Psystar to Challenge Mac OS X EULA?

[Sun Baked]

Competition is a good thing.

Why does Apple need a $399 tower.

It isn't like Apple is in competition with the Ronco Computer company, and if they are in huge trouble in the market for not doing it...

Think of all the declining earnings quarters they are giving up with rising revenues, record profits, along with a marketshare that is rising at a snails pace.

All because that silly little cash kitty worth billions isn't being skinned to supply low margin machines to the masses.

 

[The Monkey]

Competition is a good thing.

Why does Apple need a $399 tower.

It isn't like Apple is in competition with the Ronco Computer company, and if they are in huge trouble in the market for not doing it...

Think of all the declining earnings quarters they are giving up with rising revenues, record profits, along with a marketshare that is rising at a snails pace.

All because that silly little cash kitty worth billions isn't being skinned to supply low margin machines to the masses.

You do understand that I mean competition is a good thing for the consumer, right?

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

Why does Apple need a $399 tower.

Because there's a market for it..

 

[Sun Baked]

You do understand that I mean competition is a good thing for the consumer, right?

And sometimes very very bad for the companies competing for marketshare with low margin products. A lot of the free and cheap PC companies tend not to last long.

Because there's a market for it..

And somebody is supplying it, doesn't mean Apple has to offer low margin machines and compete with their own machines.

 

[dsnort]

You do understand that I mean competition is a good thing for the consumer, right?

But sometimes the "good thing" is short lived.

Apple has spent millions of dollars to develop OSX. Why? To differentiate their computers from every other one on the market.

So if any Tom, Dick, or Harry computer company can just jump on the bandwagon and use Apples work to compete against Apple, then whats the point? Why spend money on the OS at all? Why not just make the "beautiful machines", install Windows on them, and concentrate on iPods and iPhones?

Where's your choice then?

 

[mrgreen4242]

So you think it's OK to purchase one copy of OS X Leopard and give away or sell as many copies of it as you want to, right? Because you OWN it?, right? It's yours to do with what you wish, right? A few hundred million spent by someone else (Apple) is just their tough luck, right? Anyone else's property that you get a hold of becomes yours, right?

Freetard..or just obtuse.

Wow, you're completely and utterly missing the point. You can OWN something and not have distribution or even duplication rights for something. You can OWN a book and read it where ever you want, whenever you want, and you can do anything with the things you learn from it.

You can OWN a CD and listen to it in your car, on your home stereo, copied onto your iPod.

You can OWN a movie and bring it to a friends house to watch on their TV.

You can OWN a piece of computer software, let's say a video game, and you play that game on your video game system or bring it the same friends to play on theirs.

You can OWN all of these things, they are all forms of intellectual property, without have the RIGHT to copy or distribute it. Once you BUY it you can do whatever you want with THAT COPY of it, you just can't make more.

That's how IP works, period. Software companies are trying to get around this basic buyer right by claiming that they are "licensing" you the use of their product, when that is clearly not the case.

Before you start in on the personal attacks you should just think a little bit about what you are going to say. Really take the time to critically approach a topic from all sides and consider what the different issues involved with something are. Under your point of view, that software is licensed and can only be used in the manner the maker permits, you would be agreeing to all of the following ideas:

1) You can buy a book, but you can only read it with a flashlight under your bed, because the printer says so on the book jacket. Anyone selling a lightbulb advertised as "good for reading" would be encouraging people to violate the terms of your licensing agreement.

2) You can buy a CD but you can only listen to it in stereo (no upmixing to a 5.1 speaker system!) and you have to listen to the entire disc at once; no track skipping! Oh, and you can't resell it when you are done - we're not granting you resale rights.

3) You can buy a DVD, but if George Lucas decides that it wasn't really his definitive vision for Star Wars you have to return it to us immediately, because we're only licensing it to you while it is the most current version of the movie.

4) You can buy a video game for your PS3, but you have to use Sony brand controllers to play it, and you have to buy a 1080p HDTV of at least 47" to use it.

Are these all things you think are OK? Because they are NO DIFFERENT than what's going on here.

 

[Rhino808]

Long time lurker here, first time post!!
Did anyone notice the name Psystar sounds like Pixar?
As a long time mac user (10 years) I have to say there is definitely a void in their product range between the iMac and the Mac Pro. Not that this Psystar is going to fill this void, but it is interesting to see a hackintosh get a lot of attention.
my 0.02 cents

 

[kheller2]

Before people post their opinions on this subject they need to go back in Apple history and read about the clone wars.

