7 ms·

If Psystar actually wins this it could be a huge loss for Apple. Think about the Mac OS showing up in Walmart on discount machines. Then again they might also

by theklub 18y ago

If Psystar actually wins this it could be a huge loss for Apple. Think about the Mac OS showing up in Walmart on discount machines. Then again they might also sell more OS licenses.

omouse 18y ago
sigh In the past, Apple allowed other companies to license the OS and sell it on different hardware. The only reason this stopped was because Steve Jobs forced the renaming of a particular version of the OS so that the contract would no longer apply (it covered version X.Y, they changed it to X.Z) Also, what's wrong with seeing Mac OS X in Walmart on discount machines?
- theklub 18y ago
  I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. I think it would be good for apple in fact. They are missing a huge market segment.
  - ja2ke 18y ago
    Apple has deliberately ignored that potential "huge market segment" for years, to great success. Their brand, at least in the eyes of regular consumers, is probably perceived as a bit overpriced, but you know you are paying for a singular solid quality experience. The opposite is true of Windows and PCs, where I think generally (at least using my parents as a barometer) the feeling is that you're taking a bit of a gamble. Allowing 3rd parties to build licensed OS X machines would do little for Apple but destabilize their platform, which is currently built on the premise that 100% of the package from the pre-installed apps to the OS to the casing to every component inside is vetted and tested to work well together by Apple's army of genius proto-wizards "in beautiful California." That would be utterly destroyed the moment people could buy a 3rd party computer which pops up the "Mac OS X" logo on boot, and then immediately asks the user if they want to install the AOL trial, Google toolbar, Yahoo toolbar, and Dan's Discount Video Editor EX Lite Edition (Upgrade today!).
- teej 18y ago
  I don't want the people in the discount computer market walking into the Apple store to get service on their machines. I pay a premium for my Apple products and I expect stellar service - right now, that's exactly what I get. My service experience would be diminished if AppleCare and the Genius Bar is bogged down with Joe Blows trying to get their interwebs working on their $300 Apple computer.
  - ijntybvrt 18y ago
    The Apple stores will only fix Apples - that's what you're paying the premium for. You might benefit from all the new apps that will get ported to Mac if it suddenly has 3-4x the market share.
- GHFigs 18y ago
  That's not the reason it stopped, that's how it stopped. The reason was that it was a bad deal for Apple. It still would be.
whacked_new 18y ago
To whomever is downmodding theklub, please explain why. It reads perfectly rational and reasonable to me.
- pavelludiq 18y ago
  Hardcore apple fans. There like: oh no, cheap macs! Im like: cool, cheap macs! p.s. Downmod me to if you want to(this is a rather trollish comment, so as a good HN member, i encourage you to do so, i have enough karma to burn, but do so because i deserve it, not because i hate apple).
  - raganwald 18y ago
    I'm not downmodding you, but I will suggest that there is a difference between "Cheap PCs that run OS X" and "Cheap Macs." Apple tries to ship a certain complete Macintosh experience. Certain types of cheap PC would undermine this experience even if they run OS X. So, I think that a "Cheap PC running OS X" might not provide the same experience as a Macintosh. Is this a good thing? Should the market choose what they want? I don't know. But I can see the argument that such a device would not be a "Cheap Mac."
    - pavelludiq 18y ago
      First, it doesn't mater what you call it. Second, Its not like people buying cheap macs are spoiling the user experience of the real mac users.Thankfully most apple users are not assholes and they really don't care that there are pc's running OSX that don't deliver the mac experience. Its not like somebody is "being a pc" at them, right? So the answer to your question "Should the market choose what they want?" is: absolutely. Is it a good thing? A pc running OSX is probably not worse than a linux box, or a winpc, so its probably not bad, unless you're apple, or you are somehow offended by cheap(in the quality sense) computers.
      - raganwald 18y ago
        it doesn't mater what you call it. Yes it does. If it isn't equivalent to a Macintosh but you call it a Macintosh, you dilute the Macintosh brand equity. That's exactly why companies defend their trade marks so zealously.
ja2ke 18y ago
I doubt Apple would let Walmart carry Psystar machines. I mean, they can't officially allow or not allow Walmart to do such a thing, but Apple could probably threaten to pull the iPod/iPhone line and all first party accessories, iTunes gift cards, etc, or something like that.
Zev 18y ago
I believe Apple did try the whole licensing thing in the mid 90's. Didn't work out too well for them so they stopped doing it. Don't forget: Apple makes a ton of money from hardware sales still. Ironically, the early clones started out the same way these are; Firmware (EFI, in this case) being reverse engineered and sold without permission with the hopes that Apple would give in and license.
GHFigs 18y ago
If Apple were interested in selling more OS licenses, they could choose to do that on their own, without being compelled to through legal action. In the event that they do, however, they're likely to attempt to recoup lost revenue by raising license prices. This would do much to nullify the perceived advantage of clone makers.

