Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple

[Clive At Five]

After reading countless posts with you and others going back and forth about how running OSX hardware is or is not ethical, legal, moral, etc. to run on non-Apple hardware, I HAVE to ask, which Apple hardware have you owned to be able to make the comparison that you outgrew Apple's current hardware offerings? You surely haven't outgrown a Mac Pro.

I'm of the type that only uses what he needs. The Mac Pro is more than I need. More Energy, more noise, more heat, more power, more money. Could I afford a MacPro? Sure. It would be a waste of money, and I enjoy being fiscally responsible.

Sorry bud, just sounds to me like you're trying to deal with your own cognitive dissonance - "I'm an ethical person but I ripped off a company by hacking their OS." If you REALLY bought a copy of Leopard good for you, although I have a feeling you, like many others, just downloaded it. Why not just call a duck what it is, i.e. a duck. So you've hacked the OS, you're a HACKintosh user. Enjoy your hacked OS and tell yourself, "I'm a hacker, and I'm proud of it." Isn't that really the crux of what you're saying anyway?

yak yak yak, about the hack hack hack. It's hardly even a hack. In fact, the software on my computer is a vanilla install. The boot process is the only part modified, which convinces OS X that it's running on a genuine Apple... you know... because OS X code goes out of its way to make sure that the hardware returns Apple's Manufacturer ID.

Other than that, the only "hack" I had to perform was, again, adding a manufacturer ID to a kext, as it was the ONLY parameter blocking OS X from detecting my optical audio port. Built-in inoperability, people.

Other than that, yes, I am rather proud of my computer because I built it, I made it dual-boot XP and OS X like a champ. It even detects and runs my XP disk in Parallels, and it works amazingly. (Parallels is a must-buy, by the way.) And yes, I REALLY did buy Leopard. REALLY. I'll show you the box if you want.

I respect Apple's software, which is why I bought it. I don't respect their business practices. They have every right to target the markets that they do, and I don't expect them to offer a mid-tower just to satisfy my needs. I don't see the harm in offering an unsupported "system builder's" version for nerds like me who want to remain faithful to Apple, but don't see a hardware match in their arsenal.

In the meantime, for them to legally stomp out the Hackintosh movement would be a grave mistake (and I truly hope they do not pursue this course of action). Most of us have been long-time Apple-users who now feel alienated by their abandonment of prosumer models. I myself have been using Apple computers since our family's first Apple IIgs. Despite the constant criticism by my friends, I was a LOUD Apple evangelist. Now they're all using Macs.

I am and always have been a huge Apple fan. With their large growth in the last few years, they have had to make some changes to their business strategies. Some of those changes are good and some of them are not. I completely understand their motivation to use a closed hardware set. I just don't believe that they are right to legally close down all other options. Nevertheless, the law protects that decision of theirs, so they are entitled to make it, regardless of whether or not I agree.

The fact remains that I am loyal to Apple. This does not mean I will allow them to take advantage of me by shoving me into one of their target markets. I am NOT an average consumer, and I am NOT a professional. No amount of arguing will convince me to downgrade to the power of an iMac or upgrade to the power of a MacPro. I need exactly the power my hackintosh provides and until Apple offers hardware that fits those needs, I will not be purchasing another Mac. I will continue to purchase OS X, however, as I do wish to support the Apple products that I use and love.

BTW, I own many Macs from a G4MDD to an Intel Imac, a Powerbook G4 to a Macbook Core Duo. I also have a hackintosh that I play around with. Ive had fun learning with the hackgreat but still pay the piper Jobs too And yes, I do feel a little naughty when booting up the hack. Oh hackintosh OSX, you're like that woman in the Matrix with the red dress...so tempting and a bit naughty

Back to the point of this thread, I think THE DIFFERENCE here is that none of us have a little shop in Florida with the intent of hacking Apple's software to make a profit.

A Hackintosh??? You moral heathen!

Agreed on your thesis here. The real matter at hand is Psystar. They are obviously breaking the law and, whether one agrees with that law or not, Psystar has earned their impending punishment.

No, they didn't. Without using the software, the person never received the benefit of the software and thus never incurred the cost of having to make software for that customer. Apple's costs for the disc and box are covered, and it hasn't gained the burden of an extra user.

I'd like to respond to everything you commented on, but I just don't have that kind of time, so I must pick and choose.

