Psystar to Challenge Mac OS X EULA?

[QCassidy352]

I support this company and hope Apple will start allowing other manufacturers to sell their computers with Leopard installed. Apple doesn't have to give full support for drivers and all that, they JUST HAVE TO ALLOW IT.

That would be disastrous. Apple's business model is to use superior software to sell hardware. I understand that people here don't like apple's prices, but paying those hardware prices is what pays for the R&D on apple's very good and very reasonably priced OS and software.

If OS X (and consequently, all apple's other apps) can be installed on any PC, Apple will probably either drastically increase the price of its stand-alone software (because it will not longer be as well supported by hardware sales) or will stop using selling its OS retail. Neither is what we want to see.

IMO it's in our interest to see Psystar fail (and FWIW, I think they will).

 

[rolex54]

i am sure apples lawyers are just salivating at this

 

[g00k]

not only ur qustions get unasnwered...
i asked what if psystar build a pc with excatly the components of a mac and how it would work... because all are saying the same stuff with hardware+software is what truly makes an apple worth.

 

[NYCMacFan]

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.

By the way, the notion that ipod and itunes go together is the precise cause of the European anti-trust suit against Apple. Please note that the American firms have lost many of their fights with Brussels as well.

The law on EULA provisions like this is really underdeveloped. I could see courts seeing this as anti-competitive. You probably can't make any kind of monopolist claim given that Apple market share is still low (for example hardware manufacturers claiming they are locked out of the market by Apple's linking its OS to its own).

Personally, I am suffering under the EULA provisions that make it hard to find a version of windows I can install on my MBA with parallels (all my xp disks are from like Dell and non-transferable, or like Windows 98, hard to install given they want a floppy disk).

 

[WannaGoMac]

i am sure apples lawyers are just salivating at this

Why does everyone keep posting this silly statement? Do you think Apple's staff lawyers don't have anything better to do than waste their time on a stupid case?

I bet you they are thinking, crap like I don't have enough to do, now I have to waste my time with these other morons...

 

[cohibadad]

I'm a little confused why so many people want Apple to succeed here.

because if they can't stop it with what they have in place now then they will stop it with something they will put in place in the future. And that something will almost certainly be more onerous for all of us. This piece of crap doesn't interest me at all. But the possible consequences do.

 

[Stella]

Microsoft tried to limit the ability to use windows software only in windows.

They failed in court, IRC.

Not that much different with hardware.

Apple had better play their cards right - they'll get lots of bad publicity, and parallels will be drawn ( again ) with microsoft.

 

[peterlobl]

Psystar site is up (sort of)

working slowly..
tried to fit out an "Open Computer" - but crashed out on way to checkout...

two different machines up there for sale, regular and premium...

url still refers to open computer as "openmac"

in the FAQ it states:

"Can I run updates on my Open Computer?
The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are not non-safe. It's best to check on InsanelyMac for this information but when in doubt don't update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update."

"About Psystar
Psystar Corporation believes that your business should run seamlessly and so should your IT. It doesn't work to shape your business around your information systems. We can shape your systems around your business. With over 30 years of combined experience in Enterprise-level systems, Psystar can provide secure information solutions to everyone–from the independent small-business owner to the global market providers. We can work with your systems and personnel to streamline your workflow and increase productivity and effectiveness.
Psystar has the ability to provide custom solutions ranging from web-based software to self-contained telephone switching systems and web-accessible surveillance systems. We can let you stay connected while being completely mobile in the fast-paced business world and placing a special emphasis on the security of your systems."



oh - they also sell surveillance equipment, SANs, Cisco VoIP phones and employee time clocks

 

[MrEFord]

I hate it when legal issues get thrown into the spotlight to be misinterpreted by so many.

If you want a succinct legal history of EULAs, go check out the wiki entry on it, it speaks about how courts have never determined whether EULAs in general are enforceable -- they've always assumed that they were, and that the key was whether certain provisions within the EULA were. Half the principle cases allowed the provisions challenged, while the others don't.

