Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
neither does psystar of i remember correctly. they just resale a leopard disk and tell the consumer to get the patched version right?

Nope, Psystar's only claim to fame is that they offer Leopard pre-installed on their computers. If it weren't for that, they'd just be another company selling poor-quality computers with nothing special about them. That or they'd still be stuck selling nothing but VOIP (which is what they did previously and still do apparently).

jW
 
Guilty of illegally tying the OS to their hardware? What? That's like saying it illegal for Samsung to use Samsung's operating system on their mobile phones, or BMW to use their own OS in their cars' onboard computer. Just because they sell the OS separately makes no difference. They could stop selling it tomorrow and force you to buy a new machine if you wanted the newest OS if they wanted.

Apple don't owe you anything and they certainly don't 'have' to fill a gap in the market just to keep you happy. What a load of baloney.

Apple are a private business and could happily scrap all their machines tomorrow and only sell a $3000 Pro.

I like your paranoid disclaimer at the end.

I think you make a good point... but I'm still hoping Psystar wins :)
 
You're describing bundling, and bundling occurs with just about every product sold these days. It is not as black and white as you make it out to be to say that Apple's selling of OS X and Macs is artificial. There are a lot of components of the bundle that make perfectly good sense too.

And the last time this discussion came up, no one had a good answer for the logical conclusion to the argument that Apple shouldn't be able to bundle: If you claim that they should be forced to sell OS X stand-alone, are you also going to force them to sell it cheaply? Because I can guarantee you that it won't be $129 if they are forced to sell OS-X for generic X86. And are you going to force them to support it to on generic hardware? And dictate the price for that support? Because that is what would have to be done to get to the logical ends of that argument: OS X for sale for generic X86 hardware. This point from the last time this came up is still valid: Let's say Apple decides (or is forced) to open OS-X up, license for stand-alone installation on generic PC hardware, but did the following:

1. Sold it "as is" with no support.
2. Charged $1000 for it.
3. Continued to sell "upgrades" for OS-X for $129.

Game over.

If they overcharged for it, I don't think I would want to pay $1000, but I certainly wouldn't mind paying more than Vista Ultimate costs. I think OS X is really that good that it's worth it to spend the money saved by not purchasing a Mac on the software itself.
 
It comes down to this. If you want to use OS X, you have to buy a Mac. Apple doesn't make the type of computer you want? Tough. Use Windows. You don't have the legal right to install OS X on anything but a Mac. Installing OS X on a homebuilt PC is piracy, plain and simple.

*chokes*

You're kiding me right now......... right?

Most people confuse things and say installing OS X on generic hardware is a copyright violation (which it isn't) but I've never seen anyone confuse it with PIRACY, lol.

The only thing installing OS X on generic hardware does is break the EULA. What does that mean? Well, according to the EULA itself that failure to comply absolves Apple from supporting your copy of the software. Oooooh, really scary. I'll take that risk.

"Why" you might ask? Because I refuse to use Windows, but I also refuse to allow Apple to bully me into buying hardware that doesn't fit my needs as a user. If that means I surrender support of the product, fine. I should (and do) have that choice.

You make excersizing consumer choice against a corporation's will sound like the 8th deadly sin or something.

-Clive
 
The problem with the iMac for me is it has a builtin monitor. What I want is a computer that sits under my 42" HDTV and uses the TV as its monitor. A Mac Mini is almost perfect except it comes with a low end non-upgradable video card which is inadequate for playing video games. Instead of thinking of what I want as a Mac Mini with a better video card, you could think of it as an iMac without a built-in monitor. I assume this is similar to what a lot of the people asking for a mid-range desktop computer want; they want to use their own monitor, and want more upgrade options than the Mini or iMac have, but the Mac Pro starting at $2300 is overkill. In the PC world there are tons of options in this niche.

What people want is half a Mac Pro:

* Single CPU, dual or quad-core
* 4 DIMM slots (2 would be sufficient)
* 2x 3.5 drive bays
* 1x PCIe x16, 1x PCIe x4 and 1x PCIe x1 slots
* DVD-RW or BluRay

Priced at about the same as a similarly specced iMac. They could fit it into the product lineup by just calling it "Mac".

These machines would sell like hotcakes. (This is precisely why Apple doesn't build them, because they'd take most of those sales away from the Mac Pro.)
 
A few years ago a company in Utah advertised a service in that a customer could buy a VHS tape of the movie Titanic, then for a small fee, the company would edit what was deemed objectionable content off the tape. They thought they were within their legal rights because the customer first had to purchase a new, unmodified movie before any editing was done. In essence, their logic matched yours that you can do whatever you want with something you purchased.