The development of OS X was an investment on Apple's part. They made that investment based on their belief that people would buy it. There are no manufacturing costs like with a computer, where a company can just build more units as they see fit. With OS X, all the ante is in the kitty up front. Their monetary burden is going to be the same whether one person buys it or 10,000,000 people do. In that respect, I EASED Apple's development burden in helping them recouping their investment.

Supporting OS X is another matter, however, and each supported copy accrues more costs for Apple. Luckily for them, since I'm ineligible for support, I do not extend that burden.

In fact, ignoring the tie to their hardware, I am the best possible outcome for Apple. One who purchases OS X and doesn't require support gives Apple the maximum return for their investment.

This, then, brings us back to the purpose of the tie: To ensure that OS X also brings hardware sales.

As is, I am not robbing Apple of anything, but in fact, bringing them more money. Either I build a PC and run Windows (Apple earns nothing on hardware and nothing on software), or I build a PC and run OS X (Apple earns nothing on hardware and $129 on software that they won't have to support). I'm doing Apple a favor by buying OS X.

Ethics are a system of moral decisions judged socially or alternatively the study of moral behavior. Morals are based on the individual sense of right and wrong.

So if I change all my "ethically wrongs" to "morally wrongs" would you be happy?

Because when a company has a monopoly in product A (that is, it has very little competition), and ties it with product B (which might have very strong competition), then many people will buy product B only because they have to since it is tied to A, and all the companies that compete with B lose out. This harms competition, because people buy product B, not on its merits, but because of the monopoly in product A.

When a company has no monopoly in product A and ties it with B, no such harm happens. It may be that product A is really good value and lots of people buy B because of that, but that is just a fair way of competing. The company will only sell if A + B together merit the purchase. There is no harm to competition.

Even when a company has a monopoly (or market power) on product A doesn't mean there isn't an alternative. Microsoft was ruled to have a monopoly on OSes yet we were all using Mac OS 8 or whatever it was. Monopoly/market power or not, if people don't want product B they should either buy just product A from a different company, or find a way to buy from the desired company and work around the tie.

Since this choice always exists, I still fail to see why a company must have market power or a monopoly before it becomes a legal issue. Either it's always a legal issue or its never a legal issue, but for the justice system to identify an arbitrary label like "market power" and say that it's okay for those without and not okay for those with... is not only ill-defined, but also a double-standard.

Hell, I have market power, since I am the sole source for the JAE 50 cable. It would still be wrong of me to say "you can only buy this cable if you buy this potholder my wife knit for $5." Not only would I dominate the JAE 50 cable market but I would use that dominance to guarantee that everyone in that market also buys my wife's potholder. Who cares if the market only has 100 people in it, it's still anti-competitive and wrong.

Also, testing for other hardware permutations will affect development time.
I also get the distinct impression (although I don't have actual law knowledge so I couild easily be off-base) that if they sell it as an OS for generic systems then they have to ensure that it is fit for purpose. And if it is untested and does something catastrophic to somebody's no-standard system, it's still Apple's legal responsibility.

If Apple changed its EULA to state that failure to comply with the terms would result in ineligibility for technical support of the product. That way, Apple wouldn't be specifically opening up OS X to everyone, but they wouldn't be closing it either. Anyone who took on the risk of installing OS X on unsupported hardware would know what they were getting into from the get-go.

Problem solved. Apple wouldn't have to spend time locking OS X to its own hardware but don't have to test for every hardware permutation out there... and Apple is no longer the bad-guy. This is my dream.

-Clive

 

[Hugh]

Buying

Hi Matticus, would you have an opinion to the following question: One of the things that Apple asks for is that all Psystar computers should be returned back to Psystar. If the court were to grant that request, what would happen if

1. A customer bought a Psystar computer and wants to keep it and run MacOS X on it and refuses to return it.
2. A customer bought a Psystar computer and wants to keep it and run Windows or Linux on it and refuses to return it.
3. A customer bought a Psystar computer and is willing to return it as long as he or she gets their money back, but Psystar has no cash to refund the money?

3 is what stopped me from buying a computer from them. :/

Hugh

 

[TiggsPanther]

If Apple changed its EULA to state that failure to comply with the terms would result in ineligibility for technical support of the product. That way, Apple wouldn't be specifically opening up OS X to everyone, but they wouldn't be closing it either. Anyone who took on the risk of installing OS X on unsupported hardware would know what they were getting into from the get-go.

