Earlier this week we reported on the court case between Apple and PsyStar, stating they went into settlement negotiations. Details, however, were sparse. The law firm representing PsyStar has now replied to the matter, and there's good news for those of us who hope to see crazy EULA clauses tested in court.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-11-21
Member since:2005-06-29
It was a failure because the clone makers made better, faster, and cheaper hardware than Apple did at the time. These days, Apple and its fans are convinced Apple makes the best hardware evar, and that the sometimes premium prices are more than justified.
If Apple's hardware is as good as everyone says it is, what's the fear for clones all about?
Member since:2005-07-11
No sorry, the Apple Clones did indeed grow Apple's user base. The Apple Market share jumped from 3% to something like 8%.
What the cloners did that Apple couldn't stomach and didn't try to compete with, was eat Apple's lunch by introducing better units on a faster time table.
All Apple had to do was license those designs back and release them under the Apple Brand. Instead, Apple put them out of business and shot itself in the foot.
Member since:2005-07-06
It was a failure all around.
Of course it was a failure. Who in their right mind opens the doors to resellers - and then keeps their prices so high that their own resellers can easily undercut them? "Ill-conceived" would be the polite way of putting it.
Member since:2007-05-12
Member since:2005-11-11
Making clones and enabling MAC OS X on any PC is a different matter. A big part of Mac OS X quality comes from a small variety of hardware: Apple can update Mac OS X much faster than MS, with much fewer resources, and I have no doubt that not having to support all the crappy hardware out there is a big reason for it. Hey, I own a macbook to run linux on it, because apple hardware, while not extraordinary, is relatively standard and does not change much between revision.
I am pretty sure Linux (the kernel) has more resources than Apple today, and it still does not support as much hardware as windows (in the desktop PC ecosystem, of course). If a clone crashes Mac OS X, who is to blame ? Apple cost for QA would grow significantly.
And also, Apple products are seen as a kind of luxury product: being more expensive and limited than a PC is a feature.
Member since:2006-02-05
Apple makes its money on the insane markup on hardware, and reduces support costs by only supporting a very limited array of devices. Their brand image is also "luxury computers", with a mac you are paying more, but you are getting Something Special. This is also why traditionally they have had their biggest success with people who don't know much about computers.
All that together and you get a user base where people are willing to pay 30-40% more then market value for hardware. OSX profits are only really there to pay for R&D, the real money comes from the hardware.
Member since:2006-01-27
I agree somewhat. Apple's decision to focus support only a select number of hardware components is a viable business decision that works well for their development team and product stability.
The "something special" you mention is primarily image, a computer case with better-than-average styling and an Apple logo. I don't have a problem with that; computers with 'better' or more original styling ~should~ demand a higher price.
But I disagree with your assessment of OSX profits; their retail price is similar to Microsoft's. Microsoft makes very good profits, even on $85 OEM copies, and they do it without padding their profits with hardware sales. My relevant point, Apple makes good money from each sale of OSX, and they make money every time that PsyStar sells an Open Computer.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Apple can't really afford to settle out-of-court because if they want to make it clear to people that they can't make Mac clones then court action is the only option. An out-of-court settlement for some undisclosed sum would only tell people that there is money to be made from this either way. From Psystar's perspective, there's an awful lot to be gained if they think they have a case because they have a competitive advantage right now - cheaper PCs and hardware running OS X.
It's hilarious that Apple never got clones though. Allowing clones would mean that Apple's hardware business would take a bit of a hit initially (they'd still be the lowest common denominator however) but they would sell so many more copies of OS X and make so much more profit from those, it would be ridiculous. Also, a bigger installed base means more applications, and more applications means more people buying OS X and Apple hardware, even with competition..............
It was always going to take someone else to save Apple's long-term future. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft got involved to make sure Apple wins ;-).
Edited 2008-10-22 08:51 UTC