Psystar to Challenge Mac OS X EULA?

[Live in 3D]

This is completely true. I hope to see more hardware Mac OS X capable. I don't understand why Apple is still preventing this from happening. Apparently, they did not learn anything from the 90s...

Um.. apparently they did. The Mac clones of the 90's were a contributing factor in their downward spiral. Hmmm lets see...Apple's financial situation in the 90's when they licensed clones vs. Apple's financial situation today when clones are strictly forbidden. No, you're absolutely right.

 

[Stig McNasty]

How can a court oblige Apple to sell part of their product separately?

"Hi, I'd like to buy the engine of that brand new Ford Focus. No, not the car, just the engine, thanks. No? See you in court!"?

But you can buy the big manufacturers engines as a standalone unit. How do you think the majority of small sports car manufacturers get their powerplants? Nick 'em? If you only want one then it'll cost a shed load, but if you order a few hundred the price obviously outweighs the development, tooling and manufacturing costs for a niched car builder.

Enough of these rubbish car analogies.

 

[Vulpinemac]

Actually you are essentially wrong (but somewhat right). It was IBM that wasn't updating the PowerPC (although Moto wasn't either). The G5 was IBM remember?

If you look at the history, IBM dropped out of the PPC triumvirate (Apple, IBM, Motorola) about two years earlier. By my understanding (if memory serves me right) Apple approached the other two companies to create a new processor that would be brand-specific and an improvement over the old 68K series of chips. IBM and Motorola agreed at the time to design and build these chips for Apple Computer only.

While I don't know the details, IBM chose to drop out of the partnership and after a couple years of Motorola refusing to improve the clock speeds of their PPC chips beyond 2Ghz Apple was forced to find a new supplier. I am sure that if IBM chose to start building the PPC to higher standards and to continue to upgrade the chip design to retain comparability with x86 chips in speed and capability (not compatibility) then Apple might indeed consider returning to the PPC or moving to a newer proprietary processor.

 

[Consultant]

I kinda agree with you but when you buy an OSX disk you can do a clean install along with an upgrade. You can install OSX on a drive that had no previous OS on it. That should mean that if you can do a full install, the disk price should reflect more closely to the $400 price of Vista. Just a thought.

The point is that the price to install it on a non-Mac should be closer to $400.

 

[Apocalypse]

I'm not sure if you looked inside a Mac recently, but it is the same components that PC Makers use. So the Mac Tax is going to paying for the honor of using Mac OS X with a computer that has a Mac Logo? Lame.

Oh sure, they're using Intel hardware. However, Apple uses high end hardware in its computers (usually highest end possible), and if you compare the equivalent offerings from PC makers it comes out to a very similar price. Please don't compare them to the piece of garbage cheap computers that PC makers sell. They're not the same thing as what you get from Apple. For an example of more equivalent hardware have a look at Dell's iMac clone called XPS One. That thing costs more than an iMac, but the iMac actually has better hardware.

 

[hotshotharry]

Mac switching to intel was a great decision! The fact i could run windows on my macbook pro is what got me to switch because i was worried about not having certain software available ... however i have no need for windows any longer as mac software is just as abundant ... of not considering games!

Switching away from x86 architecture again will remove the ability to run linux and windows unless they do it through some kind of shell

 

[Shasterball]

What type? Passenger or Freight?

Either is a good analogy...

 

[Povilas]

Just because you buy a physical copy of something doesn't mean you haven't bought a licensed product and that you can do 'whatever you want with it'.

So let's continue with the driving analogy, seems fitting. For instance, here in the UK if I buy my driving license (and, yes I do have to pay for it), I get a nice plastic card with a photo on it. That doesn't mean I can legally exceed the speed limit, drive on the wrong side of the road etc... Yes, I own a plastic card, but this is no different to the OSX DVD I own and the roads and legalities are no different than the OS and it's usage limitations, for want of a better word.

Quite frankly, I do not want Psystar to win this battle. Apple already has problems with it's OS and I can't see a benefit towards supporting self-built machines. You don't buy Pro Tools to run it on a Creative SoundBlaster.

However, it would be nice to see Apple dropping their prices (although I personally don't think they're that unreasonable) just to stop things like this happening.

Also, as much as I hate big companies, if Apple built the OS around their hardware, then that's their business and the way they want to do things. They're not forcing you to buy a Mac. And to be fair, the reputation they have is mainly down to this link between hardware and software.