Problem solved. Apple wouldn't have to spend time locking OS X to its own hardware but don't have to test for every hardware permutation out there... and Apple is no longer the bad-guy. This is my dream.

-Clive

I'm not sure it's as simple as that.

I still get the distinct impression that as soon as it's (legally) possible to install OSX on any PC system it then becomes expected.

If words in the EULA can't persuade people that they're not allowed to install OSX on unsupported hardware then how are they supposed to persuade people that they can't get Apple support?

Plus, as has been said before, even if they could do that then there's a good chance that there would be different editions for upgrading than for complete fresh installs.
1) The fresh install option would probably cost more.
2) The upgrade versions would be more onerous to make sure they were only being installed on legit hardware. (Or they'd just have the existing checks that the fresh version wouldn't - negating your argument about less time locking it down)
3) Surely a version released specifically for non-supported hardware would be a legal minefield if trying to claim non-responsibility. The words 'fit for purpose' spring to mind here.

 

[Quillz]

Apple needs the competition I think, since anyone using an Apple knows how terrible Windows is. Apple charges ridiculous prices, and they know it. It won't be long until all of this backfires on them and Microsoft becomes the underdog.

Wake me when Apple makes serious business hardware that poses a real threat to Exchange Server, Windows Server and Oracle. Until then, Microsoft will continue to have its majority market share.

 

[matticus008]

I respect Apple's software, which is why I bought it. I don't respect their business practices.

And the everlasting question remains, what gives you the right? If you don't respect their business practices, walk away.

In that respect, I EASED Apple's development burden in helping them recouping their investment.

In the same way that a car thief eases the owner's burden of maintenance and insurance costs.

This, then, brings us back to the purpose of the tie: To ensure that OS X also brings hardware sales.

The purpose of the tie is to make aggressively-priced updates available to their customers. Being that you are ineligible for the software without a Mac, it's not a question to pose. OS X exists particularly to make Macintosh computers attractive and distinctive to the market. In the same way that you have to buy an Audi to get their MMI, you've got to buy a Mac to get OS X. It's the very essence of differentiation.

So if I change all my "ethically wrongs" to "morally wrongs" would you be happy?

It still wouldn't make any sense.

Even when a company has a monopoly (or market power) on product A doesn't mean there isn't an alternative.

There's almost always an alternative. You're missing the point. When competitors lose the ability to make their own decisions about their own products, the market is harmed.

You don't see this because you don't think owners have a right to control what they own.

for the justice system to identify an arbitrary label like "market power" and say that it's okay for those without and not okay for those with... is not only ill-defined, but also a double-standard.

Well, all labels are arbitrary, 'marker power', being a threshold and thus a single, not double, standard, is quite fully and ripely defined.

Hell, I have market power, since I am the sole source for the JAE 50 cable. It would still be wrong of me

That's exactly the POINT.

Problem solved.

No. Problem ignored entirely and a straw man battered. Par for the course, though.

One of the things that Apple asks for is that all Psystar computers should be returned back to Psystar.

That's all machines in their possession or under their control. Those "in the wild" so to speak are simply gone, which takes care of the first two scenarios.

The reality is that the impounding and disposition won't really happen. There's no practical way to get the software back, and the customers are entitled to the computers, so there's no legal way to get them back.

 

[stanton]

The reality is that the impounding and disposition won't really happen. There's no practical way to get the software back, and the customers are entitled to the computers, so there's no legal way to get them back.

Actually if you purchase a stolen vehicle, the police will seize it even if you purchased it without knowing that it was stolen. So if Apple proves their claim in court, they could possibly have every right to require that Psystar return every copy of OSX out there. I do agree with you, however; that this probably won't happen.
It my guess that Apple's going to start making unique chipsets that are required to run OSX. I doubt it will be with Snow Leopard, but maybe the next release. Even with that though, I doubt there will be much of an impact globally on Apple clones. IP laws still aren't standardized on a global scale, and a serious manufacturer could easily setup shop somewhere else.
I guess my point is that if there really is a market for these clones, there's nothing Apple or the US judicial system can really do about it.

 

[Sun Baked]

Actually if you purchase a stolen vehicle, the police will seize it even if you purchased it without knowing that it was stolen. So if Apple proves their claim in court, they could possibly have every right to require that Psystar return every copy of OSX out there. I do agree with you, however; that this probably won't happen.

