Psystar Lawyer Hints at Anti-Trust Defense

[Veri]

I had to notice you completely ignored my response to your post, which dealt with this issue.

I don't have time to read, consider and reply to every post, sorry. I'll visit yours but I won't be around to respond to any further reply, as I'm afk a bit.

If you're talking about post #168, you've copy-pasted from the article the assertion, "there are some similarities between the Apple interface and the various interfaces on Xerox systems, but the differences are substantial." But my very argument was that the conclusion - "differences are substantial" - is false, and that the article in fact gives evidence by listing mostly minor differences while accepting major similarities.

You repeat the original article's conclusion in the next paragraph, without substantiation, while confessing a bias for Raskin's writing. You're quite right that the mouse wasn't new to PARC - my previous post mentioned Engelbart as being brought in - nor, almost by implication, was the idea of a graphical user interface new. But many new GUI concepts (see my previous post) were developed at PARC - a pre-PARC UI would be primitive or foreign to a 1984 Mac user, a PARC UI would be familiar. I would also argue that ObjC and NeXT's development environment are the nearest the general computing world has to Smalltalk: the borrowing never ends ;-).

And this isn't how it works much of the time? If the question is whether both Xerox and Apple built on previous work, both academic and commercial (quasi-commercial in the case of Xerox), then the answer is is obviously "yes." But if the accusation is that Apple "stole" their idea from Xerox, the answer is emphatically "no."

The problem is the arbitrary line people (must, if they want a conception of IP) draw between "building on" and "stealing", and similarly between an idea and its expression. If I give away a poem that tells anyone how to almost perfectly reconstruct a picture, have I stolen that picture? What if I've only captured some of its features? Its essence? The 1990 lawsuit (see my previous post) puts some light on how Xerox felt: one of the people there quoted believes that the angle chosen by Xerox was merely because it was too late to accuse Apple of straight copying. Another interpretation is that Xerox were not so much telling Apple "you've stolen our stuff" as "we enjoyed sharing, now you're being possessive with your advances and confounding your efforts with ours - stop it!"

The primary cause for this transfer of intellect was the brain-dead top management at Xerox, which could see the wisdom of funding basic research but not in building products based on it.

Kinda agreed, though I'm not sure "brain-dead" can be argued for without hindsight. You've indicated why people at Xerox might want to work for Apple, but what is important is that Apple welcomed people from Xerox, sent SJ to Xerox and built a UI that looked similar to Xerox.

 

[robbyx]

Kinda agreed, though I'm not sure "brain-dead" can be argued for without hindsight. You've indicated why people at Xerox might want to work for Apple, but what is important is that Apple welcomed people from Xerox, sent SJ to Xerox and built a UI that looked similar to Xerox.

BUILT is the key word. Apple BUILT a UI. Apple BUILT an OS.

Psystar has built nothing other than another clone box. It hasn't BUILT a single line of OS code, a single UI element, etc. And, since it hasn't built an OS, it feels entitled to use someone else's. Um, I don't think so.

While all this talk of Xerox and Apple history is interesting, it doesn't relate one bit to the issue at hand. It's not like Apple walked out of PARC with a complete OS and demanded that it be allowed to run on their new hardware. Apple and oranges.

 

[137489]

Antitrust, eh?

Here we go..... I had a feeling it would not take long for Apple to get popular enough to be treated like Microsoft, seen as a monopoly, seen too "closed" for others....

What next, viruses, trojans, spyware?

And it is funny, people are applauding Microsoft with their recent decision to provide complete end-to-end experience; like Apple does now. yet, people are complaining for Apple being too closed.

all it comes down to is people never being satisfied. If someone steals an idea, markets illegally and then has enough guts and money to fight the original owner, then they claim "well, your hurting my business and I can't live." And they may actually win, if the judge feels the major company is squashing the small business - yet on the other hand major companies have more money and lawyers to drag out and fight the smaller company that stole the idea.

Yeesh. I could see something like this coming with the switch to intel as 90% of the computer hardware is made for an intel or AMD and works fine. PPC was a little more restrictive. However, the switch to intel has also opened up more software companies to start looking at Apple.

Now I am torn.

1. I switched because of the ability to run Windows on my mac.

2. I first looked at clones and Open OSX to try out OSX (I just could not get Open OSX to work). there was also a thing called PearPC that allowed OSX to run as a virtual machine on a Windows platform - provided you had the original install disks for OSX.

3. Now that I have my mac, I switched 95% of my software away from Windows.

4. Now that I have my mac, I really like the end-to-end experience and not having to deal with all the support issues of mixing hardware.


Here is how I see Apple can win.

1. Right in the Eula it states apple computers only.
2. in one Article I read, it said that Psystar was using the same parts as Apple (so are they apple parts, and if so - how did they aquire them). And if that is the case, are they selling Apple's under a different name. I think they have an anti-trust suit waiting as well. I mean I cannot take a Ford and sell it as a Chevy and get away with it.
3. Here will be an interesting thing, what will happen next once MS starts their end-to-end experience is "I am sorry, but right in the EULA states you cannot run Windows on an Apple" and again the PC fans will applaud.

But here is the other issue...

I own a Dell laptop- but it has a phillips DVR-+RW, a WD hard drive, a Samsung LCD, and Intel CPU, Creative speakers, etc.

