Psystar to Challenge Mac OS X EULA?

[jellomizer]

That's right. You're no lawyer and Apple is anything but sure to come on top. No one knows what will happen here...

Well Apple has the ability to do something that a small company cannot. Afford to drag it out. A million dollars spent on legal fees by Apple barily makes it onto the financial reports. A million dollars for a small company can kill it. While they may be able to try to defend themselves without lawyers that as well greatly reduces their chances of winning as well. They will need some very solid evidence to win a battle such as this.

 

[EricNau]

That's right. You're no lawyer and Apple is anything but sure to come on top. No one knows what will happen here...

Apple has about 14 billion more dollars in the bank than Psystar, including a full-time legal team. It's very clear who will win this case... if it makes it that far.

 

[twoodcc]

well this should turn out to be very interesting.

 

[theotherguy]

conspiracy

only end users can break EULA, they didn't break any EULA, nor laws.

conspiracy to break EULA is one way to get around this

 

[ComeOnDieYoung]

About the Analogies...

You also can't make a car on your own and call it a Honda...

I think the car analogy seemed pretty thin...

it's more like making a machine that plays Nintendo games that isn't a Nintendo.

 

[nomar383]

I've got my popcorn. Ready to watch this develop.

Hey, did anyone else notice that "arn" is now Arnold Kim? Of course, he's always been, but this is the first time I've noticed his real name on an article.

try "whois macrumors.com" in terminal, always interesting to see who runs websites

 

[Syrus28]

Which is exactly what Apple seeks to avoid by designing the SW and HW together. I don't see how it's fair for anyone to tell Apple to break the system that's been working so well for them.

Huh? It doesn't have to be fair. If its illegal, then to hell with their "system". If its not, better for them. Its not about fairness.

 

[Durendal]

Yeah, good luck with that one, pal. Apple can afford to spend more on lawyers than your company makes in a year. They can and will crush you. I kinda wish it wouldn't happen that way, but it's a bloody inevitability.

 

[zombitronic]

Robert's loose use of the word "monopoly" and car/road analogy does not necessarily inspire confidence in his legal prowess.

Indeed.

I'd be surprised if this makes it to court. I'm no lawyer, but if I were in charge of Apple Legal I'd have planned for this type of scenario long ago. I'm not sure what Psystar is worth, but based on their "About" page and limited contact information, it seems that they're not working under a giant parent corporation. Couldn't Apple just buy them out and make this whole mess disappear?

 

[chameleon81]

Besides trademark issue because of the name, company would survive in a real democracy like in EU.

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

This seems like an awful lot to go through for a "headless" officially unsupported PC tower that can eventually run a version of Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard"

I mean, if this works out for Psystar and it turns out they can do this, Dell or HP is going to march in slap them with a marketing campaign that will make people go Psy-who?

 

[zap2]

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.

Look back to the clones of the 90s....thing didn't work out so hot for Apple.I think let other companies use your software is an all or nothing thing. I can't imagine MS selling MS PCs with Vista, will letting Dell selll PCs with Vista.

Either Apple needs to be software and hardware, or just software. And I think the total combo is much much better.

 

[xenotaku]

I love all of you thinking Apple is going to dominate this. They really have very small chance. In recent years, courts have been shooting down EULAs everywhere you look. Apple has no legal grounds to do anything about it. They are not promoting or selling anything illegal. A user agreement is pretty murky waters in the court of law and by no means is in Apples favor were it to head to court. You never actually sign anything, which is what makes a contract binding.

I love Apple and buy most of there crap, but I'm not a blind loyal fool. If another company began making cooler tech than Apple, I would jump ship in a heart beat. (I used to be a Sony fanboy) Were this to ever reach court, which it will unless Apples pays them millions of bucks to go away, I hope they beat Apple. All it would mean is more hardware being sold such as Apple TVs, iPhones, iPods, future tablets or anything else. It just makes the Apple brand stronger in the long run.

And lastly, as it is....Apple could use some more economically feasible products. I mean, this entire computer is cheaper than what apple sells an HD/Wifi product that doesn't do much of anything. Apple screams Elitist, and this would be an amazing entry point for the millions of people that want an Apple but can't afford one.

Go Pystar!!!!!

 

[EagerDragon]

Apple can hold these guys at bay until they run out of money. Apple can afford to spend a few billions to protect their hardware business and the EULA.

The worst that can happen to Apple is the destruction of the Mac. This would leave Apple as a software only company. The Mac is a very significant part of their revenue, they will fight this company to the death.

