TAG | Apple wants to take Psystar and its clone customers to the cleaners |
|
| by Stephen Withers | |
| Thursday, 17 July 2008 | |
|
Page 3 of 3 Some people have drawn parallels with the original IBM PC and its clones. That was a completely different situation. Microsoft's MS-DOS operating system could be licensed by any manufacturer. The main reason that hardware makers needed to clone the IBM PC was because some software companies bypassed the operating system to get better performance. So 'clean room' techniques were employed to recreate the IBM BIOS without the people doing the coding ever examining the original.Then there's the argument that Apple hasn't actually lost anything from Psystar's actions. Leaving aside reputational issues which rely on the 'confusion' thing, as far as I can see it boils down to this: would Apple have made more or less profit if Psystar hadn't sold those systems? In other words, what profit did Apple make on the sale of those extra copies of Mac OS X? What proportion of Psystar buyers would have bought a Mac if the Open Computer and OpenServ didn't exist? How much profit would Apple have made on those hardware sales? Unless the lost hardware profit exceeds the extra software profits, Apple hasn't missed out. Clearly, Apple thinks it loses profit in this situation, otherwise it would be licensing Mac OS X to other vendors. But it'll be very interesting to see how the judge's sums come out. But Apple really needs to win this case at least to the extent of stopping Psystar - and anyone else - from selling Mac OS X-based computers without consent. Since its ill-fated foray into licensed clones, the company's business model has revolved around the integration of hardware, software and services to deliver an experience that isn't matched when separate players are involved.
|
Tags
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|
