Sidebar Sidebar
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?

skunk said:
Whatever gave you that idea?
Click to expand...

As I understand it, the EULA specifies, that OS X must be run on Apple-labeled hardware. Non-Apple RAM is not Apple-labeled.

"Apple Boot ROM code and firmware is provided only for use on Apple-labeled hardware and you may not copy, modify or redistribute the Apple Boot ROM code or
firmware, or any portions thereof."
 
localoid said:
Earth to the delusional masses:

Psystar is offering to sell you a "system" which you could build yourself at better specs and you'd likely learn a good bit in the process. Duh! Put down the bongs and soon you'll be walking down Reality Street once again...
Click to expand...

With respect, when most people buy a machine they don't
want to learn a good bit in the process. They just want to
use it to do stuff, you know :)
 
macsmurf said:
I did read the EULA. Did you?
Click to expand...

This is representative of the talk radio quality level of reasoning too often evident throughout this entire thread--grasping tenaciously onto a relatively minor, totally irrelevant point, and completely missing the forest for the trees.
 
mccldwll said:
This is representative of the talk radio quality level of reasoning too often evident throughout this entire thread--grasping tenaciously onto a relatively minor, totally irrelevant point, and completely missing the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...

You think the EULA is irrelevant? I would think that is a quite relevant point in this thread.
 
macsmurf said:
I would love to get an answer from someone slightly less condescending.
Click to expand...
Look, the Superdrive is not "Apple-labelled", it's Matshita-labelled, the processor is Intel-labelled, the screen is LG-labelled (or whatever). The EULA, whether enforceable or not, which is another argument, refers to an "Apple-labelled computer", not a computer made of entirely Apple-labelled components. Can we leave this red herring where it lies, please?

I'm sorry, I can't bring myself to be any less condescending.
 
Infrared said:
With respect, when most people buy a machine they don't
want to learn a good bit in the process. They just want to
use it to do stuff, you know :)
Click to expand...

Like a talking Barbi doll of years gone by used to say (when you pulled her string):

"Math is hard!" :rolleyes:

Edited to add...

Look, bottom line: if you need a system that "just works" and does the "fun stuff" then you need a genuine Mac made by Apple and AppleCare and a good Apple Store to go to (to have your hand held) when you have "challenges" in using your Mac.

A hackintosh PC would be a good learning tool for the techno-inclined person (to actually learn skills that would be transferable to the real world of computing, etc.) Develop skills and expand your knowledge-base, get the best schooling you can afford and instead of being a "computer operator" for Wal-Mart (in the checkout line) you can work as a computer professional, etc.

A hackintosh wouldn't be a good tool for a person who just want to "just do things!" A person that just wants an "appliance" that "just does things" would have a really frustrating experience.

Buying from these clowns that are buying the cheapest crap they can buy from NewEgg and then marking it up 15-20% is foolish. You can do better, if you're in the market for a whitebox OS X computer. These guys (at best) are opportunists taking advantage of ill-informed consumers who think they'd be getting "an almost Mac" that "just works"...
 
skunk said:
Look, the Superdrive is not "Apple-labelled", it's Matshita-labelled, the processor is Intel-labelled, the screen is LG-labelled (or whatever). The EULA, whether enforceable or not, which is another argument, refers to an "Apple-labelled computer", not a computer made of entirely Apple-labelled components. Can we leave this red herring where it lies, please?

I'm sorry, I can't bring myself to be any less condescending.
Click to expand...

Thank you. The EULA does in fact refer to apple-labeled hardware in some places, which would seem to suggest, that some, if not all, of the hardware component are Apple labelled.

Someone brought up the point, that if you run a store-bought OS X on non-Apple hardware you are, in effect, stealing from Apple, since Apple make their revenue on the hardware. If that argument holds, then it would seem to hold for RAM, or any other component as well.

Anyway, I'll let you get back to whatever the point actually is :)
 
Antitrust?

I am no lawyer, this is not legal advice.

But I spoke to someone I know who graduated from Yale Law what his perspective on the issue was, and his opinion was that Apple could possibly be liable for antitrust behavior. (Again, this is not legal advice!)

