Psystar to Challenge Mac OS X EULA?

[flyfish29]

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.

I totally disagree!!! We don't wan't crappy computers running a great OS. When the crappy computer's drives, etc. fail people have a bad experience on the Mac OS. Apple makes a great machine and great software. They want to control how great of hardware they sell their OS for and I agree they should. Mercedes and others make great engines...they should control the body style, and other mechanical parts that help drive that car so wonderfully down the road...put that nice engine in a crappy old car body and steering-handling system and you have a crappy experience!!!

 

[MattInOz]

Of course Apple will win a legal challenge to this. But that's beside the point. Psystar just pulled off a brilliant marketing move, whether intended or not. This was viral marketing for real. Who here had even heard of Psystar two days ago? Now everyone on every tech site knows who they are what they sell.

Even if Apple wins and Psystar is left with only the right to sell the box with no mention of Apple or their products, they will still have ingrained themselves in the minds of those seeking such a product and those who are willing to install OS X at home. Apple will win the legal challenge, but Psystar will come away with a boatload of free advertising.

But any potential or existing customers also now have no faith in the company.
Remember they are selling other products as well, or where trying to?

 

[Hooka]

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.

Agreed

 

[yg17]

I think they're in the clear on this one as long as they don't sell OSX preinstalled.

If they sell a PC with a blank hard drive, but it just so happens that it can run OSX, then it's up to the end user, which is who Apple will need to (and won't be able to) go after.

It's not the product that's illegal, it's what the end user does with it that's illegal. If I do something illegal with my car, Volkswagen can't be held responsible. I don't think this scenario is any different.


Apple's programmers will be stopping this much quicker than Apple's lawyers will.

 

[peterlobl]

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.

and has anyone bothered to check if arn's middle name has always been...

[Robert] ???


PS Let OS X, XI, XII run on other h/w... why not? would make price of OS XI go up most likely, yet could drop apple's pedestrian hw prices.. or make their h/w a little bit more interesting to compensate for higher cost, no?

using mba running XP at this moment - best xp notebook out there...

 

[g00k]

could u all please stop comparing everything with cars?
btw a mercedes engine in a bmw would work and would still be great... if psystar is able to make a bmw...

 

[mccldwll]

I You never actually sign anything, which is what makes a contract binding.

I

Another obvious non-lawyer! This goes absolutely nowhere and the Psystar kids are going to be very unhappy campers who will regret the day they ever got the wild hair idea that they could come close to pulling something like this off. They'll be lucky to get out of this with their shirts.

 

[ucfgrad93]

Yes, all the legal prowess of a drunk trying to talk his way out of a DUI.

Yep, this is totally doomed to failure.

 

[nomar383]

Anyone notice they have added an "OpenPro" to the lineup?

 

[dam0dred]

Apple's lawyers are going to tear these people to shreds.

Even if they win the legal battle will surely cost Psystar millions. Looks like an uphill climb for them.

 

[Syrus28]

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

That would never happen. You think people are going to buy a computer every year and a half Apple releases a new operating system? No. Then, the adoption rate for new versions would be down the drain, as it would essentially be a minimum $1000 upgrade to use the next version.

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).

Nope, that would never happen. One of the reasons to the switch to intel was the frequency of updates and new processors and power Intel brings, something with an in-house or PowerPC could never compete. Macs would fall behind Window PCs in technology, something Apple definitely won't allow.

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

Apple's options are more limited that you think [if they loose]. As long as they don't pre-install Leopard, I can't see how it violates anything.

 

[synth3tik]

That "Robert" guy sounds like a dips**t. If that is who psystar elects to represent the company, then psystar has little chance of taking on Apple.

 

[iPhelim]

As FSJ would say... Mocshe has been dispatched

Oh im sure MOSHE was despatched long before this news reached our ears.

Never did i think i would see the word 'prowess' used in a MacRumors article! Arn, i salute you.

 

[nagromme]

Step 1: Legally force Apple NOT to prohibit installation on non-Apple systems. Apple still won't be obligated to provide support for other companies' random hardware, and updates will often fail.

Step 2: Give up on that, and just sell the EFI emulator... no questions asked... to individual hobbyists and DIYers, to use at their own risk.

Step 3: Regardless, component prices vs. performance will keep falling, and one day we will once again see sub-$500 Apple Macs and sub-$1000 Mac laptops, as we had before the Intel switch.

 

[mike12806]

this is interesting....I think this system has real appeal to some people, and although psystar is likely to be served with a C+D from Apple, if they prove to Apple that a market exists for this machine, maybe Apple will build a similar model....