Won't happen, all the court will allow Apple to do at most is request the customer list and seize all machines still at Psystar.

When the grey market game consoles were being shipped to the UK, they were talking about taking the machines from customers due to a company importing them illegally. all I think they were able to do was seize the containers at the port of entry and clean them out of the company's storage area.

 

[Joe The Dragon]

Actually if you purchase a stolen vehicle, the police will seize it even if you purchased it without knowing that it was stolen. So if Apple proves their claim in court, they could possibly have every right to require that Psystar return every copy of OSX out there. I do agree with you, however; that this probably won't happen.
It my guess that Apple's going to start making unique chipsets that are required to run OSX. I doubt it will be with Snow Leopard, but maybe the next release. Even with that though, I doubt there will be much of an impact globally on Apple clones. IP laws still aren't standardized on a global scale, and a serious manufacturer could easily setup shop somewhere else.
I guess my point is that if there really is a market for these clones, there's nothing Apple or the US judicial system can really do about it.

The most that they can take is the software the hardware is 100% payed for.

also unique chipsets will not work as that will make today macs not work with the new software.

 

[IJ Reilly]

One thing we all know, is that any scheme to protect software from illegal duplication and installation can be defeated. It can be made more difficult, but not impossible -- and the more difficult it is made, the heavier the burden of compliance becomes for the paying customer. These things inevitably become a sort of honesty tax, paid only by people who play by the rules. At least up to this point, Mac owners have been living in nirvana compared to Windows users, because Apple hasn't needed to institute Draconian copy protection schemes, as Microsoft did long ago, to minimize piracy. Sadly, the party may be coming to an end for us. We can see how determined some people are to spoil it. They're peeing into the well, with great enthusiasm.

 

[macbookairapple]

One thing we all know, is that any scheme to protect software from illegal duplication and installation can be defeated. It can be made more difficult, but not impossible -- and the more difficult it is made, the heavier the burden of compliance becomes for the paying customer. These things inevitably become a sort of honesty tax, paid only by people who play by the rules. At least up to this point, Mac owners have been living in nirvana compared to Windows users, because Apple hasn't needed to institute Draconian copy protection schemes, as Microsoft did long ago, to minimize piracy. Sadly, the party may be coming to an end for us. We can see how determined some people are to spoil it. They're peeing into the well, with great enthusiasm.

They are going to ruin it for the rest of us.

 

[gehrbox]

One thing we all know, is that any scheme to protect software from illegal duplication and installation can be defeated. It can be made more difficult, but not impossible -- and the more difficult it is made, the heavier the burden of compliance becomes for the paying customer. These things inevitably become a sort of honesty tax, paid only by people who play by the rules. At least up to this point, Mac owners have been living in nirvana compared to Windows users, because Apple hasn't needed to institute Draconian copy protection schemes, as Microsoft did long ago, to minimize piracy. Sadly, the party may be coming to an end for us. We can see how determined some people are to spoil it. They're peeing into the well, with great enthusiasm.

You are absolutely correct and good analogy.

 

[nookster]

These posts have now has hit the titanium standard of finger pointing rationale. Tenuous, ridiculous, priceless.

Pretty soon someone will figure out how Clive is personally responsible for global recession.

 

[icoffee]

My dream would be to no longer have to use Apple's overpriced, under-specced, overheating products to run their excellent OS. But this lawsuit was stupid and destined to fail. I really don't think there's any fair legal route to force Apple to open its OS. But knowing our courts, ridiculous things can happen by activist judges. Regardless, the only truly fair thing is for Apple to choose to open its OS.

Umm...if their products are so under-specced and overheating, why is Apple growing in marketshare and why do previous Mac owners buy Apple time and time again? Apple makes one heck of a product from portable players to desktops. Shoot, even their keyboards are world class. Try a real Mac, you'll like it

Wake me when Apple makes serious business hardware that poses a real threat to Exchange Server, Windows Server and Oracle. Until then, Microsoft will continue to have its majority market share.

Microsoft will have its market share for quite some time, and Apple will continue to expand their user base for some time as well. At the current rate, we should be seeing Mac OS 10.7 before Windows 8 hits the shelves. That's what happens when you've got a smaller base and charge a competitive premium for a product - faster R&D, better profit margins, and less of a variety of hardware to develop for and support. As far as Exchange support, Apple has done wonders in the last 3 years, but what you should have really mentioned was Microsoft's developer tools in .net that are actually far ahead of Apple's objective C set. Apple is just starting to catch up in that area, and when they do, things are going to get a whole lot more interesting.

