Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Psystar Working on Mac OS X Netbook?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Here's something to consider....
If Microsoft changed their EULA would they be able to stop Apple from using their bootcamp software in the future?? It's the same concept. The EULA should not dictate every aspect of software licenses.
If Microsoft changed their EULA would they be able to stop Apple from using their bootcamp software in the future?? It's the same concept. The EULA should not dictate every aspect of software licenses.
Possibly. The problem here is that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist and defiantly has market power that Apple does not.
Its not really going to happen since MS makes more money on full retail licenses of Windows (for Bootcamp or virtualization) than their OEM licensing with PC vendors. They would be out a lot of money outside of risking another goverment investigation of Anti-trust
Anything can be hacked, cracked and copied. That's the fact of the matter. If Apple decided to make it more difficult to copy OS X, they would achieve the following result:
1. Making genuine Apple costumers' daily computer life miserable.
2. OS X would be cracked and copied anyway. Microsoft's copy protections hasn't done them any damn good through the years.
I honestly don't think we (or Apple) should care too much that someone out there tries to install OS X on their non-Apple computers. By that I don't mean that someone is selling their products like Psystar does, but does it all on his/her own. Why? (another list)
1. Apple doesn't have to support it in any way, i.e. no extra costs on Apple's side.
2. If it fails, and it problaby will, it's not Apple's fault.
3. People who do this are problaby not that interested in buying a genuine Apple product anyway, so the market loss is minimal.
Apple should worry the day these clones (Hackintoshes) start working better than their own computers. And when I say better, I mean that updates work, all functions work seamlessly, no hassles, simple reinstalls etc. As of today, this is not the case. Hackintosh is a toy for techies who enjoy fiddling with hardware and software, and we're outnumbered in the grand scheme of things.
I'd like to echo a few sentiments.
First of all, there is nothing particularly interesting about Psystar. You can build a hackintosh yourself and get the same or better results. Either way, you're pretty much on your own if Apple breaks compatibility in an update.
I own pretty much all Apple hardware. For me, the hardware is a pretty important part of my daily experience as I spend my whole day on the computer for my job.
I have a marvelous brand new, 24" iMac on my desk which is quite-frankly... beautiful. It takes up almost no room. There is no tower for me to bang my legs into under my desk, and it's actually portable enough that I can move it to my kitchen if need be. It's an amazing desktop computer.
My MacBook Pro. I will admit, from a quality perspective, it's a piece of crap. Why? Well, because almost every single component has been replaced in it since I bought it. Originally I had build-quality issues, with the screen not latching, so the Apple Store had to replace the whole screen module, then the audio card stopped working, so they had to replace the left I/O board, then OS X started crashing all the time... turns out it was bad memory--actually no it wasn't--was a bad memory controller, as I put the memory into my wife's MacBook and ran the diagnostics on that one... and the memory passed... so the whole logic board had to be replaced. Then the paint on the topcase started chipping, so the topcase was replaced. Then one day, my SuperDrive just stopped ejecting... and mind-you... I'd probably the drive all-of 5 times in the whole life the laptop... and to top it all off... weird blotchy marks started appearing in the LCD screen, which Apple recently replaced again under AppleCare... luckily I have the 3-years.
I actually sent a letter to Apple explaining that this is the biggest piece of **** computer I've ever owned. I've never owned another computer, PC or Mac, that has had the amount of defects this MBP has, but that didn't stop me from going and buying a new unibody for my wife.
I'm a sucker for the Apple aesthetic. And that's worth something to me.
As for the whole EULA thing... I have to be honest with you... I've never really been a fan of the idea that someone can sell you something, take your money, and then place limits on how you can utilize that purchase.
Microsoft sells OEM copies of it's operating system, and then says they are "non-transferrable licenses". Which is to say, the very first computer you install it on, is the only computer you may ever install it on again. If you are to take the copy off the computer, and then install it on another computer, according to Microsoft, you've violated the EULA and violated their intellectual property rights.
The OS X EULA is essentially the same dilemma. It's something they will actually take your money for, and then describe how you can use it.
The people who say that it's "against the law" the violate the EULA are not quite correct. Rather, this is a contentious issue in law. And there are principles in the Universal Commercial Code which seem to suggest that the EULA cannot enjoin you into usage limitations of a purchased product.
On the other hand, there have been some judgements that have suggested that clickwrap licenses are valid contractual arrangements between two parties. But there have also been some judgements that cast some doubt on the absolute nature of what that means.