You don't need to have Ive designed hardware to get a perfectly functioning OSX machine. When Umax, Power, Motorola etc. started producing Mac OS machines they worked fine. They worked so fine in fact that Apple ended the program because too many people were buying cheap alternatives to overpriced Apple hardware.

Yes.. you should. The clones did work fine, in fact they rarely did any R&D on their own to build their own designs except Umax slightly. They used generic cases, parts and supplies based on Apple supplied reference designs. Of course the clones took off, especially when they were offering faster spec systems less than anything Apple was shipping.

So Apple did the R&D for both the HW and the OS, and licensed them to 3rd parties to build their own but it wasn't a brilliant business move at all and hurt Apple. One should understand how Apple got into that mess to begin with, and know that licensing out your OS was a desperate attempt to save themselves given how popular MS was at that time with their OSes.

In the case of psystar, we have a misinformation campaign going on. Take a look at their comparison of their $400 ugly generic box compared to the Mini which is completely custom designed and tiny as heck compared to that box. Of course a beige box is going to cost somewhat less that something you have to actually design yourself! Also note there isn't iLife included with psystar boxes. Really, add up the costs there and see if its any cheaper. Psystar doesn't even sell a dual quad core system like the Pros.

*sigh*

The whole Apple hardware costs so much more than any other PC is so sickening. Go compare a Dell, HP or Gateway to anything Apple makes, spec for spec, size for size etc. And the delta ain't much folks! Heck, you have to go to server grade stuff to find dual quads.

What people are really saying is this: I can build a box that fits my needs for a lot less than box X that Apple sells. Cry cry sniff, I want Mac OS but don't want to pay for the box to run it on. That is a very different statement than saying Apple HW is over priced. It isn't. I've done this comparison for every whiner I know in person.

 

[decksnap]

Because there's a market for it..

yeah, there's a market for a five dollar Macpro as well. It doesn't mean it will make Apple more money. I can't believe Macrumors has so many seasoned business and marketing gurus just sitting around posting all day. Apple should hire you guys.

 

[majordude]

Last post!

Please God, let this be the last post in this weed-like thread! Let it end here!

 

[dsnort]

**SNIP**

Thats a very simplistic understanding of IP's. IP's can be licensed for limited use, and restrictions placed on their use by the owner of the IP. For instance, when Nike used the Beatles song "Revolution" in a commercial, they had an agreement with the owner of the song, and you can be sure the conditions for use were definitively spelled out.

This whole argument reminds me of something I saw on TV the other day, one of those daytime judges.

"If you don't like the deal, don't sign up! But you can't sign the agreement and then decide to not abide by it later just because you decided you don't like the deal!"

 

[asdavis10]

Competition = good. Is that difficult to understand?

100% agree with you, unfortunately Apple will never get this. Apple please realize that this is actually a good thing.

Yes competition is good. And we have Windows, Mac OS, FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux, Unix, and many others. What has made Apple great over the years is their marriage of hardware and software. Anyone who says otherwise is foolish. Say what you want about their choice of hardware, design, and price; they know what they're doing. Apple's market share and value are increasing each quarter. They must be doing something right. The clones of the 90's should let us know that this won't work. If Dell couldn't get OSX on their hardware, there's no chance for a garage company like Psystar.

Actually, Jobs has said that Apple is a software company first and foremost.

I think you're confusing Steve Jobs saying that Apple "views" itself as a software company. But that not what they are when you look at how they generate revenue. The majority of their revenue comes from hardware sales. And not from their underpriced software (ex. iWork, iLife, OSX).

 

[MattInOz]

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.

Um not much forcing would be needed.
A lot of the OS is already Open Source Projects.
Both Apple Hosted (Launchd, Webkit) and hosted by others.
Or implementations of Open Standards.
If you leave the interface to each PC Maker then the only programs that will translate are command line. Which is what the UNIX certification is about and
is already the case.

If a company was serious about offering a new competive product and offering developers a mininal transfer from a cooca App to their own system then raw materials are out there. It's tying it together that needs work.

Strangle any one who does this is likely to use the same model as Apple, control hardware to make sure the software shines. The software sells the product the hardware makes the bread.

 

[asdavis10]

yeah, there's a market for a five dollar Macpro as well. It doesn't mean it will make Apple more money. I can't believe Macrumors has so many seasoned business and marketing gurus just sitting around posting all day. Apple should hire you guys.