So is it really truely a Dell?

That is the problem with PC's, one run could have all those parts, yet the next run a day later could have something totally different. Even Dell has aksed me "ok, what is the part number of the component that failed; so we can make sure we send you the correct part (which they never do as most of the time the part is out of production)".

This is going to be very interesting how this all plays out, and truthfully - I think no side is going to be happy. Here is why:

1. Microsoft going end-to-end; this will ultimately mean those who build their own PC's may start seeing in the EULA "Well, you cannot run MS-windows because it is limited to these hardware ....."

2. Apple may be forced to open up the platform more, which will create all the problems we see in the MS world (compatibility issues, cut-rate systems that are not really worth the money you shell out for them, viruses, etc).

3. All this may force more work on Linux solutions which are open-source and not limited to these restrictions do the GNU licensing (but then again most under the GNU means you can do what you want, and here is the source code - but there is a lack of support should it fail).

Either way see this as a slippery slope that may shape or destroy the I/T industry. I mean, how many times has MS been sued and they are only a software company (I am talking windows, not ZUNE or other hardware).

 

[Flowbee]

I don't have to choose which hardware to buy to run XP.

Of course you do. There may be many more choices, but you still have to choose hardware that's compatible. You can't just slap together a box of random computer parts and expect it's going to boot up and run XP problem free.

Take a moment to think about it before typing more nonsense.

Give me something thoughtful to respond to, and I will.

 

[mjtomlin]

BUILT is the key word. Apple BUILT a UI. Apple BUILT an OS.

Yeah, that's what I don't understand about his entire argument. Steve Jobs saw a demo of a development environment and became inspired, then went off and created his own somehow makes it okay for a company today to take a copy of OS X, modify it, and resell it?

Because back then you could just turn on your computer and whip out a graphical based operating system with little to no work what-so-ever. So I can definitely understand Psystar's right to spend an hour or two installing a kernel hack to get their product working.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

BUILT is the key word. Apple BUILT a UI. Apple BUILT an OS.

Psystar has built nothing other than another clone box. It hasn't BUILT a single line of OS code, a single UI element, etc. And, since it hasn't built an OS, it feels entitled to use someone else's. Um, I don't think so.

While all this talk of Xerox and Apple history is interesting, it doesn't relate one bit to the issue at hand. It's not like Apple walked out of PARC with a complete OS and demanded that it be allowed to run on their new hardware. Apple and oranges.

And Pystar bought the OS and put it on hardware. The exact same thing that HP, Dell, etc... do with Windows. Does every computer maker now need to build their own OS? Pystar doesn't feel entitled anything, they purchased OSX and are putting it on a piece of hardware and selling it. This happens everyday with Windows. The question here is, does Apple have the legal right to prevent you from buying their OS and installing it on anything you want? Some say it falls under fair use and you should be able to (in addition with reselling which is essentially a transfer of ownership) and Apple obviously does not.

 

[robbyx]

And Pystar bought the OS and put it on hardware. The exact same thing that HP, Dell, etc... do with Windows. Does every computer maker now need to build their own OS? Pystar doesn't feel entitled anything, they purchased OSX and are putting it on a piece of hardware and selling it. This happens everyday with Windows. The question here is, does Apple have the legal right to prevent you from buying their OS and installing it on anything you want? Some say it falls under fair use and you should be able to (in addition with reselling which is essentially a transfer of ownership) and Apple obviously does not.

HP and Dell, etc. receive a LICENSE from Microsoft. They don't simply go out and buy Windows and put it on whatever hardware they choose. They have a business arrangement with Microsoft to LICENSE Windows. Furthermore, Microsoft designed Windows to run on a wide range of hardware. This was Microsoft's choice and it is their business model. Apple follows a different business model, a vertically integrated one that doesn't rely upon third-rate hucksters like Psystar to make money.

Psystar has no business relationship with Apple and Apple does NOT license the MacOS.

Why is something so simple so hard for some people to understand??? If you (not you personally...) really want a Mac, quit your whining and buy one!

Finally, I don't understand why anyone would want to buy a Psystar machine in the first place. Why buy a machine that Apple will never support and that will likely encounter "issues" with each OS upgrade??? It's just stupid. Apple's never going to accept clones. Even if the courts side with Psystar, Apple will be under no obligation to make sure MacOS X runs well (if at all) on clone hardware. Microsoft does extensive hardware testing and works with hardware vendors to make sure their products work with Windows. Do you really think Apple will give a *&#! about making sure some third party sound card driver, rolled by Psystar, works with MacOS on a machine Apple didn't build? Come on. Get real. So welcome to the world of driver conflicts, botched software updates, etc, etc, etc. Only a fool would want this.

 

[Clive At Five]

If you want to buy a Mac, BUY A MAC! But stop whining already. It's so lame.

Do you not understand the difference between Hardware and Software? I don't want a Mac. I went there. I lived there for 20 years. Apple abandoned hardware for the prosumer. Now I only want OS X and, luckily, Apple sells it in the store.

Do you really think that Apple needs help innovating? It seems like the rest of the industry is always playing catch up, so I doubt some rinky dink clone maker like Psystar is going to push Apple to do anything. From what I've seen on the Psystar clones, they can't reliably update the OS, so I think the "innovate" argument falls flat.

