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 to Challenge Mac OS X EULA?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sigh. The Boot Camp analogy doesn't fit simply because Microsoft doesn't have wording in the EULA forbidding the installation of Windows on a Mac.
Why is it hard for people to understand that Apple is a hardware company first and foremost? The software only exists to sell the hardware. Apple and Co. have stated this time and time again.
Their software is an awful lot more impressive than their hardware. Their hardware is pretty - that's it.
Apple generally has far better hardware designs, than other PC makers. I think they'll be fine.
But the analogy fits well. The fact that Apple makes money on the hardware, in addition to making money on the software, is not relevant:
As I said, $129 for Mac OS X is not a nominal amount - it is likely close to the OEM price for Windows. If Apple was selling the OS for $1, you might have a point. But they don't.
As to the EULA, it's the equivalent of Honda telling you that you can put only OEM tires on the car.
It has everything to do with what you posted. It doesn't really matter if Apple wants to be hardware company first, they're obviously better at the software side of things.
J
jmadlena
Guest
Sure they sell it at $129 if you already have a Mac but when you buy a Mac it is already installed and given to you in disc form. It not debated that OS X and iLife are subsidized.
Huh? Why is it not debatable? I just pointed out that Microsoft charges similar prices for similar OS product.
Actually, Jobs has said that Apple is a software company first and foremost.
J
jmadlena
Guest
Your opinion on their best traits are of course your own, and in this case, irrelevant. Apple makes software to sell hardware. This is a well-known fact, and your distaste for their hardware does not alter that fact. I've heard "Apple is a hardware company that makes software" numerous times.
It is what it is, and Apple has a right to protect their hardware sales whether you think they will "be fine" or not.
I don't have any "distaste" for Apple hardware, it just isn't remarkable in any way other than its appearance. Without Mac OS, Apple would be basically the same company as Dell. The software is what makes Apple, not the hardware, which, since the switch to Intel, is the same stuff that Dell/HP/whoever puts in their computers.
Here's the difference:
Here's the difference, Apple isn't just "Macintosh." The beauty of Mac OS is that it's supported on technology that's been tested, chosen, and assembled by Apple Engineers. Sure the technology (or most of it) is developed by other companies like Intel, Nvidia, or ATI, but put simple:
Apple Hardware + Apple Mac OS + Apple Support = A Mac
If you take any one of those factors out, guess what? Mac OS X's beauty begins to fade. Do you think that Psystar truly knows the Mac OS the way Apple does? Who's going to support you? Surely not Apple... you broke the EULA.
SECONDLY-- What's the difference between Psystar and oh, let's say DELL saying "well, heck with the EULA, we'll install Mac Technology onto our PCs too!" ? NOTHING! NO company should be allowed to sell Mac OS other than Apple without granted permission.
I personally hope Psystar goes down, and I hope it's a lesson taught to all other companies trying to sneak away with such a sales "strategy."
Long Live
Here's the difference, Apple isn't just "Macintosh." The beauty of Mac OS is that it's supported on technology that's been tested, chosen, and assembled by Apple Engineers. Sure the technology (or most of it) is developed by other companies like Intel, Nvidia, or ATI, but put simple:
Apple Hardware + Apple Mac OS + Apple Support = A Mac
If you take any one of those factors out, guess what? Mac OS X's beauty begins to fade. Do you think that Psystar truly knows the Mac OS the way Apple does? Who's going to support you? Surely not Apple... you broke the EULA.
SECONDLY-- What's the difference between Psystar and oh, let's say DELL saying "well, heck with the EULA, we'll install Mac Technology onto our PCs too!" ? NOTHING! NO company should be allowed to sell Mac OS other than Apple without granted permission.
I personally hope Psystar goes down, and I hope it's a lesson taught to all other companies trying to sneak away with such a sales "strategy."
Long Live
Yes Competition is good.
But leaching off the work of others and not paying due credit is not competition.
Not being clear about what you are really offering, and more to the point not offering (OS, Support, Warranty?)
To me a computer with no support, no effective warranty, no operating system installed, shouldn't be called a computer (it's a box of pre-asembled parts really) should be able to undercut it's competition by a much bigger margin than this.
I do think that Apple should be allowed to restrict their OS, but I'm not certain they'll win. If you look at what happened to Microsoft - well, Microsoft was being less restrictive than Apple is, and they still got smacked for it. Hell, the EU fined Microsoft a total of $2.57 billion because they included Windows Media Player with Windows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pY2kWyqdxOI
HAHA! The more things change the more they stay the same!