LOL. Amen

 

[matticus008]

Wow, you're completely and utterly missing the point. You can OWN something and not have distribution or even duplication rights for something.

No, you can't, assuming you're referring to the same "something".

You can own a set of rights. Nothing more, nothing less. You own all the rights you pay for, but the seller is generally free to choose which rights it makes available for sale.

Once you BUY it you can do whatever you want with THAT COPY of it, you just can't make more.

That's not the case. You can do whatever you want with it consistent with the rights you acquired by purchase or assignment. If you never acquired a particular right, and there is no statute assigning you that right, you simply do not have it.

Software companies are trying to get around this basic buyer right by claiming that they are "licensing" you the use of their product, when that is clearly not the case.

Software companies are licensing you the use of their product. This, quite simply, is not a matter of serious debate. Owning a copy does not make you the owner of the product--it remains their product, and your right to use remains subject to termination for violating their reserved rights.

1) You can buy a book, but you can only read it with a flashlight under your bed, because the printer says so on the book jacket. Anyone selling a lightbulb advertised as "good for reading" would be encouraging people to violate the terms of your licensing agreement.

Proscribed environments for use are contractually valid. Your example is an absurdity and is factually unenforceable, not to mention the fact that it has no rational motivation. Specific applications and environments, however, are a regular part of licensing agreements.

Your further examples are also just cobbled-together fictitious applications stemming from a total failure to comprehend the intersection of rights, the concept of reserved rights, and the fundamental nature of property.

A manufacturer, be it Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Tivo, or anyone else, has the right to set the terms of use of its software. It has no obligation to sell rights to any customer that go beyond what they choose to sell. If Samsung wants to restrict its firmware and software to use on Samsung products, they're free to do so. If you want to tinker with the code in your own garage, Samsung isn't going to stop you. If you're going to enter the marketplace, though, Samsung is going to shut you down. They have absolutely no obligation to tolerate your profiting from their work.

 

[echowavex]

HOWEVER, it's not 100% functional, as some updates require you to completely reinstall OS X, as opposed to using Software Update the way Apple intended.

Except this doesn't actually happen. What updates are these? 10.5.2 with the vanilla kernel doesn't cause this at all.

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

yeah, there's a market for a five dollar Macpro as well. It doesn't mean it will make Apple more money. I can't believe Macrumors has so many seasoned business and marketing gurus just sitting around posting all day. Apple should hire you guys.

Assuming that most people who want a $500 Mac would not buy a $1000+ Mac, then, yes, it would make Apple more money. The profit margin is less, but there's still a profit margin. Some profit > no profit (and they aren't making any profit off the people who aren't buying Macs because of their price).

Now, there's the Mac Mini for that market (sort of.. it doesn't come with any peripherals, which IMO limits it somewhat in the budget market), but whatever.

 

[kresh]

The answer to this is obvious. Have two versions.

Version #1 Checks for TPM chip on Apple built computers (have to add to Mac Pro) and is sold for $129.00

Version #2 Does not check for TPM chip and sells for $799, this version may be installed on any owner provided equipment. There is no warranty for suitability of purpose. Technical support will be provided via telephone for $299 per 15 minutes.



edit: I forgot to mention that this would reveal the true intentions, which is to steal OS X as no one would pay for version #2. However it would be the most popular torrent on the planet.

 

[MikeTheC]

headstew:
Mach and Darwin are not based on Debian. They are a BSD licensee. The BSD license is nothing like the GPL, or even the LGPL. Go read it and see.

 

[SodiumBenzoate]

The answer to this is obvious. Have two versions.

Version #1 Checks for TPM chip on Apple built computers (have to add to Mac Pro) and is sold for $129.00

Version #2 Does not check for TPM chip and sells for $799, this version may be installed on any owner provided equipment. There is no warranty for suitability of purpose. Technical support will be provided via telephone for $299 per 15 minutes.



edit: I forgot to mention that this would reveal the true intentions, which is to steal OS X as no one would pay for version #2. However it would be the most popular torrent on the planet.

No, that's just stupid. The intention is not to steal OS X, but rather pay less for the hardware. I don't think Apple hardware is ridiculously expensive, but it's certainly inflexible and the bargain computers simply don't exist.

Obviously a OS selling for $800 with retardedly expensive support wouldn't sell at all, ever.

 

[MACx4xLIFE]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

Round 1 to Apple.

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.

I do agree with your statement. I would like to see another company be able to sell the hardware to run one of the best operating systems out there. Wether its Psystar or some other company. I don't see why Apple couldn't come to some agreement. This is not the first time another hardware company is trying to make a 'Mac' clone' and this won't be the last. Good luck Psystar.