Problem solved. Apple wouldn't have to spend time locking OS X to its own hardware but don't have to test for every hardware permutation out there... and Apple is no longer the bad-guy. This is my dream.

-Clive

Clive, allow me to retort I could really care less what you think of Apple's business practices or how you justify buying an OS without accompanying hardware. For all the points you make about hardware, the one you fail to make consistently is the overall user experience. As I said before, I own multiple Macs and a hack. While a hack comes close to the Mac experience, it's not bullet proof nor is it vanilla. It's a pseudo Mac experience, and I'd even go so far to say about 95% (on a good point update).

A more accurate description would be vanilla with added sweetener to make up for the lack of true vanilla. I can say without a doubt that my Macs will update with two clicks for the next so many years, hack users depend on a hacking community (that will hopefully still be around) to provide methods to continue running OS X. Updating on a hack is never bullet proof, it depends on the previously developed code that assumes Apple's protection schemes won't change.

As far as the morality, ethicality of using a hack, I think you deserve more credit than some have given you in this thread. At least you bought the OS. Many Mac and Windows users fail to do just that.

Now add a Mac to your collection! You won't regret it

 

[H2SO4]

This is a fantastic discussion...........

...and I for one am glad that Psystar got kicked in the butt. I do think Apple could be more friendly in the way that they market/design/protect their interests, but at the same time I have no problem with their practices. But software is not the same as hardware and needs a different type of protection. I can't go out and buy a car, go home, press copy and give my neighbour a bootleg copy can I? As long as Apple have made clear before you install/buy the kit I have no problem with their restrictions, and you shouldn't either.

I love Apple gear. Had an HP desktop as my first PC. Brought it home and plugged it in, nothing special, turned on XP loads up and I was away. It never seemed more than the sum of it's parts though. I had heard of Apple computers but without having actually seen/used one I had discounted them because everyone I spoke to, (99.5% of them), made at least these two statements;
1) They're really expensive.
2) There's no software for them.
By the way, the great majority of those had never used one either.

Anyways a few months into my HP, (NO-not due to porn), I began to get pop ups and such like of naked women, bought Norton. Not really much changed, fewer pop ups admittedly but now I had to contend with the computer grinding to a halt everytime Norton wanted to scan something if I so much as thought about it anything new.
After a while I became frustrated and didn't use the computer much.
Then one day out in PC World with a friend of mine I saw a PowerMac G4 MDD from across the store. Because it looked so striking I had to have a closer look, and ten minutes later I was putting it into the back of my car. Got this one home and I was just so struck by attention to detail and how the inside of the Mac looked better than the outside of my previous PC, and any other PC I'd seen. So It was a lot of money-I could have bought two PCs for the same outlay, I didn't know how to use it but I strangely felt it was money well spent.
For me that's what you get when you buy an Apple product. It doesn't really do any more than a PC does, it just makes the whole experience better while you do it. So why shouldn't they charge a premium?
Now I'm running a MacPro amongst other things and for someone that doesn't like fruit there's an awful lot of Apples in my house.

 

[sinser]

Sooner or later I guess Apple will be forced to introduce some kind of more restrictive kind of protection, by means of hardware or software (like for actual Windows O.S.). An other solution could be avoid selling separately Mac OS and giving it only bundled with the hardware and guaranteeing lifetime online updates to their customers until HW specs are met.

 

[Sun Baked]

Sooner or later I guess Apple will be forced to introduce some kind of more restrictive kind of protection, by means of hardware or software (like for actual Windows O.S.). An other solution could be avoid selling separately Mac OS and giving it only bundled with the hardware and guaranteeing lifetime online updates to their customers until HW specs are met.

With the new accounting rules after Enron, if you give lifetime updates away free that include significant new features for about 5 years -- you cannot book the sale revenue today, but over the 5 years. Anything that looks like a subscription has to be booked like one.

So Apple tried the nominal charge method for new features, and keeping the last OS up-to-date as far as security/major is concerned.

 

[IJ Reilly]

With the new accounting rules after Enron, if you give lifetime updates away free that include significant new features for about 5 years -- you cannot book the sale revenue today, but over the 5 years. Anything that looks like a subscription has to be booked like one.

