Okay, so now that we got that out of the way, allow me to speak candidly for a moment. There is a part of me that is secretly hoping that Psystar will prevail in their efforts against Apple to continue to freely distribute their open computer. In other words, be able to ship Apple software in non-Apple branded hardware. What the f$%@??!! You may be saying. But that’s right, I’m sticking to my guns on this one and I’m sure the are a few others out there that will agree. So what is the basis for all this Apple heresy?
It’s simple really. Apple has harbored a notorious reputation for selling over priced hardware. Whether you agree or not, there is not much in the way of denying that statement. The difficulty of accepting a statement like this, is taking into account how one measures and compares costs. While in numerous instances, you will find Apple’s entire Mac line to be relatively equivalent in price to PCs with comparable specs. Yet if you dig just a bit further, you will undoubtedly find numerous PC configurations with nearly identical, and in some cases more powerful innards than a Mac for a noticeably cheaper price tag. The logical explanation for this is simply that only Apple can make Apple stuff, which is why they remain the minority in the Personal Computer market. PCs on the other hand promote an open framework and allow for competition which has effectively lead to far greater choice and a buyers market. This being the case, one would more easily find a machine that suits their needs for a price that they can afford.
Don’t get me wrong here. Apple is a premium brand, and I do appreciate the level of quality that they maintain. There is valid contention for the fact that Apple makes top notch products. As is the case with luxury items in general, people know that they are paying extra for the sleek design and attention to detail. I will be the first person to agree with this as I am, and will always be a proponent for Apple products. Yet in today’s market, it would be foolish to assume that everyone can afford a machine that they so desire. It would certainly be a shame for those who know and appreciate the power and stability of Apple’s Mac OS X to have to resort to purchasing a machine with an inferior operating system.
While I’m not trying to spark price war comparisons, which can be debated forever, I do wonder what ramifications may ensue from having a company like Psystar legitimately make Mac clones. After running this question through my mind for quite some time now, I think that it would be a detriment to Apple as a whole, but I would like to see some healthy competition and room for consumers to purchase Apple software in cheaper hardware. Unfortunately, this is not entirely cut and dry as there are pros and cons to both sides of this argument.
One of the reasons that Mac OS X is so stable, is the fact that Apple knows exactly what hardware its running on. If for example, Leopard were available to all of the flavors of machines that run Windows, it may be susceptible to bad drivers, incompatible hardware, and corrupt updates, thus losing some of its credibility as an extremely stable operating system. Moreover, Apple is primarily seen as a hardware company, so if OS X was made publicly available, their hardware sales would suffer.
On the other hand, if companies such as Psystar had the legal authority to ship hardware with OS X installed, there would be room for healthy competition, giving consumers a wider array of choice. Let’s face it, users needs can differ dramatically depending upon what their interests or professions mandate. We can say, for example, that a professional user would require more configuration options and overall performance than an average user. While there are a wide array of configurations to outfit a Mac Pro, the cost of getting the level of functionality that they require can add up quick. Now if that same user, who much prefers OS X to any other operating system, is in need of a new machine, they better be prepared to spend some serious money, or settle for a weaker configuration. Without any other hardware options, this user would be, well S.O.L.
So what if Psystar prevails? Well, the first thought that comes to mind would be domino effect in the sense that if they are allowed to use Apple’s proprietary technology than anyone would be able to. This would open up a whole new world to hardware manufacturers, ultimately creating a highly competitive market. Consumers would gain a far greater amount of choice when it comes to finding a machine that perfectly suits their needs with a price they can afford.
