Psystar Announces Program for Third-Party PC Manufacturers to Enable Snow Leopard Installation

[jbernie]

Given the likelyhood of a Dell or HP type company signing up for this I don't see it being the end of the world for Apple. I really don't see the average consumer buying the clones, it is still very much in the realm of the hobbyist.

The legalities of it all still rest with the courts, though at first glance this is probably more on the legal side of the grey than the illegal side... going along the lines of regular tools (i.e. screw drivers) can be used to commit crimes but the manufacturer and retailer can't control the (illegal) use of them. It would still fall in the grey for now.

 

[sneezymarble]

I agree!

However, Pystar case is not based completely on Mac OS X Piracy. Pystar is not claiming they make OS X, so piracy does not apply in that regard.

However, as "Apple sees it" Pystar is "pirating the Macintosh". Apple sees "Pystar" as an "Apple impersonator" who tries to fake Macintoshes.

Since Apple considers "Mac" as a whole product (hardware+software+support=brand), just like iPods, Pystar is trying to sell Macs "wanna be". And that is considered piracy. In fact, if Pystar would have not pre-installed de Mac OS this whole thing might have been easier for them.

This is like if I try to sell copies of sport shoes, with similar designs, cheaper materials, no stores, and try to sell them as the real deal. Something like "Nike clones". That's piracy.

Ah, I understand what you're saying, and that helps make things a bit clearer. So, according to what you've just said, this is more a beanie baby type issue.

But, there's some interesting differences in this case that makes it unlike the beanie baby issue or the thought of making Nike-clones. Using the Nike analogy, it would be like if Nike made some interesting useful shoe part and then another company made shoes on which they simply attached the Nike-made shoe part that they could buy at a store.

It seems to me that the difference between the beanie baby type scenarios which makes it difficult to draw a straight analogy is that those situations don't have the cloner using a product made and sold at retail by the clonee. On the face of it, it seems that the Psystar case should be worse, but after consideration it's difficult to tell.

In the Psystar case it's not the case that they're trying to make a product that's identical to a Mac-branded product. Rather, they're using a Apple-made product that's sold at retail in a way contrary to Apple's wishes. The actual bits that make an Apple computer an Apple computer are not the internals, but the aesthetic pieces of the system. Since, Psystar doesn't make any effort to copy those bits makes it more difficult to call this a case of piracy per the beanie baby definition.

 

[DavidSan]

One interesting aspect that doesn't seem to be explored yet is what will people who buy this stuff do when they have problems with the OS? If you have a Mac and you have problems with whatever areas of OSx, you can call Apple and there can try to help you and your problem might be fixed by an OSx fix. If you buy one of these Psystar machines (or one from yet another 3rd party) and you have a problem with OSx, Apple is not going to help you. No business in their right mind would buy a psystar machine knowing that Apple will not support it nor fix any problems. Businesses expect support for their machines.

Apple can also go the route of the license key like Microsoft does and double or triple the price of OSx at retail. There are still lots of options for Apple aside from the courts. They could add still more code into OSx to thwart the likes of Psystar.

Exactly!

That's the main issue. People are just seeing the computer business as three separate components (hardware+software+support), while Apple sees it as a whole product.

That vision is shared among many of the replies here. Microsoft sells the OS, other people sell hardware (HP), and many other people live giving support and trying to make it work.

So, they ask, why Apple cannot sell the OS, other people sell hardware (Dell) and other people make it work? Because Mac is a full product that includes all the components. That's why Mac is more expensive:

-Developing an OS is expensive (even from open source components).
-Developing hardware is expensive (even from standard components).
-Maintaining stores is expensive. (People work there and they need to eat too. Genius bar people are people, in spite of the "genius" tag).
-Phone support is expensive.

And all that, is included in your Mac price tag!

 

[pdjudd]

Given the likelyhood of a Dell or HP type company signing up for this I don't see it being the end of the world for Apple. I really don't see the average consumer buying the clones, it is still very much in the realm of the hobbyist.

Given that most of those companies would have gotten into the clone business years ago if it were legal, I doubt they are going to touch this. And Dell has been on record that they would love to be a cloner. Clearly they don't think they could get away with it.

