Apple, PsyStar: Let’s rumble!
Both companies have jointly requested that the court schedule a trial and that they’re seeking a streamlined proceeding to get the case settled as quickly as possible. Let the festivities begin!
InformationWeek reports that court-mandated alternative dispute resolution between Apple and Mac clone maker PsyStar has failed.
The two companies have asked the court to set a trial date on Nov 9, 2009. The two company’s joint court filing states that they believe the case can be tried in 10 days.
“The parties believe that this type of case can be handled on an expedited basis with streamlined procedures,” according to documents filed with US District Court for Northern California.
Since the court pushed the two sides to seek a negotiated settlement, PsyStar has begun offering clones with Blu-ray drives and nVidia’s top-shelf 512MB 9800GT graphics card as options—neither item is currently available from Apple. Further, the South Florida company also says it’s developing an Mac OS X-compatible notebook computer, which would be a direct assault on Apple’s most-profitable product lines.
With both sides supposedly putting their differences aside to work out a resolution, the timing of PsyStar’s latest product announcements—the company already offers consumer and prosumer-level desktop, as well as server products that run OS X—can only be seen as provocations to an already enraged Apple, which is seeking to have the upstart’s counter suit thrown out of court with prejudice.
Apple had asked the court to rule on their motion for dismissal of the counter suit on Nov 9. Further, the mothership’s original suit demands that PsyStar must recall all clones sold to date, which would certainly amount to a death sentence for the small Miami-area start up.
Although I’d like to see PsyStar wiped form the face of the earth (with prejudice), whatever of the outcome of the case, here’s hoping a resolution comes quickly.
What’s your take?
Related Posts:
November 5th, 2008
I say the hell with Apple.
They charge way too much for their crap computers.
They are such Hippocrates. They complain MS puts IE in windows yet they package everything in their OS and no one complains.
Pure BS and I hope Apple screws up and goes bust.
November 5th, 2008
I think apple are actually wiser in controlling their devices and what goes on them. If you’re jealous because you can’t afford one, get over it. The fact is, they put useful software in the iLife suite as opposed to useless junk software that makes an already slow windows PC slower and as for the Norton bundles with PCs… I won’t even go there. Apples may be over priced, but there are generally less problems with them, and I don’t see why they should be punished for another company deliberately disobeying the EULA on their own software to make money out of it.
November 5th, 2008
You can pay Sony a higher than Apple price to get a Vaio without crapware.
November 5th, 2008
Why do you have a problem with Psystar? And presumably, any would-be Mac Clone maker?
While I am not disputing at face value the relative benefits of the Mac OS vs Windows, mthe major reason that the PC platform became so much more dominant than Apple, despite Apple’s head-start with the first Mac, is that IBM allowed other hardware manufacturers to make clones under licence.
Hence the unit cost was driven down initially by competition and eventually by sheer volume. And it is that sheer volume of an installed PC user base that carries its own momemtum. Even Apple tacitly acknowledged this by moving to Intel processors, BootCamp, virtualisation development etc.
If the Mac philosphy is truly so much better than Windows, why doesn’t Apple take every single opportunity to evangelise it, even if that includes allowing others to make clone Macs? Surely having a competition in your own area of speciality must ensure your lift your game in a number of areas: R&D, price, reliability (a sore point for Apple in more recent times), reputation etc.
Could it be that Apple likes having its own virtual monopoly? Are they scared that Psystar, or others, may actually turn out better value-for-money product? That someone else might even take the lead in innovation for the Mac platform?
Apple might be doing well at the moment thanks to do the momentum created initally by the iPod, and continued with the iPhone. But all it takes is a paradigm shift such as that which is occurring now in the Windows world because of Vista’s lack of acceptance, and all that has gone before may end up counting for nothing.
November 5th, 2008
a non e mous: Well done!
Actually this is far bigger than Apple. If OS X is allowed to blossom in an open market it will eventually translate into far more profit for Apple as selling a $129 DVD is about $128.50 profit and their market for selling those DVD’s is 20 times greater than selling an overpriced, mediocre computer at about 35% profit. Almost every computer user I know would gladly pay $129 to be free of viruses. Yet of those, not one in 20 would pay Apple’s ludicrous prices for hardware. Its like people have a shopping lobotomy as soon as they walk through the doors of an Apple store.
Back to why its far bigger than Apple: If OS X goes mainstream, it will boost productivity worldwide. Most PC users waste countless amounts of time trying to solve stupid issues because of stupid software design (thank you Microsoft). Its time for Apple to raise the OS bar – on a level playing field so people can see the superiority of Apple’s OS.
November 5th, 2008
a non e mous: Well done!
Actually this is far bigger than Apple. If OS X is allowed to blossom in an open market it will eventually translate into far more profit for Apple as selling a $129 DVD is about $128.50 profit and their market for selling those DVD’s is 20 times greater than selling an overpriced, mediocre computer at about 35% profit. Almost every computer user I know would gladly pay $129 to be free of viruses. Yet of those, not one in 20 would pay Apple’s ludicrous prices for hardware. Its like people have a shopping lobotomy as soon as they walk through the doors of an Apple store.
Back to why its far bigger than Apple: If OS X goes mainstream, it will boost productivity worldwide. Most PC users waste countless amounts of time trying to solve stupid issues because of stupid software design (thank you Microsoft). Its time for Apple to raise the OS bar – on a level playing field so people can see the superiority of Apple’s OS.
November 6th, 2008
I’m not jealous and I can afford one. I was given one once and gave it right back because it was crap. The OS is build for idiots that can’t be trusted to tweak it on their own. Apple has less people to find the problems and less people to create viruses because of the small foot print.
