Maybe because it just isn't that easy. I doubt there's anything on the MB that could be used for guaranteed identification. Early Intel Macs included a TPM chip, which apparently OS X never used for anything, but those were removed early on.
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.
Psystar Announces Program for Third-Party PC Manufacturers to Enable Snow Leopard Installation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe because it just isn't that easy. I doubt there's anything on the MB that could be used for guaranteed identification. Early Intel Macs included a TPM chip, which apparently OS X never used for anything, but those were removed early on.
The hardware is the same, more or less. Branding of the hardware components is different, but the specs are the same.
The difference between a Mac and a PC, besides aesthetics, is SOFTWARE.
The OS X install CD looks for a signature during the EFI boot process. Since many PC's still use BIOS instead of EFI, you have to emulate the EFI boot process. (This is a very over simplified description)
This is all software, not hardware.
So why would anyone bother to honor their license when they don't honor Apple's? They might as well just put it on BitTorrent or Sourceforge and be done.
Maybe Apple figured it wasn't worth the effort at the time. Then again, there was no Psystar back then, either. They could always build it in going forward.
These psystar manouvers will not be impressing the judge either.I am guessing their attempts will backfire soon,and create a road map of dishonesty for the court to follow.In the end harming their defence.
Actually no. Regular old PCs cannot run Mac OS X. They need to be tweaked.
And, Pystar is directly advertising its intentions:
Introducing the Rebel series. It's not a Mac is for everyone.Faster, cheaper and upgradable. Available in 4 customizable models. Three year warranty and support
Besides, this is wrong. They make you break the EULA so Apple won't give you support the OS. In fact, they know it:
http://store.psystar.com/faqs/#faq9
When you purchase an Open Computer or OpenPro you understand that you are not purchasing a computer made by Apple Computers, Inc. You understand that Apple Computers does not support the Open Computer or OpenPro in any capacity and that they may not approve of your usage of the Open Computer. In the same token Psystar does not guarantee that each and every program and feature will operate correctly as the Open Computer and/or OpenPro is not supported by Apple Computers. Psystar does not develop the OS X operating system. All copies of OS X sold by Psystar are legitimately licensed and purchased from Apple Computers and are not pirated in any way. Psystar does not guarantee that any of your peripherals, Apple-related or not, will function correctly. Psystar will not be responsible for your usage of the Open Computer and/or OpenPro in any way. Psystar is not responsible for any legal repercussions brought upon you due to your use or involvement with the Open Computer and/or OpenPro.
That's not true, because they are preinstalling a software not meant to OEM but to final users. And they just tell you, "look if you buy this computer you are breaking the law and we are not responsible".
So, how this support thing work on Pystar?
The highly extensible Open(3) Computer is a configuration of PC hardware capable of running unmodified OS X Leopard kernels. All known Leopard software works flawlessly including the built-in Software Update utility. The price includes a retail copy of Leopard in its original package. We preinstall OS X on your machine so that you may be able to begin using your Open(3) Computer right out of the box. Information about our restore disc is available on our website. Please note that Bootcamp is not supported by Open Computers because it is Apple-hardware specific
This is the company of contradictions. So clear in everything. And they are so legal too...
If you purchase the operating system from us you will receive a licensed copy of the operating system on its installation media (CD or DVD). Windows OSes are OEM versions and will be operational strictly on the computer with which it was purchased as that is how Microsoft's OEM licensing works.
So, they can bind legally their computers to their OSes, but Apple cannot?
Hey, that was the "polite" version. If it was "Joe Average" doing anything like this they would already be locked up, but greedy corporates can do whatever they like with impunity ... even if Apple eventually wins, the morons at PayStar will simply kick it back with an appeal. The legal system is just a worthless joke. If it was up to me I'd just shoot the PayStar idiots (and all the greedy scum lawyers) and be done with it.
Of course, you won't get a lot of common sense around here about this sort of thing. There's far too many people who think they're allowed to buy one copy of Snow Leopard and install it on all the Macs, or buy the Snow Leopard *upgrade* pack and install it over Mac OS X 10.1.
Define Apple Branded. I know people who have hackintoshes. They took an apple logo sticker (the ones that come with iPhone) Put it on the side of it and its an apple branded machine
Define Apple Branded. I know people who have hackintoshes. They took an apple logo sticker (the ones that come with iPhone) Put it on the side of it and its an apple branded machine
Well, people put BMW logos on their Civics, but I'm pretty sure BMW doesn't honer the warranty.
Tweaked in what way? I have two regular old PCs in my house right now and the only tweaking I did to get Snow Leopard installed was installing the Chameleon bootloader. After I created the Chameleon bootloader partition Snow Leopard installed just as if I were putting the DVD in regular old Mac. In fact, the installation is 100% vanilla. What step in that process is considered tweaking? Is it the installation of a Chameleon bootloader? If that's considered a tweak, then the standards of tweaking have gone down considerably.
