Psystar releases Open(3), plays with fire

Late to this but... Apple will lose!

They sell a box retail = I can install it on anything i want, just like Windows!

They no longer make their own proprietary hardware, so they cant say they are being infringed upon in that respect...they use what everyone else is capable of using... all they did was buy a bunch of parts, install them in a box and add their operating system.

They lost this case when they switched to an open hardware platform and even longer ago when they decided to sell the operating system separate from the hardware.


They will lose this case .. PSystar will continue... and more companies will sprout up selling OSx on any hardware. The only thing Apple will do is start charging more for the retail box set... which it should have done long ago. That i dont mind.

Even if by some miracle (pay-offs) Psystar loses, Apple still loses since the know how and hacks will continue... the days of greed are over... more people are catching on to the stupidity of over paying for the sake of a name.

@harveylubin This is a virtual example of your lips continuing to flap, but nothing but hot air coming out. Apple CAN and DOES have the right to specify the hardware on which you install Mac OS because of their EULA. No matter what you might think, you DO NOT have the right to install a copy of Mac OS on ANY computer you want, and depending on where you do it and how you complete the task it just might be illegal. I'm not a big fan of the DMCA, but I'd be hesitant to try to blatantly run afoul of it on US soil.

Have you ever taken an economics class? Sure, diehard Apple fans will continue to buy Apple hardware, but there's no way you can convince me that Apple licensing Mac OS won't cannibalize their sales. If you don't believe that, go look at the parking lot of your local Wal-Mart this weekend.

Apple can afford to charge $129 for a copy of Mac OS because they're bearing much of the development cost of the OS in hardware sales. If you divorce the software from the hardware, I think you'll copies of Mac OS will be priced more like copies of Windows. If they tried a multi-tiered pricing model where owners of Apple hardware received discounted copies of OS upgrades, of course you'd see the script kiddies and hackers come out of the woodwork trying to find a way to "crack" the hardware restriction. There's no good scenario for Apple here.

Long time Apple user. Just sold my 2006 17 Macbook Pro. Can't afford the Mac Pro's so decided to go the OSX86 Route. Ordered an Intel i7 920 with an Asus P6 T Deluxe motherboard, 6 GB Ram, Nvidia 9800 GTX 512 MB video card, Corsair 650W power supply, and Antec case. Total system will cost me $1450 (including assembly by my local PC shop). That's about $1000 cheaper than Apple's Mac Pro, and I have more memory, better video card, bigger hard drive. Check out the Insanely Mac forums to see what the wizards are cooking up!

You can get a $2-5 BT dongle anywhere that works fine with OS X. Put it in the back and you dont' even notice it.

I've been a Mac user for about 2 years now. I quite like my iMac (17 inch 2ghz C2D), it's been decent but I can't tell you how many times I think "Oh if I could only upgrade my video card". Plus just now my DVD player in the iMac is making a ton of noise and parts might be breaking inside of it. Now on a tower, this is far from a big deal and maybe a $10-15 repair, on this iMac it's a huge deal.

I also hope Pystar wins, but I doubt they have a chance in hell. But maybe it will give Apple some perspective that there is a market for a more "nerd friendly" Mac. If not, people will just continue using OS X on PC hardware. I know my next Mac will probably be a Hackintosh.

Oh come on people! This is a no-brainer. How can people draw such horrible conclusions?

1) Apple owns the rights to OS X, they can create it, modify it and destroy it for their own means, whatever they may be. Nobody else has the right to do so.

2) Unlike Windows software, Apple doesn't license its software to third party vendors. A copy of the retail box of OS X ≠ A license of OS X. It's a matter of permission.

3) Psystar thinks they are gray-market by 'purchasing goods legally' to be used illegally. They do not have permission from Apple to install Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. When you purchase a Psystar machine there is no official Apple 'License' like you would see on any Windows machine, thus its support it is invalidated by Apple, Apple has no obligations to cater to Psystar's needs.

4) Apple's computer systems aren't expensive, they just aren't cheap. Sure, you can look at numbers all day, but in the end, the retail experience, the integrated tech support, the intelligent software and total cost of ownership are what make Mac users smile. Not many people become Mac users because Apple 'sells them for a great price.' They do because Apple adds a ton of value to the machine inside and out.