The Hollywood studios sued and won, shutting down this company that provided the editing. The courts ruled that a company is not allowed to set up a business model dependant solely on modifying someone else's copywrited material without their consent.

And that was an atrociously bad decision too, albeit an unsurprising one in today's world. I imagine it cost the Copyright Barons a lot of "donations" (or "free speech" I believe you Americans like to call it).

What Psystar is doing is no different to the aftermarket car modification shops who take a brand new card, soup up the engine, add body kits, install a new stereo, etc, then resell it. No different. They are not pretending they wrote OS X. They are not providing you with a copy of OS X that hasn't been paid for. They are not misrepresenting what they are doing.

No-one has a problem with such aftermarket car modifiers. Indeed, if anyone suggested what they were doing was even remotely "wrong" - let alone illegal - they'd be laughed out of the room.

The very fact that Apple can even bring this lawsuit, demonstrates how broken copyright is and how misleading the term "intellectual property" is.

Psystar are doing nothing wrong. That they could be considered to be breaking the law, simply highlights how bad the law is.
 
The very fact that Apple can even bring this lawsuit, demonstrates how broken copyright is and how misleading the term "intellectual property" is.

Psystar are doing nothing wrong. That they could be considered to be breaking the law, simply highlights how bad the law is.

Actually Harley Davidson sues "unlicensed" memorabilia shops all the time. Make a poster and put the Harley logo on it and sell it for $25 and people are going to come after you.

Apple has a right to shut down people making money off their name, and so does Harley.

Also, Apple hasn't licensed any other computer maker to sell machines with Mac OS X installed.

Be different if this company created a bootloader, and patched the OS to run on the machine -- but they haven't.

The only way it runs is if they alter Apple's copyrighted files, and Apple has slam dunked a lot of those cases in the past.

However, the companies that use bootloaders and patches that modify nothing in the shrinkwrapped OS, and add files will likely not get hammered (Daystar had the ultimate Mac OS patch, was so good Apple licensed it and finally rolled it into the OS) ... but they would spend millions only to see pirates make off with their intellectual property.

Psystar is selling a hacked/broken copy of the OS for $25 ... that makes them not much different than pirates. Does making somebody pay an additional $129 for a box that doesn't work on their machine alter that?
 
Nope. I looked earlier myself and nowhere on the Tiger or Leopard retail boxes does it say it's an upgrade.

Apple is off their @#$%&* nut with this line of thinking. If Leopard is an upgrade, that means it requires the user to own and have installed an earlier version of OS X for the install to work. That is simply not true. I've installed OS X on machines that have been wiped out completely and have never been prompted to install a previous version of OS X first. I do however, have to have a previous version of 10.5 to install 10.5.4. That's an upgrade.

This is a really flimsy position for Apple to take.

In fact it's a very solid argument and one which has long been implied by the EULA. You can only install OS X on a Mac. You can't own a Mac without having (one way or another) paid for the "original" copy of OS X. Ergo, any further copies you buy and install on said Mac must, inherently, be upgrades.

That they don't do a specific check is irrelevant. They don't need to - OS X only (at least until quite recently, with any sort of ease) runs on Macs. The same does not apply to, say, Microsoft, who have no such dependable method of "proving" you are eligible for an upgrade license - hence their specific checks for an existing copy.

The "upgrade" status is only of licensing, not one of implementation.
 
Actually Harley Davidson sues "unlicensed" memorabilia shops all the time. Make a poster and put the Harley logo on it and sell it for $25 and people are going to come after you.

That sounds like a pretty clear cut case of trademark infringement (pretending HD are endorsing and/or created a product they did not). Completely different situation.

Apple has a right to shut down people making money off their name, and so does Harley.

In what way is Psystar pretending any of their products are actually Apple's ?

Also, Apple hasn't licensed any other computer maker to sell machines with Mac OS X installed.

The whole point is they shouldn't have to. Anyone can buy an off the shelf copy of OS X. Anyone can buy a suitably specced PC. Anyone can perform the necessary steps to make said copy of OS X work on said PC. All Psystar is doing, is performing that work on their behalf and charging a (quite modest, really) fee for it.

No-one should need a "license" to take an off the shelf piece of software, and install it on someone's computer, then charge them for that service. The very idea is ridiculous.

Psystar is selling a hacked/broken copy of the OS for $25 ... that makes them not much different than pirates. Does making somebody pay an additional $129 for a box that doesn't work on their machine alter that?

Psystar are doing nothing of the sort. They're charging $25 to perform the service of taking an off the shelf computer and and off the shelf piece of software, and making the latter run on the former.