While all of this may sound good to some, in theory, companies have been battling to gain access to Apple’s technology for years. Apple has clearly stated in the End User License Agreement, that installation of OS X on any non-Apple branded machine is strictly prohibited. While it is their legal right to make this statement, it can be construed as engaging in anti-competitive behavior, monopolizing an industry and thus negating the American principles of capitalism. Phew. Ok, so basically, while I do not fully believe that Psystar will win in the end, it is always nice to imagine what it would be like if they did.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
27 Comments to “Feature: Would a Psystar Victory lead to a Downfall or Promote Open Competition?”
honestly, I’ve thought about this, I’m not sure if it would work as smoothly as you think, but just the mere fact that others would be able to sell me OS X, and officially support it. even if it’s only a few companies that Apple would allow the rights to do it… still, it could be a real shake up for the tech market
[Reply]
Since the iPhone is now a huge chunk of Apple’s business, one part of me would wish if Psystar were to win, that Apple would give everyone the middle finger and get out of the computer business. Of course that won’t happen, but maybe people should think about that before they think that someone should be able to just breezily come along and ride on the coattails of the genuis, R&D money, management, etc, of someone else. If Apple wasn’t a publicly traded company, and if it were privately owned, I wouldn’t put that past Jobs.
And you know what? Though I would be hating life, you want to know what I hope? (I am only halfway being sarcastic) – I hope if Psystar wins that Steve Jobs retires and all the Mac fans who secretly hope Psystar wins get exactly what they want.
Has anyone read Atlas Shrugged. Well don’t put it past Steve to shrug, and see where trash-talking punks from Miami are then.
I am only half kidding. I am so disgusted over the crap comments on this case, that I would get a sick satisfaction out of that while I switched to Linux.
I have reviewed the pleadings and am somewhat aware of the legal issues from a non-attorney standpoint. How many people who comment on this have even bothered to read the documents? I have read every single one. Psystar’s attorneys are doing a bang-up job with a dog of a case, but you can perfume a hog, but its still a hog.
[Reply]
“On the other hand, if companies such as Psystar had the legal authority to ship hardware with OS X installed, there would be room for healthy competition” — YUP !!!! Get off your MAC HIGH HORSE AND MAKE THIS HAPPEN APPLE !!!! RIDICULOUS !!!!!!
[Reply]
Oh please dear sir, pray tell what legal arguments you have read to make the claim it is “ridiculous.” I mean you wouldn’t actually say something in complete ignorance would you? Would you?
Yeah. I thought so.
[Reply]
my vote –> downfall… this would turn OS X into something “average”
[Reply]
So, should Rolls Royce be forced to sell its engine to General Motors? I’d love to have a Rolls engine in my Chevy Cobalt!
Really, there is competition; Windows. In demonstrating that Windows hardware is cheaper in some instance than Mac, you have demonstrated that there is competition; i.e., consumer choice.
By the way, should Apple be forced to sell OS X to competitors, you might see the company’s profitability nosedive, and with it, its incentive to maintain and innovate its cutting-edge operating system. How does that strike you?
[Reply]
EricS, you are absolutely correct, and what has been driving me NUTS on this whole thing is the entitlement mentality that comes along with many of the Psystar rah-rahers. IMHO they are thieving punks and I hope that Apple kicks their behind from today until next Tuesday.
However, none of this has a whit to do about that *I* think or who is boo-hooing about big bad Apple making a profit, it has to do with the LAW. And very few people even care about that.
How about this, all you people who want Psystar to win cause you’re all bitchy about Apple charging a premium price and its all about YOU, YOU, YOU I hope that one day you are sued, and you lose the case because someone on the jury could care less about the law, but just doesn’t like you.
How do you like them Apples?
What Psystar is doing is IMHO LEGALLY disgusting and bottom-feeding at its finest. Should I say how I really feel? If I were some supernatural being, I would make every single one of the “me, me” crybabies have an invention and have someone thieve it from them.
Here is a taste of reality. No one HAS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to what SOME think is a superior OS. There is nothing illegal about that, unless of course, you would prefer a socialist market rather than a capitalist one.
Yes that was a rant because the shallowness of most comments on this issue are frankly vacuously idiotic.
[Reply]
not only would Psystar drown in legal fees if they ACTUALLY went to court, they would shrivel up and lose all their business. but hey, you guys ever wonder why Apple would even agree to this ADR bullshit?
