So what are you referring to in your post? that OSX is Better but running on crippled Apple's Hardware or that OSX is crippled running on Apple's better Hardware?
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
So what are you referring to in your post? that OSX is Better but running on crippled Apple's Hardware or that OSX is crippled running on Apple's better Hardware?
Copyright violations?
Will Apple whack them for pre-installing pirated software? Depends on if Psystar actually bought a license for Mac OS X Leopard or not. If they didn't buy Leopard for each box, then expect the BSA or some such to go abuse Psystar soon. Microsoft always wins these kinds of lawsuits, Apple should be no different.
If they did buy a license, well, the courts have held that click-through EULAs are valid in general. The specific restrictions, though, might take a while to wind their way through the courts.
Either way, it'll be interesting to see what happens.
Will Apple whack them for pre-installing pirated software? Depends on if Psystar actually bought a license for Mac OS X Leopard or not. If they didn't buy Leopard for each box, then expect the BSA or some such to go abuse Psystar soon. Microsoft always wins these kinds of lawsuits, Apple should be no different.
If they did buy a license, well, the courts have held that click-through EULAs are valid in general. The specific restrictions, though, might take a while to wind their way through the courts.
Either way, it'll be interesting to see what happens.
/dev/toaster
macrumors 68020
I doubt it will ever get this far. Psystar would need to have some serious cash behind them to take on Apple in court.
Psystar appears to buy a Mac OS X Leopard for each machine they pre-install. They charge you for Leopard separately.
arn
My question I pose to you, the macrumors community, is this:
All fanboyness and legal ramifications aside, what makes a mac 'a mac'? I am not well versed is computer terms and lingo, but both PCs and Macs have intel chips and chipsets, standard ram and HDDs, etc.etc. They have the same parts and components that, in theory, would work in both machines. So then, why wouldn't Leopard (more specifically, Software updater) work in a fresh PC?
Does Leopard have some sort of code that is user-specific to some part of hardware inside a mac to make sure it's a mac?
EDIT: i misspelled specifically.
All fanboyness and legal ramifications aside, what makes a mac 'a mac'? I am not well versed is computer terms and lingo, but both PCs and Macs have intel chips and chipsets, standard ram and HDDs, etc.etc. They have the same parts and components that, in theory, would work in both machines. So then, why wouldn't Leopard (more specifically, Software updater) work in a fresh PC?
Does Leopard have some sort of code that is user-specific to some part of hardware inside a mac to make sure it's a mac?
EDIT: i misspelled specifically.
I doubt Apple can or will do anything legally, and I don't think they should. Just keep selling more copies of Leopard... those who really enjoy the experience will eventually get a mac.
It has an EFI bios, which basically means you see graphics instead of text during the low level initialization of the machine.
The fanboyness here really is hysterical, and I'd like to see someone answer this... to help out, I figured I'd pose a few questions (with the assumed fanboy answer in parentheses).
1) Is it OK to run OSX on a Mac Pro? (YES)
2) Is it OK to run OSX on a Mac Pro if I had to swap out the ram, hard drive, and graphics card? (MAYBE)
3) Is it OK to run OSX on a Mac Pro if I had to swap out the motherboard/processors with something faster than it shipped with? (NO)
4) What if I pulled everything out, but still kept the Mac Pro case? (NO)
5) You mean it still isn't an "Apple branded" computer as specified in the EULA? (I DON'T KNOW!!! LEAVE ME ALONE!!!)
In all seriousness, I'd love to see you all answer these questions.
Also, why is everyone so giddy and confident about Apple pursuing litigation with the company?
What is an EFI BIOS? I did look it up on Wikipedia, but as I stated, I am not up to par on computer lingo.
When you say 'it has an EFI bios, do you mean the mac or the OS?
displaced
macrumors 65816
The EULA of OS X essentially states that OS X may only be installed on Apple branded (and, therefore, Apple-manufactured) hardware. I'm not going to pass judgement on that, other than to say if Apple spent the time, money and man-power to create OS X, they have the right to licence it with whatever terms they desire. Just as with other software licences (such as the fine GPL loved by open-source advocates), the consumer technically has a simple decision: use the software and follow the licence, or reject the licence and don't use the software.
