Psystar to Challenge Mac OS X EULA?

[sanford]

Clive, let's call it a draw on the primary concern. I've read just as much legal opinion that the acceptance of the EULA terms ex post facto in relation to purchase is the primary concern, as you don't have the straightforward opportunity to review and consent to the terms before you make an investment that becomes non-refundable as soon as you open the box to read the terms.

At any rate, I think we can probably both agree it won't be the term of the EULA disallowing installation of OS X on computer other than those made by Apple that decides this. Psystar will almost certainly have slipped somewhere, illegally reverse engineered something, violated a patent. Something much easier for Apple to swiftly attack and win the day than a protracted battle over the EULA in terms acceptable contractual limits on rights of users.

"Someone threw out the example that an EULA couldn't state that the first-born of each user must be surrendered to Apple to use in their child-labor facilities."

Forgetting that both surrendering one's children and child-labor facilities, or transporting children out of the country for such purpose, cross into criminal law, that contract is not invalid because it infringes on users' rights. This is a difficult example to debate, as it crosses up with both statutory criminal law and civil common law about as old as mankind. But there's no explicit violation of rights in such a term. To change it up a bit:

If the EULA required users to hand over all legally owned and license firearms, that would violate users' rights.

This is more like, the EULA states the user must hand over their primary legal residence free of mortgage or lien. That's not a rights violation, but it's a contract without equal consideration, therefore invalid.

Unfortunately, much of the debate over EULA's has nothing to do with explicit rights -- speaking exclusively in terms of rights in the United States -- but with numerous and varied interpretations by courts of the extent of rights granted to users by a license to use copyrighted and/or patented material, and the limits of contractual restrictions upon those rights.

In other words, it's precedent soup.

Sorry, no. What makes EULA unenforceable is when they infringe on the rights of users, therefore making it of PRIMARY CONCERN over the terms of the contract. Someone threw out the example that an EULA couldn't state that the first-born of each user must be surrendered to Apple to use in their child-labor facilities.

While the example given is certainly extreme, it is a clear example of an EULA infringing on a user's rights. It is the opinion of some that Apple is infringing on its users rights to dictate what (s)he does with the software once (s)he purchases it. That is what is being disputed here.

It is believed by an even greater number of people that violation of an EULA just means Apple is absolved from supporting the user's copy of the product. I don't know if this is true (IANAL), but it is of secondary importance to the underlying theme which is the right of the end-user to use the product as (s)he chooses.

-Clive

 

[surferfromuk]

!!FANBOY ALERT.(and all the other guff you wrote)




-Clive

Your talking about kit cars vs a factory made Porsche. Now I could stick a flat six boxer engine in a kit car and it would run well - like OSX might when stuck in a 'kit car' PC but It wouldn't ever be a Porsche. The osx86 movement is an entirely different proposition to a company illegally selling the labours of another without consent or license.

As far as piracy is concerned I think we both know that it is rife and anything like this mac clone is merely pandering to the type of people who are looking to 'cut costs' and the first thing to get it in the neck when that kind of consumer philosophy is prevelant is the software.

I just don't understand why you and the other homebrew wannabe's think you have 'rights' where Apple's software us concerned - they wrote it, they pay the wages of the coders and engineers which makes the greatness of Apple possible ( and believe me the efforts required to elevate something from good to great represents the same effort again ) and I just don't see why you don't see that widescale theft of osx is not particularly moral - and that, like it or not, is exactly what this company is pandering to...

 

[Chris3d]

Finally I'm fed up and will be building a hackintosh in the very near future. I will not purchase an OpenMac as I can do it myself cheaper and better, plus including a hacked OS X is piracy, which I don't condone.

Purchasing it or not changes nothing, it is still piracy.

This is almost certain to go Apple's way IMO. The logic that they are being challenged with would also say that a PS3 should be able to play 360 Games.

Not to mention has anyone considered the fact that the hacked software coming with these machines free of charge costs $130 retail?