For example: a contract between two individuals cannot override a legal statute. For example: if there is a law that says: if you sell someone something, they own it, and they can do what they want with it (which technically there is, in the UCC), you can then not have a contract which essentially overrides the legal principle saying: I will sell you this, and then you have to agree to never use it for X purpose.
The one case where Microsoft tried to hold up that principle against a vendor who was violating the OEM EULA by transferring the licenses, was unsuccessful. The court ruled that Microsoft did not have the right to limit the use of the software to the computer of first installation indefinitely. And that the only reasonable limitation in copyright which could be upheld, was that Microsoft could restrict you to "one active copy", meaning, you couldn't simply buy one copy and install it on many computers. That restriction was seen as consistent with both UCC codes and copyright.
It should be noted that book publishers in the 19th century tried to engage in this exact same behavior; the argument was made by some publishers (they even put disclaimers on the inner cover) that by purchasing the book you agree not to give the book to anyone else. Essentially saying: everyone has to own their own copy if they want to read it; lending a book to your friend was a violation of the "license agreement" between you and book publisher if you will.
Yet we all know today, such arguments do not hold up in court.
It's funny how most people seem to think that software contains a "special" quality that is different from books, artistic works, and all other forms of good that makes it somehow legal for copyright holders to demand compliance with usage restrictions, where the argument has never worked in any other context.
First of all, there is nothing particularly interesting about Psystar. You can build a hackintosh yourself and get the same or better results. Either way, you're pretty much on your own if Apple breaks compatibility in an update.
I own pretty much all Apple hardware. For me, the hardware is a pretty important part of my daily experience as I spend my whole day on the computer for my job.
I have a marvelous brand new, 24" iMac on my desk which is quite-frankly... beautiful. It takes up almost no room. There is no tower for me to bang my legs into under my desk, and it's actually portable enough that I can move it to my kitchen if need be. It's an amazing desktop computer.
My MacBook Pro. I will admit, from a quality perspective, it's a piece of crap. Why? Well, because almost every single component has been replaced in it since I bought it. Originally I had build-quality issues, with the screen not latching, so the Apple Store had to replace the whole screen module, then the audio card stopped working, so they had to replace the left I/O board, then OS X started crashing all the time... turns out it was bad memory--actually no it wasn't--was a bad memory controller, as I put the memory into my wife's MacBook and ran the diagnostics on that one... and the memory passed... so the whole logic board had to be replaced. Then the paint on the topcase started chipping, so the topcase was replaced. Then one day, my SuperDrive just stopped ejecting... and mind-you... I'd probably the drive all-of 5 times in the whole life the laptop... and to top it all off... weird blotchy marks started appearing in the LCD screen, which Apple recently replaced again under AppleCare... luckily I have the 3-years.
I actually sent a letter to Apple explaining that this is the biggest piece of **** computer I've ever owned. I've never owned another computer, PC or Mac, that has had the amount of defects this MBP has, but that didn't stop me from going and buying a new unibody for my wife.
I'm a sucker for the Apple aesthetic. And that's worth something to me.
As for the whole EULA thing... I have to be honest with you... I've never really been a fan of the idea that someone can sell you something, take your money, and then place limits on how you can utilize that purchase.
Microsoft sells OEM copies of it's operating system, and then says they are "non-transferrable licenses". Which is to say, the very first computer you install it on, is the only computer you may ever install it on again. If you are to take the copy off the computer, and then install it on another computer, according to Microsoft, you've violated the EULA and violated their intellectual property rights.
The OS X EULA is essentially the same dilemma. It's something they will actually take your money for, and then describe how you can use it.
The people who say that it's "against the law" the violate the EULA are not quite correct. Rather, this is a contentious issue in law. And there are principles in the Universal Commercial Code which seem to suggest that the EULA cannot enjoin you into usage limitations of a purchased product.
On the other hand, there have been some judgements that have suggested that clickwrap licenses are valid contractual arrangements between two parties. But there have also been some judgements that cast some doubt on the absolute nature of what that means.
For example: a contract between two individuals cannot override a legal statute. For example: if there is a law that says: if you sell someone something, they own it, and they can do what they want with it (which technically there is, in the UCC), you can then not have a contract which essentially overrides the legal principle saying: I will sell you this, and then you have to agree to never use it for X purpose.
The one case where Microsoft tried to hold up that principle against a vendor who was violating the OEM EULA by transferring the licenses, was unsuccessful. The court ruled that Microsoft did not have the right to limit the use of the software to the computer of first installation indefinitely. And that the only reasonable limitation in copyright which could be upheld, was that Microsoft could restrict you to "one active copy", meaning, you couldn't simply buy one copy and install it on many computers. That restriction was seen as consistent with both UCC codes and copyright.