Yes, actually, I think Apple could use a refresher course in innovation. The term implies cutting edge. Fresh. New. Meanwhile, they're still selling DVD-ROM drives, meanwhile ignoring BluRay completely. 8.54GB isn't exactly a lot of space anymore, but it's too large to download. The transition to BluRay should have been started at least a year ago.

Remember in 2002 with the introduction of the G4 iMac how they included a DVD burner? A DVD burner on a consumer model was unprecedented in '02 but they made it work and they put it in an affordable package with an LCD screen, G4 processor and a dedicated gfx chip, all in a stunning package. THAT was an innovation. The Cube was an innovation. Everything else has just been an iteration.

Apple used to sell attractive AND powerful units. Now they just sell shiny boxes at the expense of performance.

What I don't understand is why Psystar feels entitled to sell a product they didn't develop?

I seem to remember that, Amazon sells OS X, a product which they did not develop...

Microsoft created/pushed the OS licensing model as part of their business model That doesn't mean that EVERYONE has to go along. Apple has always championed the vertically integrated "it just works" approach, and for good reason. It might not have made them #1 in sales, but their products enjoy a level of stability and integration not seen anywhere else. And that's worth every penny to me (and millions of others).

The intergrated model certainly does have its benefits. If a user is willing to pay the Apple premium and sacrifice some of his/her long-term options, that should be his/her prerogative. And if the integrated model is truly better, it will outsell the open model in the free market... but a user should still have the choice to accept or reject the integrated model.

Psystar is a lame, unimaginative opportunist. They can't develop anything decent on their own, so they pilfer. Do we really want the Mac world full of such hucksters? I don't think so!!!

Can the elitist attitude, please. Most hackintosh-builders are former Mac users who, like me, got fed up with a lack of hardware choice.

If Psystar wins, which I sincerely doubt, Apple will surely refuse to support Psystar customers and this will only create more stress and headaches for Psystar. Every OS release, Apple breaks something and Psystar scrambles while their customers begin to wonder if saving a few hundred $$$ on their cheap-o crap Psystar box was worth it. Either way, Psystar loses and only an idiot would buy one of their boxes.

An unsupported machine is a small price to pay for the hardware one needs.

Finally, if Psystar wins, does this mean that Tivo must sell their OS to anyone? What about Sony? Should anyone be able to build and sell a Playstation clone? The OS and the hardware are INTEGRATED and should not be viewed as separate entities just because that's how Microsoft does it.

Incorrect. HW and SW are (and always will be) two separate entities. The reason TiVo and Sony don't have to license their OSes, though, is because the hardware they use is specialized and unavailable to the public. The same is not true with OS X/Mac.

Fixed: "I would like to see Apple make their own Macs cheaper by shipping computers pre-loaded with Leopard.

I hope they win their case so better choices are available to meet my needs, because I am too poor to afford a mac and therefore it is my right to demand Apple make inferior products."

Wow. Turn down the elitism knob, buddy. Just because you are fortunate enough to be able to afford a Mac doesn't mean everyone else is. I, for example, am fresh out of college, working my ass off to pay student loans. I am recently married and my wife is still in school. We live in a modest apartment on one income, eat most of our meals at home, and the only luxuries we afford are high-speed internet and heat/air conditioning. I've been saving gift money __GIFT MONEY__ for well over a year to be able to afford building myself a new computer (a hackintosh) and you're telling me that since I can't afford a "real Mac" I'm some sort of a second-rate citizen? I'm some deadbeat bum who's not WORTHY of using OS X?

Where do you get off?

-Clive

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

HP and Dell, etc. receive a LICENSE from Microsoft. They don't simply go out and buy Windows and put it on whatever hardware they choose. They have a business arrangement with Microsoft to LICENSE Windows. Furthermore, Microsoft designed Windows to run on a wide range of hardware. This was Microsoft's choice and it is their business model. Apple follows a different business model, a vertically integrated one that doesn't rely upon third-rate hucksters like Psystar to make money.

Designed for etc...doesn't matter. Anyone can buy an OSX license and based on what I see on ebay should be able to resell it. If you think reselling legally purchased copies of OSX is illegal, then you better pull down all those mac sales that happen daily on ebay since they come with OSX as part of the sale. Pystar wasn't copying one purchased copy of OSX for each computer. They had a valid Apple provided license for every one.

Additionally, Apples business model is of no consequence in a legal discussion. It's not the consumers fault if the business model they are choosing is at odds with fair use laws etc...

Why is something so simple so hard for some people to understand??? If you really want a Mac, quit your whining and buy one!

I've been a mac user for a long time now and this attitude of many of the 'new' mac purchasers is one of the primary reasons I may not buy another mac. It may sound petty, but I don't want to be associated with people who measure their worth by the price of the computer they own or look down on people who don't own a mac because of the cost. Macs used to be exceptional tools for a job, but as of late they have just become another 'oh shiny' expensive, commodity consumer item. /sigh

 

[Lord Blackadder]

And Pystar bought the OS

An OS which is sold as an UPGRADE for APPLE HARDWARE.

and put it on hardware.

PC hardware built from parts, and made to work using hacks developed ny other people (and used without credit or acknowlegement).

The exact same thing that HP, Dell, etc... do with Windows.