 

[echowavex]

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.

First of all, that is not at all in evidence. If you put OS X on hardware that is not sold by Apple, that is supported by OS X (set support by Apple aside for a moment), how exactly is that different from hardware that IS sold by Apple, that is supported by OS X?

PROTIP: IT ISN'T.

There are many successful Hackintoshers out there for exactly this reason.

As for support, there are many of us out there who simply don't need it. Do you know how many times I have called Apple for help? (Hint: < 1) Do you know how many times I have EVER needed to get my Macbook Pro supported by Apple? Exactly once -- and that was for a HARDWARE problem with the DVD drive. With a Hackintosh, I can diagnose that problem and replace the drive myself, no sweat.

Support from Apple is just not necessary for a good OS X experience. It isn't.

 

[echowavex]

No, that's just stupid. The intention is not to steal OS X, but rather pay less for the hardware. I don't think Apple hardware is ridiculously expensive, but it's certainly inflexible and the bargain computers simply don't exist.

Obviously a OS selling for $800 with retardedly expensive support wouldn't sell at all, ever.

Actually, the real intention is to get around Apple's way of forcing people to either pay absurd amounts of money to get expandability in a computer (Mac Pro), which is lopsided in its specifications, or pay somewhat less to get a machine that doesn't match their needs (iMac).

The third "option," which I'm sure someone will point out, is to abandon the platform. That isn't good for anyone.

 

[MikeTheC]

If you're referring to me, yes i know OEM manufacturers physically make the finished product. But have you seen a logic board for a dual PowerMac G5? yeah, thats not a standard ATX form factor, somebody had to design it.. They also design their own cases, etc. (I just replaced the logic board inside a 2.0 GHz G5 Powermac. The board in its design is nothing like a PC's.)

Huh? I don't understand the relevance of your reply to the person you were responding to. We're talking about Intel-based Macs, not PPC-based ones.

 

[waffle911]

I do agree with your statement. I would like to see another company be able to sell the hardware to run one of the best operating systems out there. Wether its Psystar or some other company. I don't see why Apple couldn't come to some agreement. This is not the first time another hardware company is trying to make a 'Mac' clone' and this won't be the last. Good luck Psystar.

You should read a few posts from the back of the thread before posting to keep conversation relevant, and to make sure someone hasn't already made a sound argument against your unsupported statement, which they have.

Um not much forcing would be needed.
A lot of the OS is already Open Source Projects.
Both Apple Hosted (Launchd, Webkit) and hosted by others.
Or implementations of Open Standards.
If you leave the interface to each PC Maker then the only programs that will translate are command line. Which is what the UNIX certification is about and
is already the case.

If a company was serious about offering a new competive product and offering developers a mininal transfer from a cooca App to their own system then raw materials are out there. It's tying it together that needs work.

Strangely any one who does this is likely to use the same model as Apple, control hardware to make sure the software shines. The software sells the product the hardware makes the bread.

For the most part, that's what I mean. As for forcing Apple, it wouldn't take much, but it would take some. The source coding is out there so that developers can create separate programs for use on the OS, but there are no given permissions for using the Apple-supplied source code to build an entirely independent/separate OS. It would take legal action to do so. I really mean for each company to be responsible for making a unique "flavor" of a universally compatible Darwin-esque platform (Each company would get exclusive distribution rights to their own specific flavor [by allowing people to pay a very nominal fee to use on other branded hardware if they so choose], and proficient users can contribute modifications to the company or ultimately create their own). There would also be a basic, universal interface to minimize learning curves for businesses so that employees can go from home to work or computers can be swapped out with minimal adjustment.

As for programs being unique to each interface, it would be something along the lines of OpenOffice, or the Gimp, where the program is independently based on Unix, C++, etc and only requires a dependency to run natively, but is still independent of the interface.
The interface I originally implied was actually the GUI, such as the various distros of Linux, many of which are functionally the same but have different GUI styles/themes/layouts/etc. and still run the same programs (for the most part). Then, companies would be able to compete with Apple using a comparable business model, where the software does indeed sell the hardware; but Apple will continue to have design and overall user experience a step ahead (or outside, depending on your view) the rest of the pack. Back to dependencies, each company would be responsible for making a universal installer for their own flavor of OS, so that it could run a universal Unix-type program with applicable operating and interface optimizations. I'd imagine there'd still be a few limitations, but I can't think of them now.