From the way I understand it, what Apple is doing is taking some "monopolized" product (their OS, which only they can sell), and tying it to the REQUIRED USE OF some other competitive product (their hardware). This is bad: it's essentially what MS got in trouble with when they required people using Windows to also get IE, WMP, etc.

Imagine me selling you a super-special car, but saying you could only use it if you used my branded tires, oil, gas, filters, windshield wipers, etc. on it. I'd be taking one unique item (the super-car) and using it to sell my oil, gas, filters, wipers, etc without any competition. I can't do this legally, it's a violation of anti-trust laws. If someone else makes generic oil that works in my super-car, I can't prevent him from selling it to you (or you from buying it), that's illegal.

That's what Apple does when they sell OS X and require it to be only used on their computers. It's scummy. Outside of all the debate over quality, "just working"-ness, "Apple support", and whether or not they're "overpriced" or carry a "Mac Premium", what Apple's doing is probably a violation of anti-trust laws, and is just plain scummy.

If it's gonna run like crap on my hackintosh, I don't see how that even enters into the debate. The question is: is what Apple's doing here illegal, and if so, they need to stop.

Once that happens, every Tom, Dick, and Harry will be writing $20 apps that make installation of OSX on PCs as easy as 1-2-3, and releasing drivers to make it run well. Motherboard manufacturers will work out EFI booting, and MS will finally have a reason to make the switch. Then MS will have some real competition, Apple will have some market accountability to the quality of their hardware (not that it's all lacking, but 6 months into my macbook the plastic is falling apart...), and the world will be a happier place.

=================

Notice the quotes around "monopolized". OS X is not a true monopoly, nor am I claiming that it is. It merely means that as one controlling 100% of the "OS X software market", Apple cannot turn around and use that to also control 100% of the "OS X hardware market," because their hardware is merely one option of many in the P(ersonal)C(computer) hardware market.
 
apull said:
I am no lawyer, this is not legal advice.

But I spoke to someone I know who graduated from Yale Law what his perspective on the issue was, and his opinion was that Apple could possibly be liable for antitrust behavior. (Again, this is not legal advice!)

From the way I understand it, what Apple is doing is taking some "monopolized" product (their OS, which only they can sell), and tying it to the REQUIRED USE OF some other competitive product (their hardware). This is bad: it's essentially what MS got in trouble with when they required people using Windows to also get IE, WMP, etc.

Imagine me selling you a super-special car, but saying you could only use it if you used my branded tires, oil, gas, filters, windshield wipers, etc. on it. I'd be taking one unique item (the super-car) and using it to sell my oil, gas, filters, wipers, etc without any competition. I can't do this legally, it's a violation of anti-trust laws. If someone else makes generic oil that works in my super-car, I can't prevent him from selling it to you (or you from buying it), that's illegal.

That's what Apple does when they sell OS X and require it to be only used on their computers. It's scummy. Outside of all the debate over quality, "just working"-ness, "Apple support", and whether or not they're "overpriced" or carry a "Mac Premium", what Apple's doing is probably a violation of anti-trust laws, and is just plain scummy.

If it's gonna run like crap on my hackintosh, I don't see how that even enters into the debate. The question is: is what Apple's doing here illegal, and if so, they need to stop.

Once that happens, every Tom, Dick, and Harry will be writing $20 apps that make installation of OSX on PCs as easy as 1-2-3, and releasing drivers to make it run well. Motherboard manufacturers will work out EFI booting, and MS will finally have a reason to make the switch. Then MS will have some real competition, Apple will have some market accountability to the quality of their hardware (not that it's all lacking, but 6 months into my macbook the plastic is falling apart...), and the world will be a happier place.
Click to expand...

This is a sadly misguided opinion that has been endlessly shot down on these forums for years. Apple has no more obligation to retrofit their OS to run on any other computer than Microsoft does to make the Xbox OS run on any other hardware. It's designed to run on Macs, and it's sold as a package. Apple doesn't sell you Mac OS X and say "Oh yeah, you have a buy a Mac to run this," they sell you a Mac that includes a copy of OS X, and then offers you updates to that software on a regular basis.

jW
 
Love me love my dog

No one is asking Apple to get their operating system to work on PCs - others have done that - and Apple have helped them, in various ways, by all accounts.

