely more appealing.

Since I have no use for, or desire to use OS X, I personally would rather invest in a nice looking, solid mini/mid tower and be able to just upgrade/replace components myself as they fail or become outdated. But I am a geek, and am in the minority among your average user.

RE: What took so long?
By Denithor on 7/16/2008 2:39:46 PM , Rating: 2
The Mac Mini is 599$

Let's see you whip up a nice PC for considerably less? It would be nice if it included a remote for Music/TV use like the Mac Mini. Oh, and it has to be absolutely silent so don't bother looking at Shuttles mini ATX-crap.

Ok, let's see here. 780G motherboard (best onboard graphics hands down) for $80. AMD X2 4850e (45W cpu, can be cooled with heatsink only) for $80. 2GB DDR2-800 for $30. HDD for ~$50. DVDRW for $20. Tiny case (In Win BK623 for example) for ~$60. Nice wireless mouse & keyboard for ~$50. Logitech 5.1 speakers for $50. 22" LCD monitor for $250. That's about $620 for a silent system with nice speakers & great monitor that will skunk the Mac Mini. And you can throw in a silent video card of choice for a bit more for even better performance.

RE: What took so long?
By Hare on 7/17/2008 12:27:40 AM , Rating: 1
That case is >10 times bigger than the Mac Mini and do you have any idea how loud the PSU is? Btw. you can only use the stock cpu cooler in that case, so I'm sure it's reaaaally silent. And the case has flimsy steel structure so you can't even avoid resonation... And as you assembled the computer yourself you don't get any support (or a similar software package to the one that comes with the Mac Mini).

Want to try again? Dell or HP maybe?

You could compare that machine to an iMac but that would be a bad comparison also, because the iMac takes even less space and is also silent. The iMac btw is 1200$ and I can tell you that many people find the design and functionality worth the price. Go figure...

RE: What took so long?
By ChronoReverse on 7/17/2008 1:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
First let's compare the $799 Mac Mini:

Intel Core 2 Duo 2.0GHz
DVD-RAM Super Drive

To what I can build for $725:
-Apex MW-100 case:
*Approximately 1 inch bigger in dimensions compared to the Mini
*Uses an external power brick like the Mini

-AMD Athlon 64 X2 4850E 2.5GHz
*45W so it uses a quiet fan
*2.5GHz model so it's at least as fast the Mini

-Seagate Momentus 5400.3 160GB


-Jetway NC62K Mini-ITX GF8200 DVI HDMI HD Sound Motherboard

-LG GGC-H20L Blu-Ray HD-DVD Reader DVD-RAM

-Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Edition
*Inferior but sufficient

RE: What took so long?
By Hare on 7/17/2008 3:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
a) bigger and uglier b) comes with absolutely no support

Otherwise it looks like a nice computer. I've been thinking of something similar to fulfill my htpc needs... but that's just me. Most non tech savvy people would rather buy something from a well known manufacturer like Dell or HP (with support) but they don't offer anything like the Mac Mini...

Ps. Most people buy the Mac Mini for light use. That's why the 599$ version suits many just fine. The iMac (which is also not that expensive if you compare it to competition) is the next logical step if they want more.

RE: What took so long?
By ChronoReverse on 7/17/2008 3:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
It's only slightly bigger so that's hardly really an issue and aesthetics is always up to the end user.

Support-wise, I don't see what the issue is as all the parts have warranties anyway =P

Incidentally, the lighter version of the same thing costs less than $599 (it costs $565) and still retains better performance. Clearly the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD drive pushed the price of the $725 version way up.

RE: What took so long?
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 3:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
My parents PC was $400. X2 4400+, 2GB, 250GB hard drive, attractive Cooler Master case, DVD burder, integrated Nvidia graphics. It's not 100% silent but you barely notice it.

No remote but those aren't too expensive. Nor do they need a remote on their PC. And I was able to stick the 600GB video array from their last PC in it. Can I do that with a Mac mini? No.

RE: What took so long?
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 3:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
This was last September by the way.

RE: What took so long?
By Hare on 7/17/2008 12:18:38 AM , Rating: 1
I bet it comes with a nice bundle of software like the Mac Mini and has full support from the company who made it? No... Oh well. How about the form factor, can you tug it under a monitor or hide it under a small book? No, pos Coolermaster atx-tower... Oh well. And it wasn't even silent.