So Apple tried the nominal charge method for new features, and keeping the last OS up-to-date as far as security/major is concerned.

That's the tidiest explanation of the post-Enron GAAP issues I've seen yet. Nice work!

Still I suppose it might be technically feasible for Apple to sell major OS upgrades through the Software Update preference panel, but at the very least, the downloads would be a bear.

 

[gregorsamsa]

These posts have now has hit the titanium standard of finger pointing rationale. Tenuous, ridiculous, priceless.

Presumably you've never participated in similar discussions on Macworld.UK, then?

I see your point though (ditto your previous post), but if Clive didn't enjoy or couldn't handle such exchanges, I'm sure he'd stay well out of it. In fact, I'm not aware of any Mac fora where someone can take on Apple's corporate line & avoid the same old "finger pointing" from those who tend to support Apple to the hilt. But it's all about opinion, man. FWIW, I own 2 Macs & have no plans to build a Hackintosh, but it's as much due to a lack of confidence & time as anything else. So good luck to all those who refuse to limit themselves to Apple's increasingly limited choice of hardware (quality notwithstanding) at, in some cases at least, premium prices. Besides, those who choose the Hackintosh path will always be in a very small minority &, in some ways, it may even benefit Apple in the long-term by attracting more switchers who later on might end up buying Macs anyway.

 

[Gasu E.]

But you totally miss the point, and sounds very close to fanboi.

Name one machine outside of a Mac that you can install OS X on.

Windows? can go on a Mac, PC, or even a DEC Alpha.

Linux? Macs, PCs, Sun workstations/servers, DEC Alphas, SGIs, Zseries, ARM, the entire lot.

OS X? Only Apple. What I believe Psystar was trying to do was correlate OS X only being used on Macs to Internet Explorer and the issues they had in the EU.

Yes, there is competition as far as the rest of the industry is concerned, but when it comes to OS X, Apple saying that it can only go onto Macs does start to smell of antitrust.

BL.

Consider HP-UX. AIX, Solaris (prior to their x86 version), z/OS. All these run only on proprietary hardware. Are you saying that these are violating anti-trust laws.

 

[IJ Reilly]

So good luck to all those who refuse to limit themselves to Apple's increasingly limited choice of hardware...

Sorry to hone in on just this one comment, but having made it I must assume that you're unfamiliar with the time (not long ago) when Apple's entire hardware product line fit in a two-by-two grid. Their hardware line practically sprawls now, by comparison.

 

[Clive At Five]

In the same way that a car thief eases the owner's burden of maintenance and insurance costs.

No, in the same way a "car thief" buys the car at full price but refuses to reap the benefits of the included warranty.

The purpose of the tie is to make aggressively-priced updates available to their customers. Being that you are ineligible for the software without a Mac, it's not a question to pose. OS X exists particularly to make Macintosh computers attractive and distinctive to the market.

Its obvious the purpose of the tie is to bring in the additional income of an integrated business model. Why else would've Jobs killed the clones? Mac OS ran BETTER on clones than it did on Apple's models...

The almighty dollar is the motivating factor to tie, my friend. Apple knows people want their OS so if they lock it into their own hardware, they trap the green.

These posts have now has hit the titanium standard of finger pointing rationale. Tenuous, ridiculous, priceless.

Pretty soon someone will figure out how Clive is personally responsible for global recession.

Oh, but I am. I never missed a payment on my loans, so I thought I was safe... little did I know that building a hackintosh would cause the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market. Shame on me.

Clive, allow me to retort I could really care less what you think of Apple's business practices or how you justify buying an OS without accompanying hardware. For all the points you make about hardware, the one you fail to make consistently is the overall user experience. As I said before, I own multiple Macs and a hack. While a hack comes close to the Mac experience, it's not bullet proof nor is it vanilla. It's a pseudo Mac experience, and I'd even go so far to say about 95% (on a good point update).

A more accurate description would be vanilla with added sweetener to make up for the lack of true vanilla. I can say without a doubt that my Macs will update with two clicks for the next so many years, hack users depend on a hacking community (that will hopefully still be around) to provide methods to continue running OS X. Updating on a hack is never bullet proof, it depends on the previously developed code that assumes Apple's protection schemes won't change.