All of this supports my position that they do not advertise or lead people to believe that they're selling Mac clones. They're quite explicit about what they're doing. They're selling PCs, not Mac clones, with OSX installed on them.
What law? Contract law or criminal law or both. Can you please be specific. Part of the trouble in this thread is that the terms "law" and "illegal" are being thrown around without any disambiguation.
It seems clear to me that they're simply reporting the EULA conditions of a bit of software that they sell. Per your previous quotes they basically do the same thing for OSX.
Actually, Apple has kind of brought this on themselves, by making the OS/X an complete install rather than an upgrade, and for very little money. Unlike Microsoft which controls distribution of the OS. So there is nothing illegal about buying an OS/X disk and inserting it into a PC and booting it up if it can be done. But it will force Apple into the same draconian upgrade mesures that Microsoft has for Windows, which is too bad for the rest of us.
If I buy a Ford Truck and put a Chevy engine which I think is better in it, I'm not allowed to sell it, HA.
I applaud Psystar for their cheekiness
While I imagine they will ultimately lose in court, I find their approach entertaining and the outrageous responses here equally as funny
I wouldn't buy a Psystar, but I have no problem with people that do. All the holier than thou posters here crack me up. Im sure tons of SL single licenses were installed on multiple computers. Should they be criminally prosecuted too?
While I imagine they will ultimately lose in court, I find their approach entertaining and the outrageous responses here equally as funny
I wouldn't buy a Psystar, but I have no problem with people that do. All the holier than thou posters here crack me up. Im sure tons of SL single licenses were installed on multiple computers. Should they be criminally prosecuted too?
Whose side are you on?
It seems to me everyone here has already made up their mind. I am surprised at how many psystar defenders there are here. Disclosure: I love apple. I think psystar sucks and I think EVERY one of you hackintoshers suck, too. You know you are scofflaws. Shame on you.
But, here's an interesting question: Why does apple charge only $29 for snow leopard? This hackintosh thing had been started long before. it's a full install disk. They know you pirates are going to rip them off, claiming it's your right since you paid "retail" for it. Maybe they want to encourage installation on non-apple hardware? Obviously, the correct move would be to sell a cheap upgrade disc as well as a $300 full install. What were they thinking?
It seems to me everyone here has already made up their mind. I am surprised at how many psystar defenders there are here. Disclosure: I love apple. I think psystar sucks and I think EVERY one of you hackintoshers suck, too. You know you are scofflaws. Shame on you.
But, here's an interesting question: Why does apple charge only $29 for snow leopard? This hackintosh thing had been started long before. it's a full install disk. They know you pirates are going to rip them off, claiming it's your right since you paid "retail" for it. Maybe they want to encourage installation on non-apple hardware? Obviously, the correct move would be to sell a cheap upgrade disc as well as a $300 full install. What were they thinking?
You don't have to go that far to run into criminal behavior based on what's been said around here. Apparently, an owner of a real Mac, who wipes their Mac's hard drive clean and then performs a complete installation of Snow Leopard from the $30 disc they paid for at an Apple store is, according to the views expressed here, not only violating the EULA of the software they bought, but is also a pirate. No need to add the bit about installing on multiple computers. A single installation on a single real Mac is piracy if you do it with a bought $30 upgrade disc on a Mac that's had it's hard drive completely wiped clean prior to installation.
But you cannot sell that car as a BMW - that would be fraud. Putting another companies logo on something does not change its identity.
Define Apple Branded. I know people who have hackintoshes. They took an apple logo sticker (the ones that come with iPhone) Put it on the side of it and its an apple branded machine
Apple Branded: A product branded by Apple Inc., not a product that has an Apple Logo since the Apple logo is an Apple Trademark and you cannot use another companies trademarks without their explicit permission.
In other words, putting an Apple sticker on a PC means jack legally. The only company that defines a Mac would be the company that owns that trademark.
I have yet to hear anybody seriously suggest that. And anyway they would be wrong. A person who installs Snow Leopard (presumably they possess Leopard in some fashion) has every legitimate right to install Snow Leopard even if it is on a blank drive - they own the Mac hardware and they possess a prior software version
Covers retail discs. Nowhere does it say that you must have Leopard previously installed, just that you posses. You might be right about specific upgrade disks (I believe the up to date discs), but you are talking about the retail discs.
As long as you meet the licensing terms, you can install OSX in any legal fashion. I do not see any part of the license that forbids installing on a blank Hard drive - in fact Apple does have that feature available for a reason. Heck, even the System Requirements do not predicate having Leopard already installed.
The gist of Apples licenses for retail copies is that you:
a) Own a Mac
b) Possess an operating system
Actually you can... you can sell it as anything you like... however, this is the important part, you just have to be careful on how you word the description of the vehicle. So long as you do not claim it to be an original BMW, which means you would have to use wording such as "BMW replica" or "BMW kit car" as opposed to just "BMW" or "original BMW" then you are fine. This is assuming you are just selling a single vehicle.
Now if you are trying to sell a vehicle you are manufacturing then the legal department might need to do some more research.