I find it interesting that PsyStar deem the GPL licence one which should be followed, but Apple's should not be. Note that I'm not even certain they've followed the GPL. They acknowledge the presence of open-source code within the project, but as far as I can tell do not provide download links for the GPL code used (as required by the GPL). (note: I'm taking a bit of a leap of faith here – I'm presuming the open-source stuff referenced on their site is released under the GPL – I've got to get to work in a mo so don't have the time to check, sorry!)
All in all, PsyStar are going to have to go some to put up any meaningful challenge to Apple, considering Apple's most recent reports suggest they're shifting the best part of 250,000 Macs a week.
(for the record, I pretty much am an open-source advocate. But then I'm also an advocate of fair copyright laws and the right of the author of a work to decide how the fruits – pardon the pun – of their labour are distributed).
I find it interesting that PsyStar deem the GPL licence one which should be followed, but Apple's should not be. Note that I'm not even certain they've followed the GPL. They acknowledge the presence of open-source code within the project, but as far as I can tell do not provide download links for the GPL code used (as required by the GPL). (note: I'm taking a bit of a leap of faith here – I'm presuming the open-source stuff referenced on their site is released under the GPL – I've got to get to work in a mo so don't have the time to check, sorry!)
All in all, PsyStar are going to have to go some to put up any meaningful challenge to Apple, considering Apple's most recent reports suggest they're shifting the best part of 250,000 Macs a week.
(for the record, I pretty much am an open-source advocate. But then I'm also an advocate of fair copyright laws and the right of the author of a work to decide how the fruits – pardon the pun – of their labour are distributed).
MattInOz
macrumors 68030
Santabean2000
macrumors 68000
Modbook..?
How does the 'Modbook' from OWC fit into the picture then? Is that not non-Apple branded hardware running OSX..?
How does the 'Modbook' from OWC fit into the picture then? Is that not non-Apple branded hardware running OSX..?
Is psystar the end user?
People keep bringing up the EULA, but I dont think it applies in this case.
I dont see how psystar has violated the UELA, since psystar is not the end user? They are an intermediary, right? The end user did not install the software on non apple branded hardware, they bought it that way. To the End User didn't violate the EULA either. This might be why Apple is keeping quiet. They know they have a loophole on their hands.
-locky
People keep bringing up the EULA, but I dont think it applies in this case.
I dont see how psystar has violated the UELA, since psystar is not the end user? They are an intermediary, right? The end user did not install the software on non apple branded hardware, they bought it that way. To the End User didn't violate the EULA either. This might be why Apple is keeping quiet. They know they have a loophole on their hands.
-locky
I'm wondering when the company will implode from the large amount of C&D letters that are bound to come their way.
about damn time, but it seems odd that it came on a sunday, and this is the only video. He would have had to get it on saturday if its USPS, and that would have given enough time for more people to say they got one.
MattInOz
macrumors 68030
How does the 'Modbook' from OWC fit into the picture then? Is that not non-Apple branded hardware running OSX..?
They buy complete (and current) hardware from Apple on behave of the user then mod it. Much the same deal as Colorware, just a little more extreme.
All the Apple Hardware and 90% of the case are as Apple made them. part of the case is discarded and a usb touchscreen is overlaid on the panel.
It's Value Adding, not value shifting.
EFI _ Extensible Firmware Interface
Is like BIOS but isn't it that does the same job, ie. it fires up the hardware some basic tests, then passes off control to the bootloader.
EFI is more like OpenFirmware though and takes this further and stays as an interface to the hardware. A device can create it's own interface or use one of the standards.
So a usb keyboard might have a EFI driver the OS talks to the device via EFI.
The same device/driver works then on any EFI OS (including the firmware itself).
More complex devices can have all the common function run as an EFI driver but with extended Interfaces for the parts which it needs an OS specific driver for (still reducing OS specific work). Video card do this.
Or so i understand it.
Sort of. But the difference is that the base hardware in the Psystar box was never produced by Apple, whereas, the Modbook is a modified MacBook with the original core motherboard+hardware intact. The Modbook essentially removes the keyboard+trackpad+original screen and replaces it with a pen+touch screen and loads drivers+software to help interact with the computer via the screen. Because the base system is still a MacBook, all system updates will be supported. I'm not completely familiar with the Modbook, but I believe that a standard system disk will install on the Modbook.How does the 'Modbook' from OWC fit into the picture then? Is that not non-Apple branded hardware running OSX..?