Want to try again? There are really small PCs too but any way you look at it, the Mac Mini isn't expensive. Fact: You can't get a similar PC for a lot less even when you assemble it yourself and don't care about support.

RE: What took so long?
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 11:52:47 AM , Rating: 2
And DDR1 is still available quite cheap. Your choice to upgrade your motherboard to add memory is your own. About the only reason to upgrade a motherboard for memory is if you're still running SD-RAM.

RE: What took so long?
By phaxmohdem on 7/16/2008 2:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
At least you CAN change on a motherboard in your PC. Poor G5 Tower folks. :( Just remember, even in the face of obsoletion, Steve Jobs still loves you.......'re wallet.

RE: What took so long?
By Screwballl on 7/16/2008 10:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
nah don't throw it away... I have a G3 iMac (Aqua color) with 333Mhz PPC processor here running linux (Ubuntu 6.06) as a server. OS8 was tossed some years back once I got my hands on this computer.

Macs still have some reasonable use, especially using linux...

RE: What took so long?
By krwhite on 7/16/2008 11:11:37 AM , Rating: 3
What a cute little server!

RE: What took so long?
By Hare on 7/16/08, Rating: 0
RE: What took so long?
By DASQ on 7/16/2008 1:08:56 PM , Rating: 3
The Mac Mini STARTS at $599. But the article (that FIT is quoting from) states that it (Psystar machine) is comparable to a $949 Mac Mini.

RE: What took so long?
By kelmon on 7/16/2008 10:16:46 AM , Rating: 1
The consensus seems to be that Apple waited to see both how things progressed and ensure that there was something concrete to sue and claim damages from. It is unclear at this time precisely how many computers Psystar has actually sold to customers outside of the press, who immediately ordered ones to test and write about. However, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that Psystar's products were in demand, not least because the whole thing was pretty shady.

With respect to the cheap Mac, there may well be demand for them but Apple clearly isn't interested. There's 2 good reasons for this. Firstly, the Mac Mini was introduced to cater for demand for a cheap Mac and they didn't sell very well. Secondly, people who buy a cheap Mac aren't buying a more expensive Mac. Regardless of what you might think, Apple isn't stupid. I'm quite certain they've done their research and have found that they'd make more money without introducing the mythical mini desktop Mac than they would do with. In this respect I do believe that the real-world demand for the low-end desktop Mac is grossly exaggerated. I can see the benefits of one, and I understand why people say one is wanted, but if there truly was a big demand for one then it would have been released years ago.

RE: What took so long?
By plinkplonk on 7/16/2008 10:45:27 AM , Rating: 3
its not a low end desktop that's in demand, its a high -end desktop at a realistic low-end price like a PC.

RE: What took so long?
By kelmon on 7/16/2008 11:22:31 AM , Rating: 2
And why would Apple want to produce something like that? It's perfectly reasonable that people would want a powerful system at a cheap price, but from a business perspective Apple would be making very little money unless it sold a lot of computers. Given that they are, frankly, raking in the cash at the moment there is very little incentive to enter that section of the market.

Apple has carved themselves a reasonable niche for highly designed products that they can charge a high price for. They have a reputation for producing attractive looking products that goes someway to defining them as a company. If they were to introduce cheaper models to their range with high-end components then the design aspect would have to be compromised. At this point you start losing some of what makes Apple different and effectively dilute the brand. I know that from the perspective of the audience of this site that this is not popular (function over form, etc.) but from a business perspective this works. You only have to look at Apple's growth figures vs. the rest of the industry to realise that what they are doing works better than what the competition is doing. Only a muppet would change a winning formula.

By DASQ on 7/16/2008 10:36:35 AM , Rating: 5
This 'article' was more of a blog, way too much opinionated wording. You're writing a headline piece. Two scoops of bias in every Jason submission.

"…many rolled their eyes…"
"…Psystar managed to slither along…"
"…poor preparation on the company's part…"
"…Steve Jobs and his company don't tolerate clones…"

Thinly veiled insults. I'd be offended if I was a Psystar employee.

I realize you're pro-Apple Mr. Mick, but please don't dilute the quality of your articles purely out of whatever kind of misguided loyalty you feel to some company that wouldn't care if you disappeared tomorrow.

