WOW, Great points!!!!! I totally agree with your points, and think that Apple should be able to keep their OS on their Hardware, because as you said they did their R&D, an can control it the way they want.
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.
First Customer Receives Psystar Mac Clone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
WOW, Great points!!!!! I totally agree with your points, and think that Apple should be able to keep their OS on their Hardware, because as you said they did their R&D, an can control it the way they want.
Epic Win.
Especially the communist comment- if the US government tells Apple what price to set OS X, I'm picking up my pitchfork and torch collection. And my tinfoil hat.
I doubt many people will argue with the above. The question is if their current method of keeping Mac OS X on their hardware is legal and effective. My (total amature) opinion is that their EULA is not binding and therefore ineffective.
I think if they really wanted to prevent you from putting Mac OS X on other hardware they would have to require you to agree to a contract before they gave you a copy of Mac OS X. The keyword here being "before". While legally effective it would scare off customers and kill their business. No way would I sign a contract.
I think Apple knows they are better off continueing to use a half effective EULA and half effective technical means and leaving things just like they are now. Notice that Apple has not even asked these guys to stop.
The problem (for Apple) is this rather old legal concept that BOTH parties must agree to a contract. Apple does give you the option to agree by checking a box. But you can't disagree. If you don't beleive me just try to disagree, send Leopard back and get a refund. You can't.
All Apple needs to do is offer a 100% no question, no hassel refund to anyone who disagree with the EULA. They'd have to make it really easy and without a time limit. Only then could Apple claim that you actually agreed to the EULA.
Hey, are you using a Mac? Care to take a guess how much of your machine comes from "communist China"?
Didn't Microsoft take some grief for this from Linux users who purchased machines that had Windows installed on it by default, refused to accept the EULA, and then attempted to get a refund from Microsoft for the cost of the Windows installation?
Hey, are you using a Mac? Care to take a guess how much of your machine comes from "communist China"?
I know, I know. Guilty as charged. I buy their stuff, but refuse to accept their politics. In the long run, there are some really bad consequences from this that might be coming, but that is an entirely different thread, on a different forum.
Chris, these are some very insightful and good points. I think some very level-headed, practical, common sensical solutions like you are describing will come to this. I too hope that most people will not "argue with the above" as you put it in your first post, and we can all (mostly) agree that the inventor who invests in the product has the rights to profit from that product and sell it in a manner they choose.
I know, I know. Guilty as charged. I buy their stuff, but refuse to accept their politics. ...
Good. Now do the same with Apple, and you'll be making real progress.
Good. Now do the same with Apple, and you'll be making real progress.
Politics like Jobs being a tree hugging hippie and Al Gore on the board, or politics like they should give us a headless iMac and open OS X for generic hardware? Because I am there with you on one, but not the other.
Excuse me if I get wrong what you're trying to say, but your sentence runs on for quite some time, and I might have been ambiguous in making my original point.
You're saying that should Apple win, Psystar would be wiped from existence. Yes, I agree. If they were to lose, however, then what is to stop other companies from (now) "legally breaking" the EULA and capitalizing on Apple's work?
It's not about chewing a different flavor of gum. It's about a different company selling the exact same flavor (formula, really) under their own name. That's cause enough for legal action in the rest of the world, I was just under the impression that the argument was whether or not an EULA constituted a binding, document with legal repercussions upon the breaking thereof.
If I'm wrong, don't hesitate to tell me what it's really about, because I don't want to go around defending an irrelevant standpoint and looking like an uninformed boob.
Yeah, let's talk about the bad old days. I remember picking up an 800-page copy of Computer Shopper circa 1995 (remember, magazines made out of paper?), and calling what felt like more or less every single personal-computer builder in that fat magazine and asking to buy (as in, I am holding my credit card in my hand now, or I'll bring cash to your store if you're local), and furthermore offering to pay them to install linux, only to be firmly, unequivocally, resolutely turned down whenever I insisted on not paying for an operating system that I not only was not going to use, but which I considered to be a bit of a virus to boot (pardon the pun). "Sorry, we are still going to install Windows." "Yes, we still have to charge you for Windows."
After the first four or five calls, it became a bit of an experiment. I must have called about fifty vendors before I stopped. I didn't need some judge to tell me that Microsoft was engaged in illegal market manipulation, as it was very obvious to see.
Bad, bad things happen when operating-system vendors can dictate terms on the hardware option, folks. No exceptions, even with a "nice guy" like Steve Jobs.
I'm sure that if we met up with Steve in Santa Cruz to smoke the peace pipe that all good things would come to pass.