 

[Sun Baked]

Apple's options are more limited that you think [if they loose].

I'm sort of wondering if the Business Software Alliance will get involved in this, Apple is a member and the BSA is real aggressive for going after pirates, resellers, and business violating license agreements.

I wonder if they will take action for this violation of a EULA.

 

[zap2]

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.

Thats one interesting idea, but I doubt Apple would pour the massive amount of cash to develop a new chipset. That would be a huge undertaking, and I mean HUGE.

Its possible Apple would change the stand alone software to an "update" package, and the only "install"software would come with a new Mac. Not a huge physical difference, but enough to make fresh installs on hardware without Mac OS X illegal

( I feel like thats what the current set up might be....I know MS does it with some Windows copies)

 

[flyfish29]

The one thing that worries me about that, though, is that if by some miracle, the company wins against Apple, Apple is going to have a horrendous time in regards to customer service... having to help people who have god-knows-what components that aren't working because they're not supported by OSX, etc.

This one fact would make the cost of the OS and other Apple products increase significantly. Thing of the support costs descibed above. The reason MS can support so many darn computer hardware companies selling their products is because MS sells so many darn licenses of their product. Economies of scale....Apple doesn't have a large enough base to support a wide variety of manufacturers systems, etc. It would take tens of millions more mac users to make this kind of support viable.

 

[iLunar]

OSX and Apple hardware go together. They are one product, just like iPod+iTunes. Sure, you can buy Leopard separately, but it is one part of two.

Just because other vendors offer operating systems as a stand alone product, why should Apple? This Psystar company is going to hurt Apple's core business should they be able to proceed in splitting OSX and Apple hardware. And that is something Apple can argue in court.

 

[Kwill]

There's a saying: Cheap, Quality, Price. You only get to pick two.

Try: "Good, fast, cheap; pick any two."

 

[One Post Wonder]

What would your reaction be if there were terms in the Microsoft EULA restricting installation of Windows to non-Apple computers? Would you be in favor of hackers cracking the Windows restriction so you had more options with the hardware you own?

Let's put it like this. In a way, Microsoft already does this with locked OEM licenses. If Microsoft suddenly killed the retail version of Windows and limited OEM licenses to the top tiers of hardware manufacturers, citing piracy losses, you would not be able to install it on your Mac.

Of course that probably won't happen, but you can't be simultaneously in favor of Apple's OS X hardware restrictions and against the possibility of Microsoft doing something similar.

 

[Syrus28]

Just because other vendors offer operating systems as a stand alone product, why should Apple? This Psystar company is going to hurt Apple's core business should they be able to proceed in splitting OSX and Apple hardware. And that is something Apple can argue in court.

I don't understand these arguments. If Apple's core business proves to be illegal, the court won't care if its "hurting" them.

 

[mac 2005]

I find myself again asking this question: What is MacRumors.com's policy about reporting on real or perceived EULA violations? If I were to tell you how to build a system that would run OS X on a non-Apple system, I would be banned and the thread would be removed. I'm not trying to stir the pot so much as to clarify the difference because all of my previous questions have gone unanswered.

So, to put it plainly: What gives?

 

[WannaGoMac]

This one fact would make the cost of the OS and other Apple products increase significantly. Thing of the support costs descibed above. The reason MS can support so many darn computer hardware companies selling their products is because MS sells so many darn licenses of their product. Economies of scale....Apple doesn't have a large enough base to support a wide variety of manufacturers systems, etc. It would take tens of millions more mac users to make this kind of support viable.

Think this argument is flawed.

Linux supports lots of hardware without any problems out of the box. Why can't another unix OS ?

Anyway, most hardware manufacturers standardized across their models, so often not much has to be changed to support newer versions.

 

[iMacBookUser]

Realy??

It sounds like my thoughts are in-line with most, but I'll still add my take...

I find that it is pretty rare to purchase a Mac, or any of the supported Apple products, simply to run Mac OS X. Don't get me wrong, it is a great operating system - the greatest if your judging includes eye candy, but most that I speak with went for the Apple product for the whole package - styled packaging and all!

Another interesting angle of this is that the mock-machine seems to come with some unpleasant system update/patching practices (or at least initial reports suggested so). I certainly wouldn't expect Apple to take legal action against an individual for installing Mac OS X on some home grown machine, however I would argue that Apple has a right to stop anyone from offering a beat-up, unstable, stale copy of OS X to paying customers.

I think the mock-manufacturer should switch to linux...