 

[MattInOz]

Only in Apple's eyes. Breaking a EULA is not breaking the law.

Entering a legal agreement with no intent to abide by the terms of the agreement is Fraud poor and simple.

 

[sneezymarble]

I believe, nevertheless, that Apple does not want to put Pystar in jail (Criminal punishment) Apple just want Pystar to stop making "Macintosh clones" (Civil punishment) and pay the fees.

That's my understanding. It's interesting the the actual people involved in this issue aren't making criminal claims, but some people talking about the issue claim that something criminal is going on. Of course, the fact that no criminal charges have been made doesn't mean that a crime hasn't been committed, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Not the same specs. Just similar specs. Any specs that differ you will have chosen to ignore or downplay.

That's right. I think a more precise way of putting it would be to say that you can have a system that performs roughly the same or better in the same OS with the same software. The system's won't have the same specs.

 

[DavidSan]

Ah, I understand what you're saying, and that helps make things a bit clearer. So, according to what you've just said, this is more a beanie baby type issue.

But, there's some interesting differences in this case that makes it unlike the beanie baby issue or the thought of making Nike-clones. Using the Nike analogy, it would be like if Nike made some interesting useful shoe part and then another company made shoes on which they simply attached the Nike-made shoe part that they could buy at a store.

It seems to me that the difference between the beanie baby type scenarios which makes it difficult to draw a straight analogy is that those situations don't have the cloner using a product made and sold at retail by the clonee. On the face of it, it seems that the Psystar case should be worse, but after consideration it's difficult to tell.

In the Psystar case it's not the case that they're trying to make a product that's identical to a Mac-branded product. Rather, they're using a Apple-made product that's sold at retail in a way contrary to Apple's wishes. The actual bits that make an Apple computer an Apple computer are not the internals, but the aesthetic pieces of the system. Since, Psystar doesn't make any effort to copy those bits makes it more difficult to call this a case of piracy per the beanie baby definition.

In the Nike analogy, you could think as an accessory, like the iPod running accessory.

If I sell my "Nike-clones" which are compatible with Nike-original-exclusive iPod-accesories. It is piracy!

And if I pre-install them on my factory is "so obviously" piracy.

 

[dejo]

I think a more precise way of putting it would be to say that you can have a system that performs roughly worse than, the same or better in the same OS with the same software.

Fixed that for ya!

 

[cloudblood84]

I can't believe this stupidity is still going on. It simply further proves that the so-called justice / legal system is nothing more than a pathetic joke for greedy over-paid scum lawyers (at least in western countries). Paystar should have been forced to shut down within months, if not days, of starting up and the idiots in charge heavily fined and/or jailed, and never allowed to run a business ever again.

buzz bumble, seek anger management, please.

 

[cloudblood84]

Everyone needs to calm down, as well. i'd hate to see how you people react to your own real life crises.

 

[Azathoth]

Apple does not sell Operating Systems, as Microsoft does, Apple is trying to sell (or selling) a "whole experience". And it might be closed or open, but it is their product, and they sell it as they think is best for them.

Appleland is a facist state. It's clean, the trains run on time, the cars are available in any colour you like - as long as it's aluminium...

Some people prefer to live in a democracy where the trains usually run on time, and with fairly clean sidewalks, but with the option of buying any colour of car. or bike. or train.

 

[sneezymarble]

In the Nike analogy, you could think as an accessory, like the iPod running accessory.

If I sell my "Nike-clones" which are compatible with Nike-original-exclusive iPod-accesories. It is piracy!

And if I pre-install them on my factory is "so obviously" piracy.

Here, let me get as clear as possible. Let's imagine that I make shoes. I make brown leather work shoes.

Nike makes a certain brand of running shoes we'll just call "Sikes". Sikes come with a little plastic attachment on the side of the shoe that has a button on it which if pressed displays, via a laser, a little red Nike swoosh on the ground. Nike also happens to sell these little plastic attachments in shoe stores. The packaging of the Sike attachment says that buyers agree to only use the Sike attachment on Sikes.