If Apple were to loose, everyone and his brother would create one of these boxes and sell it with OSX. Way too much to loose.

Ceirtanly going to be interesting.

 

[Vulpinemac]

OS X on a non-Apple PC

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.

My personal opinion is that a win for Psystar would be a loss for Apple's users and Apple themselves in a manner other than just the legal.

By making OS X work on a non-Apple machine, you lose the quality of the components used and open it to all the same issues that Windows has on low-end computers. Specifically, reliability. Windows tends to be very reliable and stable on well-built machines using high-end components. That's why home builders tend to wonder why everyone else complains so loudly about the different iterations Microsoft has on the market. Even Vista, so notorious for its instability and hunger for resources runs remarkably well on a hand-built machine using the best available parts.
Apple does this at the factory. This is one reason why Apple has such a high customer satisfaction rating. It's not just the look of the machine but the reliability and stability of the OS as well. Put the two together and you get a satisfied user. Even I consider Windows XP the most stable and reliable version of Windows ever, but I also built a machine that was roughly compatible to a tower Mac at the time to run it on.

To put OS X on anything short of a premium machine is begging for trouble with the user. Yes, I'd like to be able to install OS X on a machine I build myself, but anything less is nothing but a mistake.

 

[Syrus28]

Yeah, good luck with that one, pal. Apple can afford to spend more on lawyers than your company makes in a year. They can and will crush you. I kinda wish it wouldn't happen that way, but it's a bloody inevitability.

If they have solid evidence, no amount of lawyers or money will beat that. The question is, do they have that evidence?

 

[xenotaku]

My personal opinion is that a win for Psystar would be a loss for Apple's users and Apple themselves in a manner other than just the legal.

By making OS X work on a non-Apple machine, you lose the quality of the components used and open it to all the same issues that Windows has on low-end computers. Specifically, reliability. Windows tends to be very reliable and stable on well-built machines using high-end components. That's why home builders tend to wonder why everyone else complains so loudly about the different iterations Microsoft has on the market. Even Vista, so notorious for its instability and hunger for resources runs remarkably well on a hand-built machine using the best available parts.
Apple does this at the factory. This is one reason why Apple has such a high customer satisfaction rating. It's not just the look of the machine but the reliability and stability of the OS as well. Put the two together and you get a satisfied user. Even I consider Windows XP the most stable and reliable version of Windows ever, but I also built a machine that was roughly compatible to a tower Mac at the time to run it on.

To put OS X on anything short of a premium machine is begging for trouble with the user. Yes, I'd like to be able to install OS X on a machine I build myself, but anything less is nothing but a mistake.

Congratulations, then you can keep buying Apple hardware. Nobody is forcing you not to. However, for the millions of other people that cannot afford it, let them take the risk for much less money.

 

[kkat69]

/changes channel

 

[Sun Baked]

Wonder how many hits the BSA gets for this, they deal with EULA violations all the time in most countries.

 

[illw!l]

If Apple loses...

If Apple loses this disagreement about the EULA then they will simply cease selling stand alone software packages of their Mac OS.

Either that or they return to building their operating system to work on a proprietary processor that inhibits competitors options (think PowerPC but even more obscure, perhaps in-house).

Unless you want either of those instances, you want Apple to win this.

 

[nostaws]

"What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"

If this is the level of intelligence they have at their company they will be drinking water out of a toilet in a few months. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

A better analogy would be "...after you buy their car, you could only use Honda replacement parts." Well Honda might say that, and does say that from time to time. At at times it is within their right.

Don't get me wrong, I would like a powerful cheap mac from these guys. But I think their logic is messed up, and the only way around Apple is to sell a computer sans OS, then let the end user violate the agreement by installing the OS his/herself. They could even bundle the OS in the sale, but the user would need to install it.

Apple would be nuts to go after all the end users. And the company could say, "hey we are just selling generic PCs with no OS."

 

[floppy]

this sounds like a lose/lose situation for consumers.

goodbye hackintosh, welcome apple genuine advantage.

 

[Evanedstrom@ear]

What's the point?

If apples license agreement can be violated without penalty, what is the point of having it? Also, if honda told you that you could only drive on certain roads, I don't think anybody would buy from honda. This is also an unreasonable comparison.

 

[g00k]

well i dont know but...
what if psy-star would completely copy the components of all macs so the software and hardware combo u are talking about would still work?
still they could it make way cheaper but not less good... is that correct?

 

[aLoC]

As the creators of OS X, Apple are the rightful owners, and what they say should go. It wouldn't even exist but for them.