Which is, as I pointed out in my analogy, absolutely no different to the myriad companies who do aftermarket modifications on brand new vehicles and then resell them. The only reason it's even remotely questionable in this instance is because of broken copyright laws. If "intellectual property" was genuinely treated like property, instead of some have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too hybrid, this lawsuit wouldn't even get past the "what if" stage.
 
The whole point is they shouldn't have to. Anyone can buy an off the shelf copy of OS X. Anyone can buy a suitably specced PC. Anyone can perform the necessary steps to make said copy of OS X work on said PC. All Psystar is doing, is performing that work on their behalf and charging a (quite modest, really) fee for it.

That is what is getting them in trouble, since they are a CORPORATION charging people money to load their altered pirated OS onto their machines.

They are altering the OS to defeat the protections Apple has in place and selling it.

If you get a smoking deal on a cargo container of unusable Batman DVDs, go to Wal-mart and buy a Batman DVD, crack the DRM and start selling your pirated Batman DVD for $5 and tossing in the destroyed copy for $10 -- they are going to pin your ass to the wall for selling the hacked/pirated copy.

Which is what Apple is going to do to Psystar. The EULA is secondary, the copyright violations and the trademark violations kill them quick even if Apple drops the licensing issue.

Edit: If you were a legit licensed OEM, there wouldn't be a need to charge an OS install fee. Don't think Daystar, Motorola, Power Computing etc. ever charged an OS install fee.
 
In fact it's a very solid argument and one which has long been implied by the EULA. You can only install OS X on a Mac. You can't own a Mac without having (one way or another) paid for the "original" copy of OS X. Ergo, any further copies you buy and install on said Mac must, inherently, be upgrades.

That they don't do a specific check is irrelevant. They don't need to - OS X only (at least until quite recently, with any sort of ease) runs on Macs. The same does not apply to, say, Microsoft, who have no such dependable method of "proving" you are eligible for an upgrade license - hence their specific checks for an existing copy.

The "upgrade" status is only of licensing, not one of implementation.

Not trying to stir the pot, but really curious as to how this works:

1) How did/do owners of the mac clones that were legal way back when upgrade to a newer version of OS without violating any rules/agreements/etc when they have a non Apple branded computer but a 100% legal reason to install an upgrade as the computer and the original install of the Apple OS was all obtained legally and approved by Apple?

2) Also, If I buy/sell a Mac to/from a friend (person to person, no "corporation" involved) and the hard drive is removed and replaced with a new unformatted hard drive so the now former could keep the drive, how do I obtain an "original full copy" of the OS? You can only purchase an "upgrade". No illegal act has occured as the original owner did not provide the original OS discs nor did they provide a system with any OS loaded.
 
If they overcharged for it, I don't think I would want to pay $1000, but I certainly wouldn't mind paying more than Vista Ultimate costs. I think OS X is really that good that it's worth it to spend the money saved by not purchasing a Mac on the software itself.

The point is that if Apple believes that selling OS X by bundling it with Macs is the most profitable way to sell their stuff, then they have the ability to sell it that way. They can't be forced to sell it stand alone. Even if they lost this case, and then later lost yet another challenge to the EULA, they could just implement this strategy, and keep right on going with the same business model:

Let's say Apple decides (or is forced) to open OS-X up, license for stand-alone installation on generic PC hardware, but did the following:

1. Sold it "as is" with no support.
2. Charged $1000 for it.
3. Continued to sell "upgrades" for OS-X for $129.

Game over. You can't force them to sell their product your way, unless you want to implement some communist-style control over business.
 
That is what is getting them in trouble, since they are a CORPORATION charging people money to load their altered pirated OS onto their machines.

It's not "pirated". You could (barely) argue that it was "modified", but my point is said modification should not be illegal.

They are altering the OS to defeat the protections Apple has in place and selling it.

No, they are "altering the OS" to support hardware Apple does not. I am fairly certain that Apple makes no direct attempts to tie OS X to Apple hardware.

Whether or not they're even "altering the OS" is up for some debate as well. From my basic understanding of getting OSX86 installed, none of OS X's code is "altered", there are just some .kexts that are added or replaced.

If you get a smoking deal on a cargo container of unusable Batman DVDs, go to Wal-mart and buy a Batman DVD, crack the DRM and start selling your pirated Batman DVD for $5 and tossing in the destroyed copy for $10 -- they are going to pin your ass to the wall for selling the hacked/pirated copy.

Once again, an invalid comparison. Psystar isn't taking a single copy of OS X then reselling it multiple times (as you continually try to assert). They are taking a single copy of OS X, making it run on a computer, then selling it (along with the computer) to another party.