(except the part about PowerPC being faster then Intel)
HAHA! The more things change the more they stay the same!
(except the part about PowerPC being faster then Intel)
Not that simple....look at the clones on the 90s, that what most people from the time period(or people who have researched the story) fear, and for good reason.
100% agree with you, unfortunately Apple will never get this. Apple please realize that this is actually a good thing.
This is a different day and age. Nobody but graphic artists wanted Macs back then. That was Microsoft's heyday!
wait... Apple used 1/3 of the user base as beta testers? Microsoft used anyone who bought a PC after January 07 (several million people, or 100% of new customer base) as beta testers. At least Leapord worked acceptably well from launch onward. Vista was unusable until SP1, which came an unbearably long time after the fact. When was the last time anyone had to go back 6 years (OK, stable[!] XP SP2 was roughly 3 years ago) to get a working mac? Not to mention, current hardware macs are fast enough that the previously mentioned resource hogging barely factors. A cheap Miami garage-built computer will NOT have the support or power needed to run OSX satisfactorily. And the "Pro" model can't hope to keep up with the Mac Pro. Its not the graphics power, its that it has 8 friggin CPU cores to handle running 4 different post-production programs at once without breaking a sweat. I honestly cannot imagine a 'professional' settling for a budget tower costing less than $1000 as being adequate.
Also, not having bothered to read through all 28 pages of posts, I may be repeating something here, but still:
Psystar doesn't have a case for the following reasons:
1. Their analogy sucks. Honda actually DOES make cars that can't drive on all roads in the world. Almost every auto manufacturer does. Its called local safety regulatory laws. Every manufacturer has certain models that are exclusive to certain markets and aren't legal everywhere else. That ultra-cheap car being sold in India (not a Honda) can't be driven outside India because it a. isn't safe at all and b. won't hold up to emission standards in its own home country after 2 years. That cool foreign-market compact car you just found in Mexico can't be registered in the U.S. for safety AND emissions violations. We should sue Ford for not bringing their awesome Falcon from Australia or the REAL Focus from Europe instead of this cheap plastic piece of crap that Bill Gates drives, and BOTH of these cars would be legal in the U.S., but the Falcon is left-drive only and Ford can't afford to bring the Euro-Focus in the States. And then, of course, there are specialty non-street-legal racing vehicles, etc. Is a racing-car company obligated to manufacture cars that are eligable for every possible racing series? Should a NASCAR be able to compete in Formula 1? Should a drag-racing car be able to drive down the block to the corner store? Should a World Rally Championship car, which is directly derived from a street-legal production car, have government-mandatory airbags for street use instead of safer 7-point racing harnesses? I really don't think so.
2. This practice of software-hardware exclusivity has been common for DECADES. Nintendo. The Wii. Third-parties make software for it, and Nintendo makes software that is exclusive to it. Who says Nintendo should put a Mario, Zelda, or any other Nintendo-franchise on an XBOX 360? Is Nintendo obligated to license the rights of the Wii technology to other companies that would eat into profit shares? What about the same situation with Sony or Microsoft? Many titles are available across platforms, but they generally suck because they have to be re-written for each one, so the time it would normally take to make a game really good is cut by the amount of time taken to make a game playable on all platforms). OSX is Software, and the maker of software has every right to limit what hardware it can run on (or is specifically optimized for). Limiting the range of hardware that is used with software means there are fewer variables and dependencies that would likely cause instability (*ahem*, Micro$oft). And yes, Microsoft makes just as much (if not more) on its OEM wholesale software sales than Apple, even in bundles. It is way more expensive for comparable performance (OS X.5 (performance&features) > Vista Ultimate 64-bit (performance&features)).
Also, complaints about price/performance ratio for the Mac Mini & iMac are caused by the use of more-expensive laptop components.
It really is the difference between a product that is guaranteed to work well with what it says it will, rather than the hit-or-miss compatibility issues and non-unified interface learning curves involved in PCs.
The thing is, Apple does not have a competitor who makes both hardware *and* software. Instead, they have separate competitors for both. The way they cut out of the monopoly is by letting third parties develop for Macs, but Apple is in no way obligated to develop and support for third-party manufacturers.