Considering that OS X as a product is protected both as a work under US Copyright law, which essentially allows the creators to sell or license it with as many or as little restrictions as possible, coupled with an EULA enforcing said copyright protections (I can see courts striking down arbitrarily harsh provisions, but not provisions that are made possibly through the US Copyright law. As so many of the other posters have said, it should be "interesting."

Despite the legal ramifications, does anyone remember the clone wars of the 90s? Remember how Apple almost went under because clones undercut them and Apple couldn't make a profit anymore and basically was near dead? Yeah, I'm sure we all want that to happen again. Let the clones back in, and that's exactly what will repeat. You can like it or hate it, but it's true.

 

[Wolf04]

I'm glad Psystar is challenging Apple in this matter. I'm tired of Apple's closed-mindset. They need to open up their OS if they want to succeed and not tie it down to their overpriced hardware.

 

[Sun Baked]

By the way, the notion that ipod and itunes go together is the precise cause of the European anti-trust suit against Apple. Please note that the American firms have lost many of their fights with Brussels as well.

Personally I think Apple should go after the knockout punch to the rest of the market like these countries want and make the MS DRM MP3 codecs available for purchase (or free) on their site.

That way there would be no need to buy a Dell MP3 player for the other music sites -- you'd be able to use the iPod everywhere, even on the MS DRM sites.

 

[MattInOz]

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?

No
I wouldn't buy the product.

On non-windows computers then I might consider the product on merit.

 

[xanthorp]

Competition is GOOD

I think some competition in the hardware area might help keep Apple on it's toes. Prices on Apple's towers have become too high.

 

[MidiMonk]

Its so ironic, that Microsoft got smacked sideways for anti-trust.Yet, Apple has basically done this all along with its closed system via hardware integration.Even outdid M$ and went a step further with Safari being forced down PC users throats without even a choice.


BTW, I have been a diehard Apple fan since the release of the IIe, I am NOT flaming just stating that this Apple(IMHO) is getting rotten to the core.Maybe that 1984 ad is coming true after all?

 

[jonnylink]

As someone already pointed out, the deal isn't that good. The *Open Computer* is just a lowend mac with a high chance of getting broken by updates. The price isn't even all that great compared to a mac mini.

I don't understand the argument for expandability either. If you want a low end computer just to upgrade it why not just skip the low end part and get the pro?

 

[NYCMacFan]

Its so ironic, that Microsoft got smacked sideways for anti-trust.Yet, Apple has basically done this all along with its closed system via hardware integration.Even outdid M$ and went a step further with Safari being forced down PC users throats without even a choice.

Purely because their market share is low. If 90% of the computers sold were Apple, other hardware manufacturers would sue them. But at that point, they'd make so much with the OS sales they would not care so much.

 

[Rocketman]

I think this boils down to personal or hobbiest use vs. commercial use. Apple can declare installation on alien hardware a warranty voiding event. They can seek a higher than normal price for commercial use on alien hardware. They have a history of not actively preventing hobbiest mis-use of their products, such as Apple TV and iPhone hacks.

But hacks will never be mainstream either.

As I said in the other thread they surely track how many illegal installs of OSX there are at a level above which a user has actually paid a license for (ie 10.5 vs 10.3). To date they have not prevented 2nd and 3rd and 4th copies of the same OS instance on genuine Apple hardware from logging on to software update and receiving full citizen status.

The use of alien hardware may bring out the "Gates" in Jobs. It will be interesting to watch. Apple could simply make a decision not to deal with the issue until EXAMPLES of commercial use are brought to their attention and go after the "low hanging fruit" of the legal battle.

Pretty much any lawsuit they file against this company would bankrupt it unless they have a salvo of pro bono attorneys lined up.

Rocketman

 

[Vulpinemac]

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?

Time for a little history lesson... going all the way back to 1980. A tiny electronics company built a desktop computer that looked a little bit like an Apple ][ and ran Apple's software perfectly. In fact, if you opened it up the motherboard looked identical to the Apple ]['s. It even used the old 6502 processor that Apple used.

Apple slapped them from one side of the courtroom to the other for one simple reason... the Franklin Ace computer was a direct copy of the Apple ][. After that battle, Franklin never again built a desktop computer, but they are now well-known for a huge variety of single-purpose information gadgets that are extremely economical.

