Psystar Releases 'Rebel EFI' Software to Enable Installation of Snow Leopard on PCs

[pdjudd]

It is these specific applications that are tied to one operating system that causes the very real digital divide that I am addressing here. The solution would then be to ensure the school uses Math & Reading software that is accessible across all platforms, not tied to a single one (I've checked, the software she uses at school is not available in Windows).

The problems you cite are the nature of dealing with computing platforms in general. I's not something that any one company can solve. There are tons of software programs that I used in college that were utterly proprietary to PC's and programs that were Utterly proprietary to Macs (PPC ones), along with software just for UNIX. The college provided labs since there was no realistic way that a student could have a Windows computer, a Mac computer or a Unix computer (the mac and Unix computers were limited too). Even the software was limited based on where you could work (they would not provide some software to students) I had to work aroiund the fact that I had a crappy Windows box (several students I knew had no computer of their own. The school did what it could to provide the resources within a reasonable time frame during the day. I image most schools operate labs outside of the school day but there is no way for us to know that.

Cross platform compatibility is an industry issue that (we have to admit) is not going away. You cannot impose a busienss will on another company without their consent. Nobody would bother if they suddenly were told by the government that they had to eliminate their competitive edge in the spirit of equality - they would shut down. Life is an inherently unequal process. That's something that we just have to live with.

 

[Fastshutter]

The problems you cite are the nature of dealing with computing platforms in general. I's not something that any one company can solve. There are tons of software programs that I used in college that were utterly proprietary to PC's and programs that were Utterly proprietary to Macs (PPC ones), along with software just for UNIX. The college provided labs since there was no realistic way that a student could have a Windows computer, a Mac computer or a Unix computer (the mac and Unix computers were limited too). Even the software was limited based on where you could work (they would not provide some software to students) I had to work aroiund the fact that I had a crappy Windows box (several students I knew had no computer of their own. The school did what it could to provide the resources within a reasonable time frame during the day. I image most schools operate labs outside of the school day but there is no way for us to know that.

Cross platform compatibility is an industry issue that (we have to admit) is not going away. You cannot impose a busienss will on another company without their consent. Nobody would bother if they suddenly were told by the government that they had to eliminate their competitive edge in the spirit of equality - they would shut down. Life is an inherently unequal process. That's something that we just have to live with.

I can't keep up with all of your contradictions and changing the scope of the argument Pdjudd. Twice now you've asked me to cite proof for arguments I haven't made, and then had the audacity to require I cite proof for arguments you think I've implied. You seem to only be hearing what you want to hear.

 

[pdjudd]

I can't keep up with all of your contradictions and changing the scope of the argument Pdjudd. Twice now you've asked me to cite proof for arguments I haven't made, and then had the audacity to require I cite proof for arguments you think I've implied. You seem to only be hearing what you want to hear.

I'm not - I was trying to understand what you were saying and I concluded that they are not relevant. That's why I asked for cites - to prove relevance. This thread is not appropriate for abstract philosophical discussions. All I asked for was the exact point you were trying to make. I couldn't tell what you were after and you abstracted out to arguments that have no solution. I do not mean to make arguments that you are not making, but I frankly couldn't figure out where you were going. I will redact any arguments that you claim that you have not made. It doesn't change the fact that it's not pertinent to the discussion about Psystar.

 

[Bafflefish]

Last I checked, the "IBM PC" descended platform didn't run off EFI. Hence why you need Bootcamp to install Windows or Linux natively on your Mac.

The "IBM PC" platform uses the BIOS. Or now are you going to say that my HP Integrity boxes are PCs because they use Intel processors (they boot off the same EFI Apple uses).

AFAIK, Windows 7 should be able to natively install on any Intel-based Mac now, since it has native EFI support incorporated.

 

[cjmillsnun]

AFAIK, Windows 7 should be able to natively install on any Intel-based Mac now, since it has native EFI support incorporated.

X64 does but i386 doesn't.