[Reply]
They are required by the Court to do so. It is standard Federal Court Rules. I doubt either party wanted to. But they had NO choice. I am a legal assistant, it is required. All it is is mediation. I have been working on cases where the mediation lasted all of an hour with one side saying this is what we want, and that’s it, the other side side saying, yeah, when hell freezes over, and walking out.
Mediation is a completely voluntary process where both sides can privately assess each other and MAYBE resolve their disputes. Unless all Psystar is looking for is to be bought off, which I doubt, nothing is coming out of this mediation. The way most blogs reported on it was sensationalistic BS.
[Reply]
hahaOS, I have a theory that they are well-funded by people who wish to remain anonymous that have a vested interest in this case and that Psystar agreed to be their patsies. No matter what happens in this case, Psystar is over. If they lose, then it is obvious. If they win, they are going to compete against Dell, HP, etc? I think not. Plus I have a few other theories on how Apple already is getting ready to stick it to anyone who thinks they are going to be leeches on their work anyhows. I have a pretty good feeling that this will be something covered in Snow Leopard.
Today I am mad that Mercedes is charging a premium. Do you think I should sue them to use their technology? I did nothing but sit on my ass in front of a computer, but aren’t I entitled?
[Reply]
Wait a sec Dizzle. What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that Dave (the author) is in the wrong? I don’t think that raising this argument (and he might genuinely feel like mac clones would be good) is a bad move. If anything, it makes sense to me. I’m sick of ONLY being able to buy OS X on Apple stuff. Why can’t I get a really sick Alienware for gaming and run OS X on it when I want? What a joke.
[Reply]
I think I said in my prior comments, but let me clarify. It depends upon what you mean by “wrong.” Wrong about what? Remember this article is not in isolation, he said that he secretly hopes that Psystar wins SIMPLY because one, he doesn’t know the law because he didn’t make any legal merit that makes any sense, and two, because he personally doesn’t like that Appple charges a premium (which he admits is arguable, and I deny that fact for the majority of users).
Why can’t you? Because you, sir, didn’t invent the product, and you don’t have a “right” to have it. It is a “joke” that so many people bitch because the actual creators and investors dare to say how they want their blood, sweat and tears to be used.
This is a LEGAL CASE. Saying that you hope “secretly” that someone wins because of one’s subjective sense of rights and entitlement is not only silly, I believe it is morally wrong. You wouldn’t want your case decided that way, would you Lou? Say I was on the jury, and you were being a sued by a black woman. I decide that black woman have general been the most screwed over demographic in the US so I decide against you, even though you were right LEGALLY. Is that right? Is that right to “secretly” want.
I am also saying the author is wrong because it is short-sighted. As many commenters here noted, it would trash the OS. And as I have noted, and I have a pretty uncanny sense for some thing, I wouldn’t be surprised that if Apple were “forced” under penalty of law, that Steve Jobs would retire. And I would than laugh at all the Macintards who “secretly” wished for a Psystar win with absolutely no motive other than their selfish desires.
THAT, sir, is a JOKE and ridiculous.
[Reply]
I still would like a truthful answer here to everyone, including the author. Who has actually read all of the Court filings?
I thought so. I have. My next step is to obtain ALL of the case law cited and read it. Let me give you one howler. Psystar claims that Apple was not a pioneer of the personal computer revolution. Ha! Did you know that? Did you know that they misspelled “Mac” in one of their filings? Just curious. You see I know these things because I read the material before opening my mouth. Psystar’s attorneys are doing a very good job arguing their case. I am impressed because they have bad material to work with. No matter what the outcome, that firm has some great talent. Apple should recruit some attorneys from there. So this isn’t about everything that Psystar does SUCKS and everything Apple does is wonderful. I read the filings prepared to think Psystar’s attorneys bit, and they didn’t. They did stumble badly in their last filing though. Does anyone here know how? I didn’t think so. Because I would bet my left toe that none of you have read it. The internet is a wonderful thing, but it also sucks in that it is so ignorant to just sit at the keyboard and type in ignorance.
