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?

job said:
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.
Click to expand...

Part of the power of OS X is that it and it's hardware is made by the same company. What makes you think that you could start building your own boxes with random parts like a PC and that Apple would support all of that hardware in OS X??? You ever heard of Windows? lol, is that what you want OS X to become??? I'll stick with Apple in software AND hardware thanx :)
 
Wolf04 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, because they are clearly not succeeding...:rolleyes:
 
mainstreetmark said:
Why is it so unreasonable that Apple wishes to protect their business model.

Leopard isn't $129 because that's what Leopard costs. Leopard costs $129 because it runs on hardware purchased from Apple, and the price takes into effect the hardware profits as well. This is quite well understood, I thought.

Apple is in the business of selling a product, which is "a computer with an operating system", and if someone comes along and undercuts with crappy hardware, it hurts Apple's model, and we'll wind up paying more for upgrades.

If you guys want "cheap" at the same time as "quality", then you haven't been in business for yourself yet. There's a saying: Cheap, Quality, Price. You only get to pick two.

And, in the end, if you don't want it, don't buy it. If Honda made cars and built roads, it's perfectly reasonable for them to not let other people on their roads. Ridiculous analogy.
Click to expand...

So by reading what you wrote microsoft is not breaking antitrust laws? They are protecting there business model! As they created an operating system that runs on all hardware designed for pc as long as there are drivers and that is there business model.

microsoft got in trouble for not including other browsers in there operating system, yet nobody is telling mac that they have to include internet explorer.

So according to what i read in this forum the law only applies to microsoft and not to apple, apple is above the law. Somebody came out and designed third party hardware for mac and didn't license it. Okay so there is the only issue i see is they don't have a certificate that doesn't exist and they have a monopoly on selling the mac system. Now if that ain't anti competetive i don't know what is. That is what a monopoly does. Microsoft never kept anybody from installing another software on there computer ibm never said that you can't install windows on an ibm computer you can only install os/2 on ibm so what is purposed is that apple is in all facts above the law cause they have an eula.
 
Let's not get carried away

Let's refer them to "Two Guys in Kendall"

You too can start a corporation for a $150 and host it out of your garage. However, this isn't Bill and Dave(HP) or Steve and Steve, it's a couple of tools who build Hackintoshes after they got fired from Tiger Direct.

Selling Leopard preinstalled for $155, without physical media I bet, can probably qualify them for some non-EULA related problems.

Fight Apple in court? Not in a million years.

For your perusal:


Corporate Records from:

http://sunbiz.org
PSYSTAR CORPORATION
Document #P07000077580

Registered Agent Name & Address
PEDRAZA, RODOLFO
10645 SW 112 ST
MIAMI FL 33176 US
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address
Title D
PEDRAZA, RODOLFO
10645 SW 112 ST
MIAMI FL 33176
Title D
PEDRAZA, ROBERTO
10645 SW 112 ST
MIAMI FL 33176

from:
http://miamidade.gov

Single family house listed as principal place of business:

Folio Number: 30 * 50080030480
UNINC. DADE CO.
Owner's Name: *ANTONIO ARBELAEZ &W NELLY
Property Address: *10645 SW 112 ST
______

"Robert" from the article is most likely Roberto and they have listed themselves as their own registered agent, which means they don't even have a lawyer. Further who wants to bet they don't even have a Miami-Dade business license?
 
jjmaximum said:
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.
Click to expand...

They have a history of licensing the OS to clone makers, and obviously haven't done that in this case.

They even changed their EULA after the clones to keep the OS off unlicensed machines.

Simply Psystar cannot produce a similar contract to the Power Computing/Daystar/Motorola/etc. OS license.

The offer to pre-install the Mac OS on the machine sort of doomed them.

Compatible with the Open OSx86 specifications and sending the Mac OS X copy on a separate order/credit card charge may have helped keep them out of hot water.
 
Vulpinemac said:
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.
Click to expand...
As an historical side-note, it's worth mentioning VTech and their Laser 128 series - which was priced competitively, superior in features, of excellent build quality, and totally legal due to clever reverse-engineering. It was successful, so successful that Apple was compelled to respond with the Apple //c Plus, which wasn't much of a response at all.
 
Prices on Apple's towers have become too high
Click to expand...

While I agree that they are expensive. I think generally they are worth the price.

A person who NEEDS that computing power can AFFORD that computing power. They are not consumer machines

I own a macbook pro (got it from work thankfully).
 
headstew said:
So according to what i read in this forum the law only applies to microsoft and not to apple, apple is above the law. Somebody came out and designed third party hardware for mac and didn't license it. Okay so there is the only issue i see is they don't have a certificate that doesn't exist and they have a monopoly on selling the mac system. Now if that ain't anti competetive i don't know what is. That is what a monopoly does. Microsoft never kept anybody from installing another software on there computer ibm never said that you can't install windows on an ibm computer you can only install os/2 on ibm so what is purposed is that apple is in all facts above the law cause they have an eula.
Click to expand...