 

[Bafflefish]

X64 does but i386 doesn't.

I knew that previously Windows XP 64-bit and Vista 64-bit consumer-side had EFI support, but I thought that Microsoft had incorporated 32-bit EFI support as well so that Win 7 had complete compatibility. I'm probably wrong though

 

[SMCX]

Someone by the nick 'tea' was able to decrypt the content of Rebel EFI; more info here http://www.infinitemac.com/f36/rebel-efi-from-psystar-t4492/page4.html

So it seems they put themselves in a bad situation again.

 

[pdjudd]

So it seems they put themselves in a bad situation again.

Who would “they” be? Psystar? I don’t think they give a darn. They have little concern over Apple’s IP and the OSX86 groups IP so they would be excluded. Apple certainly isn’t going to lose sleep - it’s another target for the legal team and it isn’t the first hackintosher.

 

[Scottsdale]

I believe Apple could get around this by licensing OS X to actual hardware rather than selling hardware. Why cannot Apple change the user agreement to a license to use OS X on Apple hardware only? This would get around Apple "selling" a copyrighted OS X to users. By doing that, it would require "leasing" of the software in a sense. Doesn't this seem like a good way to close the loophole Psystar is trying to open? If Psystar cannot include a retail version of OS X with a computer, it would stop this instantly. Apple could also pursue contract/licensing dispute with anyone attempting to install OS X on a non-Apple system.

 

[r.j.s]

I believe Apple could get around this by licensing OS X to actual hardware rather than selling hardware. Why cannot Apple change the user agreement to a license to use OS X on Apple hardware only? This would get around Apple "selling" a copyrighted OS X to users. By doing that, it would require "leasing" of the software in a sense. Doesn't this seem like a good way to close the loophole Psystar is trying to open? If Psystar cannot include a retail version of OS X with a computer, it would stop this instantly. Apple could also pursue contract/licensing dispute with anyone attempting to install OS X on a non-Apple system.

Yes, if Apple went to that kind of licensing system, this would not be an issue.

However, since Apple makes the majority of their money from hardware sales, not software, and they have described themselves as a hardware company, not a software company that happens to make hardware (think MS), doing so would most likely destroy their business, like it almost did once before.

Those that fail to learn from history and all that ...

 

[SMCX]

Who would “they” be? Psystar? I don’t think they give a darn. They have little concern over Apple’s IP and the OSX86 groups IP so they would be excluded. Apple certainly isn’t going to lose sleep - it’s another target for the legal team and it isn’t the first hackintosher.

"they" would be Psystar, yes, they obviously don't give a ****.

I believe Apple could get around this by licensing OS X to actual hardware rather than selling hardware. Why cannot Apple change the user agreement to a license to use OS X on Apple hardware only? This would get around Apple "selling" a copyrighted OS X to users. By doing that, it would require "leasing" of the software in a sense. Doesn't this seem like a good way to close the loophole Psystar is trying to open? If Psystar cannot include a retail version of OS X with a computer, it would stop this instantly. Apple could also pursue contract/licensing dispute with anyone attempting to install OS X on a non-Apple system.

Or Apple could require the serial number of the Mac as step in OS X installation.

I'm sure they have even better ways to solve this, but I wonder why they have never done it, yet.

 

[pdjudd]

"they" would be Psystar, yes, they obviously don't give a ****.

Ahh. Your statemnt of "they put themselves in a worse place" wasn't 100% clear. I thnk psystar is thinking "Worse? How could it get any worse?"

Or Apple could require the serial number of the Mac as step in OS X installation.

They could so that - they do it on their server products which never stopped Psystar from making an "Open Server" or whatever.

I'm sure they have even better ways to solve this, but I wonder why they have never done it, yet.