[Reply]
Dude. Just because you read the court filings, doesn’t mean you understand tech culture. Outside of Apple. This article stems into the deep Microsoft/Apple debate about open development standards. It’s about Microsoft dumbing down Windows so that it’ll work on a million different pieces of hardware. But still, consumers have the choice to buy that hardware.
All i think is being said is pretty much…. “Damn, i don’t have that much money, but I want OS X, and I NEED more power, but I won’t buy a Psystar machine because it’s damn shady.” I understand it. I get that part. And that’s what separates Apple from the rest of tech.
Apple tells you what you want.
[Reply]
Mark, first of all, I am not a dude, I am a chick. Second, tech culture has ZERO to do with this. And I do understand tech culture, I am a tech writer (and a satire writer as well which explains the biting edge to my comments). If the article were merely about tech culture, I have no beef. You didn’t see me disagreeing with any of that right? Reading the filings means I understand the case that the author “secretly” wishes Psystar would win without making ONE legal argument why, except for a deeply flawed conclusory statement that shows a lack of knowledge about monopolies and capitalist theory.
Yes Apple tells you what you want. And that is their right. It is our right to complain about it. It is NOT our right to wish that the law COMPEL them to do something with their own invention. That isn’t capitalism, that is socialism, and last time I checked, California was still in a capitalist country, though that might change soon.
The article is short-sighted as the very first comment noted. Psystar winning would not simply cause cheaper prices, it would lead to a domino effect of Apple not being able to invest in R&D for future better products. It is selling out tomorrow for today.
[Reply]
And I guess by the deafening silence so far, no one commenting has read the filings even though they are commenting on a lawsuit with public filings. I have a link to where they are all available, and I have them stored on my server if anyone wants to download them. IIRC the exhibits were not yet on the site that hosts the docket. One of the exhibits is quite interesting. It contains transcripts of all the Get a Mac ads.
[Reply]
nope — didn’t read the pages you’re suggesting i read. but, think about this.
i’m a 3d animator and do some video editing on the side to help with the bills. I don’t have a lot of money, and am just getting started after college. i can’t afford a mac pro by any means. not even close. so what should I do ? i can’t get an imac because they’re closed down. but I LOVE OS X !!! what should i do?
[Reply]
You should face the fact that life is not fair and you are not entitled to get something you didn’t invent at a cost not set by the owner. I love Porsches but I am driving an 11-year old piece of crap Saturn. I am a beginning video-caster, I can’t afford great video equipment. Do I sue to make those companies sell them to me on my terms?
Why do you think you are entitled to have OS X at a price you can afford? This isn’t a life necessity we are talking about like food and water. You aren’t entitled to. That is life. Life sucks sometimes. And the minute the law starts getting involved, then great products like OS X are not developed, because being the evil people they are (sarcasm), Apple is doing this to make money.
If you are truly talented, get a loan like most entrepreneurs do. In time, you can pay off your Mac purchase. I bought my Mac Pro on credit. You can too. It is your choice. Otherwise, use a PC. While I am a complete Mac fangirl, it is possible to do great video on a PC. Adobe Premiere and similar programs are fantastic. In fact, Premiere is the only reason (or close to the only reason) that I have parallels on my Mac. I so far don’t like Final Cut, likely just because I don’t want to learn a new program.
BTW, my PC that I used for video cost barely less than my Mac Pro. Look at the refurb store, you realize that you can get deep discounts there right? I bought my Mac Pro for about 35% off.
[Reply]
umm..ok i get it. You obviously know alot more about the case than i do so arguing this with you would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight. But I have a question for you. Say Psystar wins, or OS X is made available to other companies. Say you needed a new machine to do whatever it is that you want to do. Say you could have the choice to buy a machine with the exact same config for a fraction of the price with the OS X. Would you not even tease the idea of thinking about making that purchase?