Now, Sike sells me a whole box of Sike attachments. I attach them to the brown work shoes I make and sell them together.

Question? Am I committing piracy?

 

[sneezymarble]

Fixed that for ya!

That's certainly a possibility. I left it out because none of the Hacks I've made performed worse in the same situations than similarly configured Macs. In fact, they've all performed better.

 

[paradox00]

That's complete crap pricing will not change because of it and the other things haven't happened yet and probably won't happen anytime soon. The public as a whole doesn't care Mac users care but they are making an unreasonable hate towards pystar for no reason.

Apples legal costs have to be paid from some source of income. Apple gets their income from selling products, so yes these court battles can effect pricing.

It's a law that is rather stupid to begin with and it doesn't affect you in anyway I mean think about is your life changed since pystar exists.

Terrible argument. First of all it isn't a stupid law. What if GM started buying Ford engines that were intended to be sold to Ford repair shops and installed them in new GM cars and sold them without Ford's permission? Is that alright? Secondly it doesn't matter if an individuals life has been changed, they can still comment on whether or not they believe something to be a reasonable action. It doesn't affect you either, so by your logic, why are you here commenting?

I'm not saying they aren't I'm not saying pystar isn't wrong here. I'm saying you all need to stop worrying about it so much it doesn't affect you at all.

The fact still is I can go out buy a pc for 500-700 and get the same specs and install os x on it compared to paying 1500 or even 1000 for their lowest priced apple mac which is highly overpriced for no reason.

If by same specs you mean CPU speed, RAM size, and hard drive size while ignoring the motherboard, RAM speeds, screen type (LED VS LCD), drive type (slot loading vs tray loading), case materials, R&D costs, desktop vs laptop components, drop sensors, light sensors, illuminated keyboards, etc. then yes, you would be correct. I won't deny some Apple markup, but quite often the "markup" you see can actually be found in the cost of the components that you don't normally compare on a spec sheet. Apple makes a total package to give you the best user experience possible, while most PC manufacturers do not and only include components that look good on a spec sheet.

Back to the whole Psystar thing. Apple sells their operating system as an upgrade for existing customers under the assumption that you have already purchased a mac. As such Apple can discount these OSX upgrades because their real money maker is the sale of their macs. Psystar infringes on this concept and provides computers with OSX on hardware that Apple didn't sell, yet they purchased (assuming they actually did) the software at this hardware subsidized rate.

If Psystar wins this case, there could be major ramifications to mac users despite your statements otherwise, as it would also provide precedent for the likes of HP, Dell, and Acer to sell OSX based computers. The cost of OSX going up and the introduction of license keys and DRM are likely possibilities.

Lastly imagine if Apple didn't sell OSX separately and you had to buy a new computer if you wanted to update your OS. That would suck, but there would be no problems with Apples integrated hardware and software business model and anyone selling OSX on other computers would clearly be in the wrong. Now why on Earth should Apple be forced to give up that model the moment they decide to provide a service to their customers and let them purchase an upgrade to their OS without buying a new computer?

And now Psystar is selling the certification of hardware for an operating system that they don't own the IP rights to????? This case should be open and shut, but apparently we need a year of "discovery" to fleece the pockets of the lawyers.

 

[DavidSan]

In the Psystar case it's not the case that they're trying to make a product that's identical to a Mac-branded product. Rather, they're using a Apple-made product that's sold at retail in a way contrary to Apple's wishes. The actual bits that make an Apple computer an Apple computer are not the internals, but the aesthetic pieces of the system. Since, Psystar doesn't make any effort to copy those bits makes it more difficult to call this a case of piracy per the beanie baby definition.

Again, you need to think Mac as a whole product. When you say:

The actual bits that make an Apple computer an Apple computer are not the internals, but the aesthetic pieces of the system.

You are again leaving outside the fact that Apple computers are not bases,nor paintings...

Apple Computers need "software" and "support" to operate. Apple sells a product, in fact it is the only major PC manufacturer that sells the whole thing.

Pystar is faking "the Macintosh", and they are selling and installing Mac OS X because, it is impossible for them to reverse engineer Mac OS X.