No, it isn't. These companies negotiate a licensing deal with Microsoft to sell computers with that OS.

Does every computer maker now need to build their own OS?

Nobody is suggesting that. On the contrary, Psystar is suggesting that they should be able to bundle any OS they wish without a licensing agreement.

Pystar doesn't feel entitled anything, they purchased OSX and are putting it on a piece of hardware and selling it.

Correct...and Apple's EULA spcifically forbids this.

This happens everyday with Windows.

Again, no. Windows can be sold this way, OS X cannot.

The question here is, does Apple have the legal right to prevent you from buying their OS and installing it on anything you want?

Technically you are breaking the EULA by doing that, though it's unenforceable. But that isn't the question here - the issue is Apple seeking to prevent another manufacturer from bundling OS X with it's own hardware, in effect creating an unauthorized Mac clone.

Some say it falls under fair use and you should be able to (in addition with reselling which is essentially a transfer of ownership) and Apple obviously does not.

It isn't "fair use" to run a business selling unauthorized Mac clones.

Wow. Turn down the elitism, buddy. Just because you are fortunate enough to be able to afford a Mac doesn't mean everyone else is. I, for example, am fresh out of college, working my ass off to pay student loans. I am recently married and my wife is still in school. We live in a modest apartment, on one income, eat most of our meals at home, and the only luxuries we afford are high-speed internet and air conditioning. I've been saving gift money __GIFT MONEY__ for well over a year to be able to afford building myself a new computer (a hackintosh) and you're telling me that since I can't afford a "real Mac" I'm some sort of a second-rate citizen? I'm some deadbeat bum who's not WORTHY of using OS X?

Where do you get off?

-Clive

Hey, I'm arguing for Apple in this case, just got out of college, am temporarily unemployed, my net worth is negative, I don't even have an apartment and am using a Power Mac G4 from 2001. It isn't as if the hobnailed boot of Apple fascism is trampling on your neck with unfair prices - who says we are all entitled to be using sweet new hardware? Hell, I'm lucky I've got what I have.

You could easily afford a used Mac with the money you are spending on your hackintosh. Someday I'll buy me a nice new Mac Pro, but I'll be damned if Psystar is doing the downtrodden computer user any favors by "opening up" the OS X platform. The only thing they are trying to open up is Pandora's box.

 

[robbyx]

Designed for etc...doesn't matter. Anyone can buy an OSX license and based on what I see on ebay should be able to resell it. If you think reselling legally purchased copies of OSX is illegal, then you better pull down all those mac sales that happen daily on ebay since they come with OSX as part of the sale. Pystar wasn't copying one purchased copy of OSX for each computer. They had a valid Apple provided license for every one.

If I'm not mistaken, one cannot simply go buy a retail copy of Leopard and install it on any PC, including Psystar. So Psystar is modifying/hacking Apple's intellectual property to get Leopard running on their crap hardware. That's not simply going into the store, picking up a copy of Windows off the shelf, and installing it on your garden variety PC. If Psystar has to muck around with Apple's IP, that should not be tolerated or sanctioned, especially not by our courts.

I've been a mac user for a long time now and this attitude of many of the 'new' mac purchasers is one of the primary reasons I may not buy another mac. It may sound petty, but I don't want to be associated with people who measure their worth by the price of the computer they own or look down on people who don't own a mac because of the cost. Macs used to be exceptional tools for a job, but as of late they have just become another 'oh shiny' expensive, commodity consumer item. /sigh

Let's see. I've been an Apple customer for 26 years and counting, so please refrain from making childish assumptions. And if you really don't want to buy a Mac because of "attitude", I don't even know what to say to that. It's just so absurd that it's almost funny. And who said anything about measuring one's worth by the price of one's computer? I mean, where do you even get this stuff???

 

[mjtomlin]

Are you kidding?

And Pystar bought the OS and put it on hardware. The exact same thing that HP, Dell, etc... do with Windows. Does every computer maker now need to build their own OS? Pystar doesn't feel entitled anything, they purchased OSX and are putting it on a piece of hardware and selling it. This happens everyday with Windows. The question here is, does Apple have the legal right to prevent you from buying their OS and installing it on anything you want? Some say it falls under fair use and you should be able to (in addition with reselling which is essentially a transfer of ownership) and Apple obviously does not.

HP and Dell do not hack Windows and then install it on their systems. THAT'S THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE HERE. You've taken someone's intellectual property and modified it. Furthermore, you can't take a copy of Windows EOM'ed for HP and install it on a Dell, it voids the EULA. OS X license is completely transferrable to another Mac, as long as that Mac is supported by that version of OS.

The other issue, Apple's computers are not off the shelf Intel-based systems. The motherboards are completely custom. OS X is not advertised as being for Intel-compatible systems, it's for Macintosh Computers. Apple doesn't have to support anything it does not make. And they do have the right to tell you what hardware their OS is compatible with. Even Microsoft has an OEM certification system and a set of supported hardware for Windows.

OS X only runs on Intel-compatible through an unauthorized hack.

And the argument about being able to install the OS on anything you want is absolutely ridiculous... I can't buy a copy of Windows XP and install it on my PowerPC based system. OS X is targeted for a specific platform, PowerPC-based Macs and Intel-based Macs. Not PowerPC-based computers and not Intel-based computers. Window is targeted and marketed for just about all x86-based computers. Just because you can run other x86-based operating systems on your Mac, doesn't mean OS X targets the same hardware specs as those systems and therefore should be compatible with 3rd party hardware.