I agree, it's ridiculous. I just can't imagine this case on court. Apple is selling computers with operating system designed to run on those computers. If you want Mac OS X - buy a Mac.

 

[saltyzoo]

Yeah, they'll very likely lose. But it's a good thing for the market. Apple has been allowed too much control for too long. It's not in the best interest of the consumer. They need to have some companies challenge them to push them forward. They have let themselves get dangerously close to the point where these kinds of alternatives are looking too good to too many people.

Time to pony up and beat down the prices just a tad and beef up the offerings a tad to fill in the missing links.

 

[Unspeaked]

Oh sure, they're using Intel hardware. However, Apple uses high end hardware in its computers (usually highest end possible), and if you compare the equivalent offerings from PC makers it comes out to a very similar price. Please don't compare them to the piece of garbage cheap computers that PC makers sell. They're not the same thing as what you get from Apple. For an example of more equivalent hardware have a look at Dell's iMac clone called XPS One. That thing costs more than an iMac, but the iMac actually has better hardware.

Ha ha ha.

Man, I just laughed milk out of my nose.

I need a napkin...

 

[Vulpinemac]

I'm not sure if you looked inside a Mac recently, but it is the same components that PC Makers use. So the Mac Tax is going to paying for the honor of using Mac OS X with a computer that has a Mac Logo? Lame. The configuration of the Open Computer model is even better than the Mac Mini, with some nice options that rival some of those "high end" Macs. They even have the OpenPro Computer for more power. I think Psystar will lose, but I hope this gives Apple a kick in the side about their prices being too high.

To some extent you're right, they are the same basic components, but not the exact same components. As has be mentioned in other places, Apple demands tight technical specifications on the components they use, usually much narrower than those used by most other computer companies. The reasoning is that components at the outer edges of these specs usually balance each other so that the end result is stable, but if they instead lean too far to the high or low side of the specs in combination with each other, they practically guarantee a buggy, unstable machine. Over the years I have seen many, many examples of this kind of problem from Dell, Gateway and Compaq.

I'm not saying, "this can't happen to Apple," it does... but not nearly as frequently. Tighter specs means that it is much harder to get that overbalancing of 'borderline spec' components. However, this also means that the cost is fractionally higher per machine which is covered by adding more standard features that make the Apple a better value over the so-called 'comparable' lower-priced machines by their competitors.

 

[EagerDragon]

Obviously you are not a lawyer because you do not read. I assume you skim. If I was a lawyer, I would not state it here because then ignorant people (you) would take what I say as legal advice. That would be very bad lawyering.

I am not sitting on a high horse here saying that I am so smart. Please, I am not... What I am saying is that THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER. Please READ, then COMMENT. It has never been tested -- we don't know. And there are just as many arguments for as against.

We should all feel free to discuss, but to put others down on their thoughts based on what you think the law dictates....it's just not helpful.

It is kinda fun though...

Yes it is kinda fun. However I will not comment in the rest of your insults as it is obvously a waste of my time.

 

[Povilas]

As someone who's used Macs since the SE30 and the utterly brilliant IIci, I welcome Psystars initiative IF it kicks Apple into producing the Mac that so many seem to want (and I'm not talking about the 12" MBP that the chattering technorati seem to go on about ad nauseum). The Mac Pro Mini.

I don't want to have to renew my computer and screen every few years (which is the iMac option).

I don't want to have a video crippled computer (which the Mac Mini is).

I don't want to fork out huge amounts of dosh for the most powerful top-end desktop - gorgeous as it is.

I do want internal expandibility, a video card upgrade path and Apple quality.

I (probably) won't buy a Psystar Bag o' Bits, I like/need Apple's reliability too much.

I would like Messrs Jobs, Ive and Partners to think different.

And yes, I do want to play games on my computer - call me old fashioned.

Finally, I do want to buy Apple product. But, I wont if the product's not right, and, at the moment there's a chasm like gap that Apple aren't filling; which is where the likes of Psystar will step in. Not actually into the chasm (but you never know) , just try to fill it with their product - and take some of Apple's dollar.

The grand or so's difference between the Mini and the Pro allows for a helluva lot of design/procurement fun and games to be crammed in, without affecting the MP sales.

Then again, I'm not a multi-millionaire computer marketing genius...

Buy a PC, run Windows. Who is forcing you to buy a crippled Mac?

