[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Psystar Denies It Conspired Against Apple here

[mynamesafad]

Go Psystar.

[mikalg]

Not that I like Apple's choice to keep their (software) intellectual rights on their own price bloated hardware... I have to agree Psystar is liable for civil damages. Personally, I think it boils down to this analogy:
Mac OS is a very fine "book" and is PUBLISHED in HARDBACK only by Apple (the author/publisher). Along comes another publisher (Psystar) and chooses to plagiarize the book and publish its own version as a softcover book.
To me, that would be about the extent of what is happening.
I don't see the fact that Psystar is buying the "hardcover" (more like a downloaded copy) version of the book, and reprinting it on a softcover for others (and making money in the transaction) as being a safe position to be in.

[RNR19952]

Apple would have a much bigger piece of the pie if their software ran on clones. This has always been their downfall

[JaywalkerExtraordinaire]

{quote}Apple would have a much bigger piece of the pie if their software ran on clones. This has always been their downfall{quote}

They tried that once, and the company didn't benefit. Apple is a hardware company. Unless that changes, it would be a poor business move to license OS X to their competitors. The Mac competes with Dell, HP, etc., not Microsoft. They have a significant piece of that pie.

[Resovolt]

Apple makes their software to work specifically with their hardware. Take their hardware out and put in 3rd party crap, and you get kernel panic.

[RNR19952]

Come on guys don't you think the BS of Apple SPECIFICALLY making their OS to run on their hardware is a bit dated. The only difference between MAC and PC is the BIOS, and people in the PC community have made patches to the MAC OS to get around that limitation. Why Apple does not embrace this idea is unfounded.
I believe Microsoft proved long ago you can make more money in software than hardware. Isn't the MAC OS just a Linux shell anyway? Linux runs on PC just fine. I would love to try a MAC, just do not have the time to make a Frankenmac. Now if I could get a copy that just loads on an old PC.....

[JaywalkerExtraordinaire]

{quote}Isn't the MAC OS just a Linux shell anyway?{quote}

No.

[RNR19952]

Unix Shell Sorry

[JaywalkerExtraordinaire]

{quote}Unix Shell Sorry{quote}

While OS X is a UNIX? operating system and includes several Unix shells, OS X is not known for its command line interface (i.e. the Unix shells). It is known for its GUI.

[JamesEvens]

It would seem that in order to discover the link between OS X and Mac hardware you would have to "reverse engineer" the operating system. This process is usually specifically restricted by most EULAs.
Also interesting about this article is the unspecified "co-conspiritors". Apple must have a huge bit of paranoia.

[smax013]

RNR19952 said:

Come on guys don't you think the BS of Apple SPECIFICALLY making their OS to run on their hardware is a bit dated. The only difference between MAC and PC is the BIOS, and people in the PC community have made patches to the MAC OS to get around that limitation. Why Apple does not embrace this idea is unfounded.

I agree that the arguement that "it is because Apple specifically makes their OS to run on their hardware" is BS. Apple's hardware is really not that much different than Dell's or HP's, etc...at least in the technical and capability arena (it is reasonable argue about design/physical appeal and reliabiliy/quality, however). But, that is not really why Apple only permits the Mac OS on their products...Apple really does it because their business model is based upon Apple being first and foremost a hardware company. While they do make software (both the Mac OS and programs like Final Cut, Apeture, iWork, etc), that is NOT their primary revenue stream in their business model.

RNR19952 said:

I believe Microsoft proved long ago you can make more money in software than hardware.

And I am sure that there are professions in which you can make more money than you current profession? Why don't you switch?



The point is that there can be a lot of reason why someone decides to pick a path. Even if you assume that Apple could make more money as a software company (which, BTW, is a rather debateable assumption...Microsoft made a LOT of it money back in a different time...I don't believe Microsoft is nearly as profitable as it once was...especially with world-wide priacy of their software), it is entirely possible that "Apple" (i.e. the folks at Apple) really like making hardware.



Regardless, keep in mind that it would take a MAJOR shift in business models and LOTS of work for Apple to "switch" to being a software company. First there is the minor issue of the price that Apple sells the Mac OS. I suspect that there is no way in hell that Apple could be profitable if they sold the Mac OS at the current $129 price point but let it be run on any computer. They would likely have to raise the price up to prices comparable to what Microsoft sells Vista for.



There there is the issue of support structure for the OS. Right now, Apple needs to only support and test the Mac OS for the dozen to two dozen configurations of Macs that they sell. If they allowed the Mac OS to be used on any computer, then they would have to DRAMATICALLY ramp up their support structure, as you would now be talking about literally thousands (if not more) of different configurations of computers.

[RNR19952]

LOL
A) I make pretty good money
B) Apple would not have to switch anything other than it's EULA and an OS tweak which has already been done for them
C) They might have to add support staff, but M$ does not support their product, they push that back to the OEM's. So this argument that Apple is a hardware company is also BS

[JaywalkerExtraordinaire]

{quote} I make pretty good money{quote}

So do Apple.

{quote}Apple would not have to switch anything other than it's EULA and an OS tweak which has already been done for them{quote}

Those are the easy changes they would have to make. Of course, they would have to get the "tweak" to work well enough that the OS could be updated, and all of the functionality that exists on Macs remains on the generic PC's.

Still, those changes are trivial compared with changing the business model from hardware manufacturer to software developer.

{quote}They might have to add support staff, but M$ does not support their product,{quote}

Apple do support their products.

[smax013]

RNR19952 said:

B) Apple would not have to switch anything other than it's EULA and an OS tweak which has already been done for them

That is all they would need to switch to being a "OS software" company...but they would have to lot more for it to be a successful and viable change.