 

[iphone2.0]

Why doesn't Apple remember its small company roots? Why has it become the faceless corporate prostitute it is today? They used to be about creativity, art, change, liberal politics, education, sophistication... but now they're about money money money.

Apple's first advertisement had a local phone number for Palo Alto California on it that would reach a person directly. In fact, if you really wanted, you could have probably talked to Jobs on the phone if you asked nicely.

I agree that apple os palying it too hard these day on how there company works. I also think that if apple dosen't say no to stuff like this than think about how windows is right now. I mean, I just had to get my computer refixed, where as if I had a mac I could use it forever and mabey never have to get it fixef

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Do you not understand the difference between Hardware and Software? I don't want a Mac. I went there. I lived there for 20 years. Apple abandoned hardware for the prosumer.

I'm genuinely curious as to how Apple abanded the pro market. I'll admit, they are focusing their nads a bit much on the iPhone and iPod, but their pro offerings are still regarded in the industry.

I seem to remember that, Amazon sells OS X, a product which they did not develop...

Amazon is probably an authorized reseller, like the many non-apple Mac stores that are around.

but a user should still have the choice to accept or reject the integrated model.

You cannot possibly believe this , can you? Seriously? Apple, the manufacturer, the creater and sole owner of the object you refer to, has chosen to deliver said goods in an intergrated model. Manufacturers should no longer have the right to distribute their work in the manor they see fit? At the end of the day, the user does have the choice to accept or reject the intergrated model. If they refuse to accept the model-adhere to Apple's agreement, for which they are only a licensed user with restrictions- then they still have another option, which is to use a different OS.

Can the elitist attitude, please. Most hackintosh-builders are former Mac users who, like me, got fed up with a lack of hardware choice.

I'm actually was a windowzz convert who wanted to "drink the coolaid" and slapped OSX86 on my HP lappy. Now i'm the proud owner of a Maxed Out Macbook Pro and soon Mac Pro .
Still gots' a hackintosh for the GF though.

Wow. Turn down the elitism, buddy. Just because you are fortunate enough to be able to afford a Mac doesn't mean everyone else is. I, for example, am fresh out of college, working my ass off to pay student loans. I am recently married and my wife is still in school. We live in a modest apartment, on one income, eat most of our meals at home, and the only luxuries we afford are high-speed internet and air conditioning. I've been saving gift money __GIFT MONEY__ for well over a year to be able to afford building myself a new computer (a hackintosh) and you're telling me that since I can't afford a "real Mac" I'm some sort of a second-rate citizen? I'm some deadbeat bum who's not WORTHY of using OS X?

Where do you get off?

I think you may have missed what he is stating (although I could be wrong). The biggest complaint i've heard is:

Apple does not have a midrange offering. The Mac Mini is too weak, the iMac is too intergrated, and the Mac Pro is too expensive.

Everyone wants a tower, and there it is. It may be up there in price, but thats what Apple charges. What this user is saying, i'd agree, is correct in saying that users want a product that does not meet Apple's definition .

 

[iphone2.0]

Why doesn't Apple remember its small company roots? Why has it become the faceless corporate prostitute it is today? They used to be about creativity, art, change, liberal politics, education, sophistication... but now they're about money money money.

Apple's first advertisement had a local phone number for Palo Alto California on it that would reach a person directly. In fact, if you really wanted, you could have probably talked to Jobs on the phone if you asked nicely.

I think this make sense. Let say you bluid a model car. A guy comes around to take a picture of it, then from th picure makes the same one without asking you. You go over to this guy's house and see the car. DO you tell him that he can keep it? NO! You would be angry he sold you idea. That's how apple feels like someone made the same computer without asking.

 

[robbyx]

I seem to remember that, Amazon sells OS X, a product which they did not develop...

Yes, to be used on APPLE hardware. Sheesh. Just because one can buy a boxed copy of OS X doesn't mean one can install it anywhere. Read the license agreement and stop whining.

The intergrated model certainly does have its benefits. If a user is willing to pay the Apple premium and sacrifice some of his/her long-term options, that should be his/her prerogative. And if the integrated model is truly better, it will outsell the open model in the free market... but a user should still have the choice to accept or reject the integrated model.

No, the user should not. The company that DEVELOPED THE SOFTWARE should be able to determine how THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY is used. Sorry if you don't like it, but grow up already. It's their right.

Can the elitist attitude, please. Most hackintosh-builders are former Mac users who, like me, got fed up with a lack of hardware choice.

And this is supposed to make me care? This is supposed to make Apple care? I don't think so.

Incorrect. HW and SW are (and always will be) two separate entities. The reason TiVo and Sony don't have to license their OSes, though, is because the hardware they use is specialized and unavailable to the public. The same is not true with OS X/Mac.

Not true. Tivo is a Linux box I'm quite sure. Anyone could build hardware that runs the TivoOS. Apple's hardware and software relationship is no different than Tivo's. Where things differ is that one can't buy TivoOS in the store, but that doesn't mean one couldn't build one's own Tivo box.