 

[EagerDragon]

Okay, I'm getting pretty tired of people who are throwing around the word "monopoly" without knowing what it means, what makes one, or even to which kind of monopoly they're probably referring.

Apple is not a horizontal monopoly. Microsoft came very close. From Beyond Monopoly Capitalism and Monopoly Socialism, a horizontal monopoly is defined as "when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."

Now at first you may say "well, Apple has complete control over OS X, and don't allow other companies access to it...Apple must be a monopoly!" But if you said that, you would be an idiot. "Product or service" here refers to the product of an operating system. It refers to the product of computer hardware. Is Apple the sole provider of an operating system? Of course not! There's Windows, which has a much great market share, rendering the claim even more ridiculous, and there's Linux. Is Apple the sole provider of computer hardware? Again, no.

The problem is that Apple is the sole provider of computer hardware that can run OS X. Again, this does not make a horizontal monopoly, though, because anyone can just as easily buy other computer hardware that can run other operating systems. The law does not refer to the product of OS X, but to the overall product of operating systems. Understand that. There is nothing Apple is doing to prevent anyone from buying another manufacturer's computer with another operating system.

However, this practice is called vertical integration, and it could be argued that Apple is a vertical monopoly. However, this is—to my knowledge—not illegal in the US. If it were, all the major oil companies would be out of business. Having a closed product is not illegal. How ethical it is is ultimately up to the buyer to decide. Personally, I think it's in any OS X-user's best interest that Apple keep a closed product. If people began buying these "Open Computers" instead of Macs, Apple's profits will suffer significantly. Apple makes their money on hardware, not the software—after all, why do you think one is so expensive and the other so inexpensive? If Apple's profit suffers, R&D suffers, and therefore OS X itself suffers. 10.6 won't be as good, and if Apple has to fight companies like this, they may be forced to add the same idiotic "activation" features that Windows users just love. I don't have a problem with hobbyists who build hackintoshes for fun. Neither does Apple. But if people buy alternatives to Macs on a large scale, OS X will suffer for it. It happened before with OS Classic, and it will happen again if it comes to this. Apple is in no position to license its OS to other hardware like Microsoft is. MS can get away with it because of their massive market share. Their dominance allows them to sell Windows for massive sums compared to Leopard. In short, Windows is in a position to make a profit off software. Apple is not. The only reason Apple can deliver its amazing software is because it can sell hardware. End of story.

Oh, and Microsoft's original bundling of IE with Windows is not the same as Apple bundling Safari with OS X. Why? Microsoft was forcing other companies to sell IE and Windows together. Computer manufacturers could only install OEM Windows on their computers (which they needed to do to remain competitive) if IE was also installed. The part that really made this illegal was that IE was made a fundamental part of Windows through Explorer, whose code was directly tied with IE. It was impossible to separate the two.

Originally, Microsoft was ordered to dissolve itself into two companies, but in appeals court this decision was overturned and MS came to a new agreement with the courts. The terms? MS made provisions that allowed other companies to remove access to IE in the default install, if desired, to make it possible for other applications to become the default browser, and to provide developments tools free-of-charge to developers to develop competing Windows applications.

Compare this to Apple. First of all, Apple is forcing anyone else to sell Safari along with OS X. Apple is selling it themselves. Secondly, even if they were, Safari is not tied into the OS and can be easily removed without harm. Lets look at the provisions that allowed Windows to get away with it: Ability to remove Safari if desired? Check. Able to set other browsers as default? Check. Free development tools to create competing applications? XCode! Doublecheck.

Yeah.

Brilliant work, thanks, now maybe people will stop. Thanks

 

[macUser2007]

Just curious, who are all the nuts who consider competition such a dangerous thing, that they give this story negative ratings?

If you don't like a product, don't buy it. Apple sells its operating system in the open market, so once we buy it, it shouldn't be any of its business what we install it on.

Just like Microsoft couldn't challenge Apple's switch to Intel, and the ability to run Windows on Intel Macs.

 

[Shasterball]

Yes it is kinda fun. However I will not comment in the rest of your insults as it is obvously a waste of my time.

obvously...

 

[aliquis-]

Has anyone ordered one?

If you want to run a hack why not just buy any system and download a os x86-dvd yourself and install it? Why order this **** from someone who tries to earn money on both Apples and the people who made it possible to install it on PCs work?

 

[Vulpinemac]

The point is that the price to install it on a non-Mac should be closer to $400.

Which it isn't and isn't likely to be.

