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
They are selling computers with OS X pre-installed. Hence, they are distributing copies of the software.
.. ..
I disagree. Mac are no longer the core business.
Unless you look at their numbers. Unless your biggest revenue-maker isn't your core business.
I am only suggesting that with an open Mac OS their market share would grow and they would actually make more money than less.
Rewind to the part in this thread where we discussed why Apple's current business model is insanely profitable and is the envy of the entire industry.
Opening up OS X means no more OS X as we know it. Which is going to be a big problem, both for Apple and their user base. The reason OS X is so successful is *because* it is tied to Apple hardware.
The RIAA tried to make selling the compact discs you bought illegal. When I pay for software, I can then resell it as I want, regardless of what the manufacturer says. If I buy software, I don't even have to read the EULA, don't even have to open the box, I can still resell it. Psystar should just include a retail copy of OSX in the box, and let the user install it on there own. This would save them some grief. There is no law stating you can't buy something, then resell it. It happens every day on eBay.
When you turn on the Psystar, a prompt would ask you to insert the installation disc for your operating system of choice. You could choose Windows or Mac OS, with the included retail box. This way, they are not doing anything illegal.
Force Apple to go after the end-user. How's that for a PR nightmare.
When you turn on the Psystar, a prompt would ask you to insert the installation disc for your operating system of choice. You could choose Windows or Mac OS, with the included retail box. This way, they are not doing anything illegal.
Force Apple to go after the end-user. How's that for a PR nightmare.
All Mac sales would be affected. The extra market share would also bring extra costs as far as support and testing goes. OS X is not a money maker right now (software is their least profitable sector) and upping their software sales without upping hardware sales could cost them in the long run.
The fact is, they have a winning combination today. They almost died from an open Mac OS. What would you do as a business with obligations towards share holders ?
So if I sell my computer, which has OS X pre-installed, I am thereby distributing copies of the software and therefore need to contact Apple's legal team to acquire permission for such a sale?
when apple wins???
has to search and destroy all hackintosh users and sue them as well...
bad publicity ??? noo, a lesson to the world of piracy, dont mess with apple .
No, but you need to provide the original retail disc along with it. I don't believe Psystar can show records of doing so.
when you sell the mac osx disc, you have to send the apple agreement book has well.
Per the CNN article on Rebel EFI:
"According to the company, the software is compatible with the Intel Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, i7 or machines running the Xeon Nehalem CPU."
Agreed and I bet that would be the next move to make should they loose in court. But for the time being, and for the convenience of their customers, I guess they think they can get away with installing the software for their clients.
This level of insane control is just going to turn loyal Apple fans away, possibly to the likes of Google. Google has a browser, phone, some great internet services, and upcoming OS, etc.. Remember the old rule the customer is always right? Why not keep it that way. Give us what we want, let us do what we want with our hardware/software. Stealing is something I don't promote. But paying for something and using it in such a way that suits me is something I'm always going to do. if Apple doesn't let me do it I'll find a company who lets me.
I actually edited that line out right after I wrote it. You must have hit reply fast, lol. Yes, Macs are the core business, and that would not change with open Mac OS. What I meant to say is their success is no longer defined solely by profit on their computers. It most likely would cause a change in product lineup, but it would not put Apple out of business because, as Apple itself states every time it gets a chance, the high profits are being driven by people buying iPods, iPhones, and music and games for those devices. Even Mac sales are being driven by people coming into the stores to buy those devices, and that wouldn't have to change with an open Mac OS. MacBooks could still be their number one selling Mac. There is just no reason to believe that an open Mac would kill off Apple.
Actually, yes, probably. It's not cost efficient to go after the used Mac business, but first sale doctrine for computer software has no real legal precedent and since software is not sold but licensed, it might not even apply.
This is a matter of debate currently. However, since Psystar failed to produce any documents proving they even owned the copies of OS X they sold, the point of first sale doctrine is moot.
Well, they are distributing copies of the software without and records of them actually purchasing the software. That is what Apple alleges and from reports of the proceeding, Psystar could not come up with any proof that they bought all of those copies of OS x.
If you bought a Mac and sold it, we all know what OS it came with.
Check out: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...odesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars for selling used software. I think this recently went to the SCOTUS, but can't find the reference right now.
you don't own the software, you license it. You have to agree to the licensing terms to install it.
If it's an ISO, you can always try mount -t iso9660 -o loopback (going from memory here) on it.
But it does look like Linux. Since you downloaded the product, it's time to send Psystar an e-mail and place a request to obtain their modified source code (or the non-modified one) along with any files needed in order to rebuild their isoLinuz image.
And a link to kernel.org doesn't satisfy the requirements of the GPL.
It's not Linux or anything related actually, that was just a stupid way to hide what they are really using, which is a modified boot-132, and that's another very stupid move to do since boot-132 is under APSL, thing Apple can sue them for since they didn't release the source code, now after they said they didn't keep the sources for the boot loader they were using, they have released the another binary again.
It seems their stupidity has limits.
Are you saying Pystar did not provide the original retail disk to their customers? If I don't need to provide the bill of purchase to sell my MBP with the original disk, why should they need to provide their bill of purchase of Mac OS X if they are in fact providing the original disk to their clients?
Again its not clear to me why it should matter if they can provide the bills or not. Unless there is evidence suggesting they have stolen their copies of Mac OS X, shouldn't we presume their innocence? One ground for doubt would be if they didn't provide their customers with the original disks. Do you happen to know that this is how they proceeded?
Actually, it doesn't say anything about asking or not asking for any compensation for the distribution of software.
But it does impose rules as far as distribution goes. Basically, you have to either include the source code, along with any modifications and project and build files needed to reproduce the exact binary you shipped or include a written offer to obtain said source and files. You also cannot charge more than the shipping/media cost for these.
Doing anything less means you are violating the GPL and have no right to distribute the software at all, thus you are committing copyright infringment.
OK, enough with the "license" vs "owning." For our purposes, we OWN the software. We own our CDs, we don't license just to listen to them. We physically own the products, and possession is 9/10ths of the law, as we all know.
If Apple wants to come after me, so be it. But I'm telling Apple, I own my software, I paid for it, and I'll put it on a PC if I so choose. Tough. Don't sell it to me if you don't like that. You have your EULA, and I have mine. It says I own this software I paid good money for and I will do as I wish.
It's just a he said/he said. Sosumi....