...my two cents
-Chris

 

[G.I. Joe]

And since when is driver support Apple's responsibility? If a card doesn't work on my PC, I take it up with the manufacturer, not Microsoft. A lot of times, they have a newer driver for me to install.

Besides, developers are going about this driver business all the wrong way. A computer should connect to a server, find the drivers that apply to the hardware within the case, and download them. It's Apple/Microsoft's idiocy that haven't implemented this sort of system yet. Why on earth would someone install 27,000 drivers when they'll likely only use 10 or 12? That's just poor planning.


-Clive

I get your point. But they can't do that because many people still don't have internet or any other way to connect to such server.

How could we connect to that server if our network card is not recognized because it lacks its driver?

They must anticipate all kinds of possibilities.

 

[megfilmworks]

We live in a free country.
An author or artist has a right to compose intellectual material, decide whether he wants to sell it and if he sells it, the terms of use of his property.
Intellectual property is not a disc.
It is the underlying work, and when buying a CD or software bundle or book the purchaser is not buying the work, just a copy. If you were to spend the required millions (or billions) to buy the intellectual property, then you can do with it what you will.
I hope this loser company folds sooner than later.

 

[sanford]

your talking about kit cars vs a factory made Porsche. Now I could stick a flat six boxer engine in a kit car and it would run well - like OSX might when stuck in a 'kit car' PC but It wouldn't ever be a Porsche. The osx86 movement is an entirely different proposition to a company illegally selling the labours of another without consent or license.
As far as piracy is concerned I think we both know that it is rife and anything like this mac clone is merely pandering to the type of people who are looking to 'cut costs' and the first thing to get it I. The neck when that kind of consumer philosophy is prevelant is the software.
I just don't understand why you and the other homebrew wannabe's think you have 'rights' where Apple's software us concerned - they wrote it, they pay the wages of the coders and engineers which makes the greatness of Apple possible ( and believe me the efforts required to elevate something from good to great represents the same effort again ) and I just don't see why you don't see that widescale theft of osx is not particularly moral.

I think, unless I missed something, that he's arguing that you paid $130 for a legal copy of OS X, you can install it on a peanut suspended in fuel oil if you wish. What he's not accounting for is the business model that yields the $130 price for OS X is based upon selling the hardware, too. If Apple's market share remained roughly static, but say half their share became composed of third-party hardware users, OS X would hardly remain at the $130 price point.

 

[sanford]

Now that's the other, inaccurate extreme. Owners of copyright, for example a book's author and copyright owners, does not have completely fine-grained control of the terms of use of his property. You can lend a book. You can resell a book. You can quote from a book at fair length for the purposes of reference, instruction, criticism or satire. You may duplicate by means of a photocopier large portions of a book to support those fair uses. You can make as many copies of a book as you wish so long as you do not distribute them.

So, no, the artist does not have anywhere near full control of the terms of use of his owned work, should he choose to sell a license to it. In fact, this concept of "a license not a sale of tangible product" is rather new. Half a century ago, a painter sold a painting, it was gone. It was a work of art, valued according to the reputation as an artist of the painter, but it was also physical property. Had the purchaser made lithographs of it and sold them, this probably would have annoyed him, he may have said, Damn shouldn't have sold that to him, but he very likely would not see it as direct violation as he did not consider selling an original as selling a license.

That's not a great example, of course, as it's the original work, not a copy or lithograph, etc. But in the event the artist does sell lithographs, you may certainly resell those, give them away, lend them out, donate them, line your birdcage with them -- the painter has no say in any of that.

We live in a free country.
An author or artist has a right to compose intellectual material, decide whether he wants to sell it and if he sells it, the terms of use of his property.
Intellectual property is not a disc.
It is the underlying work, and when buying a CD or software bundle or book the purchaser is not buying the work, just a copy. If you were to spend the required millions (or billions) to buy the intellectual property, then you can do with it what you will.
I hope this loser company folds sooner than later.