[Reply]
Slowdown, I don’t bite. I promise. That question you asked isn’t easily answered. Why? Because there is more to the purchase price than simply what is rang up at the register which is why I said earlier that I dispute Dave’s assertion that Macs are over-priced. Dave even conceded that point is not a cut and dried proven fact. So no, I would not tease the idea of thinking about making that purchase. Let me give you a few reasons here, and I hope the blog owner will indulge me in giving a link to further reasons.
1. I believe in supporting innovators not leeches. I don’t shop at Wal-Mart. I support my local mom and pops, and hand-made craftsmen.
2. If that company was Psystar, I don’t buy from punks. Their behaviour has earned my complete loathing. I would use Windows before I would ever give a red cent to them. Their trash-talking uncoathness is what has caused me to be so interested in this case in the first place and why I resolve to fight them with the pen at every opportunity.
For a more detailed reason on why I wouldn’t tease the idea, see here:
http://www.idrankthekoolaid.com/?p=1206
The fact is, for me, Macs are not more expensive. Plus I believe in supporting those who create what I want. Let’s live in this pretend world where people flock to support leeches. How many new shiny toys do you think Apple will produce? That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face, or more colourfully, sawing off the branch upon which you sit. I am not that short-sighted.
That is however a different argument than I had with this piece. I concentrated on the legal issues and the queerness of wishing for an unjust result. I defend anyone’s right for a just result in a court of law. I answered your question because you asked, but that really isn’t my interest in this article.
[Reply]
And the reason I am insisting that you read the pleadings because this is a legal case. If there were simply an opinion piece on Mac pricing, I wouldn’t have posted. But I work in the legal field, and have great respect and passion for the law. And in nearly every discussion I find myself in on this topic, all I read is emotion and personal preferences. Lady Justice is blind to our emotions and personal preferences, and she should be. I am not an attorney. I do not believe Psystar has a legal leg to stand on. If someone wants to banter about the legal arguments, great, but please, stop the personal bellyaching that Psystar, loud-mouthed trash-talking punks who have zero respect, should win so that you can buy something cheaper.
Out of all companies, Psystar would be a blight on the tech world if they won. The way they have conducted themselves is completely without class IMHO.
[Reply]
@dizzle,
The purpose of this article was to voice an asserted opinion on a heavily debated topic and note possible ramifications of a hypothetical outcome. At no point did I mention that I feel that Apple is not entitled to everything that they have created and can do with it what they see fit. While I certainly do not discredit your knowledge of not only this case but the legal system as a whole, I think that you are missing the essence of what this was bringing to light. The article was obviously not attempting to touch upon the legalities of the case or provide an argument that Psystar or any one else for that matter has the right to use something that isn’t theirs. This is a hypothetical situation, that was written to explore the possibilities of what may result, as I even note that I do not feel that Psystar will be victorious in the end. Just because you feel that it is morally wrong to use your imagination and wonder how a Psystar victory could effect millions of users both positively and negatively does not mean that I or anyone else does not have that right.
[Reply]
Dave, you have not read carefully what I have written. First, I clearly said that the hypothetical “tech world” issues I was not commenting on. I understand that whole debate. While you did not say that you feel Apple is not entitled to its own creation, you DID say that you secretly wished Psystar would win. That is straight out cognitive dissonance then on your part. You “secretly” wish Psystar to win even though you think Apple is right? That is seriously messed up. I think perhaps in hindsight you would have worded things differently seeing how they now appear.
Further you just said, “Just because you feel that it is morally wrong to use your imagination and wonder how a Psystar victory could effect millions of users both positively and negatively does not mean that I or anyone else does not have that right.”
That is a slur Dave, please quote me in full where I ever said any such thing. In fact let me quote myself to prove I said the opposite:
Yes Apple tells you what you want. And that is their right. It is our right to complain about it.
Notice that? It is fully right and proper and entertaining to complain about it. It is not at all right to wish for an unjust outcome. You can’t have it both ways Dave. Pick your poison.
