Psytar has already attempted to argue illegal monopoly. The judge threw out the case since there was no basis in fact. Apple does not have a monopoly that runs contrary to law.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Suggests Possible Conspiracy Behind Psystar
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Psytar has already attempted to argue illegal monopoly. The judge threw out the case since there was no basis in fact. Apple does not have a monopoly that runs contrary to law.
You're annoyed over something that does not exist -- there is no "little chip on apples motherboard" that prevent running OSX natively.
Read -- "TPM DRM" In Mac OS X: A Myth That Won't Die
Yes, Macs use an old version of EFI, namely v1.1. Vista 64-Bit supports EFI 2.0 and BIOS, so in the future you will see more PCs, servers and workstations with EFI support.
But the poster was right - Apple also checks wether there is a certain chip on the main board. Actually, it is the chip that controls the cooling fan; it contains a key that the software queries during the boot strapping process. A programmer named Alexander Graf wrote a software emulation for this chip that can be used to run an unmodified version of OS X in a virtualization environment like Qemu.
Read more here: http://alex.csgraf.de/self/?qemu/
UPDATE: This has nothing to do with TPM. TPM -can- be used as a hardware support for trusted communication. And maybe Apple -could- use the TPM chip as a dongle, but they've chosen to implement it differently. So while it is correct that Apple does not use the TPM chip on their computers to dongle OS X to their hardware, it is NOT correct to say that Apple is not using a hardware dongle. They do, it's just not the obvious choice that they're using.
Right, "the chip" isn't TPM, and OSX can run "native" with appropriate emulation of the "checkpoint" (which then allows Aqua to run). The same author I cited previously has info on this general subject area -- Understanding Apple's Binary Protection in Mac OS X.
The devil is always hiding in the details...
Most people seem to fall into the trap of thinking "the chip" = TPM, without ever bothering to run -- ioreg -x | grep TPM --- on their "real" Mac.XM/Sirius is like the cable or sat ver of tv and even then comcast still fails under monopoly rules in some areas.
Since day one, Psystar seem to have been doing everything they can to push every single button at Apple. They could of easily sold the clones differently and reduced the legal arguments Apple would have against them, but they've done the opposite.
Its almost as if they wanted a court case and had some goal other than selling a lot of hardware. Which seems stupid but could make sense for some presently unknown reason if there is some unknown party / conspirator behind Psystar. But who?
Microsoft wouldn't even dream of it after all the cheques they had to write out for the crazy stuff they've done in the past. IBM are a services company now and have little real interest in software and hardware. Some of the big PC manufacturers are possibilities - Dell or Lenovo for example.
My best guess though would be some individuals or organisations that fundamentally oppose any link like this between hardware and software - supporters of open source and the like. They're not looking for financial rewards, just giving consumers more choice.
Or I could be talking complete and utter cr*p.
Its almost as if they wanted a court case and had some goal other than selling a lot of hardware. Which seems stupid but could make sense for some presently unknown reason if there is some unknown party / conspirator behind Psystar. But who?
Microsoft wouldn't even dream of it after all the cheques they had to write out for the crazy stuff they've done in the past. IBM are a services company now and have little real interest in software and hardware. Some of the big PC manufacturers are possibilities - Dell or Lenovo for example.
My best guess though would be some individuals or organisations that fundamentally oppose any link like this between hardware and software - supporters of open source and the like. They're not looking for financial rewards, just giving consumers more choice.
Or I could be talking complete and utter cr*p.
Microsoft would lose, but for a completely different reason.
The real argument is this: Apple says in its EULA "you may only install MacOS X on an Apple-labeled computer" and Psystar says that doesn't count. Microsoft for example sells versions of Microsoft Office to students very cheaply with a license that say "you may only use this version of Microsoft Office if you are a student" (someone with access to the license can correct any inaccuracies). If Psystar is right, then any company in the world can start using student versions of Microsoft Office instead of the much more expensive full versions. Or Microsoft has to stop selling student versions.
Apple's PRE-EMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE?
Well, being no fan of conspiracy speculations in general, I'm now intrigued.
Just thinking with my toes, here's my list of suspect culprits:
Software side:
A popularization of Apple OS would mean a push towards UNIX based systems. It should hurt Microsoft and help the Linux/GNU movement.
Virtualization software firms like VMware would stand to gain tremendously in both OLD and NEW PC markets. Who wouldn't want to try putting OSX on their currently under-used pcs with a more stable Apple OS?
Other software companies that specialize in OSX software will also stand to gain with mass distribution.
Hardware Side:
HP, Dell, Sony and the like would love a hearty bite not only of Apple's not insignificant marketshare, but also the overall PC market. If Apple were to authorize clones, one would expect Apple to license to big boys like HP or Dell rather than eMachines.
In either hard/software case, the big wigs in these companies would have to be pretty insane to pull this!
Alright, while I'm at it, how about PRE-EMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE? That Apple could be behind a bogus company that Apple "has" to go after. The bogus company then resorts to the lamest defenses that Apple could easily defeat, hence establishing case laws to immunize Apple from future attempts at robbing Apple OS by others. At the same time, Apple could test out waters and see how the market responds to "Psystar products".