 

[asdavis10]

Okay, I'm getting pretty tired of people who are throwing around the word "monopoly" without knowing what it means, what makes one, or even to which kind of monopoly they're probably referring.

Apple is not a horizontal monopoly. Microsoft came very close. From Beyond Monopoly Capitalism and Monopoly Socialism, a horizontal monopoly is defined as "when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."

Now at first you may say "well, Apple has complete control over OS X, and don't allow other companies access to it...Apple must be a monopoly!" But if you said that, you would be an idiot. "Product or service" here refers to the product of an operating system. It refers to the product of computer hardware. Is Apple the sole provider of an operating system? Of course not! There's Windows, which has a much great market share, rendering the claim even more ridiculous, and there's Linux. Is Apple the sole provider of computer hardware? Again, no.

The problem is that Apple is the sole provider of computer hardware that can run OS X. Again, this does not make a horizontal monopoly, though, because anyone can just as easily buy other computer hardware that can run other operating systems. The law does not refer to the product of OS X, but to the overall product of operating systems. Understand that. There is nothing Apple is doing to prevent anyone from buying another manufacturer's computer with another operating system.

However, this practice is called vertical integration, and it could be argued that Apple is a vertical monopoly. However, this is—to my knowledge—not illegal in the US. If it were, all the major oil companies would be out of business. Having a closed product is not illegal. How ethical it is is ultimately up to the buyer to decide. Personally, I think it's in any OS X-user's best interest that Apple keep a closed product. If people began buying these "Open Computers" instead of Macs, Apple's profits will suffer significantly. Apple makes their money on hardware, not the software—after all, why do you think one is so expensive and the other so inexpensive? If Apple's profit suffers, R&D suffers, and therefore OS X itself suffers. 10.6 won't be as good, and if Apple has to fight companies like this, they may be forced to add the same idiotic "activation" features that Windows users just love. I don't have a problem with hobbyists who build hackintoshes for fun. Neither does Apple. But if people buy alternatives to Macs on a large scale, OS X will suffer for it. It happened before with OS Classic, and it will happen again if it comes to this. Apple is in no position to license its OS to other hardware like Microsoft is. MS can get away with it because of their massive market share. Their dominance allows them to sell Windows for massive sums compared to Leopard. In short, Windows is in a position to make a profit off software. Apple is not. The only reason Apple can deliver its amazing software is because it can sell hardware. End of story.

Oh, and Microsoft's original bundling of IE with Windows is not the same as Apple bundling Safari with OS X. Why? Microsoft was forcing other companies to sell IE and Windows together. Computer manufacturers could only install OEM Windows on their computers (which they needed to do to remain competitive) if IE was also installed. The part that really made this illegal was that IE was made a fundamental part of Windows through Explorer, whose code was directly tied with IE. It was impossible to separate the two.

Originally, Microsoft was ordered to dissolve itself into two companies, but in appeals court this decision was overturned and MS came to a new agreement with the courts. The terms? MS made provisions that allowed other companies to remove access to IE in the default install, if desired, to make it possible for other applications to become the default browser, and to provide developments tools free-of-charge to developers to develop competing Windows applications.

Compare this to Apple. First of all, Apple is forcing anyone else to sell Safari along with OS X. Apple is selling it themselves. Secondly, even if they were, Safari is not tied into the OS and can be easily removed without harm. Lets look at the provisions that allowed Windows to get away with it: Ability to remove Safari if desired? Check. Able to set other browsers as default? Check. Free development tools to create competing applications? XCode! Doublecheck.

Yeah.

Excellent post!

 

[seashellz]

This is really a last gasp attempt, funded by Microsoft, to stop the crushing forward march of the MAC-trying to dilute marketshare- undercut Mac sales and profits

 

[72930]

yeah-what if Microsoft sued Apple for making possible to have XP installed on non Wintel machines? ie Macs

same deal

Whats a Wintel machine? An Intel machine that can run Windows? i.e. A Mac?
How about AMD?

 

[hiptobesquare]

I don't know that I would buy something as uncertain as this OpenComputer product.

But I hope it does fire an arrow Apple's direction, as well as the Axiotron ModBook, and get them to realize that there are people who would love to be new or repeat mac customers for product that they don't build.

Apple needs to wake up just a bit more, and realize that their mold is a little too tight, and not everyone that would like to use Mac OS fits the hardware mold.