And, more to the point, Apple's LICENSE AGREEMENT specifically prohibits use on non-Apple boxes. Remember, you do not own the software. You own a LICENSE to use it, a license that can be revoked at ANY TIME if you violate the license agreement. That's how all software works.

Wow. Turn down the elitism knob, buddy. Just because you are fortunate enough to be able to afford a Mac doesn't mean everyone else is. I, for example, am fresh out of college, working my ass off to pay student loans. I am recently married and my wife is still in school. We live in a modest apartment on one income, eat most of our meals at home, and the only luxuries we afford are high-speed internet and heat/air conditioning. I've been saving gift money __GIFT MONEY__ for well over a year to be able to afford building myself a new computer (a hackintosh) and you're telling me that since I can't afford a "real Mac" I'm some sort of a second-rate citizen? I'm some deadbeat bum who's not WORTHY of using OS X?

Drama alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about this. Go to Best Buy, open up a Best Buy card, buy your Mac, and get 24 months to pay for it without interest. Buy a $1000 MacBook and pay $50 a month for 2 years.

I don't think this has anything to do with cost of hardware, etc. It's some silly beef against Apple hardware for whatever reason. If you want to live in the world of roll-your-own hardware, you've got Linux and Windows to play with, but please don't ruin it for those of us who enjoy the Mac experience.

 

[robbyx]

Why doesn't Apple remember its small company roots? Why has it become the faceless corporate prostitute it is today? They used to be about creativity, art, change, liberal politics, education, sophistication... but now they're about money money money.

Apple's first advertisement had a local phone number for Palo Alto California on it that would reach a person directly. In fact, if you really wanted, you could have probably talked to Jobs on the phone if you asked nicely.

Oh geez. Yeah, and that was 1978 and they were running out of a garage. Come on. A "faceless corporate prostitute"? Ha! Such hyperbole!!! Are you for real? They're a business, like an other, operating on a grossly overpopulated planet, competing with countless other "faceless corporate prostitutes." What do you want from Apple? It's not their job to make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, to make you feel special, to put you on the phone with the CEO just because you like their products.

Your idea of a business is a fairy tale.

 

[monkeyrun]

To conclude, Apple did great building without full chain of disclosure and compensation on Xerox (and AT&T - Unix, and IBM - PC). Now let Psystar try to build on Apple, and succeed or fail without hindrance from a paranoid giant.

I like your analogy. However you spin it. Let's just say Apple cloned Xerox's GUI from ground up, and they gave xerox some Apple stock in return.

I think all of us will be very happy if one day Psystar could just write their own Mac OS Clone from ground up (Hell they could even use Darwin and GNUStep if they want) and put it on their own hardware.

Oh and btw, give Apple some of their Psystar stock in exchange.

 

[robbyx]

I think all of us will be very happy if one day Psystar could just write their own Mac OS Clone from ground up (Hell they could even use Darwin and GNUStep if they want) and put it on their own hardware.

Well, I don't think that day will ever come. I mean, we'd have seen a Windows clone by now if it were that easy. But, until Psystar actually DEVELOPS something, it's a moot point. They haven't written a lick of code, save the hacks to get OS X on their hardware, thus not only violating Apple's license agreement, but also modifying proprietary intellectual property for their own gain.

I look forward to watching Apple grind them into the ground.

 

[mjtomlin]

Now I only want OS X and, luckily, Apple sells it in the store.

Apple sells it in the store so Macintosh users can upgrade their older operating systems. Furthermore, who the hell are you? YOU want it and because it is possible to obtain it, it's your right to do whatever you want with it? What are you like, twelve or something?

Yes, actually, I think Apple could use a refresher course in innovation.

Good for you. Get a job at Apple and feed them some ideas.

I seem to remember that, Amazon sells OS X, a product which they did not develop...

Wow! Ignorance must be bliss. Psystar are NOT SELLING a copy of OS X, they are HACKING IT!!!

but a user should still have the choice to accept or reject the integrated model.

You do. Get Windows. Get Linux. Get BSD.

An unsupported machine is a small price to pay for the hardware one needs.

What!? So you want to install an OS on a computer that contains hardware you need, but the OS doesn't support it, because there's no driver for it, so you won't be able to take advantage of said hardware?

Incorrect. HW and SW are (and always will be) two separate entities. The reason TiVo and Sony don't have to license their OSes, though, is because the hardware they use is specialized and unavailable to the public. The same is not true with OS X/Mac.

Incorrect. If a piece of software is written for a specific hardware product, then it is considered a proprietary platform. Even if someone reverse-engineers the hardware, they cannot use the original's software, if it so stated in the software license. Even when the original IBM was reverse-engineered, those companies weren't allowed to run PCDOS, they had to license MSDOS.

Furthermore, Intel has set up an Apple Group to work closely with Apple to design and make custom motherboards, chips and chip sets and other bits. These are specialized and unavailable to the public. The hack used to get OS X to run on other hardware bypasses some of this customization and emulates other parts that are usually found on other systems but not Apple's hardware. Apple chooses not to license OS X, because it wants the ability to drop support for an architecture and move to something completely different. This gives them an advantage other PC manufacturer's don't have and allows them to differentiate their products from all the others.