by theklub 18y ago

If Psystar actually wins this it could be a huge loss for Apple. Think about the Mac OS showing up in Walmart on discount machines. Then again they might also sell more OS licenses.

omouse 18y ago

sigh In the past, Apple allowed other companies to license the OS and sell it on different hardware. The only reason this stopped was because Steve Jobs forced the renaming of a particular version of the OS so that the contract would no longer apply (it covered version X.Y, they changed it to X.Z) Also, what's wrong with seeing Mac OS X in Walmart on discount machines?

theklub 18y ago
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. I think it would be good for apple in fact. They are missing a huge market segment.
- ja2ke 18y ago
  Apple has deliberately ignored that potential "huge market segment" for years, to great success. Their brand, at least in the eyes of regular consumers, is probably perceived as a bit overpriced, but you know you are paying for a singular solid quality experience. The opposite is true of Windows and PCs, where I think generally (at least using my parents as a barometer) the feeling is that you're taking a bit of a gamble. Allowing 3rd parties to build licensed OS X machines would do little for Apple but destabilize their platform, which is currently built on the premise that 100% of the package from the pre-installed apps to the OS to the casing to every component inside is vetted and tested to work well together by Apple's army of genius proto-wizards "in beautiful California." That would be utterly destroyed the moment people could buy a 3rd party computer which pops up the "Mac OS X" logo on boot, and then immediately asks the user if they want to install the AOL trial, Google toolbar, Yahoo toolbar, and Dan's Discount Video Editor EX Lite Edition (Upgrade today!).
teej 18y ago
I don't want the people in the discount computer market walking into the Apple store to get service on their machines. I pay a premium for my Apple products and I expect stellar service - right now, that's exactly what I get. My service experience would be diminished if AppleCare and the Genius Bar is bogged down with Joe Blows trying to get their interwebs working on their $300 Apple computer.
- ijntybvrt 18y ago
  The Apple stores will only fix Apples - that's what you're paying the premium for. You might benefit from all the new apps that will get ported to Mac if it suddenly has 3-4x the market share.
GHFigs 18y ago
That's not the reason it stopped, that's how it stopped. The reason was that it was a bad deal for Apple. It still would be.

whacked_new 18y ago

To whomever is downmodding theklub, please explain why. It reads perfectly rational and reasonable to me.

pavelludiq 18y ago
Hardcore apple fans. There like: oh no, cheap macs! Im like: cool, cheap macs! p.s. Downmod me to if you want to(this is a rather trollish comment, so as a good HN member, i encourage you to do so, i have enough karma to burn, but do so because i deserve it, not because i hate apple).
- raganwald 18y ago
  I'm not downmodding you, but I will suggest that there is a difference between "Cheap PCs that run OS X" and "Cheap Macs." Apple tries to ship a certain complete Macintosh experience. Certain types of cheap PC would undermine this experience even if they run OS X. So, I think that a "Cheap PC running OS X" might not provide the same experience as a Macintosh. Is this a good thing? Should the market choose what they want? I don't know. But I can see the argument that such a device would not be a "Cheap Mac."
  - pavelludiq 18y ago
    First, it doesn't mater what you call it. Second, Its not like people buying cheap macs are spoiling the user experience of the real mac users.Thankfully most apple users are not assholes and they really don't care that there are pc's running OSX that don't deliver the mac experience. Its not like somebody is "being a pc" at them, right? So the answer to your question "Should the market choose what they want?" is: absolutely. Is it a good thing? A pc running OSX is probably not worse than a linux box, or a winpc, so its probably not bad, unless you're apple, or you are somehow offended by cheap(in the quality sense) computers.
    - raganwald 18y ago
      it doesn't mater what you call it. Yes it does. If it isn't equivalent to a Macintosh but you call it a Macintosh, you dilute the Macintosh brand equity. That's exactly why companies defend their trade marks so zealously.

ja2ke 18y ago

I doubt Apple would let Walmart carry Psystar machines. I mean, they can't officially allow or not allow Walmart to do such a thing, but Apple could probably threaten to pull the iPod/iPhone line and all first party accessories, iTunes gift cards, etc, or something like that.

Zev 18y ago

I believe Apple did try the whole licensing thing in the mid 90's. Didn't work out too well for them so they stopped doing it. Don't forget: Apple makes a ton of money from hardware sales still. Ironically, the early clones started out the same way these are; Firmware (EFI, in this case) being reverse engineered and sold without permission with the hopes that Apple would give in and license.

GHFigs 18y ago

If Apple were interested in selling more OS licenses, they could choose to do that on their own, without being compelled to through legal action. In the event that they do, however, they're likely to attempt to recoup lost revenue by raising license prices. This would do much to nullify the perceived advantage of clone makers.