The Psystar on the other hand, can't be installed with standard Mac OS X install disks. It requires hacks and modifications to the software which is forbidden by the EULA. Personally, I believe that Psystar has the right to research and publish and, yes, even sell tools and software which help people do those hacks which allow Mac OS X to be installed on non-Apple hardware. However, I also think that installing Mac OS X on hardware and then selling that hardware without Apple's permission is going too far. In the first case, you are helping users extend their fair use rights of software purchased separately. In the second case, you violate the copyright and trademark rights of Apple by modifying and selling and selling Apple's product without their approval.
That wouldnt surprise me, maybe they were betting, (like myself, and I think a lot of others) that they would never shift, and that it was a scam.
I'm actually surprised Apple hasnt acted on this yet.
How does the 'Modbook' from OWC fit into the picture then? Is that not non-Apple branded hardware running OSX..?
They have an agreement with Apple, and they buy macbooks, and modify the screen, to become a touchscreen, therefore making it a tablet. So,
gets sales from a MB, and then Axiotron gets the extra profits from the modbook.As I have said...
Apple will not got after this company. It is easier to just let them die. The computer is crap, software will not be realiable and the company is dodgy. Only a few people will actually buy from them.
Expect them to pass away silently. 😀
Apple will not got after this company. It is easier to just let them die. The computer is crap, software will not be realiable and the company is dodgy. Only a few people will actually buy from them.
Expect them to pass away silently. 😀
inkswamp
macrumors 68030
inkswamp
macrumors 68030
Good lord! First it was that they weren't a real company. Then it was that they were breaking laws. Then it was that Apple's EULA would stop them dead in their tracks. Then it was all a hoax because of the way the cables were twisted in the Psystar video. Now Apple's legal team will take them down, even though Apple has shown not one sign of moving that direction, not with Psystar nor with the OSX86 project.
Did any of you opposing this ever stop to think that, you know, maybe you're just flat-out wrong? Even for a second?
displaced
macrumors 65816
I don't think 'End User' can be taken as a canonical term. Whoever installs a piece of software does so under acceptance of the licence. During an installation of OS X you are required to accept the licence. At that point, in the case of PsyStar, the installation is not a 'legal' (legal under the licence) installation. Plus, re-sale of the product does not waiver the terms of the licence each subsequent user is subject to it. Since PsyStar do not own the product (they are not the copyright holders) and the EULA has no provision for altering the licence at resale, the EULA remains.
I've often wondered about the validity of EULAs. But, I'm wondering what the technical difference is between something such as an EULA from Apple and a GPL licence attached to a piece of open-source software. Both state terms under which the software may be used and distributed. Both are an assertion of the copyright holder's legal (as in lawyer & judge legal) rights.
Copyright law is, in spirit, simple. The creator gets to decide under what terms a work is used and the law provides a framework for that to be enforced. I'm not sure why software becomes a special case. Surely there's no question that Apple is the creator of OS X?
Imagine: an author releases a long-awaited book. The fans love it. A lot of other people think it's pretty good, but they'd rather the main character was a dog. I rewrite the book, find and replacing 'man' with 'dog'. I then resell that book.
Perhaps my view's a bit skewed because I'm a software developer. But I think people lose sight of the fact that that collection of 1s and 0s which make up software don't just magic themselves into the universe. So I'm keen on the idea that an author (corporate or individual) may licence (and enforce that licence) under whatever terms they see fit commercial, GPL, BSD, Apache Licence, Mozilla Public Licence, Creative Commons, whatever).
I don't think the no-upgrade thing will deter hackers at all. It's pretty easy to print out some instructions and patch the machine. The real deterrent up to now was to build your own machine, much like the lifehacker-guys or the macworld-ones did. And Psystar presents a nice attractive package at an affordable price.
That said, this is always going to be niche. The only difference is that Psystar is getting some media-attention (gotta love those blogs), making this a bigger deal than it is. And for that reason, Apple will perhaps do something, assuming that they have some kind of legal right, apart from the EULA, to do so. I think they do, as they are licensing a software, and are the right-holders of how it is used. But I'm no lawyer
That said, this is always going to be niche. The only difference is that Psystar is getting some media-attention (gotta love those blogs), making this a bigger deal than it is. And for that reason, Apple will perhaps do something, assuming that they have some kind of legal right, apart from the EULA, to do so. I think they do, as they are licensing a software, and are the right-holders of how it is used. But I'm no lawyer