How come Pystar hasn't been stopped?

[colinstu]

I would've thought Apple would of gave them the red flag a long time ago. Pystar is shipping computers with Apple's OS on it right now... what is apple doing?

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I don't think they give a shit... at least not right now.
The point of having a Mac is having full seamless support and integration into everything that you're doing. Pystar can't make Mac drivers and as such you're left with faulty support.

 

[taylorwilsdon]

Apple is enjoying revenue from Leopard retail licenses sold for computers that don't pose any threat at all to their marketshare.

And they're waiting until Pystar has enough revenue to make a lawsuit worthwhile. No point in taking nothing.

 

[Tekara]

Here's a good article on the matter:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9933896-37.html

Psystar's best shot--albeit a long one--at keeping its doors open for business would be to argue that Apple is illegally tying the purchase of its operating system to the purchase of its hardware because it has a monopoly on the sale of Mac OS X-based computers, said Jim Burdett, an attorney with Venable in Washington, D.C.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Apple is enjoying revenue from Leopard retail licenses sold for computers that don't pose any threat at all to their marketshare.

And they're waiting until Pystar has enough revenue to make a lawsuit worthwhile. No point in taking nothing.

wrong, apple makes its money on the hardware it sells, not the OS so much.


but i could see them waiting.

 

[TheSandman2236]

wrong, apple makes its money on the hardware it sells, not the OS so much.


but i could see them waiting.

I hope you're joking. Software and accessories (as well as service warranties) are 90% of where the money is made. I worked in retail buying for 5 years, and I'll tell you right now that hardware is NOT how money is made. I'm sure apple almost breaks even selling hardware the way they are.

It goes the same way in the gaming industry, as do most tech companies. Everyone gets a slice of the pie, Intel, hynix, and other chip manufacturers. They all get their share by the time a piece of hardware ships, whats left over goes to Apple.

 

[Joe Average]

It all comes down to the EULA included with OSX. If that could be tested in a court of law (at least here in the US as I can't speak about the rest of the freakin' planet) and if it was held up in said court of law as "law" then companies like Psystar would be liable to Apple for damages.

But that's the point: EULAs haven't been put into a courtroom situation, and they don't have any backing of the legal system (at least here in the US, of course, I still can't speak about the rest of the freakin' planet), so what it boils down to is an agreement between whoever buys the OS and Apple - basically a promise that you won't install it or attempt to install it on anything other than actual Apple provided hardware.

Fat chance of that.

If Psystar is working as a reseller of Apple operating systems (nothing illegal about that anywhere) and they sell a copy to a customer, and that customer is now the legal owner of said OS, and the customer says "Hey man, it sure would be great if you'd install that on some hardware for me and make it work" then legally speaking Psystar couldn't be accused or even found guilty of much more than aiding and abetting I'd say. Once the purchase goes through the OS doesn't legally belong to Psystar anymore, it belongs to whoever's buying the box, so they're the ultimately responsible party.

One could actually go after Psystar on the grounds that they're building machines, cracking the seals on the OSX packaging, and installing the OS for customers who haven't even actually paid for the machines yet - any distributor or system builder can't legally charge you for a product until they ship it, more or less, soooo... that could be a silly semantic-style argument about the actual letter of the law, but it's not worth the trouble.

While I may disagree with how they're doing things (I could have done this sort of thing myself back in 2005 when I helped get the OSx86 Project off the ground in several ways), I will say it takes big ones to stand up and do it, gotta give 'em some credit for that.

I can't see where Apple has any legal ground (again, here in the US) to stand on as long as Psystar follows a specific chain of process in how they do things. Sell the OS to the customer first and complete that transaction with billing records to show it, and then they can do whatever the customer wants with the product, including installing it on hardware the customer is going to purchase.

Of course, I'll catch a lot of flack for saying it but whatevar... more power to 'em I say.

ps
The name of the company is Psystar... Pystar sounds like someone is mad

 

[The Hunter]

I hope you're joking. Software and accessories (as well as service warranties) are 90% of where the money is made. I worked in retail buying for 5 years, and I'll tell you right now that hardware is NOT how money is made. I'm sure apple almost breaks even selling hardware the way they are.

It goes the same way in the gaming industry, as do most tech companies. Everyone gets a slice of the pie, Intel, hynix, and other chip manufacturers. They all get their share by the time a piece of hardware ships, whats left over goes to Apple.

While that's undoubtedly true for most hardware sales, Apple stands alone in this regard. They most definitely make hefty margins on their hardware - there have been many breakdowns about that specific point. It's also the same reason they don't venture into the bargain segment, because those PCs have become commodities, and there's no profit to be had.

My opinion on why Apple hasn't gone after Pystar:
1. The experience leaves a lot to be desired. They're obviously not anywhere close to being on par with Macs, and the people who are buying them are doing so either for curiosity (and may even own real Macs) or because they're too cheap/unwilling for other reasons (hardware, etc) to buy a real Mac. Either way, Apple isn't really losing out on anything, and gains a small profit from the OS sale with each unit. Obviously this may change later.