How can Apple have a monopoly with less than 6% of computer market share?
 
job said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it's not win/win. It's the end of Apple computer. Try remembering your Apple history for once. It was already tried in the '90s and it almost killed Apple. If you're confused as to why so many people want Apple to succeed in killing this abortion I am REALLY confused as to why you want to see the demise of Apple, Inc. just so you can run OS X on crappy hardware which, by the way, will sully the reputation of OS X and do irreparable harm to the brand. :(
 
I dont think Apple has any right to force me to a specific hardware setup.

I find it humorous how many here seem to think Apple would crumble if 3rd parties built osx ready systems, yet, MS gets railed for attempting this near impossible task and judging by market share, generally succeeded. Sure Vista sucks compared to Leopard but their philosophy of allowing their os be installed on anything has given them huge profits and a very large customer base.

If Apple played their cards right, they could possibly capitalize on this in some way unlike their previous attempt. The move to intel made this inevitable so why not have a plan to address it in a more consumer friendly way rather than DRM or making it explode on install? Hell, a more expensive version and a high level of support for a certain cost?

Users who purchase this system would likely go in with the understanding they will get no love from apple themselves in terms of support.

If a lawsuit stopped Psystar from marketing against Mac machines then i assume they would just market them differently. No biggie but the free marketing is underway.
 
iLunar said:
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 :p
Click to expand...

Wow where do you come up with this crap. So what would happen if windows went to this business model? So let me see do you think that if microsoft said we are just going to go with dell and are no longer going to use any other distributers that the government would not call that anti-competetive. I am not a mac user so i am a little biased but so are you on the opposite. Do i believe apple has a right to create there own software from an opensource software then turn around and tell me that i can't run it on whatever hardware i want. No.

Remember darwin which all new mac is. Was driven from the hell fires of mt debian. They are long lost cousins guess what that is gpl software ain't it? So technically since they make there money selling a gui that goes on linux? Hrm and sell you linux on top of it a free software that seems kinda sick and wrong you are charging me for something that is free.

That is just my prespective. And microsoft is really stifling the development of an opensource version of thier software that is based on the winnt kernle and guess what it is getting close. So who is the big bad bully now non other than your favorite fan boy club mac
 
While I can't find and specific reference I have a feeling this company might have venture backing for this - which would greatly increase their chances if my feeling proves true.

Oh and I love how people who have no clue are commenting on how Apple will win/lose.
 
I suppose part of it is that the Mac OS is sold separately. Maybe Apple could embed the OS as firmware separate from your hard-drive and any other installed software. Flash updates.
 
iLunar said:
How can Apple have a monopoly with less than 6% of computer market share?
Click to expand...

they have 100% of the mac share in the pc world there is linux there is windows there is unix so there is no 100% for microsoft on mac there is only 1 and it is mac so that is a monopoly when nobody else has access
 
While I can't find and specific reference I have a feeling this company might have venture backing for this - which would greatly increase their chances if my feeling proves true.

Oh and I love how people who have no clue on law are commenting on how Apple will win/lose.
 
tsd said:
My prediction: Psystar will fall.
Click to expand...

As will consumers. You guys make me sick at the level of brown nosing that goes on. :mad: Apple DOES have a monopoly in a weird sense. There are apps that I simply can not run on a PC simply due to artificial restrictions put in place by a draconian company.
 
Vulpinemac said:
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.
Click to expand...

Franklin copied Apple's ROMs. This is a completely different issue.

As much as it may be hard to admit, the modern Intel-powered Mac is nothing more than a PC with a DRM chip to restrict OS X from installing on any other company's computers.

The DRM chip itself isn't even Apple-proprietary. What the chip contains, however, is copyrighted: a poem that OS X checks for before it decides to start. This is analogous to the data stored in the old Apple ROM that Franklin copied. In this case, the hackers aren't copying Apple's copyrighted data; they're bypassing it altogether.

It is not illegal by any stretch of the imagination to sell a bundle containing standard PC hardware and a legit, retail package of Mac OS X. Anyone who says differently is outright lying and should be laughed out of whichever forum they post in.

Providing the user agrees to the Apple license agreement, and providing the user is fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the installation, it is then not illegal for a third-party to perform installation services in his or her stead. To protect themselves from legal liability, resellers will draft a service contract which requires the end-user to read, accept, and sign prior to any services being rendered.

The third-party does not agree to the EULA. That's why it's called an "end-user" license agreement. The legal burden is on the end-user, not the reseller, and as long as the end-user completely understands this prior to sale, Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Long story short: Since Apple can't legally stop this from happening en masse, expect further software or even hardware DRM restrictions on future versions of Mac OS X.
 
job said:
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.
Click to expand...

But you are so wrong.
The reason the Mac OS is so stable and basically great is it's tight integration with the hardware.
If Apple was obliged to make an operating system that would work on all types of hardware then you end up with the Windows problem.

I'm just as confused as to why people like you don't get it and are against it.
If you want a cheap box computer with a so so OS by a Windows box :confused:
 
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