Here is my logic:
1) All Apple needs is a good precident case to back them up in future litigation - in essense they can show that "The defendant is performing the same actions that Psystar Inc did in prior and they were found guilty". Apple wants theis case to send out a warning that this isn't acceptable.
2) Serial numbers don't stop piracy.
3) All serial numbers do is add a layer of inconvenience on the honest users and as I said in number 2, are a minor annoyance to the dishonest ones. Apple doesn't need it - their case hasn't been dismissed on the basis of suitable protections. That's the part of DMCA - it just requires a protected scheme that the average user cannot reasonably defeat. It just has to do what it is intended.

 

[Maximara]

Ahh. Your statemnt of "they put themselves in a worse place" wasn't 100% clear. I thnk psystar is thinking "Worse? How could it get any worse?"

Ticking off the judge that he goes into summery judgment mode and hit Psystar with contempt of court fines on top of that is one way it could get worse.

 

[pdjudd]

Ticking off the judge that he goes into summery judgment mode and hit Psystar with contempt of court fines on top of that is one way it could get worse.

Pystar pretty knows that it is screwed, it's just trying to minimize the damages that they will just go into bankruptcy for again. I really don;t think they are that worried about ticking the judge off given their prior behavior.

 

[hitekalex]

Pystar pretty knows that it is screwed, it's just trying to minimize the damages that they will just go into bankruptcy for again. I really don;t think they are that worried about ticking the judge off given their prior behavior.

All that Psystar needs to do is remove all MacOS pre-loaded systems from their store offerings. And just stick to selling bare-bones (but MacOS-ready) systems and Rebel-EFI. It would then be up to the Psystar customers to load MacOS with their own purchased MacOS DVD.

By doing that, they push the responsibility for breaking the Apple EULA onto the end user.. and probably insulate themselves from Apple legal action.

 

[pdjudd]

All that Psystar needs to do is remove all MacOS pre-loaded systems from their store offerings. And just stick to selling bare-bones (but MacOS-ready) systems and Rebel-EFI. It would then be up to the Psystar customers to load MacOS with their own purchased MacOS DVD.

By doing that, they push the responsibility for breaking the Apple EULA onto the end user.. and probably insulate themselves from Apple legal action.

I don't think that is enough - they still would have to bypass Apples SMC which is encrypted. They do that APpel can sue them and make them stop.

I agree about selling bare bones computers, but they have to do so without even inferring that the machines will work With Apple's IP or they can still get sued.

As far as I am aware, there is no way to install the Mac OS on a non Apple computer without some type of external interference that would violate Apple's copyrights or invoke a DMCA claim. If there is, I would like to see one for curiosity's sake to see how it is marketed to avoid a lawsuit.

Remember, as Baldi-Mac pointed out here - it's not enough that it's an EFI computer, it has to have a decryption SMC key that only Apple could legitimately provide.

 

[hitekalex]

As far as I am aware, there is no way to install the Mac OS on a non Apple computer without some type of external interference that would violate Apple's copyrights or invoke a DMCA claim. If there is, I would like to see one for curiosity's sake to see how it is marketed to avoid a lawsuit.

A company called Art Studios Entertainment has been doing this for years with a product called EFiX (www.efi-x.com). They market their product as enabling multi-boot of any OS. Quoting their website:

You may use any popular Operating system including Linux, Windows Vista, or Windows XP (FAT32) or Apple® Mac OSX. The EFI-X™ Interactive Boot Selector allows you to seamlessly switch between your Operating Systems.

They obviously don't get into any details about HOW exactly EFiX enables MacOS boot.. EFiX is simply a USB dongle with encrypted boot code that does more or less the same thing as Psystar with Rebel-EFI. They leave it to the customer to install MacOS from a retail DVD.

Apple legal team hasn't bothered ASEM thus far.. And I'd argue it'd be very tough for Apple to launch a successful legal attack against something like this. In order to prove SMC/decryption and link it with DMCA, Apple would in turn need to break ASEM code security and demonstrate exactly what ASEM is doing. Miles away from Psystar's in-your-face approach of blatantly selling MacOS clones in my opinion..

 

[liketom]

so is there a way of buying this in the UK yet ? i''m getting an CVS errror on check out.

