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 Releases 'Rebel EFI' Software to Enable Installation of Snow Leopard on PCs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Apple doesn't provide what you need, why the hell are you looking at Macs to begin with?
Would you like Apple to redesign their lineup just for you? That would be odd, since everyone else seems just fine with it. If they weren't, this past week would have been a hallucination or just an accident.
Like I said, I don't know how much is being made per unit, so I can only speculate. I do know that from reading past market reports that Apple is making most of its money off of iPods and cheap MacBooks. All of you saying Apple will die by opening up Mac to other platforms are just speculating. Unless I hear a market analyst say that I won't believe it. They could very well decide to open up the Mac OS and if they had to decrease unit sales of Mac Pros because people start buying Dells preloaded with Mac OS X, and increase unit sales of cheap MacBooks, then so be it. Yes, their business model would change, but that doesn't mean they would die.
Also, they're making a killing at iPhone/iPod game sales and it is expected to skyrocket over the next few years. So, it is very viable that even with Mac OS open Apple would do just fine.
I really don't believe this has anything to do with Apple staying in business. Steve Jobs has his vision of Apple and it doesn't include clones or being able to theme the Mac OS. Most likely as long as he is the CEO it will stay this way, unless a court forces them to do otherwise, which is possible.
Hell yes, let's stop trying to get new customers or making existing ones happier. The 10% marketshare will probably just immediately skyrocket to 100% then...
It's not "quite apparent". If it was, well, we wouldn't need courts to determine these things.
Not only are you not a judicial scholar, but you apparently have never stayed at a Holiday Inn Express, either.
Erm, copyright infringement means you made a copy of something that isn't yours. That's what it's called COPYright. When you buy OSX you have not made a copy, so you're not infringing copyright law. You're breaking the EULA, your contract to legally USE the service. In this case, the software. That's a different thing. Also interesting is that EULA's have never been tested in court!
From an article on Wired:
The consensus among attorneys contacted by Wired is that breaking a EULA technically isnt illegal (its not a signed or executable contract) and penalties tend to vary from state to state, making it very hard to stop.
Even IF they breaking an EULA was deemed illegal by court, I don't think Apple would go after individual users. Piracy is a far bigger problem, and even then we only see sporadic cases of individuals being sued.
Besides, what if the court decides Apple's EULA is not valid? Then they even have a bigger problem!
They are presently at 10% market share in the US, and about 5% worldwide. They have a long road ahead of them before they have to face anti-trust charges for bundling OS X and their hardware.
Also, market share is not the only dictator of monopoly status. Market control is very important also. And a monopoly is not about a single product, it's about a market. So before Apple has a monopoly position in the Desktop Operating system market or the personal computer systems business, they need to grow about 10 folds and push out everyone else, making it so that you NEED (not want or feel entitled to) an Apple computer running an Apple operating system.
Your point is moot until then and the way the market works, probably forever. If Microsoft ever lose their monopoly position, it will be replaced by actual competition, not another monopoly.
Is there a list of supported hardware? I seem to recall seeing one for a internal USB hardware bootloader once but the supported hardware list was very short.
Maybe we like the software, but not the hardware? That's where I am. This Psystar program is perfect, because it allows me to get both the hardware and software I want, at a reasonable price.
Installing MacOS X on anything that is not an Apple-labeled computer is not "stealing" software (nice straw man; I never claimed you supported theft), it is copyright infringement.
When Psystar sells MacOS X installed on a Psystar computer, which is how they sell MacOS X, then they have committed copyright infringement while installing the software, they are also committing contributory copyright infringement since the customer intends to use MacOS X on that computer, which is copyright infringement. Selling Rebel EFI is contributory copyright infringement and a DMCA violation.
And Psystar has been proven to be a reputable company? Ask all the people who are owned money by Psystar, including their first lawyers. Is a company that seeks Chapter 11 protection to stop a lawsuit and then says "just joking" when the lawsuit isn't stopped a reputable company? Don't think so.
Good post, there is a difference between copyright infringement and pirating software. Psystar is no doubt using Apple's trademark in their business, which is trademark infringement.
The more market share Apple gains, the more Microsoft loses. The anti-trust problems will start much sooner than was the case with Microsoft. We have learned from the past. Apple only has to get to 30 or 40% in my opinion to warrant anti trust charges.
Given their sale improvements lately this isn't an unrealistic goal in a few years.
Also they are particularly strong in the notebook market, in that market alone they are way beyond 10% in the US already I believe.
I'm not even interested in Psystar computers, nor was I ever discussing them. And I never claimed you said it was illegal. I was just trying to clarify.
I'm purely interested in the contract issues of the product that is the subject of this thread.
What pressure? From a company that decided to test the IP waters (unwisely, I might add.) Pressure from the minority on this forum? Hardly.
Seems people think Apple is a very nice company. I see no anger or frustration from Apple's market, unless buying more Macs in a recession and handing Apple record quarters all the time means you're pissed.
This EULA-problem is artificially manufactured on Apple fansites by people who want to have a Windows hardware experience, but use an OS X interface. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways. Unless you've been living under a rock the past 10 years you'd know that the entire reason for OS X's success is precisely because it is tied to Apple's hardware. Refer to the earlier rulings in the Psystar case by Judge Alsup (last year) for further information.