Well, being no fan of conspiracy speculations in general, I'm now intrigued.
Just thinking with my toes, here's my list of suspect culprits:
Software side:
A popularization of Apple OS would mean a push towards UNIX based systems. It should hurt Microsoft and help the Linux/GNU movement.
Virtualization software firms like VMware would stand to gain tremendously in both OLD and NEW PC markets. Who wouldn't want to try putting OSX on their currently under-used pcs with a more stable Apple OS?
Other software companies that specialize in OSX software will also stand to gain with mass distribution.
Hardware Side:
HP, Dell, Sony and the like would love a hearty bite not only of Apple's not insignificant marketshare, but also the overall PC market. If Apple were to authorize clones, one would expect Apple to license to big boys like HP or Dell rather than eMachines.
In either hard/software case, the big wigs in these companies would have to be pretty insane to pull this!
Alright, while I'm at it, how about PRE-EMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE? That Apple could be behind a bogus company that Apple "has" to go after. The bogus company then resorts to the lamest defenses that Apple could easily defeat, hence establishing case laws to immunize Apple from future attempts at robbing Apple OS by others. At the same time, Apple could test out waters and see how the market responds to "Psystar products".
I am also a not a fan of conspiracy theories simply because they almost always turn out to be false
It would hurt Microsoft, sure, but not really. THey are far too entrenched to make a difference. This case isn't so much about popularity of the Mac OS - just its legal usage and sale by a third party. People are already aware of OSX - Apple's sales prove this. Apple also already supports Unix and open source development the moment that they announced that OSX was unix based. That was years ago
Except VMware has several products already that are Linux based as well as Windows based. Their Fusion product line is still quite new. Virtualization has been around for a long time and its starting to have value on the server side of things where network admins are already aware of Linux and have been running it on their servers for years. IBM is a big proponent of Linux servers as well. There is a catch - under powered systems aren't going to virtualize any system real well (except for small footprint systems). Desktop operating systems like Windows and Mac OS require more powerful hardware to run them with each iteration. Servers are well equipped to handle that load since they are really powerful machines (and are not run like desktops are). Its just cheaper to buy new hardware to run modern operating systems.
VMware is growing in popularity, but outside of Fusion (mac product) their strength is server products where Windows and Linux already dominate - Linux purely because of the lack of licensing.
If they wanted to gain mass distribution like you talk about, it would make more sense (in my mind) to develop versions for other well established operating systems than to hope for rapid acceptance of an OS with around 10 percent market share already. Heck, thats why Apple developed iTunes for Windows - they knew that the iPods popularity alone wouldn't drive people to Macs en mass - if Apple believed that, they would have kept the whole ecosystem on the Mac - which would have inhibited adoption.
And destroy their own hardware business like what happened in the 90's? THe hardware makers you quote compete primarily on price and the lowest common denominator. Hardware profits for these guys are razor thin. Thats why they resell Windows. Microsoft doesn't have a hardware division that they have to worry about undercutting and the hardware vendors won;t get far selling computers without operating systems and relying on people to buy Windows afterwards. Most people do not buy Windows. They get whatever is currently offered by the OEM's and they tend to upgrade when they get a new computer. Most of these people buy the cheapest computer they can. Apple already knows that trying to compete in this area is a fools errand when you have a hardware division.
The reason that Apple does not sell cheap computers is the same on that BMW doesn't price their cars like Toyota does. By happen chance their market share is about the same.
Steve Jobs on market share:
In either hard/software case, the big wigs in these companies would have to be pretty insane to pull this!
Not if they excepted not to get caught or hoped for a settlement of some kind. Apparently Apple wants to go for the jugular.
Alright, while I'm at it, how about PRE-EMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE? That Apple could be behind a bogus company that Apple "has" to go after. The bogus company then resorts to the lamest defenses that Apple could easily defeat, hence establishing case laws to immunize Apple from future attempts at robbing Apple OS by others. At the same time, Apple could test out waters and see how the market responds to "Psystar products".
1) People have wanted Apple to clone for years
2) Why would Apple want to waste the courts time in identifying psystars backers if they know who they are. The minute the answer becomes public, the court is not going to be happy.
3) Supposing this is true, why is Apple trying to keep a lawsuit going so long even to the effect of suing themselves. Why not end the case from day one and have a public settlement that benefits Apple?
4) You seem to forget that Apple's last legal cloning era was a disaster for Apple. Why test the waters that Jobs was very vocal about not testing a decade ago when he killed cloning? Why do it with a company that would be breaking other laws that trademark infringement that would invalidate market interest studies and a poor cloning method. Why do it in a way that angers the open source community?