5) It doesn't matter whether Psystar wins or loses, the fact that they still exist says something about how much we've devalued intellectual property. Only in the realms of infancy do we need to be so persistently satisfied and pampered. As adults, we need to realize that if somebody invents something, we all don't have the god-given right to have it (much less sell it) as well. If we want it bad enough, then the price is fair.

6) Hardware is hardware, software is software. Both took a substantial amount of time and effort to invent/develop, engineer, test, and approve. And yes, people's jobs were involved in the process, robots didn't make these things, people did. Respect their hard work.

If I took the iPod OS, and installed it on my own homebuilt MP3 player which I sold for $80 less than Apple's current iPod Nano, should I be ENTITLED to do so because I feel that Apple has a monopoly on Apple's iPod Software..?

So, if I take the Mac OS and installed it on my own homebuilt computer which I sell for $800 less than Apple's current iMac, should I be ENTITLED to do so because I feel that Apple has a monopoly on Apple's Mac OS X Software?


To be honest, why doesn't Psystar just build it's own OS? Do what Apple did and base it off of UNIX? They can hack one OS, they sure as shit have ability to invent one... don't they...?

i think it's in apple's interest to crush psystar and to elaborate on what happy mac user touched upon... Apple has to protect its image and its user experience. Allowing it's os to be used by these pc box assemblers means that their product will be running on unsupported hardware configurations. If there's a problem with the experience due to hardware issues even simple ones, then it's apple's image that's tarnished. Microsoft has chosen to release an os that can be run on any hw to maximise their sales. Apple releases their os designed to run on their hardware to provide their customers' and not dell's or hp's customers with the user experience we've come to expect an experience that starts with the shopping, the unboxing, the elegant hardware design and an os tuned to run on a select mix of hardware.

also, everyone rants on about apple's restrictive licensing - has anyone read any sw license? you're basically selling your soul. And MS at one point didn't allow its low end OS versions to be run under virtualisation systems.

if you want to run mac os on an unsupported pc then go ahead and do it yourself. Other companies should not profit from apple's RND and marketing. One of the reasons why apple sells the os cheaper than ms sells windows is cos it is in part subsidised by the hw sales.

I priced a "low end" psystar Open(3) as comparatively kitted out as possible vs. an iMac refurb. The iMac 24" 2.8GHz refurb came out $350 more expensive ($1199 vs. $850) than a similarly equipped Open(3) (by similar, I mean adding back in bluetooth, wireless, keyboard, etc.).

For that $350 savings, you get a bluetooth dongle hanging off the machine, a machine that won't take time machine back ups from another mac, a keyboard where I hit the windows key instead of an apple, un-powered firewire ports, a computer that won't wake from sleep from a bluetooth keyboard, and buying from a vendor with questionable long-term prospects. But, you do get a bigger hard drive and an expandable case, which are both quite nice. One of the HUGE benefits, though, to me of the iMac is the space-saving and the quietness of the desktop. The attractiveness of the design is also worth something. All missing from the Psystar.

So, on net, I am not sure the Psystar is worth it. BUT THEN - I read the Psystar does NOT include a monitor for that $850! OK. Now it's definitely not worth it. At least not to me. This little excercise did, however, convince me of the value of the iMac and I no longer wonder if I'm paying a "Mac tax." I think the iMac was worth every penny that I paid for it.

quite literally psystar will continue to go on in one form or another and this problem won't be solved by litigation alone,

I cant believe some of the comments in here. Just like others had said.. How can there be a Monopoply?

A MAC = ( the hardware and sotware ) its there OS and its there hardware.

You cant afford a MAC buy another brand. If I cant buy a Ferrari ill have to settle for a Honda.

Its called being a " premium brand " they built an image and I dont blame them for going after a company that has only popped up to try and steal some of there limelight oooh macs are popular now lets try to sell there os.

Apple made there own OS for there own computers and doesnt have to sell to anyone if they dont want too. I cant run my Honda on my Nissan ECU oh well boo hoo I cant afford a PS3 should I be able to make a PS3 clone like someone else said? NO A PS3 = Hardware + OS same with a MAC.

All these would do is ruin the MAC Reputation , This thread is redicoulous.

If you don't want to support Apple then just buy a PC with windows - No ones holding a gun to your head.