Unfortunately, Apple opreates in the Premium market, where market share is naturally limited. It might rise, but don't expect it to skyrocket to proportions of a "monopoly." It won't happen because a lot of people can't afford to get Mac, at least that's what MS' Laptop Hunter ads have been telling us, right? So Gianpaolo and whats-her-name will probably go on being who they are, or rather, who they represent will go on being who they are.
as much as i initially thought it would be nice to run mac osx on the voluminous pc hardware i have lying around, i realized that part of the beauty of mac osx is that it just works - and a vital key to that is using apple hardware.
thus, personally, i don't mind paying a premium for apple hardware...
I have made this point a few times in this thread already. People seem to go off topic rapidly here.
There's that sense of entitlement again.
Again, market share and monopoly don't go hand in hand. How does Apple having 40% of the market put them in a control position ? Actually, that would put them and Microsoft is a very competitive situation.
Anti-trust charges can't be brought against you unless you have a monopoly and then used this monopoly for anti-competitive purposes. 40% of market share in a now highly competitive market doesn't justify it.
Read up on anti-trust laws, you're seriously lacking knowledge to even talk about this issue.
no, using Apple's trademark isn't copyright infringement, it's trademark infringement.
1) The purchase is final the moment you hand over your money and the retailer (Apple) accepts it.
2) see 1
3) You are not committing "copyright infringement" at all.
The EULA has nothing to do with copyright law.
You are violating a terms of a license agreement. One that is still questionable as to its enforceability.
There are too many shade tree lawyers on this board that like to pretend they know law.
I freely admit I don't everything there is to know about copyright law, but I know enough to know that what you stated is completely false.
You could completely reverse engineer the entire OS and as long as it is never released or sold for profit, you are not violating copyright law.
I had no idea the average American was that well off. If you foresee that many people moving into an income bracket where they have $1000+ to spend on a Mac, you'd better tell the current administration. I'll need to get our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper on the phone as well, to tell him the good news.
You're actually positing that Apple will have nearly half of the market. When will this happen? Because I'll see a unicorn before I'll ever see this.
Yes you own the product, but you don't seem to realise that Apple owns the rights of the products that bare the Apple logo on! In other words Apple owns the rights to the software and hardware. It is your computer, but you do not, in whatever way, own any of the legal rights of the product! And that is why Apple should sue the cr*p out of them and close them down! Go Apple Legal Department! Make them cry!!!!!
Simply saying this, or in the case of many others, merely repeating it over and over doesn't make it true. The courts will decide soon enough who owns what. Apple may own copyrights (meaning others can't copy the product and sell it) but it is not clear they also have the right to tell us what what we can do with our products. It is far from clear that Apple has an open and shut case here. I'm with Mattie on this front. If I buy a music CD or a software DVD, I own the dam product and will do with it as I please. Just try and stop me. I will digitize my music and I will install the software on whatever hardware I so choose. There is a real possibility that what happened to music CDs and the MP3 controversy will happen with software and more specifically operating systems.
5 years ago Music labels told us we were not allowed to make mp3s of our songs. I wonder how many labels would try to make that claim now. They would be laughed at, as some should do with regards to this situation. I furthermore wonder how many of you fanboys actually did, currently do, or will in the future make mp3s from purchased CDs. And before any of you cry, yes I only own one computer and it is a macbook pro. I bought it first and foremost for the hardware, and second for the software. Should someone sell me better hardware (aesthetic factors included), for a better price, you can rest assured my legally purchased copy of Mac OS X is going on it.
Apple will prosper or fail not on the basis of Mac OS X but on the quality of the product they produce. So long as they keep ahead of the curve on the hardware side they will be fine.
There's that sense of entitlement again.
Sure. I feel I should be able to get what I want when I spend my money. What I want is cheap, powerful hardware with the Apple OS. If what I want doesn't exist, I just won't spend my money, or else I'll make a tradeoff. Psystar appears to have a great solution to my dilemma. I'll most likely be taking advantage of it.
If entitlement is wanting to be able spend money on something you actually want, then I'm all for it. However, I'd suggest you've confused the definition. Don't companies sell products based on consumer wants and needs?
That's exactly the point where our opinions differ. I believe that OS X is the reason Apple hardware has been selling so much better lately.
The package of both is what the 'old' Apple clientel is used to.
But the new customers are there because of OS X mostly.
I believe allowing OS X to run on PCs (read: not putting effort into making it run, just not putting effort against it either) will bring a lot more OS X customers to Apple and possibily a few more 'full' customers in the end too.
A lot more people are willing to try out a Mac these days than 5-10 years ago. The fact that the cheapest entry is still 500$ these days just to try it out keeps most people from switching. If OS X were sold free for use on PCs a lot more people would be able to try it out and eventually buy a Mac probably.
People care about the UI and the ease of use not about what hardware it runs on.
It's been stated again and again that Apple's success is because Mac OS is fixated on tightly specified hardware. Yes. I don't argue with that. All I'm asking is to let people who are willing to go through the required steps to make it run on a normal PC are allowed to do so without any EULA problems.
Is that too much to ask? Would that be so bad for Apple? I don't think so.
No... that would be a Trademark violation.
Will all of you would-be attorneys please stop typing?
Sit back and eat some popcorn while the real lawyers sort out the mess.