 

[sneezymarble]

Here, let me get as clear as possible. Let's imagine that I make shoes. I make brown leather work shoes.

Nike makes a certain brand of running shoes we'll just call "Sikes". Sikes come with a little plastic attachment on the side of the shoe that has a button on it which if pressed displays, via a laser, a little red Nike swoosh on the ground. Nike also happens to sell these little plastic attachments in shoe stores. The packaging of the Sike attachment says that buyers agree to only use the Sike attachment on Sikes.

Now, Sike sells me a whole box of Sike attachments. I attach them to the brown work shoes I make and sell them together.

Question? Am I committing piracy?

Here's another question. I attach the a Sike attachment to a pair of shoes I made but don't sell those shoes. Did I commit piracy?

 

[BC2009]

Nope, you don't own the software you buy....

I believe when you are buying an OS that OS belong to you, you are not rentering it like when you get a Direct TV decoder. So you can install that OS when ever you want, even in a PC.

Actually, you will see on the packaging of any software or in the license agreement that you do not actually own the software you buy. You are purchasing a license to use that software. Some licenses operate like a "family pack" and you can install on multiple computers while others let you install on a single computer.

The thing at stake here is that the license that Apple grants states that you can only install on Apple hardware. The thing that is up for debate is whether or not that is legally enforceable. Some licensing terms have been deemed by the courts to be invalid (leaving the rest of the license in tact). This is all governed by precedent cases and the how a judge interprets those cases and the law.

For example, lets consider something completely outlandish. Apple could license OSX to you on the grounds that for every computer you install it on you must provide them the name, address, and social security number of a living US citizen. Now the US courts may feel that enforcement of this licensing clause is outside Apple's intellectual property rights particularly because it conflicts with privacy laws. So the courts may choose to invalidate it while keeping the rest of the license in tact.

That said, I am no legal expert and I have no idea what will be decided here. It all comes down to a question of consumer rights versus the rights of the intellectual property owner.

This is almost as interesting as the Kaleidescape/Real-DVD case (I'm very interested to see how that turns out after appeals are all said and done). Interestingly enough, both cases are about enforcement of license agreements rather than copyrights.

 

[j-traxx]

The problem with Apple is that it does not make what some people want:

- 400 g full computer like que OQO or the xpPhone.
http://www.oqo.com
http://www.xpphone.com/en/product/configuration.html

- Quad-core mini Tower.
- Matte displays.

So, in those instances the hackintosh may be the only alternative until Apple delivers what people want.

lol. what a sense of entitlement you have. apple is a company that supplies what they supply and if another company makes something apple doesnt make then let them make it within the law. if you want windows on it then you can license it. if you want an os like the mac one, then write it. psystar is nothing but a hardware torrent.

 

[Sun Baked]

I find it funny ... almost like watching Bobo the Clutzy Clown juggle chainsaws.

 

[McDughf]

The MAC OSX V10.6 RETAIL box (Part No. MC223N/A) does not include the EULA in The Netherlands, and possibly other EU countries as well. There's not even a note about being an update/upgrade. Or that you may install it on Apple branded hardware only. Maybe that is why they did include the two white Apple logo stickers

It does state something about a software license, which I assume should have been part of the box (?) but it wasn't. I checked with 61 other people and they all did not receive the EULA/Software License Agreement. End of story for Apple.
...

You do realise that the EULA pops up when you are just about to install the software don't you? You have to click OK at the bottom to continue to the next stage in Installation.

 

[sneezymarble]

Terrible argument. First of all it isn't a stupid law.

It's not clear that there's a specific law being violated in this case other than the law that one ought not break contracts. There's no law about installing certain OSs on certain hardware configurations. There's a good chance all we're talking about here is a civil matter and not a criminal one for which there is a specific law.

What if GM started buying Ford engines that were intended to be sold to Ford repair shops and installed them in new GM cars and sold them without Ford's permission? Is that alright?

Is that alright? No. Is it a crime? I don't know. That's not clear in that case just as it's not clear in the case of installing OSX on non-Apple computers. All we know now is that it's a breach of contract. It might be something more, but it's just not clear.