 

[flopticalcube]

Looks like the folks over at InsanelyMac are not too chuffed about being used as a support resource for a commercial company.

 

[Electrolytic]

If you have the skills, you can use your mac to make you money so that you an actually afford whatever toys you want, take girls out to nice restaurants, etc.




So $1499 PowerMac would fit your needs. Do you know refurb MacPros go for as low as $1799??? You can't afford an extra $300? Nevermind that the MacPro will run circles around the PowerMac.

If you cannot afford it, it's not for you. Pros who make a living using Macs have no problem upgrading to the latest MacPros every year or every other year.

Just because you can afford something doesn't mean it has the value that justifies its cost. I can afford the the current mac pro at $2800 but it's overkill for me since most of the things I do on a computer are web related or office type programs...

 

[blackcrayon]

Purchasing it or not changes nothing, it is still piracy.

Not to mention has anyone considered the fact that the hacked software coming with these machines free of charge costs $130 retail?

...my two cents
-Chris

Really? According to their site it looks like you are buying an actual copy of leopard with it (as an option), otherwise you are supplying your own.

 

[Consultant]

Just because you can afford something doesn't mean it has the value that justifies its cost. I can afford the the current mac pro at $2800 but it's overkill for me since most of the things I do on a computer are web related or office type programs...

So get a Mac Mini refurb, as low as $429. (they sell out quickly from the apple refurb store though)

 

[diamond.g]

I don't think their is a company in the world can hold a candle to Apple's quality and standard of excellence.

Mercedes says hi!!! (as does McLaren, Ferrari, Lamborghini, et al)

 

[sanford]

Wait a minute. These guys aren't buying a full retail copy of OS X for every machine they sell with OS X pre-installed on it?

If that's true, oh forget. A wild long-shot in the first place but if that's the case, that's just selling a bunch of a PlayStation 3s fell off the back of a truck. Seriously, selling these generic Macs complete with OS X without buying a license from Apple for every computer sold is just plain theft, EULA or no EULA, users' rights or no users' rights. What a joke.

Purchasing it or not changes nothing, it is still piracy.

This is almost certain to go Apple's way IMO. The logic that they are being challenged with would also say that a PS3 should be able to play 360 Games.

Not to mention has anyone considered the fact that the hacked software coming with these machines free of charge costs $130 retail?

...my two cents
-Chris

 

[Electrolytic]

So get a Mac Mini refurb, as low as $429. (they sell out quickly from the apple refurb store though)

The hardware included in the mac mini (processor, ram, video, hard drive) to me does not have the value that is worth it for me to me to pay $429.

Also it's a pain to upgrade...

This is way the type of configuration that the openmac is attractive...

 

[Consultant]

Apple's business model is to try and stay about five years ahead of the competition. Unfortunately, this keeps Steve Jobs in the position of living in Future World where iPhones on chips implanted directly into the brain have the total capabilities of MacPros today and desktop computers no longer exist. And completely abandoning users who need cutting edge large desktop computers, TODAY.

This strategy will ultimately prove to be self-defeating. If Mr. Steve Jobs is not interested in serving the needs of power users TODAY, other companies will only be so happy to step in and do so, and at a highly reduced price.

Apple can no longer rest on its laurels, or rely on their PAST reputation of being cutting edge to cut the higher premium people pay for their mere logo on a piece of barely competitive hardware, TODAY.

Mr. Steve Jobs can continue to live in the future if he so desires, but he'd better find someone fast who is concentrating SOLELY on meeting the needs of current power app cutting edge customers, or he will end up with a company selling tiny cheap gadgets, or as I like to call it, iCrap.

Maybe that's the goal. It sure looks like it.

IMO it's in MY (and other power users') best interest to see that PsyStar succeeds and gives Apple the much needed kick in the pants it needs from competition in the marketplace; my posts, warnings, and complaints have fallen on some VERY deaf ears; sound just doesn't travel that well through time.