RE: *sigh*
By gyranthir on 7/16/2008 10:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
I am not sure he's exactly trying to insult Psystar, but he's definitely trying to make it sound more dramatic than it actually is.

This is a court case, that is probably going to come down to Tort and Contract law. We will have to wait and see what the courts decide, if it's a conservative judge, bye bye Apple's ShrinkWrap Agreement and Eula.

RE: *sigh*
By MikieTImT on 7/16/2008 1:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
The case will be in what's known to be one of the most liberal districts in the nation, probably either in San Francisco or San Jose.

RE: *sigh*
By plinkplonk on 7/16/2008 10:49:15 AM , Rating: 1

RE: *sigh*
By krwhite on 7/16/2008 11:38:43 AM , Rating: 2
It is a blog. Does this look like the NY times?

RE: *sigh*
By DASQ on 7/16/2008 11:44:16 AM , Rating: 4
I'm sorry? It was listed under the 'Hardware' section of the Headlines, not in Jason Mick's blog.

You don't have to be the NY Times to maintain professionalism in your writing. Not that the NY Times has been the shining example of journalistic integrity in the past...

RE: *sigh*
By FITCamaro on 7/16/2008 11:54:52 AM , Rating: 3
Or ever.

RE: *sigh*
By DASQ on 7/16/2008 12:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take your word for it, I don't read the NY Times (not that we can get it up here in Canada, eh).

How does Apple get away with...
By Fracture on 7/16/2008 11:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
what is clearly anti-competitive practices, while the EU is slapping Microsoft with huge fines?

Bad analogy time: It's like saying that you can only use BP gasoline in your Prius.

Windows has no such requirement stating that it can only be used on a single manufacturer's hardware, and such a statement in the EULA is clearly wrong.

RE: How does Apple get away with...
By Hare on 7/16/08, Rating: 0
By Icelight on 7/16/2008 12:39:01 PM , Rating: 3
Your analogy doesn't work either. Nintendo does not sell their OS whatsoever. It's not even remotely a purchasable, stand-alone product.

RE: How does Apple get away with...
By dwalton on 7/16/2008 12:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
Does Wii sell its Wii OS as a standalone product? Do you think that a home builder who gave away a free Prius with every home sold would need Toyota's permission to do so?

Apple gets money off of every "HAC" sold at a price that is probably more than what they would get if they had an actual licensing agreement that allowed "HAC"s to use Apple'OS.

We have in the US the "First Sale" doctrine and the EU has the "Exhaustion of Rights" doctrine that limits copyrights.

The gray market has sustain itself based on those two doctrine even though there are those companies that control offical distribution channels that would love to shut the grey market down.

The only reason software companies muddle this issue is their "we don't sell the software we sell the license to use the software" crap. It doesn't work half the time as an argument in the courts. Hopefully, one of these cases makes to the Supreme Court and a precedent is set and we can get over these ridiculous lawsuits.

I find it unreasonable to force someone into a contract on a product after you have sold them that product. If companies want to limit resale they should be forced to have consumer sign contract prior to purchase. It would put them in a disadvantage competition-wise but competitors that forego the contracts would be at a disadvantage in terms of gray market sales and resells by the consumer. Im getting tired of this "cake and eat it too" mentality amongst software companies.

RE: How does Apple get away with...
By Hare on 7/16/2008 1:08:32 PM , Rating: 2
I think the problem is that they sell their machines with OS X preinstalled. I'm not sure they would have these legal problems if they were simply selling plain PC boxes without an OS but would include a retail box of Mac OS X. This would be the same thing as your Home+Prius example.

RE: How does Apple get away with...
By Fracture on 7/16/2008 2:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the Prius example was pretty good... what they both "run" on (gas vs OS).

Anyways, the issue with the OS X being preinstalled further emphasizes the concept of "Tying" which someone else posted. The difficulty of installing the OS is clearly one of the hurdles that precludes vendors from selling this product on the market. The fact that you need to hack it to make it function normally should be a dead give away and cause for a suit against Apple.

Note - I love the pic for this thread, but it's getting overused lately. Maybe Yuri from C&C Red Alert?

RE: How does Apple get away with...
By DASQ on 7/16/2008 2:54:29 PM , Rating: 2
The needs of the many are outweighed by the needs of the Yuri.