The days of outdated graphics cards and overpriced hardware may soon be over (the premium will obviously be there - but not to such an extent)

And MS will finally have a real rival.
 
Mal said:
This is a sadly misguided opinion that has been endlessly shot down on these forums for years. Apple has no more obligation to retrofit their OS to run on any other computer than Microsoft does to make the Xbox OS run on any other hardware. It's designed to run on Macs, and it's sold as a package. Apple doesn't sell you Mac OS X and say "Oh yeah, you have a buy a Mac to run this," they sell you a Mac that includes a copy of OS X, and then offers you updates to that software on a regular basis.

jW
Click to expand...
I wonder. If Apple didn't sell Mac OS X separately (since MS doesn't sell Xbox OS separately) would this still be an issue. Another words include OS X on encrypted ROM (like Xbox OS) and only allow the new version to run on new hardware (to get 10.5 we all would have to buy new rigs).

I ask because people use Xbox as an example of a system that has an OS that doesn't run on any other box. I think that example is only flawed because I can't go to the store (MS or otherwise) and buy that OS to put on my Xbox. So the only logical conclusion is Apple stops selling the OS and starts embedding it into the hardware (much like the Xbox OS). Problem solved.
 
I’m sorry apull but I have to say that either you are lying about your friend or he is an idiot. It has been repeatedly proven that Apple's usage doesn’t constitute a monopoly. The reason it’s not a monopoly is because windows and Linux both give the end user a like alternative to Apple's. Besides apple has every right to say that there software will only work with certain equipment. Let’s flip the coin, prior to the move to Intel was Windows being sued because it wouldn’t work on a Mac?
 
apull said:
I am no lawyer, this is not legal advice.

But I spoke to someone I know who graduated from Yale Law what his perspective on the issue was, and his opinion was that Apple could possibly be liable for antitrust behavior. (Again, this is not legal advice!)

From the way I understand it, what Apple is doing is taking some "monopolized" product (their OS, which only they can sell), and tying it to the REQUIRED USE OF some other competitive product (their hardware). This is bad: it's essentially what MS got in trouble with when they required people using Windows to also get IE, WMP, etc.

Imagine me selling you a super-special car, but saying you could only use it if you used my branded tires, oil, gas, filters, windshield wipers, etc. on it. I'd be taking one unique item (the super-car) and using it to sell my oil, gas, filters, wipers, etc without any competition. I can't do this legally, it's a violation of anti-trust laws. If someone else makes generic oil that works in my super-car, I can't prevent him from selling it to you (or you from buying it), that's illegal.

That's what Apple does when they sell OS X and require it to be only used on their computers. It's scummy. Outside of all the debate over quality, "just working"-ness, "Apple support", and whether or not they're "overpriced" or carry a "Mac Premium", what Apple's doing is probably a violation of anti-trust laws, and is just plain scummy.

If it's gonna run like crap on my hackintosh, I don't see how that even enters into the debate. The question is: is what Apple's doing here illegal, and if so, they need to stop.

Once that happens, every Tom, Dick, and Harry will be writing $20 apps that make installation of OSX on PCs as easy as 1-2-3, and releasing drivers to make it run well. Motherboard manufacturers will work out EFI booting, and MS will finally have a reason to make the switch. Then MS will have some real competition, Apple will have some market accountability to the quality of their hardware (not that it's all lacking, but 6 months into my macbook the plastic is falling apart...), and the world will be a happier place.
Click to expand...

A.) IE/WMP are NOT what makes Windows, Windows.
B.) IE/WMP are not an OS.

I fail to see the correlation between a software addon and a full blown OS/design system.

Plenty of European cars require that you buy dealer parts in order to stay under warranty. You don't go chipping ECU's and adding aftermarket parts for a reason, unless of course you don't mind spending $15k out of your pocket on repairs.
 
Why does everyone want OSX to support every piece of hardware around? The reason OSX is so stable is because it has limited hardware that is tested by Apple prior to shipping. I already own a *****ty OS that supports every piece of hardware it’s called Vista. I would gladly pay the SMALL premium to own a real Mac that works!
 
