Thorn in Apple's side goes deeper

Check your spelling guys and gals.
But seriously, Apple will be forced to bring out cheaper hardware otherwise can see their market share dwindling, and thus reducing profits!

Apple won't be "forced" to do anything - other than spend lots of money on Lawyers to defend its EULA, about running an Apple OS on non Apple hardware.

Lets hope they lose so any Tom Dick or Harry can install OSX...They say Vista is best run on an Macbook Pro? I want to see what laptop is best for OSX!

Lets see the fury in the macolytes eyes when they see their precious OS running better and faster on a Dell system :P

Apple claims to not be a monopoly and continues to quietly wag the finger at Microsoft... but what is Microsoft's big sin? Pre-installing a browser and media player. La-ti-da. It's still super-easy to use 3rd party stuff (hardware and software) on a Microsoft OS system.
Apple won't let you run its OS on any hardware other than Apple brand. Software won't run on Apple hardware unless it's special Apple-flavored software. Apple locks out the competition with making it difficult (if not impossible) to play media it didn't even create - just sold on its site - on 3rd party hardware and software. Oh sure, you can pay extra now to avoid that, that makes it ALL better. Apple is so greedy that it killed off the firewire standard by charging too much for the licensing - killed off a standard that still is vastly superior to USB just because it didn't want to share.
The almighty European Commission should take its fangs out of Microsoft for two lousy seconds and declare Apple's blessed EULA a blessed JOKE and hit Apple with an anti-trust lawsuit. If Apple wants to create a little 'Apple World' where nothing can work other than Apple products, then guess what? Apple is a monopoly of that market!

I can't believe the great godlike Steve himself even took time out of his holy day to bless us with his comments on his own products. Thank you for your blessing. But really, I agree with you 100% about Apples monopolistic acts.

I am happy to see that Apple is being challenged. The best thing for Apple would be to open the OS up to the general public... or as they see it, the infidels. I have both a windows computer and a Mac-Book (can’t say PC vs. MAC because a Mac is a Personal Computer too.) and have to say that the Mac-Book is great to use as long as I surf the web/chat and do nothing semi challenging or else boring out my eyes with a binder clip would be less painful. But for people who do not do anything complex in the slightest sense will love the OSX.4.932.7895.3 OS.

Spaz Out!

Does BMW need to allow Mercedes to use the same software they use to operate their in-car computer? No. Is Tivo REQUIRED to sell their software to Dish Network to give the Dish Network DVR a better interface? No. These companies are HARDWARE companies that have developed software that makes their hardware better and unique.

Apple's business model is to develop software that makes their hardware better and unique. They do not have to allow their software to run on their hardware competitor's hardware.

Microsoft was founded as a SOFTWARE company, who's business model is to sell SOFTWARE to anyone who would buy it. That was NEVER Apple's business model.

I want a $300 Mac too. I want a $15,000 Mercedes as well. I won't get either of those desires. The market will decide whether Apple's business model or Microsoft's business model is the best. Right now, Apple is profitable, Microsoft is profitable, but PC hardware makers, not so much.

Just because you want something from a company, doesn't mean they have to commit business suicide to give you that desire.

Vote with your $$. If you don't like Apple's stuff and business model, don't spend your money there. And many people do not...but enought DO to give Apple a profitable, and viable business.

Sybok

$119 for a GeForce 9500 GT? Seems like they actually have a lot in common with Apple...

I see you've never had the dubious honour of owning a Mercedes ;)

If their current build quality is any indicator a 15kUSD Mercedes wouldn't even make it off the dealer's lot before it either:

a) Spontaneously dissolved into a puddle of rust.

b) Suffered a spectacular electronic failure rendering it immobile.

In addition to Mercedes offering dreadful build quality, poor reliability and corrosion issues; the dealers are mostly useless, and the warranty usually worthless.

In my experience the whole Mercedes ownership experience is sufficiently painful that I would never touch one again. Heck I'd rather buy GM in preference. That should tell you just how happy I am with them!

Actually I guess that's not dissimilar to Apple, with their cracking cases, exploding batteries, logicboard issues and general consumer abuse ;)

Apple is a cabal? They don't have keggers and steinhoists like my stonecutter meetings.

Feh.

I love this statement at the bottom of the FAQ page (http://www.psystar.com/faqs/) on their web site:

Psystar will not be responsible for your usage of the Open Computer and/or OpenPro in any way. Psystar is not responsible for any legal repercussions brought upon you due to your use or involvement with the Open Computer and/or OpenPro.

"Apple is so greedy that it killed off the firewire standard by charging too much for the licensing - killed off a standard that still is vastly superior to USB just because it didn't want to share."

That's pretty funny, seeing as Apple (while they were instrumental in developing it) doesn't own and doesn't license it's use. What Apple DOES do is charge to use the name Firewire; all of 25 cents per product, last I heard.