It should be noted that book publishers in the 19th century tried to engage in this exact same behavior; the argument was made by some publishers (they even put disclaimers on the inner cover) that by purchasing the book you agree not to give the book to anyone else. Essentially saying: everyone has to own their own copy if they want to read it; lending a book to your friend was a violation of the "license agreement" between you and book publisher if you will.
Yet we all know today, such arguments do not hold up in court.
It's funny how most people seem to think that software contains a "special" quality that is different from books, artistic works, and all other forms of good that makes it somehow legal for copyright holders to demand compliance with usage restrictions, where the argument has never worked in any other context.
Since they don't make hardware, and they do sell OS packages to run on any compatible platform, that wouldn't be likely. Where MS is impacted, is when OEM-included software disks from Dell, etc. are being repurposed for Bootcamp or VM applications.
Anything can be hacked/cracked it is just a matter of how much work is involved and how complex that work is or how annoying the results are, that determines how often it will occur. If it costs a lot of $$$ as you need special equipment for every hack/crack then the occurance is very small, the easier and cheaper it is the higher probability of Joe Average doing it.
With the Win 7 RC it is free to use through June of 2010 or so, after which the system will reboot every 2 hours until you install a true licensed copy of Win 7 or install some other OS. So it rates high on the easiness scale but also rates very high on the annoyance scale once the free time expires.
I think you're wrong about this. When I bought my desktop I was interested in Apple although I had no experience with OS X. Unfortunately, the mac minis were/are underpowered, the iMacs were/are non-expandable, and the Mac Pros were/are overpowered. Instead, I bought a nice quad-core PC and installed a store-bought OS X on it. As it turned out, I liked the OS so I bought a macbook when it became time for a new laptop.
Naturally, I think that it makes good business sense to ignore the hackintosh community. The only thing to make more business sense would be to provide the customers with the products they want
Not the same situation at all. Apple is a hardware vendor. A competing hardware vendor using Apple's technology in breach of the EULA costs them money.
Microsoft on the other hand just doesn't care. Windows on a Mac doesn't rob them of anything at all. It even makes them more money.
It doesn't. Intellectual Property law, however, does. The EULA is only a part of that.
Every case has to be considered on its own merits. The main difference is whether the supplier of the operating system has market power or not. Microsoft has about 90% of the operating system market, that means market power. Apple has maybe 5% of that market, so it has no market power. So if Microsoft put into its EULA "you mustn't run Windows on any Apple computer" and Apple put into its EULA "you mustn't run MacOS X on any Microsoft computer", the amount of market power would make a lot of difference.
There is another difference: Apple doesn't specifically exclude Psystar and allows others to use MacOS X; allowing Dell and HP to install Windows and not allowing Apple to do the same thing _might_ make a legal difference.
Actually it is not debatable. the issue has already been tried by Psystar and the courts declared that there was no illegal tying because Apple lacks the market power AND hardware and operating software are essentially related products because one is no good without some form of the other. So Apple currently has every right to restrict the hardware supported by their operating system.
what they can NOT do is restrict the email, web surfing, chatting, word processing etc softwares used. which is basically what Microsoft was dinged for. they tried to prohibit companies from preinstalling anything but Microsoft products on their machines. And they were busted on it because a web browser is not related to the operating system.
Which is funny because nobody ships with anything but IE anyway. Someone wanted some money so they sued MS and the market still hasnt changed because of it. In fact, it just made things worse as Win7 cant even ship with an email program any more, you have to download it separately after you install. Yeah.... thats looking out for the customer.
The end user gets screwed no matter which way this whole thing pans out.
For my part, even speaking as a Mac user, I try to use F/OSS software when possible (such as right now, I'm surfing in Firefox). Now, there's no denying the utility of certain commercial titles, and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. However, these are all choices we have to make.
Apple is a "both halves of the widget" maker, and so has a compelling business interest at present to restrict installation of Mac OS X to Apple-branded hardware. I'm not of the opinion that this can't possibly ever change, but for it to do so would require Apple to become a software-only maker. Well, software and consumer electronics hardware maker, more likely, but even so, what do you folks think would drive Apple to become this? Their hardware division is extremely profitable, unlike all the other PC makers out there. Look at it from their point of view: Why give this up?
If we the community want to motivate Apple to un-tie Mac OS X from their hardware, the only thing we can do about it is to do whatever it takes to provide them with a compelling business case for selling it like that in addition to the model they're presently using, and frankly that means just about every Mac user (and a huge number of "Windows switchers") need to buy up copies of Leopard and do what it takes to install them on other hardware, and then start sending tons and tons of email to Cupertino and tell them "You just got an OS-only sale from me. I'm a sale you wouldn't have gotten normally because of your current business plan."