Which is what Apple is going to do to Psystar. The EULA is secondary, the copyright violations and the trademark violations kill them quick even if Apple drops the licensing issue.

And, again, the fact it's even considered a "copyright violation" is an indication the law is wrong.

The earlier example about the company who was modifying people's DVDs on their behalf to remove objectionable material is also applicable. The fact that case even went to court is, alone, a gross indictment against copyright law. If I buy a DVD, edit out the scenes I don't like and then watch it, I've done nothing illegal (and certainly nothing wrong). I can conceive of no rational reason why exactly the same scenario, only with a third party doing the editing on my behalf, should be any different.

Here's another one. Operating on behalf of people who cannot read, I take their music CDs and splice in a title announcement before each track begins, and charge them $5 for this service. In no way, shape, or form, should this be considered wrong, or illegal.

Edit: If you were a legit licensed OEM, there wouldn't be a need to charge an OS install fee. Don't think Daystar, Motorola, Power Computing etc. ever charged an OS install fee.

Are you seriously suggesting they were not factoring in the costs involved with installing, testing and support MacOS on their hardware into their prices ? That they were selling their machines for the raw cost of hardware+MacOS ?
 
The point is that if Apple believes that selling OS X by bundling it with Macs is the most profitable way to sell their stuff, then they have the ability to sell it that way. They can't be forced to sell it stand alone. Even if they lost this case, and then later lost yet another challenge to the EULA, they could just implement this strategy, and keep right on going with the same business model:

Let's say Apple decides (or is forced) to open OS-X up, license for stand-alone installation on generic PC hardware, but did the following:

1. Sold it "as is" with no support.
2. Charged $1000 for it.
3. Continued to sell "upgrades" for OS-X for $129.


Game over. You can't force them to sell their product your way, unless you want to implement some communist-style control over business.

lol tell me why people would pay 1000 for a disc that is exactly the same as the 129 "upgrade disk" if they knew what they were doing
 
lol tell me why people would pay 1000 for a disc that is exactly the same as the 129 "upgrade disk" if they knew what they were doing

Tell me why people would pay for Apple to upgrade their RAM and HDDs when there are third-party alternatives for hundreds less.

Because there will always be people who don't trust themselves with anything but the end-user experience (morons, really. Just follow the directions to a letter and you'll be FINE). If Apple offered no support for it and sold it for $1000, people would buy it. And then they would buy a real Mac after OSX86 crashed for the thirtieth time.

And those are the people who make Apple MONEY!
 
Not trying to stir the pot, but really curious as to how this works:

1) How did/do owners of the mac clones that were legal way back when upgrade to a newer version of OS without violating any rules/agreements/etc when they have a non Apple branded computer but a 100% legal reason to install an upgrade as the computer and the original install of the Apple OS was all obtained legally and approved by Apple?

Were any of the clones actually officially supported by any version of OS X ?

2) Also, If I buy/sell a Mac to/from a friend (person to person, no "corporation" involved) and the hard drive is removed and replaced with a new unformatted hard drive so the now former could keep the drive, how do I obtain an "original full copy" of the OS? You can only purchase an "upgrade". No illegal act has occured as the original owner did not provide the original OS discs nor did they provide a system with any OS loaded.

You talk to the person who sold it to you and ask for it. Your Mac comes with an OS X license which, from a licensing perspective, it cannot be separated from, much like OEM copies of Windows (it is also enforced at the technical level to a degree, as well and in a similar fashion - the "recovery disks" Macs come with often won't install on different models).
 
It's not "pirated". You could (barely) argue that it was "modified", but my point is said modification should not be illegal.



No, they are "altering the OS" to support hardware Apple does not. I am fairly certain that Apple makes no direct attempts to tie OS X to Apple hardware.

Whether or not they're even "altering the OS" is up for some debate as well. From my basic understanding of getting OSX86 installed, none of OS X's code is "altered", there are just some .kexts that are added or replaced.



Once again, an invalid comparison. Psystar isn't taking a single copy of OS X then reselling it multiple times (as you continually try to assert). They are taking a single copy of OS X, making it run on a computer, then selling it (along with the computer) to another party.



And, again, the fact it's even considered a "copyright violation" is an indication the law is wrong.

The earlier example about the company who was modifying people's DVDs on their behalf to remove objectionable material is also applicable. The fact that case even went to court is, alone, a gross indictment against copyright law. If I buy a DVD, edit out the scenes I don't like and then watch it, I've done nothing illegal (and certainly nothing wrong). I can conceive of no rational reason why exactly the same scenario, only with a third party doing the editing on my behalf, should be any different.