 

[Clive At Five]

You could easily afford a used Mac with the money you are spending on your hackintosh. Someday I'll buy me a nice new Mac Pro, but I'll be damned if Psystar is doing the downtrodden computer user any favors by "opening up" the OS X platform. The only thing they are trying to open up is Pandora's box.

A $600 used Mac would not have gotten one the performance of a Quad Core CPU. My goal was to upgrade from my circa '02 iMac.

By the way, I'm not denying that opening OS X wouldn't have some negative consequenses. Apple ahs been through a lot though and if they truly care about delivering a sensational product, they will. Most consumers will see the Mac as the complete experience meanwhile hobbyists and hardware vendors will have the choice to go and do their own thing, neither of which will live up to actually owning a Mac.

Good luck getting on your feet, by the way.

I'm genuinely curious as to how Apple abanded the pro market. I'll admit, they are focusing their nads a bit much on the iPhone and iPod, but their pro offerings are still regarded in the industry.

"Prosumer." Demographic between average consumers and professionals.

Amazon is probably an authorized reseller, like the many non-apple Mac stores that are around.

Yes, to be used on APPLE hardware. Sheesh. Just because one can buy a boxed copy of OS X doesn't mean one can install it anywhere. Read the license agreement and stop whining.

That wasn't what was stated. It was said that Psystar shouldn't be allowed to sell OS X because they didn't develop it.

You cannot possibly believe this , can you? Seriously? Apple, the manufacturer, the creater and sole owner of the object you refer to, has chosen to deliver said goods in an intergrated model. Manufacturers should no longer have the right to distribute their work in the manor they see fit? At the end of the day, the user does have the choice to accept or reject the intergrated model. If they refuse to accept the model-adhere to Apple's agreement, for which they are only a licensed user with restrictions- then they still have another option, which is to use a different OS.

No, the user should not. The company that DEVELOPED THE SOFTWARE should be able to determine how THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY is used. Sorry if you don't like it, but grow up already. It's their right.

Negative. Apple cannot do whatever they want. Their business model must abide by law, which includes the not participating in anti-competitive practices WHICH IS PRIMARILY WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT. Neither you nor I can correctly comment on the legality of Apple's business becasue we are not judge or jury.

What IS known, however, is that Apple can NOT just do whatever they want.

I'm actually was a windowzz convert who wanted to "drink the coolaid" and slapped OSX86 on my HP lappy. Now i'm the proud owner of a Maxed Out Macbook Pro and soon Mac Pro .
Still gots' a hackintosh for the GF though.

Congratulations! Your anecdote only furthers the argument that an open OS X won't hurt Apple and will, instead, entice more users than steal them.

I think you may have missed what he is stating (although I could be wrong). The biggest complaint i've heard is:

"Apple does not have a midrange offering. The Mac Mini is too weak, the iMac is too intergrated, and the Mac Pro is too expensive."

Everyone wants a tower, and there it is. It may be up there in price, but thats what Apple charges. What this user is saying, i'd agree, is correct in saying that users want a product that does not meet Apple's definition.

That is one person's complaint.

Now I obviously I won't deny that the Mac Pro is very expensive but that shouldn't overshadow that it's also simply more than I need. I need a desktop class processor, a desktop class GPU, desktop class RAM, a desktop class HDD, and upgradeable components.

This is what most mac-using prosumers are looking for.

And this is supposed to make me care? This is supposed to make Apple care? I don't think so.

No, it's to make you realize you have a flawed perception of who Hackintosh-builders are. Likely an irrelevant attempt on my part.

Not true. Tivo is a Linux box I'm quite sure. Anyone could build hardware that runs the TivoOS. Apple's hardware and software relationship is no different than Tivo's. Where things differ is that one can't buy TivoOS in the store, but that doesn't mean one couldn't build one's own Tivo box.

If you can build me a hardware configuration made of off-the-shelf parts that is fully compatible with with the TiVo OS, install it and prove to me that it works, I'll call a lawyer and sue them.

And, more to the point, Apple's LICENSE AGREEMENT specifically prohibits use on non-Apple boxes. Remember, you do not own the software. You own a LICENSE to use it, a license that can be revoked at ANY TIME if you violate the license agreement. That's how all software works.

Again, EULAs must abide by law. If the EULA is found to be anti-competitive, the EULA is void.

Drama alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How about this. Go to Best Buy, open up a Best Buy card, buy your Mac, and get 24 months to pay for it without interest. Buy a $1000 MacBook and pay $50 a month for 2 years.

I don't think this has anything to do with cost of hardware, etc. It's some silly beef against Apple hardware for whatever reason. If you want to live in the world of roll-your-own hardware, you've got Linux and Windows to play with, but please don't ruin it for those of us who enjoy the Mac experience.

I'll disregard your rude and ignorant remarks as by now I wouldn't expect you to understand my situation anyway.

-Clive

 

[ZiggyPastorius]

****, guys, you gotta help me! I just got a call informing me I am going to be sued because the people who enjoy listening to the music I produce as "Industrial Platypus," but don't have a computer, can't obtain my music. The fact that they don't have a computer prevents them from listening to my music, as it's only available online, and not in CD form...They're telling me I have to start releasing all of Industrial Platypus' tracks in CD, record, cassette, 8-track, and digital copies, or else I'll have to let a record company produce my music for me! I'm so screwed, guys...