SAFD1450 said:
Why does everyone want OSX to support every piece of hardware around? The reason OSX is so stable is because it has limited hardware that is tested by Apple prior to shipping. I already own a *****ty OS that supports every piece of hardware it’s called Vista. I would gladly pay the SMALL premium to own a real Mac that works!
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people hate windows/really like OSX enough to want to try it out, but many get upset at the mere thought of having to spend extra for something that works.
 
Methinks Yale Law student, would fail.

Apple controls probably about zero percent of the real low end of the PC market -- hard to be a monopoly with zero percent of that PC market segment.

Nothing wrong with being too expensive for consumers in a market niche, as long as somebody is serving that market niche -- and there a scads of companies fighting for that market segment, and several OSs available for those people.

Just not Apple, because they decided that some of the low margin business segments were a drain on their resources -- $15 billion in the bank might change several companies minds, but Apple went further recently and hacked off the low cost education iMac, and has left the Mini in limbo.

Sort of sucks for people when they were expecting more $600-899 PCs and Apple looks like they are backtracking to the $1k and above segment.
 
SAFD1450 said:
Why does everyone want OSX to support every piece of hardware around? The reason OSX is so stable is because it has limited hardware that is tested by Apple prior to shipping. I already own a *****ty OS that supports every piece of hardware it’s called Vista. I would gladly pay the SMALL premium to own a real Mac that works!
Click to expand...

No-one is stopping you buying ultra-tested Apple kit with OSX - no-one is asking Apple to modify OSx to work on other hw. The stability is partly to do with the limited hw - but also due to the *nix underpinnings.

3rd parties will happily write (and are writing) drivers

Computers and sw are such a fundamental part of our lives and livelihoods that monopolies and profiteering are indefensible - to argue otherwise is often a case of cognitive dissonance I'd suggest.
 
englishman said:
No-one is stopping you buying ultra-tested Apple kit with OSX - no-one is asking Apple to modify OSx to work on other hw. The stability is partly to do with the limited hw - but also due to the *nix underpinnings.

3rd parties will happily write (and are writing) drivers

Computers and sw are such a fundamental part of our lives and livelihoods that monopolies and profiteering are indefensible - to argue otherwise is often a case of cognitive dissonance I'd suggest.
Click to expand...

Yes, but then you get people that put the OS on a sub-standard PC and then complain about performance/issues. Its for this reason you don't see 1984 Honda's using Porsche 911 GT3 engines.
 
englishman, I agree with what you are saying. I agree that anyone should be allowed to take the software that they own and modify it to fit their needs, but when a company is stealing software then re-selling it that is wrong. Apple has the right to sue to stop this. Not only are they stealing apples software and re-selling it, they are inadvertently degrading Apple's image. The reason I say that is because OSX running on this sub par system is bound to have a lot of problems, including upgrading to 10.5.3 when it becomes available. Most people think they are buying a Mac, but in fact they are buying a crappy machine that has a Frankenstein version of OSX installed.
 
soms said:
Yes, but then you get people that put the OS on a sub-standard PC and then complain about performance/issues.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite - most people say that performance is better on Hackintoshes

Sub-standard - au contraire - at worst the bits are the same from the same Far East factories - but the standard (for the same or cheaper price) is better - wanna 8800GT - no problem -
 
SAFD1450 said:
englishman, I agree with what you are saying. I agree that anyone should be allowed to take the software that they own and modify it to fit their needs, but when a company is stealing software then re-selling it that is wrong. Apple has the right to sue to stop this. Not only are they stealing apples software and re-selling it, they are inadvertently degrading Apple's image. The reason I say that is because OSX running on this sub par system is bound to have a lot of problems, including upgrading to 10.5.3 when it becomes available. Most people think they are buying a Mac, but in fact they are buying a crappy machine that has a Frankenstein version of OSX installed.
Click to expand...

Upgrades are reasonably easy to do in most cases - I'm not advocating piracy - just that Apple sell their OS to be installed where we want. The machines can be a good as you like - Asus makes the Macbooks for Apple - why not cut out the middle man and give the difference to charity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back