Re: "And completely abandoning users who need cutting edge large desktop computers, TODAY."

Of course. That's why after iPhone is released, Apple released the 2007 MacBook Pro which for awhile was reviewed to be the fastest laptop available in its class.

That's also why in 2007 (I think), the MacPro gotten the fastest Intel Xeon processors MONTHS before other PC manufacturers are able to offer the same processors as the fastest MacPro.

 

[xbjllb]

Criticism is one thing - a multitude of thieves and homebrew XP 'toe-dippers' running a dual boot copy of Leopard on their PC junk box so they can run a stolen copy of Logic is an entirely different thing.
Apple make fantastic products matched in their excellence by only a handful of companies - they deserve my respect and I value their commitment to great products and beautiful design - if you can understand how opening the doors to the chaos of 'any old sh&t will do' then you simply live in a world with significantly lower expectations than me - but each to their own I suppose.

Understand MY motivation, as I am NOT what you describe above.

MY motivation is I want Apple to make BETTER computers. BETTER than the ones they pass as cutting edge now, WHICH ARE DECIDEDLY NOT CUTTING EDGE at all. I want their flagship computer to REALLY BE a flagship computer that NO ONE can hold a candle to. That is NOT the CURRENT state of affairs.

If they won't do that because they're living in some Future Land where desktops no longer exist and iBrain chips are implanted into heads, then the least they could do is lower their prices to the level to the equitable competition.

That's it. No one is out to destroy Apple. Well, other than all the Microsoft moles working there.

 

[QuarterSwede]

Wait a minute. These guys aren't buying a full retail copy of OS X for every machine they sell with OS X pre-installed on it?

If that's true, oh forget. A wild long-shot in the first place but if that's the case, that's just selling a bunch of a PlayStation 3s fell off the back of a truck. Seriously, selling these generic Macs complete with OS X without buying a license from Apple for every computer sold is just plain theft, EULA or no EULA, users' rights or no users' rights. What a joke.

First of all, if anyone is thinking about posting on this subject FIRST go to the OpenMac (whatever) website and read about it.

You can buy the OpenMac and OS X ($129) if you like.

 

[xbjllb]

Long-time-mac-user here. I'm with those who say Apple neglects its customers' needs in favor of higher profits. As a long-time xMac advocate, I've been simply unable to upgrade because Apple doesn't offer a computer that will meet my needs for the next 4 years. Certainly I'm aware that any Mac I buy today will smoke my 800MHz G4 iMac but this was also the case when I first bought that iMac. I still managed to grow out of it in just a couple years. Gone are the $1499 PowerMacs, a computer that would've fit me perfectly. As someone before me said, the el-capitan G3/G4 was never replaced. Instead, high-end servers were disguised as desktops and prices were launched into space, effectively killing modestly-powerful towers for prosumers.

Finally I'm fed up and will be building a hackintosh in the very near future. I will not purchase an OpenMac as I can do it myself cheaper and better, plus including a hacked OS X is piracy, which I don't condone.

Nevertheless, Psystar is on the right track with challenging Apple's EULA. Apple has been very imperialistic about their users, especially since the Intel switch.

The perfect solution, however, would be for Apple to just give a s**t about their customers and listen to the huge congregations of users who are begging for an upgradable tower. Customer satisfaction is more important that further lining the pockets of a stable billion-dollar company... especially one who makes as outstanding products as Apple.

-Clive

A-MEN!!!! From your mouth to Steve Job's iBrain chip...

 

[Consultant]

The hardware included in the mac mini (processor, ram, video, hard drive) to me does not have the value that is worth it for me to me to pay $429.

Also it's a pain to upgrade...

This is way the type of configuration that the openmac is attractive...

Of course, everyone would like something high performance for budget price, but the reality is, if you can't afford it, either go and make more money (which plenty of people can with their macs), or you have to aim for something more in your budget range.

Compared to Vista Premium at $400, $429 for Mac Mini with Leopard Premium sounds like a great deal to me.