RE: How does Apple get away with...
By kelmon on 7/17/2008 4:11:20 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, for crying out loud. This is not "anti-competitive" behavior because you can still buy a computer from anyone else and Apple is not attempting to prevent this by, for example, stopping retailers from stocking non-Apple computers. Just because Microsoft licenses Windows to every man and their dog does not mean that this is required by everyone else. This might be "wrong", as you put it, but there's nothing illegal here.

It should also be noted that Microsoft has been slapped with huge fines for anti-competitive behavior on the Windows platform itself (e.g. restricting access to information about protocols or file formats that would enable competition to Microsoft's tools, services and applications). Apple has not been found guilty of this, although I do recall reading recently that there was some discussion about Apple's use of undocumented code libraries, i.e. almost private libraries that gave their own applications benefits not available to competitors. Perhaps something will come from this.

By BrucetheMan on 7/16/2008 10:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
Fla Stat. Section 542.15 et seq.
Tying occurs generally when a company requires buyers to purchase one product or service (called the "tied" product or service) in order to obtain another product or service (the "tying" product or service), and the arrangement restrains trade. Illegal tying is a per se violation of the antitrust laws. Three elements must be present to constitute an illegal tie-in per se:

· A tying scheme must exist, in which buyers are required to buy one commodity or service in order to obtain another commodity or service

· The seller must have enough economic power in the tying product to allow it to significantly restrict the market for the tied product

· A fairly substantial amount of interstate commerce in the tied product must be affected

Tying is an antitrust concern not because it restrains competition in the tying product, but because it restrains trade in the market for the tied product. Thus, for example, a computer system manufacturer that licensed a very popular computer operating system software only to buyers of its not-so-popular computer system was held to have violated antitrust laws by unlawful tying. The manufacturer had the leverage in the market to require some purchasers to buy something they did not really want. There was a demand in the market for purchase of the products separately.


By gyranthir on 7/16/2008 11:01:54 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, this looks really bad for Apple.

By gyranthir on 7/16/2008 11:06:08 AM , Rating: 2
My next question is, where did Apple file the suit?

By etshea on 7/16/2008 11:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
Dell would be guilty of this as well. Try to buy the $399 and tell them you want linux. You are required to buy Windows!

By Jackattak on 7/16/2008 11:42:01 AM , Rating: 2
Too bad they filed the suit in California. You can take that Florida "tying" junk and wipe with it, for all Jobs cares.

Besides, it's going to come down to Federal anyway, in which case state law won't have any jurisdiction (see: medical marijuana, civil unions).

That is all. Jackattak

Sorry for them, Apple won´t get mainstream.
By greylica on 7/16/2008 10:17:37 AM , Rating: 4
With this situation, we can see a future for Apple. They will always have 3~8% Market share, but PCs will continue to rule.
Face this apple, you will be simple a hardware manufacturer with you atittude, a cheaper 1900 Poweredge ( More hardware for the smae costs with 4GB RAM ), get maisntream faster and this is a great hardware too. Adobe/matrox solves most of the problems for videos and even when I hate Microsoft Vista, (I am a adicted Linux/Solaris User) I can say that Vista is stronger than Mac in security. The Vista haters are the ones that are buying Macs now, but when another software manufacturer strike with a powerfull OS, what you gonna do ?

Try to compete in Maisntream, try to compete against a Dell 2408 with your overpriced 23" with a single connection for example, you will discover that even your hardware is not far better than you are saying on the TV.
Or then, your Iphone 3G locked for other software manufacturers, or free software...

Superior Hardware...
I simply don´t get it, Jobs...

By kelmon on 7/17/2008 4:23:02 AM , Rating: 2
Have you seen Apple's earnings recently? Market share is immaterial compared to profit, and Apple's making a lot. Find me another computer company that is making as much money as Apple. Say what you like about Apple but they clearly understand business and how to make money. Do you "get it" yet?

I realise that this is not a popular opinion but Apple are making electronics to make money. As long as they continue to do this better than the rest of the industry, what incentive is there to make changes? Do you really think that if they added more features and reduced the price that they'd make higher profits? If you do then all I can say is that you are very naive.