But... but... Apple's EULA says they can't do that--who cares what the judges might say?
Who cares what the judges might say? Geeze, this fanboy thing really does go to extremes. I can just as easily ask who cares what Apple says? I know I don't read Eulas and never will. It's a bunch of lawyer speak that says you owe them your soul. What if the Eula says only white men can run OSX? Should you care then what the judges might say?
As for vertical integration, they're still tying one product to the other which in the past (see another forum member's excellent post a page or two back) has been ruled illegal by a lower court. Thus, even if you count Windows and OSX *hardware* markets as a non-issue (it sure isn't a non-issue to Apple as they make money hand over fist that way while clone makers have been going out of business left and right over the past 20 years) they'd still have to challenge that ruling in a higher court and pray it goes their way. One man's vertical integration is another man's monopoly. I don't see Windows as a competitor in the sense that Apple has my money for the OS. I'm long since sold on OSX. I do have a beef with them overcharging for the standardized GENERIC CLONE HARDWARE they put it on while offering no decent graphics cards in the sub $2000 categories whereas any decent $700 PC has a good card in it. So yes, it IS hardware issue because they're forcing me to buy otherwise generic Intel architecture hardware (save the EFI firmware) and using OSX as leverage to do it.
The question is do people buy Macs because of the hardware or the software? If your answer is the hardware, then they have nothing to worry about from clone competition as people will always buy "genuine Apple hardware" since it's so much better. But if your answer if the software, then there's a problem because their hardware is the same as everyone else's. They simply make you buy theirs because "they say so in the Eula" which is a WEAK WEAK argument to make in court. What makes your hardware special? NOTHING. So why can't you install OSX you purchase at Best Buy on a Dell? Because you WANT the consumer to buy YOUR computer? Tisk. Tisk. How about you COMPETE with other hardware makers Apple?
In other words, TODAY (as in 2008), there's NOTHING vertically integrated about a Mac. NOTHING. Apple could still say only they can distribute hardware drivers, etc. and you could STILL get a vastly better deal on a mid-range mini-tower for $700 that can blows the doors off EVERY SINGLE COMPUTER APPLE OFFERS save the MacPro for $2400+. And THAT is the issue. They're forcing you to buy $2000+ hardware to get a 'decent' graphics card and telling you that you can't go buy someone else's hardware IF you want to run OSX. And yet some of you are telling me that's not a monopoly? On what grounds? Because you can go buy Windows instead? But that's a different product! I have no problem with buying OSX. The problem I have is with them charging 2-3x what EVERYONE ELSE charges for the SAME hardware (albeit in a different case? Big whoop).
Like I said, regardless if you agree with me or not, I say bring it on Apple. Take them to court. Or don't. Either way you're going to lose and clones are going to stay. Really, they should be happy. It means the market for Macs is large enough that someone feels there's room enough for more competitors for OSX. And THAT means that Apple's OS share is only going to increase. If they EVER want to have any hope of displacing Microsoft in the OS arena, they NEED more users and they're not going to get them en masse when they make you pay over $2000 for a lousy 8800GT based machine.
Ah ha! So if I label my clone computer an "Apple" (say with masking tape?) *then* I'm not in violation of their Eula. Someone should tell Psystar to start doing the same. Just don't put 'Inc.' at the end It has to say just "Apple".
What is artificial about it is that their computer is the SAME as every other clone maker's hardware (albeit the EFI versus BIOS firmware), but they're saying their operating system is only ALLOWED to be used with THEIR brand hardware. If you want to look at my fishing boat analogy, imagine if a marine radio maker said their radios are only allowed to be installed in a certain brand fishing boat. You bought the radio at store that sells marine radios (i.e. you bought OSX at Best Buy), but they're telling you even though it will WORK in someone else's boat with a bit of fidgeting with a screwdriver, you're simply not allowed to because they just happen to make that brand fishing boat ALSO. Yes marine radios and fishing boats go together, but they're still two different markets. Hardware and software are different markets. Now IF Apple's hardware was UNIQUE, *then* I'd grant you had a good point. But the only thing that makes Apple's hardware different from Dell's beyond the EFI/BIOS thing is the case and logo found on it.
