Debunking Apple vs. Psystar Myths
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 19:20 UTC
Legal Apple has responded to Psystar's new lawsuit today, stating that it is nothing but a stall tactic on Psystar's end. While I could just paraphrase whatever the filing reads, I decided to take this opportunity to address a number of sentiments and analogies often made in comment threads (not necessarily on OSNews).
E-mail Print r 9   · Read More · 128 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/h1z
Thread beginning with comment 382077
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lurch_mojoff
Member since:
2007-05-12

You left out a few fairly significant details. Like the fact that Apple also sells their operating system at retail, separate from their hardware (of course, if they *didn't* sell it at retail, that might put them in the position of having to provide free major version upgrades to existing Mac owners - cutting off, I presume, a decent income stream).


Retail or not, Apple are still selling you a license, which comes with the terms detailed in the software license agreement.

Anyway, do you feel the same way about Snow Leopard, which is sold for $29, although there have been no less time, effort and money invested in its development than any of its predecessors?

Or the fact that there are perfectly legitimate ways for them to limit the use of OS X to Apple hardware - like requiring all OS X/Mac buyers to sign a clear contract at/before purchase (of course, that would probably inconvenience Apple and cost them - both in terms of lost sales & extra logistical expenses). Thom's article even gave an example of that exact approach.


And you too conveniently omit the fact that it will also significantly inconvenience the user purchasing the software. In other words you think that because Apple decided to treat their customers like honest people and not implement, like other companies, amongst which Microsoft and Adobe, some asinine serial number and activation scheme, they should be punished now.

What it essentially amounts to is that Apple is trying to have their cake (use powerful, inexpensive commodity hardware) and eat it too (limit their OS to their own hardware). So no - the feeling that evokes in me is most definitely *not* sympathy, more like bemusement.


Bemusement, in fact, is a very good description of the way I feel after reading this last part of your response. I've already said it, but i seems it bares repeating, Apple invest time, effort, and money into the development of Mac OS X for the sole and explicit purpose of differentiating their "powerful, inexpensive commodity hardware" from everybody else's. For that they fully deserve to reap the benefits of that investment.

Reply Parent Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Retail or not, Apple are still selling you a license, which comes with the terms detailed in the software license agreement.


...a license which is not legally-enforceable in many countries (those that put consumer interests ahead of corporate interests), and which is treated by Apple as if it were legitimate contract.

Anyway, do you feel the same way about Snow Leopard, which is sold for $29, although there have been no less time, effort and money invested in its development than any of its predecessors?


I don't see what relevance that point has. If Apple chooses to sell their software at a price that is insufficient to recoup their development costs, then the fault is Apple's - and Apple's alone.

Poorly-conceived business models may work for a while - but that doesn't mean that they deserve to be propped up.

And you too conveniently omit the fact that it will also significantly inconvenience the user purchasing the software.


You are mistaken - that was clearly implied in my post:

"that would probably inconvenience Apple and cost them - both in terms of lost sales & extra logistical expenses"

(Emphasis: mine).

In other words you think that because Apple decided to treat their customers like honest people and not implement, like other companies, amongst which Microsoft and Adobe, some asinine serial number and activation scheme, they should be punished now.


Oh, please - give the spin and hand-waving rhetoric a rest.

Bemusement, in fact, is a very good description of the way I feel after reading this last part of your response.


Good for you, but I'm afraid you've failed to refute my argument in any meaningful way.

I've already said it, but i seems it bares repeating, Apple invest time, effort, and money into the development of Mac OS X for the sole and explicit purpose of differentiating their "powerful, inexpensive commodity hardware" from everybody else's. For that they fully deserve to reap the benefits of that investment.


Except for the fact that, once again, you've left out the details that are actually significant:

1) It's NOT their hardware. Apple has had no more involvement in developing the hardware than any other OEM.

2) And, by the same token, the hardware is NOT differentiated from what anyone else sells. You, I, or anyone else could go out and buy the EXACT SAME Intel CPU and ASUS mother board, etc, that Apple uses.

Reply Parent Score: 2