I think many people fail to see how not being allowed to install Mac OSX on non Apple-Labled computers is unfair.
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 Files Appeal in Apple Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Mac Clones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think many people fail to see how not being allowed to install Mac OSX on non Apple-Labled computers is unfair.
That's what this thread is all about. There are two sides to the argument - some see it as fair and justified, and some not. I am not sure anyone has changed their mind on this. I guess we must just agree to differ. At least we haven't started a war over it. Perhaps MR should close the thread - its a sterile debate now.
Then you don't get to use the software and are eligible to get your money back. You don't get to use the software as you see fit because you happen to not agree with the license. It doesn't work that way.
Hence why again, this is an old thread you decided to post in. This thread was dead and buried, Psystar lost, they had no case at all. If you don't agree to Apple's terms, there are other Unix OSes out there for you. You don't get to do as you please with Apple's intellectual property.
Why do you feel entitled to use OS X on non Apple hardware ? Vote with your wallet if you don't like their model. Seriously, vertical integration is not unfair nor unjust. It is done a lot in the industry and was done even more before. Most big iron Unix vendors used the same model (and some still do). HP-UX, Solaris back in the day, IRIX, AIX. If you want those, you needed or still need to get the vendor's hardware as well.
I disagree with you. Its not a personal thing for me. I have a simple MP. Psystar is not for me. But I think others should have the choice. As I said, we don't seem to be getting anywhere and there are 2 entrenched positions.
You disagree based on what ? So far, you have failed to even state why, besides some kind of entitlement complex. The choice is simple : Agree with the license or don't. You however don't get to play if you don't pay.
I'm not entrenched in my position, I do agree people need to have a choice, but that includes people getting to choose how to license their software. I am a big Linux fan because it offers the user choice. Choice on how to use it, choice on what to do with it, choice on how to even distribute it.
If you really are pro-choice, you are obviously not realising that you are limiting yourself by trying to get Apple to open up. Work with the already open alternatives.
It's not nonsense, if you have Boot Camp and W7 installed try it yourself. Flash sucks on OS X because Apple (Jobs) wants it to suck. Apple should *snip* deal with it and not be a *snip* about it.
You completely sidestepped what I was saying. You were saying that what Psystar is doing is not theft and should not be compared to theft, because bad bad Apple is just preventing competition in the market. By exactly the same argument, if someone tries to steal things from my house, it would be not theft, because bad old me is just preventing competition in the used DVD player market.
And your analogy is completely wrong. If I had a business selling gadgets, and I sold them with the provision that the buyer can only use them on Tuesdays in Texas, that is in no way anti-competitive. Quite the contrary, my competitors would be very, very happy about that. And you are, like many, many Psystar fans before you, confusing "competitive" with "anti-competitive". Being anti-competitive means preventing competition per se. Being competitive means doing what you can to be better than the competition. Not helping your competitors is just common sense for any competitive company.
Apple and Psystar compete (hard to say with a straight face) in the market for desktop computers. Apple doesn't prevent Psystar from competing; they can build any hardware they like (except when it is illegal, like building hardware that circumvents Apple's DRM mechanisms in MacOS X), they can install any software on it that the copyright holder allows them to install (so they could install Windows if they talk to Microsoft, they can install Linux, probably Solaris), nothing that Apple does to prevent it, and it would indeed be anti-competitive if they did. Apple has no reason at all to _help_ Psystar by allowing them to use what is generally considered to the secret to Apple's success, that is MacOS X. And not helping them is not anti-competitive, it is competitive.
Note that the basis for Apple's rights is copyright law: Apple, as the copyright holder, completely has the right to say who is allowed to make copies of MacOS X and under what terms. And they use that right to say that you can only make copies by installing MacOS X on an Apple-branded computer (it seems that if you somehow managed to install it on an iPad, that would be legal within Apple's license). Apple does not restrict you in any ways beyond disallowing to make copies. For example, a license that said "you may only install MacOS X on a Macintosh computer, and only if you don't own any Psystar computers", that would be illegal, because Apple's MacOS X copyright doesn't give them the right to control what other computers you own. "You may not install MacOS X on a Psystar computer" is legal, because that is about copying Apple's software.
Non sequitur. Apple allows you not to agree with their license terms and return the software, getting your money back. But you want to be able to force Apple into a contract that they don't want to enter. Apple can't force you, and neither can you force Apple.