The thing is that Apple have decided to sell their software independently of their hardware. Clearly the market for that software shouldn't just be restricted to Apple's hardware. Imagine if Microsoft said that Windows could only be installed on hardware made by them.

Actually there was a time when there was official make Clones. When Steve Jobs returned to Apple the official clone deals were ended: -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone#Official_Macintosh_clone_program

So it's not strictly speaking true that it was "NEVER" their business model.

So, if I buy a BMW radio and put it in a Mercedes, will BMW sue me? Of course not. So, why can't someone put a -paid for- copy of OSX on a non-Apple computer? This is the part where you realize how stupid your analogy was. :^)

The whole idea about comparing a mac to a expensive car is just a way to justify the lack of popularity, a bmw sells by iself and they dont need to put ads in the USA today like apple advertises in mtv, (is not for all?)

BMW dont get sued by deceiving customers, it makes me laugh the amount of mac users havin trouble and then claiming " i havent had a crash on my mac osx. MACism would be a nice pathology to study

"The thing is that Apple have decided to sell their software independently of their hardware. "

No they haven't. Can't you read? ALL copies of OS X are labelled as UPGRADES. They are intended ONLY for Apple-built computers.

Apple are a DESIGN company. Treating their hardware and software as a single unit isn't some conspiracy, it's the bloody POINT, for f*ck's sake! If you can't understand why, I suggest you go read "The Design of Everyday Things" by Donald A. Norman.

A glimpse into the mind of Steve Jobs; "Damn Motorola, damn them to hell! If only those good-for-nothing rat puke sucking sacs of mental mediocrity had been able to engineer microprocessors as good as Intel, we wouldn't be in this mess."

All the talk about BMW's is curious. What did they used to call BMW driving yuppies back in the '80's? That pretty much sums up your average Apple driver I think.

Nowadays, the more you pay for something, the crappier it's gonna be and the snottier the people who sell it will be.

Apple doesn't make hardware, they make cases. I can purchase all the parts and make my own computer with the exact same specs.

The OS is the only unique part of a Mac, and as Psystar has shown, it can run on non apple hardware.

Dude, the components that IDrive software controls are different. It will not run.

OSX on the other hand...

This is the point that most people miss...

Analysis by: Joe Weingarten
Analysis of: What Is the Issue in the Psystar Case?
Published at: www.osnews.com

Can any manufacturer tell you how you can use a product after you purchase that product? Can Sony tell you that you can only play it's music CDs on Sony equipment? Can a book publisher tell you, you can only read their book while standing? Can GM or Ford tell you, you can only use a certain brand of gas? This is the basic question behind this suit and whichever way it goes will establish a major direction of law for all products.

Apple makes an Operating System that is only compatible with a few off-the-shelf parts currently available, not every available component like Windows. There are no special parts in Macs that make Macs a Mac. Even in the PowerPC and Motorola days the only truly special part was the Apple ROMs to boot the system. This is why the Atari ST and Amiga (with those ROMs) could run Mac. Currently a simple bypass of the computer identification on a machine that has the same Intel chips Apple uses allows someone to run Mac. If Apple wants to build a computer that has proprietary chips like a Commodore Amiga (or any other video game system), then their argument would have some more weight. Amiga had designed its own sound, graphics, hardware control chips.

And all of this cheesing for Ferrari, BMW, and Mercedes, is discusting!

Apple could sell their OS to anyone.
The only hardware they designed is, as someone noted, a case (and I wouldnt be much surprised if that was outsourced too). Their problem is the fact that they KNOW they can use the software in order to sell hardware with an extremely high profit margin by todays standards. I mean FFS, it's all banal intel ati and nvidia components, and most of it is actually entry level stuff. Just think about the latest 24' imac and what it costs.. With that sort of money you could build one i7 monster with double the processing, graphics and storage facilities, plus a good 24' tft and you'd still have 200 quid to spare for an OS.
But then again, that would ONLY be a 200 pound profit for Apple.

How much do YOU think Apple hardware costs, and what profit margin does that leave them with? Could Apple get away with selling Leopard as a standalone OS with the same profit?

People seem to quickly forget or perhaps they don't even know to begin with that, Apple/Mac recently switched their hardware
more specifically their internal processors to PC's intel. This means that Apple programmers,developers basically had to learn a whole new language. The whole apple revolution and branding process is solely based on the principal of "social conditioning" Get one person to buy the shiny new product and perhaps he or she will convince his sister or best friend to get it as well..so what if it can cost 2500 smackers for a new computer. you're not buying it for the features your buying it because you were conditioned from media, advertising to believe that a closed source product that has no flexibility is superior to an inexpensive PC, that can open up every option you can possibly want. Oh yeah I forgot its all about the OSX operating system. Spare me and all other semi-intelligent beings the B.S we know better.