Really, I'm getting sick of making analogies. It's clear that some people think Apple should be allowed to do whatever they want to whomever they want. Many of these people are used to paying over $3000 for computers over the past 20 years. So why stop now even when everyone else thinks a $1200 computer is on the high side? Others think it would be nice if Apple weren't the only hardware vendor for OSX. The two sides aren't going to agree on that OPINION part of things. The legal questions need to be settled in court and then basically a JUDGE gets to decide by his OPINION. As we saw with Microsoft and the Justice Department, *which* judge you get is VERY important because judges are people with opinions too. Look at the Supreme Court. They disagree with each other all the time. Majority rules. Well boo hoo. That doesn't make something morally right or wrong if people can't decide something except by opinion and in this case, it comes down to whether you think it's right that Apple gets to say their marine radio is only to be used in an Apple fishing boat or not. I say no. You say yes. Around and around we go.
As for those saying the thread should be closed, however. Well, that's the sign of someone that's lost the argument and simply wants it to go away without admitting it, in my OPINION.
But it's not Ford buying the radios. You the consumer are buying the radios and putting it in another car yourself and you think that should be illegal or you should maybe have to pay GM *again* for the radio? Get real. That's the same argument the music companies wanted to use with compact discs. They think you shouldn't be able to resell them (i.e. transfer your limited license to listen to certain songs, but only one that one limited medium you purchased...if it breaks, too bad. Buy another limited license for a limited medium). Why? Because they don't get royalities AGAIN if you get sick of an album and want to sell it to someone else. They want someone else to buy a NEW album from them so they get paid AGAIN. Well, too bad! I already bought Back to the Future on laserdisc and again on DVD. That's two sales. I can't get squat back from the laserdisc, but they're gong to tell me I have to trash it instead? I don't think so. *THAT* is unAmerican.
As for total R&D control, they've got it. They can simply warrant that OSX will work with their hardware they provide and everyone else selling OSX on a computer will have to warrant their own hardware. If a 3rd party provides say a video driver and you have problems, don't blame Apple. That's as far as it needs to go. If you want Apple service and their drivers, buy a Mac from them. Good luck. Leopard has been buggy as heck so far. I'm still using Tiger which is rock solid by comparison. If I buy a new Mac, I don't get a choice (well talk to Windows customers that want to buy XP still because Vista sucks too and M$ wants them to go away also). The thing is, unsolved problems don't just go away.
Which makes the debate rather pointless to continue here, because the rules of the debate are simply "debate until both sides agree". As long as there aren't boundaries on what aspect is being debated, it will go round and round as the concepts change and different ways to look at the problem are explored.
One side says the legal standing is likely X... the other side then claims there is an ethical standing that overrides the legal standing... the first side argues that regardless of the ethical standing, it is the legal standing that will make a difference... and so on. Without boundaries of what we are discussing, nobody will actually agree on things, because they come to the conclusions on different means.
Put simply, regardless of the ethical/legal/etc standings of Apple in this situation, there are a couple options that anyone can take if they don't like what Apple is doing, and maybe even help others in the process:
- Not give Apple your money, and convince others in a similar situation to do the same. For the most part, Apple already isn't getting a lot of these people's money.
- Start a class-action lawsuit over the supposedly illegal restrictions in the EULA. Seriously, this is partly what the legal system is for, to correct these sorts of things.
- Compete with Apple. Find a venture capitalist willing to back you and create another Psystar. Maybe with better pricing than Psystar has (they want 230$ to swap a 8600GT for an 8800GT).
If you are really passionate about this, take action, instead of dealing with the fanbois.
Just to be clear, I was being sarcastic (hence the emoticon). I understand that you might have missed that, though, given some of the absurdities that have been affirmed with a straight face in some posts here (my favorite is the one where the guy tells another guy that he sounds like a whiney three-year old, then turns around and says that that wasn't an insulting thing to say.
).In any case, the world is a big place, and I expect that at least some countries will have judges that will rule that Apple cannot tell you what hardware you can use with the software that you purchase. Furthermore, I would not be surprised if the countries with rulings that enforced this little monopoly were the exception rather than the rule.
In Europe this statement in the EULA doesn't mean anything.
You have bought the DVD and according to european laws you can do whatever you want with the DVD, even install the software on non-Apple-labled hardware. That's because the law says that licence agreements who try to limit the end users (i.e. the buyers) legal rights to do what he wants _after_ he has bought the product are void.
Microsoft tried to prevent computer resellers to sell the system builders editions without any hardware. This part of the EULA was then denied by court with the effect that you can get system builder editions of Windows XP/Vista for a fraction of the full retail package price.
Maybe Apple wants to prevent themselves being ruled down by court by not suing Psystar as Microsoft was in Europe, because they know their EULA is weak in regards on installing the OS on computers other than Apple-made hardware?
You miss a critical point. No one is forcing Apple to sell OSX. Apple has choosen to do so on their own accord. They offer OSX for $129 to any one who wants to buy it.