Even at $599 MacMini won't be too bad if I am in that price range, but I am in price range of 17" MBP, iMac, with a PowerMac as server.

 

[surferfromuk]

I think, unless I missed something, that he's arguing that you paid $130 for a legal copy of OS X, you can install it on a peanut suspended in fuel oil if you wish. What he's not accounting for is the business model that yields the $130 price for OS X is based upon selling the hardware, too. If Apple's market share remained roughly static, but say half their share became composed of third-party hardware users, OS X would hardly remain at the $130 price point.

Agreed you are spot on....but let's face it anyone tight enough not to want to pay Apple for a beautifully designed and perfectly engineered piece of hardware (which is built and updated in concert with their OSX for maximum stability and user experience which IMO is why they don't chop and change at an unsustainable rate) is just as likely to steal the entire OSX as well...their 'indignant stance' permits them to create the psychological justification for the 'theft' by setting Apple us as some kind of villain who is 'screwing the consumer' and so deserves all they get and has 'left them no option' but to make their own PC and run a copy of 'hacked OSX' on it...they are just conning themselves and are on here trying to con us too..


It's all very simple - buy the Apple hardware - get the OSX - enjoy a brilliant product. Get on with the rest of your life...and as many people have pointed out 'be productive - be creative'

I don't think when Apple coined 'think different' they were meaning 'think crooked'...

 

[xbjllb]

Re: "And completely abandoning users who need cutting edge large desktop computers, TODAY."

That's also why in 2007 (I think), the MacPro gotten the fastest Intel Xeon processors MONTHS before other PC manufacturers are able to offer the same processors as the fastest MacPro...

...with the crappiest video card support in its class for pro apps, the crappiest video card driver support in its class for pro apps, and the crappiest support for blu-ray discs, drives, and burners (because as Steve Jobs in Future World wisely knows, EVERYONE steals movies from the internet and no longer needs physical discs.)

Talk about a double standard.

 

[goosnarrggh]

We live in a free country.
An author or artist has a right to compose intellectual material, decide whether he wants to sell it and if he sells it, the terms of use of his property.

I guess so. But I'm certain there must be limits to the sorts of limitations you can place on the license.

Trouble is, I don't think there is an unambiguous precedent or test out there which you could apply to find out exactly how restrictive limitations in software EULAs can get before they are no longer reasonable or enforceable.

By analogy, imagine an author, having sold me a copy of his novel, telling me that I am only allowed to read the book with my naked eyes or using Oakley prescription eyeglasses, and that any attempt to read the book using any other brand of eye wear would construe unauthorized use of his work. I cannot imagine, if put to the test, that any court would find such a clause valid or binding.

 

[surferfromuk]

Understand MY motivation, as I am NOT what you describe above.

MY motivation is I want Apple to make BETTER computers. BETTER than the ones they pass as cutting edge now, WHICH ARE DECIDEDLY NOT CUTTING EDGE at all. I want their flagship computer to REALLY BE a flagship computer that NO ONE can hold a candle to. That is NOT the CURRENT state of affairs.

If they won't do that because they're living in some Future Land where desktops no longer exist and iBrain chips are implanted into heads, then the least they could do is lower their prices to the level to the equitable competition.

That's it. No one is out to destroy Apple. Well, other than all the Microsoft moles working there.

I think making great computers and great software is REALLY hard - I honestly think they are doing the absolute best they can.

Let's face it, fanboyism aside, even Apple couldn't do it in the 90's - it's only the leverage and breathing space accorded by the iPod and the return of Steve Jobs that's allowed them to get back to the point of being the market leader in terms of excellence and user experience.

I say, give them time - they've only really been back on the top of their game for about 3 years...their rate of acceleration and R&D is currently phenomenal...I say 'Have faith - amazing things are coming'...

Even Microsoft have proven that making a good operating system is really hard - they, the worlds leader in market share and 'ideas theft', have been unable to do so probably, in part, because they do not control the hardware..