Regardless, people customize their vehicles all the time and use parts/badges that are not necessarily designed for the vehicle on which they are used.
Which is invalid in many (EU) countries, simply because you cannot ask people to agree with any license agreement after they bought the product/license.
Now answer this question: "Why didn't Apple include the EULA in The Netherlands?".
No its more like, Apple have found a company that has found out that if they're close to getting caught they can just go into Type 11 bankruptcy.
That's just an odd way of putting it. Imagine two people, Bob and Tom, and each one goes to Best Buy and buys a legitimate full installation version of Snow Leopard. They report to a computer lab where they're instructed to install Snow Leopard on two computers. Each computer is hidden behind a wall and each one has the exact same Apple LCD, keyboard, and mouse attached. The difference is that one is a Mac and the other is a Hack.
Unknown to Bob, he installs Snow Leopard on the Mac. Unknown to Tom, he installs Snow Leopard on the Hack. According to you, it seems that Tom is a pirate and Bob isn't.
Of course, things can get even more bizarre. What exactly is Apple hardware? Do Apple engineers design the logic of the mainboard? What about the CPU? The audio controllers? The GPUs? How about the hard drives? It seems that the only thing we can say Apple is genuinely an engineer of is the case, the design of the LCDs (not the internal components), the keyboard, and the mouse.
So, now let's imagine that each computer, the Mac and the Hack, are using type-identical internal components (or as type-identical as possible). Essentially the same mainboard, type-identical CPU, same hard drive, same GPU, and same Apple branded peripherals. The only material difference, then, with respect to the actual computer, is the case.
Thus, if this Hack-makers are Pirates charge is valid, then it's also true that in the case that two individuals actually legitimately purchase a piece of software and perform type-identical procedures with respect to installation and use, one is a pirate and one is not simply because one performs the same set of procedures as the other on type-identical computer components inside a certain sort of case and the other does not. Thus, being a pirate, with respect to Apple's OS supervenes on by whom the case is made...
That would be a taste of their own medicine if it's also true that the other company didn't pay Psystars asking price for their bootloader. What evidence do we have that Psystar is failing to pay for the copies of OSX that are installed on the machines they sell?
So far, the only thing I've seen offered as support for the claim that they're not paying for copies of OSX is that they "lost" records. Suppose somebody has Snow Leopard installed on their authentic Mac. Furthermore, suppose they've thrown away or lost every record relating to their acquisition of the copy of Snow Leopard running on their Mac. Does it follow from that fact that they stole the copy of Snow Leopard that's installed on their machine?
How do you know that? Here's an unscientific way of getting at the questionableness of your claim. A search in Primate Labs results browser for "Mac Pro" yields 2,369 pages of results. A search for "imac" yields 738 pages of results. A search of "macbook" yields 2032 pages of results. A search of "mac mini" yields 199 pages of results.
There's roughly 5338 pages of results for authentic Macs. There's 1163 pages of results for "hackintosh". At least in this very rough analysis, 1163 is a non-inconsequential number compared to 5338. That's not even taking into account the fact that there are a significant number of seemingly authentic Mac results that are actually Hack results because people edit certain files to get their Hacks to report as Macs.
Naturally, we ought to keep people from doing non-dangerous things that they have the ability to do and want to do.
Well, that's just obviously false since there are loads of people running OSX on a non-Apple computerme. I take it what you mean is something like "regardless of the kind of machines Apple sell or whatever their policies are, the only computers that are suppose run OS X remain Apple Macintosh's according to Apple."
TBH though, that isn't going to happen soon. Apple runs EFI, engineer their own boards. PC companies don't seem to be interested in changing to EFI.
please no, that would stuff it up for the hobbyists who do it for fun or like me so i can have my mac mini tower with lots of HDD and upgradability. I really prefer real macs for simplicity but untill theres a mac tower thats not like a pro then i will hackintosh pcs. I still have my macbook as a real mac though
I dont agree with psystar trying to profit from what they are doing, but i dont think the hobbyists should be penalised. i dont think apple cares about the hobbyists, they just care about psystar and anyone who is breaking the eula on a commercial scale
Somebody's funding them I reckon...
If it was just some annoying guy wanting to make a point they would be bankrupt by now. They pulled out of 1 case because Apple said "right... well to be fair, please reveal all of your assets..." they said "ooops... no... lets pick a case where we don't have to reveal who's funding us"
My guess is that fatass Ballmer's funding them in order to make a statement.
Agreed... and Pystar's just selling stuff that was made by the hobbiyists, so they're ripping off/exploiting people who do it for fun. If you want to make a Hackintosh... great (just like how I jailbreak my iPod Touch... I like it because it allows me to use my bluetooth GPS device... but I don't want some ******* selling jailbroken iPhones and trying to profit from it.)
I dont think you could get away with that, but that was my point. Its not a BMW"
Any business has the obligation to consult their legal department.
But badging something as the end user is very different than a licensed manufacturer doing it.