You are talking about a high risk scenario that would require complicity with a lot of people at Apple. This is contrary with a company that has millions of people that pay attention to Apple every day. A company that despite its best intentions, has leaks from people willing to break NDA on this very forum and others. Not to mention the person squealing would have an exclusive and would be rich. With a company so rich with speculation about its actions, you would think we would have heard something from people with well placed sources like Kevin Rose or what not - instead we have tons of people who are criticizing Psystar. You are talking about a secret that is next to impossible to keep.
Which is easier to believe - An Apple conspiracy, or a company that sees itself with little to loose and is fighting a loosing battle terribly. Maybe Psystar has support. I doubt its a mainstream company like Dell or Microsoft, but its possible.
ETA: We also have to remember that Apple has largely ignored the home brew aftermarket hackers and the OSX86 project. THe reason is twofold: They aren't selling anything, and they are not worth going after. The minute that there is a commercial company involved? Apple starts suing. Exactly what one would expect of a company like Apple. You don't see Nintendo legally suing homebrew game makers or Sony suing PSP hackers - they just change the system and not support them.
Except that the Office Home & Student version only gives you Word, Excel, Powerpoint & OneNote which reduces the desire for many people to use it in a corporate environment. Though at least in a Windows environment you could use the Windows Mail application if need be, though web mail offerings can reduce the need for this in a home/small office setup
Alright, while I'm at it, how about PRE-EMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE? That Apple could be behind a bogus company that Apple "has" to go after. The bogus company then resorts to the lamest defenses that Apple could easily defeat, hence establishing case laws to immunize Apple from future attempts at robbing Apple OS by others. At the same time, Apple could test out waters and see how the market responds to "Psystar products".
Oh just great... Apple corrupt and shameless enough to pull their own 9-11...
what's really sad is it's not all that hard to believe.
i wonder if Apple really want to test the legality of OS X locked to Apple Hardware if you buy a copy?
Yeah, £50 for "only Word, Excel, Powerpoint and OneNote" instead of six times as much for the "complete" package... No corporation would want to save £2,000,000 for about 10,000 seats.
Anyone find it rather troubling that a company out of no where suddenly finds the funds (and the knackers) to take Apple on? conspiracy theory abound as to where this company came from and where their funding came from.
I find that the biggest whiners about Mac OS X from the OEM vendors are those who refuse to do anything to make a linux/freebsd/opensolaris distribution and brand it themselves. It seems that they want a free ride to make money with next to no investment.
I find that the biggest whiners about Mac OS X from the OEM vendors are those who refuse to do anything to make a linux/freebsd/opensolaris distribution and brand it themselves. It seems that they want a free ride to make money with next to no investment.
Like I've said before, many times in these sorts of high profile cases regarding a small company, either agree to be paid after the fact from the settlement if their client wins or do it pro bono (for free) to increase the firm's notoriety so they can secure high profile clients in the future.
And how would a custom linux variant with no developer support attract the semi-professional users that Jobs has alienated?
I doubt it. Iv'e seen it many times, a larger company or a person with interests in something funding legal proceedings in another closely related case. It is nothing new, and certainly not unreasonable.
Is your intension to make me cry? Do I really have to walk you through what I would consider something that would require no explanation? if you can't work it out in your head of building a model on a customised version of FreeBSD/OpenSolaris or Linux, then you're beyond help. Any time wasted explaining it to you would be time better spent elsewhere.
No, Microsoft was found to be guilty of anti-trust violations and labeled an "abusive monopoly" due to their actions. Being a monopoly is, in and of itself, not illegal.
Thank You Skunk!
Dang it's amazing how people are so anxious to prove someone else wrong that they just show how stupid, in fact, they are. I thought "hey she didn't say that!" re-read it, "ooooh, she MIGHT say that (if she would say something like curiouser and curiouser)". Hah.
See how easy that was people?
If everyone would think just ONE step more than they do, we'd all be living in a perfect world. Perfect like me But anyway..
Why didn't they just say "curiouser and curiouser"? It works just as well here.
AND
It makes sense for Apple to give themselves that right, just in case. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you're wrong.
Dang it's amazing how people are so anxious to prove someone else wrong that they just show how stupid, in fact, they are. I thought "hey she didn't say that!" re-read it, "ooooh, she MIGHT say that (if she would say something like curiouser and curiouser)". Hah.
See how easy that was people?
If everyone would think just ONE step more than they do, we'd all be living in a perfect world. Perfect like me
But anyway..Why didn't they just say "curiouser and curiouser"? It works just as well here.
AND
It makes sense for Apple to give themselves that right, just in case. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean you're wrong.
Kudos to pbjudd's extensive analysis. Thinking with my toes...Apple Pre-emptive 9-11 style consiracy.... Well, now that I thought more about your analysis, respecting what scientific folks call the law of parsimony, the thugs now appear to me more likely on PsyStar's side than anything else. Apple's first battle has been won--the court threw out the bogus anti-trust counter-claim. Now let's hope that Apple can get to the bottom of it all. I suppose PsyStar's law firm also scored a few points for notoriety--being willing to side with thugs and frivolous claims at whatever cost.
As an Apple consumer, I hope that Apple will strengthen the pro line of products so that we truly get the BMW value out of Apple.