Not long after, Microsoft came out with an operating system they called Windows. For the next 10 years, Apple maintained a lawsuit claiming that Windows was a direct steal of Apple's operating system; that it carried the "Look and Feel" of the Macintosh Operating System and would harm Apple's copyrights and business. By the end of that 10 years, Apple had lost on all but one point and the lawsuit was closed. Yes, Windows 95 was the end result of that lawsuit. And yes, Windows 95 was so much like Apple's OS 6 that I was able to teach people used to Win 3.1 how to use it.

Point is, Franklin copied the hardware and installed the OS; and got completely shot down. Now PsyStar is using nearly-compatible hardware and installing the OS. I expect similar results. Whether I want it so or not is beside the point. For Apple to keep the reputation it has for "It Just Works," then they have to control the hardware as tightly as they control the software; something they can't do if they permit 'clones.'

 

[Freyqq]

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.

honestly, they make more $ on ipods and iphones then macs. I bet they could make plenty selling the OS and selling hw. Try it with leopard. If it doesn't work, make 10.6 proprietary again.

 

[NYCMacFan]

i am sure apples lawyers are just salivating at this

No way. I see what you are saying, but think of this way:

Apple will probably win. But a win continues the status quo.

Unfortunately, a loss threatens a major strategy of the firm (and does not bode well for the career prospects of their outside attorney's or new general counsel).

Zero upside and significant downside.

 

[alex189a]

I've been using Macs since the days of the Quadras and just wanted to mention to all the converts that the car/road analogy in relation to Apple dates back to the mid-90s. It seems Psystar is following an old play book and reminds me a lot of Power Computing.

 

[jmadlena]

I think some competition in the hardware area might help keep Apple on it's toes. Prices on Apple's towers have become too high.

Aren't Apple's prices generally agreed upon to be cheaper than they used to? Wasn't the PowerBook G3 like $3200? If someone knows what the actually price, feel free to correct me.

 

[blinkdt]

Clearly, it's all about the hardware. If the upstart prevails then who knows? Apple's OS might actually become popular, loaded onto a well-equipped system it may prove something more than the marginal curiosity it is today.

 

[jjmaximum]

I haven't read every single post here, but I am surprised that nobody has mentioned the fact that certainly Apple has anticipated and fully expected a move like this from the day they decided to go Intel.

What their reaction is going to be is the real question.

 

[iLunar]

As someone already pointed out, the deal isn't that good. The *Open Computer* is just a lowend mac with a high chance of getting broken by updates. The price isn't even all that great compared to a mac mini.

I don't understand the argument for expandability either. If you want a low end computer just to upgrade it why not just skip the low end part and get the pro?

Because computer geeks are still stuck in 1988 when everything had to be "future-proof". We need room to upgrade to a superduperquadruple graphics 5000 processor, why doesn't Apple support this!!?

All the anti-trust arguments are bogus. The European feds got miffed about iTunes DRM only working on iPods and not other MP3 players, not because iPod+iTunes went together. iPods have always been open to other formats.

Microsoft got sued over anti-trust because their practices were anti-competitive. Apple, in no way, is anti-competitive. If someone else wants to release a product as good as OSX+hardware, they are more than welcome to do so. However, Apple is in no way obligated to open up OSX to other systems just because some people want cheaper hardware.

Closed systems exist everywhere. DVDs are a closed system. I can't buy a DVD and expect it to play on a VCR.

If some here don't like Apple's closed system, they are free to do their computing elsewhere. Apple is in no way forcing any of its users to use Apple computers. However, if you want OSX, then you run it on Apple hardware. That's the product.

Think of it as a Reese's peanut butter cup...I can go out and buy chocolate and peanut butter separately and make my own or I could buy them together as a Reese's. However, I can't just go and demand that Reese's provide THEIR peanut butter in case I want to use someone else's cheaper chocolate. At the same token, I can't resell Reese's recipe for peanut butter to use with another brand of chocolate. And now I'm done with this analogy and will never speak of it again