 

[nullx86]

X64 does but i386 doesn't.

I knew that previously Windows XP 64-bit and Vista 64-bit consumer-side had EFI support, but I thought that Microsoft had incorporated 32-bit EFI support as well so that Win 7 had complete compatibility. I'm probably wrong though

I got 32 bit installed, so I dont see what your guys' issue is with getting it installed...

 

[nullx86]

so is there a way of buying this in the UK yet ? i''m getting an CVS errror on check out.

Just checkout as being in the US, its a download, not a shipment iirc

 

[liketom]

Just checkout as being in the US, its a download, not a shipment iirc

but the credit card has to match the billing address right ?

 

[nullx86]

but the credit card has to match the billing address right ?

eh, it all depends on how their system is set up to take credit cards, some have t have it match, some dont. Try it, if it works, it works; if it doesnt work, get a buddy in the USA to order for you.

 

[KnightWRX]

AFAIK, Windows 7 should be able to natively install on any Intel-based Mac now, since it has native EFI support incorporated.

So what is your point ? Windows boots on non-PC platforms ? Wouldn't exactly be a new thing seeing how they had ports for Digital Alpha, MIPs and PPC before.

 

[pdjudd]

A company called Art Studios Entertainment has been doing this for years with a product called EFiX (www.efi-x.com). They market their product as enabling multi-boot of any OS. Quoting their website:

You may use any popular Operating system including Linux, Windows Vista, or Windows XP (FAT32) or Apple® Mac OSX. The EFI-X™ Interactive Boot Selector allows you to seamlessly switch between your Operating Systems.

I really don’t know enough about this company (their site is terrible navigation wise - can’t find anything) but I have heard of them and I would say that their product falls under “external device”. Since I am not Apple Legal I can only guess but I am sure that Apple knows about them. Right not it’s a moot point since it only works with Leopard and from Wikipedia, it seems that that their CEO isn’t happy with people using them to make clones:

There has been some speculation that an EFi-X-equipped machine is equivalent to a Hackintosh. However, in December 2008 Davide Rutigliano, then CEO of Art Studios Entertainment stated that "when I said that we at ASEM do not condone the merchandising of clones, I meant it. The press saw the 'Millennium' project as a clone project, and I immediately ordered it to be scrapped and abandoned. Because we at ASEM do not sell or condone the sale of clones that compete with ANY brand."

Emphasis mine
Suffice to say, I cannot find any current product on their page that indicated that it allows you to make a Hakintosh. It only worked with 10.5 (which is no longer available) and only on a few limited systems. From what it looks like, their boot devices are either an implementation of EFI or an extension thereof.

ETA: Regarding their Millenium project, I can’t find any reference and their only USB product ,akes no mention of booting OSX on non-apple hardware

 

[hitekalex]

I really don’t know enough about this company (their site is terrible navigation wise - can’t find anything) but I have heard of them and I would say that their product falls under “external device”. Since I am not Apple Legal I can only guess but I am sure that Apple knows about them. Right not it’s a moot point since it only works with Leopard

Nope, the EFI-X v1.1 with the latest firmware supports Snow Leopard (http://forum.efi-x.com/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=4564).

I am not sure how the device being "external" or "internal" matters in terms of its legality.. The device emulates EFI, and tricks MacOS into thinking it's booting off Apple's hardware.

it seems that that their CEO isn’t happy with people using them to make clones

That's nothing but posturing on their behalf. They say these things to create an illusion that the purpose of their product is something beyond "Hackintoshing". Obviously hoping this will keep them under the radar of Apple's legal. However, every single customer who purchased their product did so with a sole purpose of building Hackintosh.

Suffice to say, I cannot find any current product on their page that indicated that it allows you to make a Hakintosh.

Again, you need to look more closely and read their support forums (you need to register on their website to be able to do that). As I said, they don't want to make their real purpose for existence too obvious, but if you dig a bit deeper - making a Hackintosh is the only reason for their product.