Perhaps you are referring to this statement:
It is NOT our right to wish that the law COMPEL them to do something with their own invention. That isn’t capitalism, that is socialism, and last time I checked, California was still in a capitalist country, though that might change soon.
Though I said nothing about “morally wrong” there. But it is morally wrong to believe that someone has a right but wish, secretly or otherwise, that they lose that right. Either you believe they shouldn’t have that right, and thus should lose it. Or they have that right, and no matter how much we personally might think it sucks, they are entitled to that right.
There really isn’t a third option here which is why I was particularly vocal about some secret wish for injustice.
[Reply]
i personally enjoyed the piece. i will honestly say, i finished it and thought, “hmmm, that would be crazy” , and I think that’s what Dave was going for, I think. maybe i’ll just keep eating this cereal. (frosted flakes and golden graham combination)
[Reply]
Keyword, on the whole tech/open source speculation, I enjoyed it too. That is a never-ending source of entertainment. You will note that I honed in on one point, and one point alone. Secretly wishing that Psystar should win even though they shouldn’t. That is what I had a problem with.
[Reply]
Hey if you think I am only picking on you:
http://news.worldofapple.com/archives/2008/11/04/misinformation-on-the-apple-v-psystar-case/
The Apple blogosphere needs to step back and ask, “Am I informed enough about the issues to write about it accurately.” I don’t write about programming. Why? I know bumpkus about programming. The whole Psystar thing has been fumbled by nearly all the best blogs since the beginning, and it doesn’t need to be that way.
[Reply]
I’m an Apple fanboy.
Up till a few weeks ago, I would never consider getting non-Apple hardware, however, I value my eyesight more than Apple computers.
Since Apple shunted the people who need matte-screens by removing that option on the MacBook Pro and iMac, I need alternatives.
Do a google search for MATTE GLOSSY POLL, and you’ll see that most polls that between 45% to 54% want matte screens.
Now, Apple can do their research, and claim that anything below 49% means the majority want gloss. But this 44-54% agrees with what the local Apple store salesman told me: that it was roughly 50-50 for people who wanted matte vs glossy MacBook Pro’s (of the former model that had the option).
These are the polls of people who want matte:
44%
45%
48%
68%
50%
54%
72%
_____________
POLLS:
What type of screen do you prefer on the MacBook (Glossy or Matte)
Glossy 32.31 % (10007)
Matte 44.04 % (13639)
Don’t Know 23.65 % (7324)
Total votes: 30970
http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=527
What are your feelings on the glossy-only screen in the new MacBook Pro (and MacBook)?
Love it, already ordered one! 5.73%
Looks sharp, planning on buying 15.92%
Looks good, but no plans to purchase 16.97%
Need to see it in person before judging 14.75%
Dislike glossy screen, but will buy anyway 15.06%
Hate glossy screens, will not buy because of it 29.41%
Other? 2.15%
http://www.macosxhints.com/polls/index.php
View Poll Results: Gloss or Matte? [are you well?]
Gloss – I like to shine! 50.00%
Matte! – I’m all about the dull sheen… 48.39%
Yes, thanks… I’m well! 33.87%
No… I’m having a shocker!!… 9.68%
http://digital-photography-school.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8489
View Poll Results: Glossy or Matte (Not Glossy) MacBook Pro Screen?
Glossy 24.14%
Matte 68.97%
Neutral (Doesn’t Matter) 6.90%
You Can Choose? 0%
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=244206
View Poll Results: Glossy or Matte Display ? (new imac vs old imac)
Matte 50.00%
Glossy 50.00%
View Poll Results: What’s your display like?
Poll Options:
My matte is great 54.10%
My matte is bad 3.28%
My glossy is great 39.34%
My glossy is bad 3.28%
http://forums.macnn.com/69/mac-notebooks/318569/glossy-vs-matte-poll/
View Poll Results: Glossy or Matte screen ?
Glossy 27.27%
Matte 72.73%
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/19/33640023-matte-or-glossy.html
[Reply]