As far as the morality, ethicality of using a hack, I think you deserve more credit than some have given you in this thread. At least you bought the OS. Many Mac and Windows users fail to do just that.

Now add a Mac to your collection! You won't regret it

Add a Mac to my collection? I started using Apples with my family's IIgs, then our Performa 630CD, then my G3 iMac DV SE, then my G4 iMac... I even bought a used Cube because it was so beautiful. I've bought many Macs. I'm a long-time Apple evangelist. Unfortunately, they've managed to lose touch with many of us who were their most loyal customer base, especially during the dark days of the early-mid 90s.

I'm well informed on Apple's schtick... but I'm done playing fetch.

I'm very well-pleased with my Hack. I'd agree that it's about 95% of a Mac. It's still better than any of the many PCs I've built. I'd love to buy another Mac, but since the xHack is treating me so well, and is perfectly fit to my computing needs, I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing.

If Apple released an xMac, however...

-Clive

 

[Clive At Five]

Sorry to hone in on just this one comment, but having made it I must assume that you're unfamiliar with the time (not long ago) when Apple's entire hardware product line fit in a two-by-two grid. Their hardware line practically sprawls now, by comparison.

While this is true, the G4 PowerMac had a HUGE array of performance levels that it was worth several models.

Today's models outnumber those of the 2x2 matrix, but the performance of the desktop models only cover narrow bands of the spectrum.

-Clive

 

[gregorsamsa]

Sorry to hone in on just this one comment, but having made it I must assume that you're unfamiliar with the time (not long ago) when Apple's entire hardware product line fit in a two-by-two grid. Their hardware line practically sprawls now, by comparison.

Fair enough point, Apple increased hardware choices at one point, but perhaps a more relevant comparison today might be between Apple's hardware choices now & that of more recent times.

There's no need for me to dwell on it, as no doubt you'll be well aware of the veritable uproar caused in some professional circles due to Apple terminating matte-screen options on all their computers. Well for those who've invested heavily in OS X, & not just financially, who also work under variable conditions principally on laptops, but can't work with glossy screens, I have only sympathy for & can quite understand at least the temptation to access any one of a number of Hackintosh sites in order to run OS X on a matte-screen, laptop PC. If they succeed & that's the solution that works for them, then I have no issues with that whatsoever.

 

[albusseverus]

With the new accounting rules after Enron, if you give lifetime updates away free that include significant new features for about 5 years -- you cannot book the sale revenue today, but over the 5 years. Anything that looks like a subscription has to be booked like one.

So Apple tried the nominal charge method for new features, and keeping the last OS up-to-date as far as security/major is concerned.

Then, why didn't the 2.2 iPod Touch update attract a fee, this time?

I can't go out and buy a car, go home, press copy and give my neighbour a bootleg copy can I?

Let's get this perfectly clear - Psystar is NOT pirating Apple software - it is Selling genuine OS X (for Apple) increasing OS X market share and reaching customers who ordinarily wouldn't buy Mac. And once they're done with the leaf-blower hardware, they might take a look at the 'real thing'. Maybe second hand or refurbished at first, but this is only good news for Apple. It gets OS X into the lower end of the market, and saves Apple competing with cheap hardware, which it doesn't want to do.

Apple chose to build standard PCs and re-wrote OS X to run on them.

 

[matticus008]

Actually if you purchase a stolen vehicle, the police will seize it even if you purchased it without knowing that it was stolen.

Theory and practice. There is no practical way to get back infringing books already sold. Injunctive relief is for the present and the future, not the past. The award of damages is the remedy for past acts of infringement. Cars are seized because they are an asset that is tracked by the government, and recovery is only available to be ordered if the car is found.

So if Apple proves their claim in court, they could possibly have every right to require that Psystar return every copy of OSX out there.

No. There is no such possibility.

No, in the same way a "car thief" buys the car at full price but refuses to reap the benefits of the included warranty.

If the "car thief" drops a pile of cash on the desk and takes the car, that does not mean he hasn't stolen the car.

Its obvious the purpose of the tie is to bring in the additional income

The purpose of a tie is always to bring in additional income. There would be no point otherwise.

Let's get this perfectly clear - Psystar is NOT pirating Apple software

No, let's indeed get it perfectly clear. Psystar is pirating Apple software. Piracy, the unauthorized and illegal reproduction or distribution of materials protected by [copyright], is a legally recognized term dating back to the 1860s.