So you'd be happy for the terms of MS Windows 8 license/copyright to be on machines made by Microsoft only say 256MB RAM, 1GB HD etc in a pink case
Microsoft doesn't make machines and at this point, they can't. You see, if Microsoft were to do as you suggest with their monopoly over the desktop OS market, this would be in breach of anti-trust laws. They would be leveraging their monopoly on desktop OSes to gain a monopoly over desktop hardware.
You can't compare this to Apple (and seriously, I don't see Apple shipping 256MB of RAM in any of their machines except the iPad, so I don't quite get where you're trying to go...). Apple doesn't hold a monopoly. If this were 1981 and Microsoft also didn't have a monopoly on the desktop OS, they could do what you suggest, ship a machine with low specs and tie it with their OS. They would get laughed out of the market for doing so.
So is that why flash sucks on Linux and BSD also? Because jobs wants them to suck. Two of the most open operating systems in existence, flash sucks on them because jobs want them to suck.
Why dont you compare Silverlight and Flash in windows 7 and tell me which one is better?
Ok - so you accept that it would be wrong for MS to do this. But you accept the principle that it is not always acceptable for companies to set unreasonable terms. In that case the difference between us is that I see Apple as setting unreasonable terms in their license/copyright, you don't. If Apple reached over 50% market share surely none would argue for Apple. I bet that have that share in certain markets. Workstations? Anyway their share is significant enough IMO.
Because they are limiting use of their sw in an unacceptable way. Please see the other recent posts. If MS were to do this it wouldn't be allowed, so why Apple?
How are the limitations unacceptable?
Present your argument, not just your conclusion.
If Microsoft restricted Windows to only computers made by Microsoft they wouldn't sell many copies.
You're not even making sense anymore. The difference with MS/Apple is if MS sets unreasonable terms, there's a whole lot of people who are very screwed. Microsoft has a very big sway and hold on the market.
Apple doesn't. If Apple sets terms you find unreasonable, you buy the competition. They are within their rights to set the terms they want, the impact on the market is nil because Apple is not a driving force in the market.
This is the very basis of anti-trust laws. It is to distinguish between monopolies (companies holding a trust) and normal businesses.
Again, because Microsoft is a monopoly. Different game, different rules.
If you find Apple's limits unacceptable, use something else. You are not entitled to make unlicensed use of the OS because you feel the terms are unacceptable. You are only entitled to get your money back for any copies purchased and to move on to another product.
Apple is "big enough" that if they set unreasonable terms its unacceptable. That seems now to be the basis of our difference. Looks like you acknowledge that it wouldn't be acceptable if MS did what Apple do - that sets alarm bells ringing for me. I think that gives Psystar the moral high ground.
Is monopoly seriously not a word in your vocabulary?
Lets flip this argument (if you can call it that),
The GPL software license is unreasonable and unacceptable.
I'm not hung up on the monopoly. In another post I showed that in the EU alarm bells start ringing when there is an unreasonable market share. It doesn't have to be a monopoly.
That's the problem. You do not seem to understand the significance of a legal monopoly in this situation. If the absence of a legal monopoly, the free market provides its own remedy. There is no need for regulation. If prices are higher, demand goes down. If licensing terms are too strict, demand goes down. Which is exactly what is happening in the OS market.
For a company with a legal monopoly such as Microsoft, they can raise prices without affecting their market share because of significant and durable market power. That is where antitrust laws come in to play.
No, that's not established law, not is it relevant. You aren't being "made" to agree to anything. No gun is pointing at your head.
You are referring to contacts of adhesion, and the established law is they are improper when they deal with a "necessity of life.". A computer is not such a necessity.
The other things you refer to are implied warrantees of merchantability and fitness for purpose. These ADD terms to the contract. They do not void terms of the contract.
In what world is a less than 10 percent market share considered unreasonable?
Heck even Microsoft considered the Mac market share to be a rounding error.
I would be very happy with that. I wouldn't even mind if Microsoft stops selling Windows licenses altogether. Doesn't bother me one bit. Apple would be even happier with it. Michael Dell and Hurd's successor would have a bit of a shock, but I think Apple would be quite happy to take 95% of the operating system market if it was handed to them like that, so a deal would be made. Or maybe not, so you would have the choice between a Macintosh with MacOS or any other computer with Linux.
First, your post wasn't about market share and monopolies, it was about mergers. It didn't show anything.
Second every country has a quantified legal threshold of what constitutes market dominance and allows a company to be considered a monopoly. Under EU Law, chances are that no company with under 40% market share will be considered market dominant. Meanwhile, you're arguing that a company with 5% market share is market dominant and should be curbed.