I'm not saying that would be a guaranteed solution, but it might just make Apple sit up and take notice. Eventually, if we were to treat this like the iPod was, Apple might just say "Well, shoot, ya know, we just got $3.7 million in OS sales from people installing this on hardware of their own choosing. We can profit from this."
But fundamentally, folks, if you don't want to put in the effort, please quit complaining.
For my part, even speaking as a Mac user, I try to use F/OSS software when possible (such as right now, I'm surfing in Firefox). Now, there's no denying the utility of certain commercial titles, and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise. However, these are all choices we have to make.
Apple is a "both halves of the widget" maker, and so has a compelling business interest at present to restrict installation of Mac OS X to Apple-branded hardware. I'm not of the opinion that this can't possibly ever change, but for it to do so would require Apple to become a software-only maker. Well, software and consumer electronics hardware maker, more likely, but even so, what do you folks think would drive Apple to become this? Their hardware division is extremely profitable, unlike all the other PC makers out there. Look at it from their point of view: Why give this up?
If we the community want to motivate Apple to un-tie Mac OS X from their hardware, the only thing we can do about it is to do whatever it takes to provide them with a compelling business case for selling it like that in addition to the model they're presently using, and frankly that means just about every Mac user (and a huge number of "Windows switchers") need to buy up copies of Leopard and do what it takes to install them on other hardware, and then start sending tons and tons of email to Cupertino and tell them "You just got an OS-only sale from me. I'm a sale you wouldn't have gotten normally because of your current business plan."
I'm not saying that would be a guaranteed solution, but it might just make Apple sit up and take notice. Eventually, if we were to treat this like the iPod was, Apple might just say "Well, shoot, ya know, we just got $3.7 million in OS sales from people installing this on hardware of their own choosing. We can profit from this."
But fundamentally, folks, if you don't want to put in the effort, please quit complaining.
Count me out. As well as most of Apple's market. I'd never want to see OS X unhinged from Apple hardware. Ever. You can kiss OS X as you know it goodbye.
Yeah, Apple. Open up and give away your core business. That way you can grow the $119 licensing fee market, and ditch that annoying $700 per unit you earn from hardware. Then, you can hire a lot more programmers and begin the arduous process of writing drivers for every device out there, and supporting untold numbers of hardware combinations with your newly expanded support team. And while you're at it, why not just give iTMS to me.
Doing what you want to do would cause a huge disservice to the average user in the long-run, because it would ultimately dilute the quality OS X and turn it into a Windows clone. As long as Apple is interested in the computer business, what you're looking for will never happen. Most of the advantages that differentiate it from all the other fluff out there would be gone. Would be an absolutely horrible business decision to make and would kill Apple's Mac business.
Apple locks OS X onto specific hardware because that's the hardware it gets tested the on the most. This means that OS X works as intended on this hardware. If there was no lock and if any old company could produce a PC that ran OS X, Apple would have less control over the hardware being used and OS X might not work as intended on it. This would pose a serious problem for the average user, which comprises the bulk of Apple's market. Unless of course it's ok for the average user to have a consistent Windows-like experience. Not going to happen.
Think about what you're saying. There is simply no way for Apple to pull it off at this time, nor for the foreseeable future, without killing anything and everything that differentiates OS X and makes it the Gold Standard of operating systems. Bye-Bye exclusivity and desirability. OS X is so successful and so universally admired because it is offered as a complete software+hardware package. It's a simple, all-in-one, turn-key solution that is targeted at the average user, and is good for the average user. It's everything that Windows is not. That's the whole point. Simple to use yet powerful, right out of the box. You unlock OS X from its hardware so it can be installed on any old PC, and you erase most of its advantages. And this is the problem with Windows . . .
Microsoft is facing a problem (like they always have), in that they are trying to compete against a vendor who uses a vertically integrated model rather than the horizontal model, which Microsoft and the PC market uses. The result is that you have a poor integrated approach to marketing, hardware and software design where the experience is as much dictated by the hardware vendor as the quality of the operating system - both of which are developed by two separate companies with different goals overall in regard to their respective strategies.
You want OS X unlocked because you want to run OS X on the cheap and play the "more choices" card. No thanks. You're only thinking of yourself and the small minority who post on here and are of your opinion. An even smaller minority! Not good enough.