Here's another one. Operating on behalf of people who cannot read, I take their music CDs and splice in a title announcement before each track begins, and charge them $5 for this service. In no way, shape, or form, should this be considered wrong, or illegal.



Are you seriously suggesting they were not factoring in the costs involved with installing, testing and support MacOS on their hardware into their prices ? That they were selling their machines for the raw cost of hardware+MacOS ?

So you would let people take your hard work and do whatever they wanted to it for their gain, and their gain alone? That's what your post boils down to. Unfortunately for you, and fortunately for anyone looking to ever make any money from their ideas, this is why copyright law is the way it is. There is nothing wrong with that. What is broken about copyright law? What should it say, what protections should it offer, or should there be none - everything for the people! No one can make any money!
 
"lol" (simply to mirror) Tell me why people would pay for Apple to upgrade their RAM and HDDs when there are third-party alternatives for hundreds less.

Because there will always be people who don't trust themselves with anything but the end-user experience (morons, really. Just follow the directions to a letter and you'll be FINE). If Apple offered no support for it and sold it for $1000, people would buy it. And then they would buy a real Mac after OSX86 crashed for the thirtieth time.

this is a case for licesing os x to pc's right, in which case it wont be installed by apple

so you go to a store and you see 2 os x packages that are identical except for the licencse and 800+ bucks

anybody in their right mind would get the cheaper one. heck i know people who do the same with the single user vs family pack licenses that we have now. thats only like a 50 dollar difference too. try 800 and just see what happens

sure you might get some people but a ton of people would just get the cheaper version
 
The point is that if Apple believes that selling OS X by bundling it with Macs is the most profitable way to sell their stuff, then they have the ability to sell it that way. They can't be forced to sell it stand alone. Even if they lost this case, and then later lost yet another challenge to the EULA, they could just implement this strategy, and keep right on going with the same business model:

Let's say Apple decides (or is forced) to open OS-X up, license for stand-alone installation on generic PC hardware, but did the following:

1. Sold it "as is" with no support.
2. Charged $1000 for it.
3. Continued to sell "upgrades" for OS-X for $129.

Game over. You can't force them to sell their product your way, unless you want to implement some communist-style control over business.

Well, you can keep spouting that argument, but nobody disputes that there are numerous ways for a company to keep people from messing with their operating system. As I mentioned before, Microsoft have been doing that for years, even decades.

One of Microsofts tactics is to change standards ever so slightly, making it a rather costly affair to switch provider or develop competing software. Take something as simple as the default character set. Microsoft went with ISO-8859-1, changed a few characters here and there and called it windows-1252.

That decision still causes headaches so many years later, and it's a relatively benign example.

The real point is, that these tactics are bad for the consumer (yes, that includes you)! And the real question is: Why are you so hell-bent on repeatedly claiming, that Apple do in fact have the right to screw the consumer over?

This is not a legal argument (well, it is, but seeing that none of us are lawyers, it's an intensely uninteresting one). It's an ethical argument. An argument you seem not to want to address. Why is that?

OS X is perhaps the best general-purpose OS out there. It is a product of intense, and somewhat unfair, competition. Windows Vista, on the other hand, is the product of a monopoly. See the difference?

Game over?
 
So you would let people take your hard work and do whatever they wanted to it for their gain, and their gain alone? That's what your post boils down to.

No, it does not. Please take your strawman bashing somewhere else.

This is not a legal argument (well, it is, but seeing that none of us are lawyers, it's an intensely uninteresting one). It's an ethical argument. An argument you seem not to want to address. Why is that?

Actually, it's a moral argument ;)

</NITPICK>
 
Well, you can keep spouting that argument, but nobody disputes that there are numerous ways for a company to keep people from messing with their operating system. As I mentioned before, Microsoft have been doing that for years, even decades.

One of Microsofts tactics is to change standards ever so slightly, making it a rather costly affair to switch provider or develop competing software. Take something as simple as the default character set. Microsoft went with ISO-8859-1, changed a few characters here and there and called it windows-1252.

That decision still causes headaches so many years later, and it's a relatively benign example.

The real point is, that these tactics are bad for the consumer (yes, that includes you)! And the real question is: Why are you so hell-bent on repeatedly claiming, that Apple do in fact have the right to screw the consumer over?

This is not a legal argument (well, it is, but seeing that none of us are lawyers, it's an intensely uninteresting one). It's an ethical argument. An argument you seem not to want to address. Why is that?

OS X is perhaps the best general-purpose OS out there. It is a product of intense, and somewhat unfair, competition. Windows Vista, on the other hand, is the product of a monopoly. See the difference?

Game over?

aint that the truth. i knew i felt a dejavu from this argument starting on post 369
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/476481/
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.