Apple is free to withdraw OSX from the market and find another way to get new versions of OSX to their users.
The problem stems from the fact that OSX is a retail product and anyone can buy it.
Your analogy of the Ford stereo simply does not fit the case here.
Well if Apple wants to put a stop to this they may want to move fast, since more of them are starting to appear:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/05/06/more_unofficial_mac_clones_up_for_sale_on_ebay.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/05/06/more_unofficial_mac_clones_up_for_sale_on_ebay.html
Let's re-work your analogy to fit the situation:
Consider something that could happen that is very similar with cars. Say Ford developed this unbelievably amazing stereo system for their cars. They do the R&D, invest in technology heavily for years and years to develop this stereo. When they finally release it, it is hugely successful, and they start to sell many, many cars, because of this stereo.
Ford puts together a complete kit of this stereo - amp, head unit, speakers, wires, cables, etc. They sell it through Ford Parts stores for $1,000.
Stereos Unlimited (an independant auto stereo dealer) buys the kit from Ford Parts. They take it back to their shop and offer to sell and install it in any car the customer has for $1,200. Joe Cool comes in with his 1987 Yugo and says "Let's do it!" When Stereos Unlimited unpacks the Ford Stereo kit they find an EULA that says:
"This stereo kit can only be installed in a Ford-labeled automobile".
Stereos Unlimited ignores the EULA and installs the Ford stereo kit in the Yugo after informing the Yugo owner of the EULA. Joe Cool says "OK, I want it anyways. I won't worry about any updates."
Joe Cool loves his new stereo in his Yugo. He takes a video of it and posts it on YouTube.
Now the Ford defenders start screaming. The horror! The sacrilege! A super Ford stereo in a Yugo! Shut down Stereos Unlimited! Sue them! This can not last! Sue Joe Cool. "If you want the Ford super stereo, buy a new Ford" are the shouts.
Well, what would Ford do?
MacWorld has an initial review of the Psystar:
http://www.macworld.com/article/133323/2008/05/psystar.html
Some of their impressions:
- Noisy fans (of course), plus one of the power cables was initially caught in one of the fans
- Time Machine backup to Firewire disk failed
- Psystar reportedly working on a fix for automatic Software Updates
- Firewire target disk mode doesn't work
- A "bootable" clone created by Carbon Copy Cloner wouldn't boot
- Otherwise it seemed compatible in regard to applications/peripherals
http://www.macworld.com/article/133323/2008/05/psystar.html
Some of their impressions:
- Noisy fans (of course), plus one of the power cables was initially caught in one of the fans
- Time Machine backup to Firewire disk failed
- Psystar reportedly working on a fix for automatic Software Updates
- Firewire target disk mode doesn't work
- A "bootable" clone created by Carbon Copy Cloner wouldn't boot
- Otherwise it seemed compatible in regard to applications/peripherals
That is a great encapsulation of the analogy - a better job than I did, and I think it is dead-on point.
What would Ford do? Charge more for the stereo kit for other cars? They can control the distribution without the use of an EULA. If they really only wanted these things in Ford cars, they could offer it as a $1000 option in brand new Ford vehicles, and sell the stand alone kit for, oh, I don't know $10,000? The point is, if Ford wants to sell these things only in Ford cars, they are going to be able to do it.
Where the analogy breaks down a little is on the use of an "upgrade" retail box of OS X that requires a previous install of OS X to install. I am not sure what the parallel is for that. It seems like the software nature of OS X gives Apple the ability to sell an upgrade kit to only folks with Apple computers, where as Ford could not really do that with the stereo. Any ideas there?
Basically when it comes down to it, with BIOS emulating EFI, most of the firmware stuff like booting off a CD and target disk mode isn't going to work. However, once you boot up into OSX, the hardware uses mostly the same drivers Apple does.
Ford could allow the stereo to be installed in earlier-manufactured Fords provided it met the (physical) requirements necessary for it to install (proper DIN size, for example), but not allow it to be installed as an upgrade in non-Fords even if the system would physically fit.
And by the way, this is particularly problematic given that if you munge your hard drive you cannot reinstall from the OS X CD.
The same way Apple would prevent the installation of OS X on non-Apple-branded computers: legal challenges against those breaking the "EULA".
One of the main points of debate is how successful such a challenge would be.
Im surprised nothing has come out of Apple yet, although I suspect that Apple lawyers have been in contact already
Probably just preparing their legal smack-down on their ass
Probably just preparing their legal smack-down on their ass