That’s probably why Apple is keeping the sales low.
November 6th, 2008
I think Apple should every right to limit the availability of their software. After all, they’re the ones that spend the man hours, and billions developing it. Psystar are simply trying to capitalize on the sudden increase in Mac popularity.
I cannot see how the Apple Mac OS terms will be flawed or unfair. If this was the case it surely would have been picked up and argued before now? Seeing as Apple have been providing computers that run only their OS for the past 25 years. And if it affecting competition so much, when after all Apple is the minor player in the market, then why aren’t HP, Vaio, Dell all lining up at Apples door as well? Much bigger players and if the Apple set up was unfair, they’d have much more to gain than Psystar ever will.
The Mac experience is often seen as an “exclusive” and “premium experience” – this may be marketing, but Apple reserves the right to keep it exclusive. It is only natural culture where we want the best, at the cheapest price that drives these new machines.
This really is comparable to someone taking Prada to court for charging $5000.00 for a handbag, because consumers can get a knockoff for $50.00.
Ultimately the hardware companies should have the right to decide what software runs on their machines. Most choose Microsoft because its easy, Apple choose to design their own. Even Vaio add their own exclusive software to their laptops and PCs.
And Apple don’t restrict their customers from only running Mac OS. Mac’s operate Windows too!
November 6th, 2008
“comparable to someone taking Prada to court for charging $5000.00 for a handbag, because consumers can get a knockoff for $50.00.”
Good analogy.
November 6th, 2008
Well, I’ve been following this lawsuit for a while and think it’s quite interesting. While I don’t think Apple should be suing Psystar for the use of their Operating System, I can see where they’re coming from in restricting it’s use to their hardware.
If Apple licenses OS X to be only installed on Apple hardware, then it doesn’t have to write drivers for hardware it doesn’t manufacture or sell. This results in less need to write tons of code to support various different parts.
However I don’t think they should prevent people from installing OS X on their own PCs, just add in the license somewhere “This software is designed to run on Apple manufactured hardware only. The installation of this operating system on any non-Apple hardware will not receive support from Apple or be guaranteed to function properly”.
Apple truly does have the better Operating System, but the reason they’re still not winning the OS war is that Windows can be installed on anything, so people use it with their existing hardware. Also, Apple has a tendency to make up for their lack of sales with higher, unjustified prices for hardware which should be much cheaper (compare the OpenComputer and Mac Mini). Unfortunately most major computer manufacturers are under contract to sell only Microsoft Windows PCs, meaning even if Apple did want to expand to other hardware, it really couldn’t.
In any case, I think Apple should embrace this, not reject it. If anything, settle with Psystar and license them to sell Apple based PCs, and charge a small percentage of the profit. Or scrap the MacMini, and have Psystar produce their lower-end desktops for them, resulting in cheaper official Macs and profit for both companies, and cheaper prices for us.
Let’s face it, Apple is going nowhere fast with it’s desktops. They focus too heavily on making everything small, rather than affordable. I’d much rather pay $600 for a decent desktop with a tower than a terrible, little box desktop that can’t do much.
Apple also has to realize that it can’t stop people forever, projects such as iATKOS and Kalyway are making it easier than ever to install Leopard on PCs. They should embrace this and profit as much as possible off their software. The whole “we make our own hardware and software” doesn’t work so well for the little guy.
Take a look at Sega, they were competing with Sony and Nintendo in the gaming market until the release of the Gamecube and PS2, then they just couldn’t keep up, they didn’t have enough third-party support. Yet they’re still a successful business by selling third-party software to other gaming companies now.
Apple should eventually do the same, if at first spreading to small businesses like Psystar, then larger ones when contract limitations no longer exist.
In any case, should be an interesting lawsuit.
(P.S.: I am a Mac user, I have a 15-inch MacBook Pro. I am not being biased in my opinions, I have used both Macs and PCs from several different manufacturers.)
(P.S.S.: Why do Apple commercials seem to associate PC and Windows? They should at least stick Linux distros in once in a while. I mean really, they’re a little guy themselves compared to Microsoft, show a little love.)
(P.S.S.S.: A moose bit your sister.)
November 6th, 2008
Also, on a side note: Apple’s only have such great “security” and are “virus-free” because no hacker can be arsed to write a malicious program for an Operating System hardly anyone uses. I’m sure once OS X takes over a bit more of the market, we’ll start to see some more malware for Leopard.
Also, as far as Macs being able to run Windows, and PCs being legally unable to run Leopard, I think that’s a bit bull. I’m not sure Apple would be happy if Windows 7’s license said “This operating system may not be installed on any hardware manufactured by Apple Inc.”. It’s basically the same concept. Or if SP2 for Vista did the same.
Apple’s being a bit of an ass in supporting Windows on their system, but not making the huge profit they could by licensing Leopard on PCs. As stated above, Operating System Install Discs are cheap to reproduce, they’d have an infinitely greater profit margin if it was PC-compatible.
November 7th, 2008
All the folks talking about Apple licensing OSX to run on other hardware miss the fact that Apple is a hardware company. People buy Macs to run OSX.
The first thing Jobs did on his return to Apple was to bump a release slated as an OS 7 incremental update to OS 8 to invalidate the clone program that was put in place by Spindler, following all the other bean counters CEO’s that damn near killed the company.
You guys kill me. Jobs should toss his strategy away so he can sell less hardware and lower margins, and let every crappy piece of cheap hardware crash the OS. Fat margins and getting $1 from every $3 spent on laptops needs to be derailed.
And the security from obscurity comment just highlights how little you know about operating systems.