2. It's not really at a point where average people are very aware of it. Filing a lawsuit could make it a big deal, and more publicity in Pystar's favour is probably what Apple would like to avoid.

3. The legal grounds are shakier than they might seem. Violating an EULA has never been established as illegal in a court, and they probably want to avoid that fight if at all possible.

 

[illgiveumorality]

Has Pystar even shipped a computer?

 

[mrweasel]

I seen only 2...none since then

 

[lopoetve]

I hope you're joking. Software and accessories (as well as service warranties) are 90% of where the money is made. I worked in retail buying for 5 years, and I'll tell you right now that hardware is NOT how money is made. I'm sure apple almost breaks even selling hardware the way they are.

It goes the same way in the gaming industry, as do most tech companies. Everyone gets a slice of the pie, Intel, hynix, and other chip manufacturers. They all get their share by the time a piece of hardware ships, whats left over goes to Apple.

for dell, sure. for apple, not so much. Apple has significant profit margins on their hardware as well as the software.

 

[Mad_Pyro]

I hope you're joking. Software and accessories (as well as service warranties) are 90% of where the money is made. I worked in retail buying for 5 years, and I'll tell you right now that hardware is NOT how money is made. I'm sure apple almost breaks even selling hardware the way they are.

It goes the same way in the gaming industry, as do most tech companies. Everyone gets a slice of the pie, Intel, hynix, and other chip manufacturers. They all get their share by the time a piece of hardware ships, whats left over goes to Apple.

Remember the following though. First off, Apple leverages deals with their suppliers that are often significantly better than other PC makers are able to work out. Intel processors and Samsung/Toshiba flash and mechanical-disk storage come to mind. Furthermore, we need to look at cost to Apple vs their pricing.

Apple makes a very high margin the iPods and a pretty darn good margin on peripherals such as the Mighty Mouse, keyboards, Cinema displays. It also definitely works in Apple's favor that it doesn't have a budget model. The Mac Mini really isn't very cheap. Compared to walking into a Circuit City or Best Buy, it's clear you will be paying more walking into an Apple Store because of the pricing structure.

Most of Apple's computer sales are on >$1000 units. They have one hell of a strategy going for them right now - they have higher margins on their PCs than any other large scale manufacturer, and in the >$1000 PC market, ARS Technica claims that Apple actually has a majority share. Also, I've seen a number of cost analyses that show a minimum 20% margin on PCs with much higher numbers on iPods and accessories.

 

[spartus4]

... I helped get the OSx86 Project off the ground in several ways),

Thank you so much for the OSx86 Project. I have installed OSX on my system and love it. I went out and bought a copy of OSX Leopard so I was semi legal. I felt guilty about not buying the os. I wish Apple would change their EULA, because it is a wonderful OS. I have tried to go back to Windows XP and Vista. I couldn't stand them anymore.

COME ON APPLE???

 

[El Spic]

COME ON APPLE???

They change there EULA they have to support other hardware that is not there own. I like that Leopard can't be installed on PCs easily. Strong control of hardware makes for better software performance.

 

[The_Mage18]

If Apple were smart, they would not do anything at all for now.

Look at it this way. Apple has had control of their OS and hardware for years and has tuned their OS and software to run as smoothly and efficiently as possible. When they allowed other companies to build Mac clones (back in the Power PC days) they had numerous support issue because now they had to make their OS work for hardware they couldn't control the quality of. Some hardware that worked perfectly on an Apple machine simply wouldn't work on the clones.

So now Apple is losing market share and has to deal with any support issues because they licensed their name and OS to run on a third party's machine. Hence why Apple ended authorized clones and regained all control.

If they do anything with Psystar, it's going to be to let them be until they either A) start consuming a lot of Apple's market share and find a way to go after them legally, or B) continue on knowing that Psystar can't keep up with support nor offer any real support when hardware compatibility issues arise resulting in the company losing customers fast.

Imagine this: Consumer Smith buys a Psystar. Consumer A sees there are PCI slots inside his new "Mac" computer. Consumer Smith buys a fancy new sound card and installs it but the sound card doesn't work. Consumer Smith calls Psystar for support. Psystar doesn't write OS X, they can't write drivers to make the sound card work and Apple certainly isn't going to so they tell Consumer Smith sorry, can't help you. Consumer Smith will most likely not like that answer and either return the system to get a PC or purchase a real Mac with actual support.

Either way, it's a win-win for Apple. They make a profit (from the sale of OS X on the Psystar and potential sale of another machine), don't have to expend any money on support (OS X is being used on a non-Apple machine, no support for you) and their competition suffers. Seriously, who do you know blamed Microsoft because their Packard Bell computer had problems but their friend's Gateway ran fine? Same OS, both built around one standard, but two radically different machines in terms of parts and assembly quality.