And now Psystar is selling the certification of hardware for an operating system that they don't own the IP rights to????? This case should be open and shut, but apparently we need a year of "discovery" to fleece the pockets of the lawyers.

Or maybe it's not quite as clear as lots of people seem to think it is.

Pystar is faking "the Macintosh", and they are selling and installing Mac OS X because, it is impossible for them to reverse engineer Mac OS X.

I just don't think this is an accurate description of what's going on, even if there were piracy involved. Psystar isn't selling, and doesn't claim to sell Mac clones. They sell and claim to sell PCs on which different OSs can be installed and run.

Also, I don't think the reason they sell PCs with OSX is because it's impossible for them to reverse engineer OSX. Obviously OSX doesn't need reverse engineering in order to run on off the shelf PC hardware.

 

[Red-red]

Apple can do what they want with their operating system whether you like that or not.

If they want to sell their own creation on their own hardware they're entitled to do that.

The question people need to ask themselves is if there were a loop hole and what Psystar are doing was entirely legal. Why haven't a Dell, HP, Acer, Asus, IBM identified it and taken Apple to court to allow them to put in on their machines?

If there were a legal and legit reason for it what would they have to lose from pursuing it?

The only logical answer I can assume is that there isn't a cat in hells chance it would be allowed which is why they haven't even sniffed at it.

 

[tflournoy95]

Looks like Apple is going to have to go back to what they once did; install a hardware dongle on their mother boards (Mac ROM chip) and enable hardware detection in OS X to prevent others from doing this type of thing. It used to work very well in the Mac Plus days so I am sure that it would work again.

For those that think what Paystar is doing is great, think again. If Apple was not a high margin, fully hardware/OS integrated computer system it would just be another Windows-like crappy experience to use. Apple is able to innovate and produce the types of products that it does because it tightly controls the hardware and the OS and because it is able to operate with healthy sales margins. If companies like Paystar are able to succeed and are able to attract significant numbers of users everything you like about the Mac and Apple will be in jeopardy. So, give it some more thought before you stand on the side of a company like Paystar.

they already do that. you have to patch the dvd to install it on non mac hardware.

 

[couto27]

the psystar should be condemned to pay a memorable millions dolares.

and the users that buy the hakintosh should also be sued for eula infringement.

 

[DavidSan]

Here, let me get as clear as possible. Let's imagine that I make shoes. I make brown leather work shoes.

Nike makes a certain brand of running shoes we'll just call "Sikes". Sikes come with a little plastic attachment on the side of the shoe that has a button on it which if pressed displays, via a laser, a little red Nike swoosh on the ground. Nike also happens to sell these little plastic attachments in shoe stores. The packaging of the Sike attachment says that buyers agree to only use the Sike attachment on Sikes.

Now, Sike sells me a whole box of Sike attachments. I attach them to the brown work shoes I make and sell them together.

Question? Am I committing piracy?

OK! First...

Nike sells you, Nike-cloner, the "Sikes attachements", because "Sikes attachements" is a final product to the consumer market. It means, you, as a person or as a company can purchase whatever you want. So you, as a company, bout 2000 "Sikes attachements" (for example).

But, the Nike agreement is between final user and Nike, not distribuitors.

But you, the Nike-cloner, are doing something strange. You are selling the shoes with "Sikes attachements" installed. So when a customer buys your shoes the EULA agreement has already been agreed.

You, Nike-cloner, are taking the liberty to answer a question that can only be answered by the final user. You are clearly violating the "final user" right to say No to the EULA.

Worse than that, you are making the final user of your product to violate an agreement, they have never seen. You are tricking them to think it is right.

You are violating the right of the "final user": so it is criminal. You are making your customers to break the law: so it is civil or criminal (depending on the consequences).

But also, you are violation copyright, because you are selling Nike-clones without permission. So it is civil.

So, you Nike-cloner, are a pirate! Not for reselling the "Sikes attachements", but for:

1. Impersonating a final user.
2. Making a customer to break the law without even knowing.
3. Selling a Sike-clone without permission. Faking a Sike-clone.