 

[Clive At Five]

Wow, lots of replies to get to...

If you have the skills, you can use your mac to make you money so that you an actually afford whatever toys you want, take girls out to nice restaurants, etc.

I've been very blunt about my financial situation: I am one of them. I recently graduated from college so I'm new to the workforce. My wife is still in college. We recently got married and moved into a fairly inexpensive apartment. Our monthly expenses include high-speed internet and basic phone. We "treat ourselves" to Chipotle once a week, otherwise we cook our food at home. Still, we're struggling to pay the bills. Even when she graduates and finds a job (as a teacher) there will be several years of difficulty paying bills until the student loans are paid off.

Meanwhile, I'm using a SIX YEAR-OLD iMac for Garage Band. Yes, for Garage Band. Sure, I have to lock every track before I can play anything back, but it still operates. I've been saving every dollar I get in birthday cards and Christmas cards and this year I *might* be able to afford a new MacMini. Or, I could buy a few new components for my home-built PC, a copy of Leopard (I still have an older copy of iLife I can use) and have a more-powerful, longer-lasting computer for the same price.

So $1499 PowerMac would fit your needs. Do you know refurb MacPros go for as low as $1799??? You can't afford an extra $300? Nevermind that the MacPro will run circles around the PowerMac.

If you cannot afford it, it's not for you. Pros who make a living using Macs have no problem upgrading to the latest MacPros every year or every other year.

Using Pro/CPU-intense software is not part of my career. As a hobby I am in a group of low-budget playwrights and I use Logic, GarageBand, iMovie, Photoshop and Final Cut Express. I cannot afford an expensive Mac for my hobby, of course. That's why I've been advocating for a modestly-priced tower from Apple. It'll serve my needs for many years and fit my budget.

Clive, let's call it a draw on the primary concern...

Fair enough.

Your talking about kit cars vs a factory made Porsche. [yadda yadda yadda] and I just don't see why you don't see that widescale theft of osx is not particularly moral

You ears/eyes are not functioning.

1) I am not saying a kit car could ever be a porsche. Likewise, I'm not saying OS X on generic hardware is a Mac. I'm saying that I'm willing to forgo the ocular confirmation of "driving a porsche" (using a mac) for something with nearly the same performance.

2) In a modern non-Psystar hackintosh, there is no piracy involved. What do you not understand about that? It uses a legit, store-bought copy of OS X on generic hardware. By neglecting the EULA, hackers agree to absolve Apple from any sort of OS X support on their machines. The Psystar method is obviously piracy, which I've stated numerous times on multiple forums.

Purchasing it or not changes nothing, it is still piracy.

No it's not. Piracy = downloading/otherwise acquiring a copy without paying for it. Like I said, modern hackintoshes can install OS X without downloading hacked versions from BitTorrent. I will openly admit that such was not the case several months ago, but that has now changed as this legal means has been developed.

I get your point. But they can't do that because many people still don't have internet or any other way to connect to such server.

How could we connect to that server if our network card is not recognized because it lacks its driver?

They must anticipate all kinds of possibilities.

I've never met a network card that would simply NOT WORK, even without drivers. Most components operate using a default instruction set and as such, a network card will still be able to connect to the internet.

As for people not having internet, I don't know anyone who doesn't have a telephone. MS/Apple could provide a free dial-in-to-download service for their drivers.

For those who can't even acheive that, they should still be able to request a disc, USB drive, whatever with drivers from their manufacturers.

-Clive

 

[jodelli]

I've been thinking about building a Hackintosh since the Intel transition, but wouldn't buy one complete.
(eyeing a much gutted case that says it's a Power Mac 9500 , but hasn't been for a long time now. And it is Apple branded)

Darwin is open source, but not by GNU standards, and just the guts, not the OS X interface. I smell an oppurtunity here.
A slick interface based on a modular model of OS based on a Unix microkernal.

I'll get right on it. <g>

jodelli