Also, not having bothered to read through all 28 pages of posts, I may be repeating something here, but still:
Psystar doesn't have a case for the following reasons:
1. Their analogy sucks. Honda actually DOES make cars that can't drive on all roads in the world. Almost every auto manufacturer does. Its called local safety regulatory laws. Every manufacturer has certain models that are exclusive to certain markets and aren't legal everywhere else. That ultra-cheap car being sold in India (not a Honda) can't be driven outside India because it a. isn't safe at all and b. won't hold up to emission standards in its own home country after 2 years. That cool foreign-market compact car you just found in Mexico can't be registered in the U.S. for safety AND emissions violations. We should sue Ford for not bringing their awesome Falcon from Australia or the REAL Focus from Europe instead of this cheap plastic piece of crap that Bill Gates drives, and BOTH of these cars would be legal in the U.S., but the Falcon is left-drive only and Ford can't afford to bring the Euro-Focus in the States. And then, of course, there are specialty non-street-legal racing vehicles, etc. Is a racing-car company obligated to manufacture cars that are eligable for every possible racing series? Should a NASCAR be able to compete in Formula 1? Should a drag-racing car be able to drive down the block to the corner store? Should a World Rally Championship car, which is directly derived from a street-legal production car, have government-mandatory airbags for street use instead of safer 7-point racing harnesses? I really don't think so.
2. This practice of software-hardware exclusivity has been common for DECADES. Nintendo. The Wii. Third-parties make software for it, and Nintendo makes software that is exclusive to it. Who says Nintendo should put a Mario, Zelda, or any other Nintendo-franchise on an XBOX 360? Is Nintendo obligated to license the rights of the Wii technology to other companies that would eat into profit shares? What about the same situation with Sony or Microsoft? Many titles are available across platforms, but they generally suck because they have to be re-written for each one, so the time it would normally take to make a game really good is cut by the amount of time taken to make a game playable on all platforms). OSX is Software, and the maker of software has every right to limit what hardware it can run on (or is specifically optimized for). Limiting the range of hardware that is used with software means there are fewer variables and dependencies that would likely cause instability (*ahem*, Micro$oft). And yes, Microsoft makes just as much (if not more) on its OEM wholesale software sales than Apple, even in bundles. It is way more expensive for comparable performance (OS X.5 (performance&features) > Vista Ultimate 64-bit (performance&features)).
Also, complaints about price/performance ratio for the Mac Mini & iMac are caused by the use of more-expensive laptop components.
It really is the difference between a product that is guaranteed to work well with what it says it will, rather than the hit-or-miss compatibility issues and non-unified interface learning curves involved in PCs.
The thing is, Apple does not have a competitor who makes both hardware *and* software. Instead, they have separate competitors for both. The way they cut out of the monopoly is by letting third parties develop for Macs, but Apple is in no way obligated to develop and support for third-party manufacturers.
Personally I think things could be different this time. Just because clones did not work in the 1990's doesn't mean they won't work today. At that time some of the clones sold very well and ended up hurting Mac sales, but today Apple has a much larger product line that includes more then just computers.
If Apple ever decides it actually wants to take on Microsoft for OS dominance then they will have to look into licensing Mac OS to other companies. I am sure the idea has been tossed around by Apple since they have went Intel, but the time has to be right and the companies they select to sell licenses to have to be right. I know Michael Dell has begged and pleaded to get a license without any luck.
With that said if Apple ever decides to allow clones in the future I am pretty sure it won't be with a company like Psystar. It will be a company they feel will do justice to their operating system and help build the Mac OS user base.
Huh?
In response to...
...DOS they made Apple OS
...USB they made Firewire
...eMachines they made iMacs
...Walkmans they made iPods
...Blackberries they made iPhone
It's more like the US government saying that such-and-such particular model of Honda is not legal for road use in the US, but Honda won't make it legal because they aren't interested in selling it in the US.
If people are so worried about Apple being a monopoly, why not just get other PC makers to do what Apple did and build a proprietary operating system from the ground-up on Unix? Or, better yet, Apple could be forced (if such a lawsuit came to pass) to provide OSX source code and leave developing the interface environment to the PC makers, but keep the OSX theme as a non-transferable trademark exclusive to Apple machines. Then we have programs that will work with almost all machines. But then we come in to the problem of specific variables that make software unstable, hence why OSX is exclusive to Mac in the first place. By controlling every aspect of the user experience and hardware like a Nazi, Steve has forced OSX to be a fluid, intuitive operating system that runs consistently from one machine to the next.
Apple competes in both hardware and software markets and makes up the majority of neither, so there is no real risk of Apple being a competition-hindering monopoly, assuming lawmakers and judges have any sort of sense in them.