Or would you like to turn OS X into another undifferentiated Linux distro for you to play with? imagine that, the flexibility of Linux with Apple-quality software!
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. LOL
Not all of our hobbies are good for the majority, or ultimately for us even.
hmmm.....
as long as its a quality product. who cares...
OS X on cheap netbooks from Psystar, or OS X unlocked from Apple hardware no longer equals quality. That's called Windows.
It is illegal once they bring it to court, and a judge says it's illegal. That's a breach of contract. That's what the court case that is ongoing is really about. So, technically, it is not yet illegal. Technically. Because a judge has not interpreted the contract to find Psystar in breach yet.
Meh. Either way, there will be those who yell how Apple is being horribly wronged while wiping the kool-aid from their other lips. There are the others who believe that what Psystar is doing is lily-white and innocent. I am of the opinion that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
There are a ton of people who want osx untied from Mac hardware, they just dont post here because they use windows. I know quite a few people personally that would buy a copy of OS X for twice the current cost if they could get it to run on their pc hassle-free.
But once again, Apple doesnt care about that part of the market. By keeping their system closed and their prices high they have essentially assembled a cult following that will buy everything with the company logo on it, regardless of the price. As long as Steve has his mindless apple-zombies buying everything they make at the insanely high profit margin then there is no need to change to benefit the customer.
Or we actually like what Apple is producing, perceive a greater value in it and are willing to pay more.
I know how I spend my dollar and I'm quite sure the 35-40 million other Mac users know too.
Apple cares about the part of the market that counts as their majority. If th majority vote with their wallet against Apple, they'll move. So far, however, we've been quite satisfied. And frankly, after giving my money to Apple for years now, I remain satsfied.
Regardless of price? I think it's reasonable to assume we won't pay thousands upon thousands for a 15-inch Macbook Pro, but we're willing to go a ways over a thousand bucks. I guess Windows and the other options are so horrible that we're willing to do this, or Macs and OS X are so much better a daily experience that we're willing to do this. Go talk to Microsoft and ask them why they continue to churn out such garbage year after year. Or go complain to Apple and ask them if they can give you and your friends special treatment and change up what has otherwse so far been extremely successful, just for you.
Sorry if you don't perceive value and quality where the rest of us do.
An action can be illegal in and of itself. You do not need a court decision. If a person were to go and rob a bank, it would be illegal even if the person is never caught.
Psystar is obviously in breach of contract. Read the SLA. They are violating it. Unless they can prove that the contract provisions are illegal or unconscionable, they are in trouble. I've yet to see anyone specify any such provisions in the SLA.
How would conforming to the Windows model of creating driver hell through trying to support every combination of hardware possible benefit the customer?
It wouldn't, in the end, this isn't about the little guy fighting the big, evil corporation. Psystar is not standing up for consumers' choice, they are trying to make a quick buck from Apple's name and IP.
If you didnt have such a mean attitude i might take your opinion a little more seriously. From this angle it looks like you are getting snappy because you dont have any actual reason to pay so much money for a machine to check your email.
Keep in mind that the "rest of us" is only an incredibly small slice of the market, a good bit of which is made of college kids who buy Macs because they are "cool." Apple does well with a small marketshare because a good chunk of it are people who are elitists who act like everything without an apple stamped on it is a piece of **** and thus continue to support apple's incredible markups. When the customer is looking out for the company's back and the company is looking out for their own wallets then you have a market that cant fail because everyone is rooting for the same side. I cant begin to tell you how many people i've heard say they are ok with the high apple prices because its whats best for the company. I doubt all of them have appl stock too.
++
Absolutely great post. Few people who complain around here about Apple understand this, or understand what Apple's business model is. Apple's quarterly reports the last several years tell me that millions do get it, are willing to pay more for high value, and that Apple has found a very profitable, sustainable market segment.
It's not just a machine. It's what we use every day. People's reasons are probably multifold. I just like that warm fuzzy feeling I get when I do my work on OS X, maybe it's that. And I'm not one to go in for the alternatives like Linux and Windows. I assume other users' reasons are similar. I think we'd better have good reasons for paying more KNOWING that there are cheaoer alternatives. In fact, Mac users are likely the more informed of the bunch. We actively, consciously, choose NOT to use Windows, even though that's most of what we see everywhere. Most of us use Windows at work, for instance, so we're well acquainted with it.
Well I can't say I'm terribly impressed with whatever else is out there, that's for sure. I suppose most of us are elitists, then, LOL. There are worse things to be. At least we're on Macs.
wait, do you really think it's the OS supplier who writes hardware drivers for other people's devices?
LOL
hahahahahaha