;.;

I think many forget this is a matter of a company selling the hacked software, and not a personal attack on anyone who wants to build a hackintosh. I still wouldn't agree with it, and the debate back and forth has been beat to death, but, nobody's gonna come knocking your door down for building a Hackintosh, but what Psystar is doing is indeed a bit different.

 

[Clive At Five]

@mjtomlin:

First of all, I'd like to applaud your quote editing to include only parts of my sentences instead of their wholes. Secondly, I LOVE your use of petty insults like calling me a 12-year-old. Very classy. It makes you look very mature and wise! I bow to your linguistic prowess.

Apple sells it in the store so Macintosh users can upgrade their older operating systems. Furthermore, who the hell are you? YOU want it and because it is possible to obtain it, it's your right to do whatever you want with it? What are you like, twelve or something?

One of the best analogies I've seen on these boards: If you buy a book at the store, it's within your rights to make notes in the margins and, if you wanted to, you could scribble out a paragraph and rewrite it if it suits you better. You just can't sell it. I have never once argued that PsyStar selling modified copies of OS X was legal, but for an individual user to do so is within fair use.

Good for you. Get a job at Apple and feed them some ideas.

Nice attempt at belittling me... but fail. Just because I'm not in the computer business doesn't mean I can't spot an innovation when I see one.

Wow! Ignorance must be bliss. Psystar are NOT SELLING a copy of OS X, they are HACKING IT!!!

Again, I've never once argued for the legality of Psystar selling hecked versions of OS X. I was responding to the false statement that Psystar shouldn't be able to sell OS X becasue they didn't develop it.

Reading post history will help you avoid similar mistakes in the future.

You do. Get Windows. Get Linux. Get BSD.

Again, quoting the entire relevant text would easily show the error of your snarky comments. Anyone who is remotely familiar with the english language would have been able to grasp that I was alluding to choosing an integrated model or an open model comprised of the same components.

What!? So you want to install an OS on a computer that contains hardware you need, but the OS doesn't support it, because there's no driver for it, so you won't be able to take advantage of said hardware?

Unsupported by Apple.

To address your (once again, uninformed) comment, in actuality, 98% of the drivers do exist in OS X because 98% of the components inside Macs are the exact same compontents/protocols as generic PCs.

Incorrect. If a piece of software is written for a specific hardware product, then it is considered a proprietary platform. Even if someone reverse-engineers the hardware, they cannot use the original's software, if it so stated in the software license. Even when the original IBM was reverse-engineered, those companies weren't allowed to run PCDOS, they had to license MSDOS.

Analogy FAIL. PC-DOS was developed by Microsoft and lisenced exclusively to IBM. Microsoft wasn't at risk of being anti-competitive by only licensing PC-DOS to IBM. Apple, on the other hand, is denying licensing of OS X in order to attain sales of an unrelated product: their hardware.

Furthermore, Intel has set up an Apple Group to work closely with Apple to design and make custom motherboards, chips and chip sets and other bits. These are specialized and unavailable to the public. The hack used to get OS X to run on other hardware bypasses some of this customization and emulates other parts that are usually found on other systems but not Apple's hardware. Apple chooses not to license OS X, because it wants the ability to drop support for an architecture and move to something completely different. This gives them an advantage other PC manufacturer's don't have and allows them to differentiate their products from all the others.

This entire paragraph is irrelevant. The question is whether or not OS X will run on generic hardware, not whether some other OS would be able to run on Intel's special MacBook Air C2D processor.

Apple's "custom" chipsets are about as different as an ASUS motherboard is from a Foxconn motherboard... i.e. not much.

-Clive

 

[gnasher729]

Welcome Psystar with open arms? Are you that, um...nevermind. PC fans really irritate the crap out of me, to be honest. Not because they love Windows, but because they love cheap crap boxes that require untold number of hours dealing with tech support, etc. And Linux nerds are even worse!!!

If Apple had any desire to sell nasty cheap boxes, they could have bought Gateway a year or two ago for maybe $800 million. Since Gateway sold about the same number of computers as Apple at that time, Apple would even have doubled their market share!

Alternatively, Michael Dell has said in public that he would love to sell machines running MacOS X. Does anyone think Psystar could compete with Dell on price, quality and so on?

 

[Clive At Five]

****, guys, you gotta help me! I just got a call informing me I am going to be sued because the people who enjoy listening to the music I produce as "Industrial Platypus," but don't have a computer, can't obtain my music. The fact that they don't have a computer prevents them from listening to my music, as it's only available online, and not in CD form...They're telling me I have to start releasing all of Industrial Platypus' tracks in CD, record, cassette, 8-track, and digital copies, or else I'll have to let a record company produce my music for me! I'm so screwed, guys...

Analogy FAIL. Tying your tracks to the internet doesn't result in your profiting from the sale of computers to access said content.

I think many forget this is a matter of a company selling the hacked software, and not a personal attack on anyone who wants to build a hackintosh. I still wouldn't agree with it, and the debate back and forth has been beat to death, but, nobody's gonna come knocking your door down for building a Hackintosh, but what Psystar is doing is indeed a bit different.

I'm not saying Psystar is right to resell modified copies of OS X, but I am in favor of allowing an individual user to modify his/her copy without legal consequence... and of course at the price of losing official support from Apple on said copy.

-Clive