Having a closed product, software and hardware together is not a problem, except when the company is becomes too inflexible to sell their product to a marketplace that constantly changes. Apple is very good in some ways, and is changing the market in some ways. And lagging behind in others.

One simple thing would give them a nice consumer push right now. Listening to the customer.

Psystar, and Axiotron, and others have seen, and are trying to cater to gaps in Apple's product mix. If Apple is going to make that difficult for one or both, then they need to do better to fill those gaps themselves, or let other capitalists bring compatible products along side.

It is the attitude of: "I'm not going to do that, but I am not going to let anyone else do it either." that irks people. People love using Mac OS for a reason. And they have uses for less-expensive-than-Pro-grade mid-towers, or tablet computers, as well. Apple refuses to let those things coexist on the same machine. Apple's way or NO way. Apple can only tell people that so long, before they start losing customers again. They have been down other roads like this before, they should not need to re-learn this lesson.

A multi-touch slate tablet computer, and a multi-external-monitor-capable, full-power and graphics equipped, somewhat upgradeable, home-grade mid or mini-tower should NOT be that difficult for Apple to produce, and they should be aware enough of their competition, and their customers to see that there is a market for that.

I am not saying that Psystar is automatically entitled to do whatever they want with Apple's software. Don't agree with that.

But Apple sews the seeds of it's own downfall if they don't listen more than they dictate. I am all for them being proud of their accomplishments, and continuing to change the game in the markets they participate in, but a little more attention to products consumers want can only help them. Ignoring that might actually hurt them before they realize what has happened.

 

[aliquis-]

Hardly. Trademark issues and contract law have nothing to do with one another. I hope Psytar succeeds, personally. I feel that EULA are out if control and someone needs to smack some sense into all companies that think they are "licensing" you software when they sell you something.

Since kind of all software use EULAs I'd say it's widely accepted as something which are ok and the way to do it. How else would you do it? Send out a letter with a contract, have the buyer sign it and then let him or her buy OS X? Yeah, convenient.

I guess they could just make it a free download for people who owns a mac and not sell it, because then no others would had an argument for being able to run it on their machines.

 

[Stig McNasty]

Buy a PC, run Windows. Who is forcing you to buy a crippled Mac?

Nobody, it is my choice, I should have thought that was apparent from my posting. It is also my choice not to buy a Mac until the right product is out there; I was trying to outline what I felt would be my 'right product', and it certainly isn't a Windoze box.

Do you think Jobsie and Ivy woke up one morning and thought 'hey let's make a budget priced Mac the size of bunch of CDs, for a laugh'.

"Hello Cupertino? Yeah, me an' Ivsey here have been on the pish all night and, wait for it, we want you to make a Mac for around 400 squids".

"Nah, it's for t'interweb, movie and music stuff. Yeah that's right, it's iLife's very own computer, so it won't need a graphics card or other fancy gizmos"

"Have a word with the usual suppliers, tool it up, market it".

"The name... errm, Mac Nano... Mac-in-Box... damn this is hard... Ivesy!"

"It's 'Mac Mini' Steve, now stop shouting an' pass the Asprin mate"

The point is, real companies do research, they listen, they watch trends, then (and usually in Apple's case) they raise the game with a product that people really really want.

Maybe they'll hear our small voices.

 

[aliquis-]

I'm a little confused why so many people want Apple to succeed here.

I'd much rather be able to install OSX onto a computer that I could build for hundreds less and still get the same great experience of using a Macintosh operating system.

If Psystar succeeds, isn't that a win/win for consumers? Apple can still sell high-end, beautifully designed hardware for those who want it and hobbiests and budget-minded individuals can still use Mac OS.

Becuse they are stealing others property and try to decide for other people how it should be used? Sure it would be good if you could legally run OS X on other machines, but that's not for them to decide. It's all up to Apple. These people are morons and should be threaten like that.

Also I kind of like the idea that you get a legal copy of OS X with your machine and that upgrades are atleast reasonable priced (free would be even better), I'd rather have that then cheaper machines and very expensive copies of each OS X version I think.

If you want what Psystar offer you can and have been able to do it yourself for two years or so, just do it but why support them? It's like buying pirated software, just 100% wrong. (Or buy a stolen bike, everyone loses except the people who steal bikes.)

I'd much rather prefer Apple to make something like a Cube-styled shuttle-like machine. Case, PSU, motherboard and OS X in a bundle and let the user fill it with whatever they want.