Violating Shrink Wrap agreements
By gyranthir on 7/16/2008 10:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
Psystar may have been relying on this suit as a way to break down Mac's deathgrip on OSX.

Realize that Mac most likely doesn't want to try it's EULA and Shrinkwrap agreement in court as it will most likely be cut down like the totally unconscionable piece of contract that it is.

RE: Violating Shrink Wrap agreements
By gyranthir on 7/16/2008 12:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
Those that don't think this is about contract law need to look at it this way.

If the contract is invalid, and this company or anyone can install this software on any computer, the circumvention of the Mac authenticator with a bootloader for personal use based on the DMCA could be lawful.

This is a house of cards, and the key stone is the contract. Atleast that's the way I am reading this.

By dwalton on 7/16/2008 12:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
Everything will revolve around the "first sale" doctrine.

Just because you have a clause in your shrinkwrap contract doesn't make it enforceable nor does an unenforceable clause automatically negates the shrinkwrap contract as a whole.

Autodesk lost in court on this very issue as the court considered the software as sold and not licensed and found that that the plantiff had a right to sell his copy of AutoDesk on Ebay.

Failed to mention
By HrilL on 7/16/2008 11:31:00 AM , Rating: 2
That Apple asked for a jury trial but the case was still sent to Magistrate Judge James Larson.

Seems bias to leave this out as it is better off for Psystar as a jury wouldn't know the legal information and would be easier for Apple's Lawyers to convince in their favor.

RE: Failed to mention
By gyranthir on 7/16/2008 12:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
Contract law cases usually aren't done in a jury trial format, as you presumably do need a contract law expert to interpret the spirit and meaning of the contract and to determine if the terms of the contract are unconscionable. This is less about feeling but more about the letter of the law.

RE: Failed to mention
By HrilL on 7/16/2008 1:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
Apple none the less still asked for a Jury trial... You kind of just went more into depth on what I was already saying. Thanks.

By marsbound2024 on 7/16/2008 5:39:50 PM , Rating: 3
So when Psystar announced a $399 Mac with strong specs comparable to a $949 Mac Mini desktop, many figured the end was near for the company.

For what company? It sounds almost as if you are trying to say the end is near for Apple. If so... GIVE ME A BREAK. If for Psystar... then I don't get it... why would it be "the end is near" for Psystar with a savings of $550 and similar specs? So despite your ambiguity, I think both possibilities in your intentions are well off.

Do Or Die
By kelmon on 7/16/2008 10:06:12 AM , Rating: 2
This case should be very interesting to watch, assuming that both parties see the case through to a judgement rather than settling out of court. On the one hand, if Apple wins then the clones business is dead, at least in any country where Apple can take legal action. On the other, if Psystar wins then the floodgates could, potentially, open and we'll be seeing more clones being produced.

Interestingly, whatever the judgement, I expect this to be the end of Psystar. Even if they win the case it's likely that more professional companies will step into the market and crush this "one man and his dog" operation.

Frankly, if Psystar wins then this could be the end of the Mac platform and that's pretty worrying. It's well known that Apple makes its money from selling hardware so, unless the company converted to selling software quickly, its cash flow from the computer business could evaporate pretty quickly.

Customer Service
By JayRome on 7/16/2008 1:01:04 PM , Rating: 2
My only comment is that this move by Apple, although perfectly legal, is just another slap on the loyal Apple consumer. First they create phones and sell them at a pretty steep price and then turn around a few months later and slash the price, then come out with a better model and it goes on forever. This is just another way Steve gets his kicks by jerking around the consumer.

Cheater and fraud
By hiscross on 7/16/2008 7:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
For those who hate Apple, here is more info on the suit:

A note to those who think that this suit is about EULAs … Psystar did a LOT more than breach the terms of the EULA. The company, through its own admission, modified the copyrighted work, then distributed those modifications without license and for commercial purposes. The company also used at least one Apple trademark in its marketing.

If this was just about the EULA, Apple’s case might not be that strong (remember, the EULA’s never been tested in court), but this goes way beyond the EULA.]

Stop And Think!
By niks on 7/16/08, Rating: -1
"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
Related Articles
Psystar Really Psychstar?
April 16, 2008, 2:55 PM
Apple Hopes To Kill Psystar's $399 Mac
April 15, 2008, 10:31 AM

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki