Psystar to Challenge Mac OS X EULA?

[ChrisA]

...Mac OS users would have the same stupid issues that a lot of Windows users have: software driver issues. Part of what makes that Mac so easy to service is that the driver issue is almost non-existent.

Linux and BSD are good counter examples. Both a even more stable than Mac OS X and they run on every computer known to mankind Intel, IBM main frames, wrist watches (yes literally) Sun SPARCs We are not just talking different graphic or network cards but completely different kinds of computers. Linux and BSD work on all of this as well as mac OS runs on Apple hardware.

The reason Windows has trouble is because of the way Microsoft keeps it locked up. (warning car analogy) Microsoft ships cars with the hood welded shut. Of course they are hard to fix. Mac OS is mostly Open Source and very, very mature. It could run on as may systems as BSD UNIX because under the desktop it is BSD UNIX.

 

[nagromme]

Linux and BSD are good counter examples. Both a even more stable than Mac OS X and they run on every computer known to mankind Intel, IBM main frames, wrist watches (yes literally) Sun SPARCs We are not just talking different graphic or network cards but completely different kinds of computers. Linux and BSD work on all of this as well as mac OS runs on Apple hardware.

The reason Windows has trouble is because of the way Microsoft keeps it locked up. (warning car analogy) Microsoft ships cars with the hood welded shut. Of course they are hard to fix. Mac OS is mostly Open Source and very, very mature. It could run on as may systems as BSD UNIX because under the desktop it is BSD UNIX.

There's some truth to what you say, but OS X does a LOT more than Linux and BSD. You can't just say OS X "is" BSD, and therefore it doesn't have any unique features, challenges, or complexities. It does.

And I for one don't want Apple spending the time Microsoft spends making all those additional features work on unpredictable hardware configs. I also don't want them spending the time to TEST their work on unpredictable configs. I don't want their innovation or their development work slowed down, made more complex, less stable, more limited, or more bloated than it already is. That's my personal bias. There may be a happy medium that Apple will experiment with some day, and if so I'll be nervous but it will be interesting to see.

The way I see it is, I like CHOICE. And one choice that I think should exist in the world is to have hardware and software well-designed together as a whole. That's not the only choice--I'm glad there are others. But I think it's an option worth keeping around (Some who talk about user choice want to take AWAY the option of having hardware and software designed as one, or want to make that option less good than it currently is. Ironic.)

 

[ratherdashing]

Wow

How can so many people (or 1 person a lot of times) miss the point.

I have personally built many a Hackintosh and can tell you from my experience that it is not easy. With every update there is a chance that Apple could brick your computer...which is why I have several builds (development/production) on the same machine. It took many h/w attempts to build the perfect box and these IDIOTS didn't nail it, and I will swear by that. Even if they built a box that CAN run 10.5...it doesn't mean that it will in when 10.5.3 comes out.

Apple will simply release an update that ruins it for us all...not just people who buy this box. And while those of us who do this for fun will find a way around it, the people who buy these boxes will not....then they will take their unsupported box to Apple and yell and scream.

Next, as others have said...Apple will develop a means for authenticating your copy of OS X...something that we Mac users have happily NEVER had to deal with. Then people will line up and say that Apple is the new Microsoft...yadda yadda yadda.

I've worked with Apple in the gov't and public for years and can say that this will help no one...it will only hurt Apple's mainstream acceptance. More importantly it will screw over hobbyists who have fun with the "Hackintosh" concept...thanks a lot you idiots at Psystar. And for anyone who thinks this will help their marketing, do you really think they'll be remembered within a month? They'll merely be remembered as the morons who ruined it for us all.


Also, in addition to my multiple hackintoshes...I've been a proud Apple owner since an Apple IIGS and my family currently has 6 macs...I hope that Apple legal succeeds so that Apple Engineering doesn't get involved...

 

[OhEsTen]

As will consumers. You guys make me sick at the level of brown nosing that goes on. 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.

Then don't use them if you feel the company is draconian... vote with your pocket book if you feel that strongly about it... my guess though is that you'd rather bitch about it...

 

[hotshotharry]

Maybe this will remind apple not to get complacent, and be proof enough that many people really do want a normal desktop computer with cheaper desktop parts, even if it wont fit in your jacket pocket!!! Of ourse apple is free to make it more appealing and quiet ( hell maybe even half he size or something)

Does everything really need to be miniature? Apple needs something with 4 core power between the light weight mini and the power house mac pro! for around the thousand dollar mark!

 

[marvelouspatric]

cheaper? not really....

i love how they say it's cheaper than the mac mini because it's only $399, but if you actually try to buy one, you have to add Leopard for $155. let's see.. that's $554. okay... so you save $44.

of course, to be fair, the open does have a faster processor and a lightscribe dvd burner. oh, but it doesn't have any firewire ports. those are 50 bucks extra. so then you're back up to... $604?

interestingly (to me at least) was when I popped in a better video card and firewire, i got the price up to $714. if i put in 4gb of RAM instead of 2, then the price was $814.99.

i'm not convinced they're really the cheaper alternative they claim.

patric

 

[stevenfarrisohi]

What lessons prevail?

If we learn anything from this experience it is that the pricing of Apple computers is too steep! The marketing strategy of any organization is pricing. When you dominate a market in which you have a stronghold as to what you set your price point of your product to be. If anything, this is a educational piece for us as consumers.

 

[OhEsTen]

if you don't like windows on a pc you can have linux but if you don't like the hardware a mac poseses you can't buy different hardware and run it on that cause apple says so that is monopoly if ever i heard one.

Apple created their own product - they can dictate how their product is packaged, shipped and sold - that is true of all companies. That is NOT a monopoly. If you don't like how Apple chooses to package, ship and sell then don't buy one - that is your choice and if you really believed your own b.s. you'd practice that.

 

[SkyBell]

A user made a comment a few pages back, stating that if Apple chose to do so, they could restrict OS X to a certain kind of processor. Think PPC. In fact, they might even go back to PPC if by some miracle Psystar wins this case (if there even is a case) Does anyone think Apple would actually do something like this, so soon after the Intel switch? I mean, I could see going back to PPC in 5 years or so, but this soon...

 

[aLoC]

That's fine unless they *sell* it to you. You've exchanged your hard-earned money for their hard work. What did you get for your $129? Some would say the right to do whatever you want with what you bought, so long as you're not breaking further laws.

You should only get what Apple agrees to give you. If they don't want to give you unlimited usage they shouldn't have to. Since it wouldn't exist but for them they should get to decide.

 

[batchtaster]

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.

ROFLMAO

Ah mercy... that was a good one. "Same great experience"... I enjoyed that, thank you very much.

Linux and BSD are good counter examples. Both a even more stable than Mac OS X and they run on every computer known to mankind Intel, IBM main frames, wrist watches (yes literally) Sun SPARCs We are not just talking different graphic or network cards but completely different kinds of computers. Linux and BSD work on all of this as well as mac OS runs on Apple hardware.

And you can do what with them? And run how many programs? And use how many devices? And only have to go into the shell how many times? And recompile stuff how often?

 

[bokdol]

A user made a comment a few pages back, stating that if Apple chose to do so, they could restrict OS X to a certain kind of processor. Think PPC. In fact, they might even go back to PPC if by some miracle Psystar wins this case (if there even is a case) Does anyone think Apple would actually do something like this, so soon after the Intel switch? I mean, I could see going back to PPC in 5 years or so, but this soon...

no i dont think so but there might be arguments for serial keys and other drm structure.
intel has become there bread and butter. probably cheaper the the ppc too.

 

[Beric]

A user made a comment a few pages back, stating that if Apple chose to do so, they could restrict OS X to a certain kind of processor. Think PPC. In fact, they might even go back to PPC if by some miracle Psystar wins this case (if there even is a case) Does anyone think Apple would actually do something like this, so soon after the Intel switch? I mean, I could see going back to PPC in 5 years or so, but this soon...

No way. They've gotten so many customers based on the fact you can run Windows on a Mac. Switching back to PPC would KILL sales.

 

[Saladinos]

I do hope for their sake that they are including a fully licensed version of OSX with each machine rather than something they just found on piratebay.

Or else this will be a very short case.

 

[Jpoon]

I like my PC for playing games.

Luckily, I didn't have to pay 2k for a Mac Pro to do that effectively.

OS X is awesome for my lappy, but it's still not going to be my home tower. The amount of time it probably takes me to build a system and get it working correctly probably equals out to the time it would take me to raise the money to buy a Mac Pro. But do I get more satisfaction in knowing that I spent less money on a system with better hardware per dollar? Yes.

I love my MB for on the go and general media and productivity, but I'm certainly not going to drop 2K+ just to play games at a better than average level. And no, I hate consoles. Not going there.

Until Apple provides the niche of people that would like to game on their Mac *and not have to use BootCamp to get the best performance,* then I'll continue to use XP and Vista (when DX11 gets utilized) for getting the best performance out of current gaming titles.

/troll and anti MS posts go I don't care.

But, dumb people will go for options like this mac clone to get a cheaper solution to an iMac to even get "acceptable" performance out of video games. Really, the Mini is way overpriced right now. And who actually needs that small of a machine for their home computer? Does everyone live in a studio apartment where the bathroom is the kitchen? Consumers with half a head on their shoulders will build a gaming PC at half the cost of a PRO and get about the same performance graphics wise. Sure, you deal with the headache of configuring it, but whatever.

 

[SkyBell]

Here is a post from the other thread, I highly encourage you to read it;

You hit on the key problem of Apple in 2008. Nearly all CPUs use the same instruction set, so that software is fundamentally independent of hardware. Yet Apple is forcing customers to buy their hardware to use their software. There are many different US laws which forbid this practice.

There is no one buying Apple hardware and running a different *base* OS on it, even though Apple makes that extremely easy. This demonstrates their illegal market leverage.

It also demonstrates a horrible double-standard. Apple encourages you to install other OS on its hardware. Yet it forbids you to isntall Mac OS on other hardware. Total hypocrisy which WILL matter in court. There can only be one standard. If Psy is guilty of some kind of bad practice, then Apple is guilty of the same bad practice on a massive scale.

Apple has *always* made their money on hardware and their market share on software. Always. No one cared when they had 3% market share. Now that they are filling the Vista gap (along with Linux), people do care.

Microsoft clearly demonstrated that you can make a fortune simply by selling an OS. It doesn't even have to be good. Judging by the quality of the current Mac lineup, the best thing that Apple could do would be to *stop making hardware* and facilitate the Mac OS for all the major manufacturers like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc.

Apple's costs would be a tiny fraction and their revenues would be comparable. Microsoft gets a huge license fee for every copy of XP - Apple is still trying to get that money by building overheated, underpowered, unexpandable desktops out of laptop parts (iMac).

 

[Jpoon]

Here is a post from the other thread, I highly encourage you to read it;

God thank you, so much. /agree

Sure, there would be driver issues with literally every piece of hardware.
but, the option is there for people to decide what they want.

 

[Saladinos]

Let's say the EULA said, "by purchasing this software you agree to let Apple take your first-born child." Would Apple then be able to legally do so? You bought it, so you agreed, right?

I imagine that Apple is not within their legal rights (I hope...) to take any of your children just because their EULA that you agreed to said they could – especially if the EULA is inside the box when you purchase it rather than something you can read on the outside.

How this relates to the discussion is that so many people are ranting about how the contract is valid if you and apple both agree to it, but that's not necessarily the case. The agreement has to be reasonable. I'm not saying that what they put in their EULA is not legally binding; that's for the courts to decide. But what Arn and many of the seemingly more level-headed people are saying is that the topic isn't so black-and-white...

Personally I think I should be able to install software I purchase on whatever I want*–*if I can get it to work myself. The software company has no obligation to give me technical support, but I feel I should have that right, just as I should have the right to modify the code of any software I buy, as long as I don't resell the "improved" version as my own.

In addition, I'm just wondering what you guys think I'm within my rights to do if I find a copy of OSX on the street or in a trashcan. I haven't purchased it, so technically I wouldn't be bound to the EULA (if it is legal). But I can still install it. Or maybe I can't (legally)? I don't know. I would think that since the product has an infinite lifespan (it's not something that is revoked after a year of purchase unless you renew it), then I would be able to install it. Maybe not though.

You see, this is what people get when they don't understand how the law works. A judge has the power to overrule anything he or she deems unfair or inappropriate. A judge has the power to order Apple to allow OSX installations on 3rd party machines (although they'd no doubt appeal it).

It doesn't matter what you agree to, doesn't mean it'll stand up in a court of law. Apple or any company can make all the ridiculous provisions they like in a contract, and you can agree to it and break it; but if a judge thinks they overstepped their bounds, or that their policy is wrong, he'll overrule it.

That said, Apple can win this case if they can convince the judge that limiting OSX to Mac hardware is essential to the experience of the software. They could make the case very easily that they don't have the resources to develop drivers for unapproved hardware, and that the overall experience of the system would be degraded by running it on hardware you cobbled together in a shed.

 

[Benton]

See Who Is Psystar

Filing Information
Document Number P07000077580
FEI Number NONE
Date Filed 07/06/2007
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Effective Date 07/01/2007
Principal Address
10645 SW 112 ST
MIAMI FL 33176
Mailing Address
10645 SW 112 ST
MIAMI FL 33176
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
Annual Reports
No Annual Reports Filed

 

[RacerX]

Well, this should be interesting... though this won't be litigated based on a EULA, but instead on the grounds that they are circumventing measures in place that control access to Mac OS X. Specifically, Apple hardware is a physical dongle enabling the users to use the operating system. Your purchase of Apple hardware is your access to the Mac OS. Boxed copies of the OS are strictly upgrades for the OS that originally came with your Apple hardware.

Any companies selling hardware with the Mac OS installed without the express permission of Apple are circumventing measures Apple put into place to protect it's software. And I think we should all be quite aware that these types of circumvention are expressly forbidden by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

In short... these guys are screwed.

 

[kresh]

You see, this is what people get when they don't understand how the law works. A judge has the power to overrule anything he or she deems unfair or inappropriate. A judge has the power to order Apple to allow OSX installations on 3rd party machines (although they'd no doubt appeal it).

It doesn't matter what you agree to, doesn't mean it'll stand up in a court of law. Apple or any company can make all the ridiculous provisions they like in a contract, and you can agree to it and break it; but if a judge thinks they overstepped their bounds, or that their policy is wrong, he'll overrule it.

Yep, my brother went around for 6 months after passing the bar muttering "A contract is not a contract, until a judge says it's a contract". I always assumed he was just trying to drum up business.

 

[stevegmu]

Filing Information
Document Number P07000077580
FEI Number NONE
Date Filed 07/06/2007
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Effective Date 07/01/2007
Principal Address
10645 SW 112 ST
MIAMI FL 33176
Mailing Address
10645 SW 112 ST
MIAMI FL 33176
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
Annual Reports
No Annual Reports Filed

I was on a site reading about this, and someone looked up their 'business' address, and it is a residence. Maybe it is just a front or a scam.

 

[dskoziol]

Yet another nonsense argument. The EULA deals with the product you have purchased and nothing else. Apple owns OSX, you don't. Bottom line. You just have the right to install it on your computer. But by no means do you own OSX. And I love your find it in a trash can analogy. LOL. The EULA comes up once you run the DVD in your computer. How does finding it in a trash can get you out of accepting the EULA? (rhetorical question, please don't answer)

Why nonsense? I'm just giving an extreme example to show that Apple isn't allowed to just put anything and make it legally binding, especially if it restricts freedoms. And I didn't say that what they put is not within their jurisdiction. I just said it was up to debate and not a closed case.

And for the trash can hypothetical (which is different from an analogy), I was just asking for people's opinion; I didn't remember that the EULA is again shown when you put the CD in, so that's a good point. There's no need for the caustic tone...

 

[ChrisA]

But by no means do you own OSX. And I love your find it in a trash can analogy. LOL. The EULA comes up once you run the DVD in your computer. How does finding it in a trash can get you out of accepting the EULA? (rhetorical question, please don't answer)

You are right in that I don't "own Mac OS X" but it is in exactly the same way as I don't own "Lord of the Rings" but only own a copy of the book. What rights does the Tolkien estate have over what I can do with the book? A few. they can prohibit me from making copies and selling the copies or they could grant me permission as thay have with several book printers. But can they tell me not to read it after 10pm? No. There are limits to what the Tolkien estate can do. Same with Apple. Apple has only limited ability to say what you can do with the copy of mac OS X that you bought. It is easy to think of things Apple can request of you (not to sell copies) and it is easy to think of things they can't ask (that user must eat a chicken for each re-boot)

If we can agree that there is even one unreasonable request that Apple might make then there must also be a "grey area" filled with things Apple may or may not be able request. The only way to eliminate the grey area is to assert that any request Apple makes is by definition within their rights (even chicken eating)

As soon as you admit to the possibility of a grey area then you can question every part of the EULA and ask "is this part white, grey or black?"

Many people Apple's right to tell you what hardware you can use. My un-educated guess is that courts will go both ways

 

[Choppaface]

That being said, Robert's loose use of the word "monopoly" and car/road analogy does not necessarily inspire confidence in his legal prowess.

Wow, such a neutral and professional portrayal of Robert!

I don't care if he's a douche, if blog-journalism is to be taken seriously and treated more than just an economic phenomenon, then news coverage needs to be relentlessly even-handed.