Psystar Working on Mac OS X Netbook?

[smiddlehurst]

Apple locks OS X onto specific hardware because that's the hardware it gets tested the most on. This means that OS X works as intended on this hardware. It ensures a certain level of user experience, all the time, across the board. This is why they have such a sterling repuation and this is why so many of us choose Macs. If there was no lock and if any old company produced 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 (not to mention Apple) which comprises the bulk of Apple's market. Meaning, we'll stray into Windows territory and the ocean of problems that come with it, which we as Apple users are trying to avoid in the first place!

Okay, you are aware that there's absolutley nothing special about the hardware Apple uses since it went Intel right? Take the Dell Mini 9 as a good example here, that installs using a RETAIL copy of OS X and needs just a single driver pack to get everything working as required. So by your logic if us humble users can get hold of hardware that's OS X compatible with the same driver set as Apple uses.... what exactly would be the problem?

Oh, and while OS X has a very good reputation for stability Apple's hardware rep in recent times has taken a battering (expanding batteries, failing GPU's, dodgy screens, poor quality cases, exploding Magsafe's, faulty iPod screens etc etc etc) so this whole thing about Apple's hardware being somehow superior to anyone else is just rubbish. Design is good, reliability not so much.

 

[*LTD*]

You are arguing semantics. From merriam-webster.com:

steal: "to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully"

You may be right if you are trying to argue a legal definition of theft, but to use the word steal in the context of this forum and post seems perfectly appropriate.

You buy (hopefully) software, modify it here and there, and then resell it at a profit.

It doesn't take a scientist to understand that that's a problem.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

What are they stealing?

And then modifies it and resells it on their hardware without a license to do so. And that's a major part of the problem.

So...
They are stealing nothing.

You CANNOT do whatever the hell you feel like with the OS, even if you've purchased it. Even ownership of a product prevents you from using it (and especially reselling it) in certain ways. The EULA is there for a reason. It's to protect Apple and to protect the userbase as a whole, so that OS X will be used as intended in order to ensure a certain level of quality in terms of the user experience across the board, and to protect Apple's property from being misused by the likes of Psystar, which will in turn affect the first point.

Apple's EULA is not law. No matter how you look at it, apple does not create laws. In fact, the way apple ties two completely separate products together via the eula could be seen as an illegal maneuver.

1. There must be two separate products or services.
2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).
3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.
4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/tying-arrangement/
1. Two products: OS X and the Macintosh computer.
2. If i buy Leopard install disc it is required (by apple) that i also have purchased a Mac.
3. The fact that Apple is suing Psystar validates point 3.
4. Their entire computer line isnt "insubstantial"

Apple locks OS X onto specific hardware because that's the hardware it gets tested the most on. This means that OS X works as intended on this hardware. It ensures a certain level of user experience, all the time, across the board. This is why they have such a sterling repuation and this is why so many of us choose Macs. If there was no lock and if any old company produced 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 (not to mention Apple) which comprises the bulk of Apple's market. Meaning, we'll stray into Windows territory and the ocean of problems that come with it, which we as Apple users are trying to avoid in the first place!

And yet apple screws up the 4850 driver...
Yeah, you are right, if apple isnt talented enough to support the limited hardware they ship with i would hate to see them handle everything Windows does.

 

[3.1416]

The EULA is there for a reason.

Yes, generally to destroy fair use and first sale rights.

It's to protect Apple and to protect the userbase as a whole, so that OS X will be used as intended

How on earth does controlling how I use OS X protect you? If you want to do everything as recommended by Apple, go for it.

If there was no lock and if any old company produced 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.

And you would somehow be forced to buy this hardware?

 

[*LTD*]

So...


And yet apple screws up the 4850 driver...
Yeah, you are right, if apple isnt talented enough to support the limited hardware they ship with i would hate to see them handle everything Windows does.

And how well and efficiently does Windows "handle everything"?

You mean how XP handled everything? Or how Vista handled everything? Both were a joke. Maybe, just maybe, after 8 years MS can finally get most of that right. But that still remains to be determined.

Apple users are Apple users for a reason, LOL.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

And how well and efficiently does Windows "handle everything"?

Apple users are Apple users for a reason, LOL.

The fact that it can run everything at all is no mean feat. Regardless, It handles the 4850 better than the iMac does. Which according to you should not happen because apple only has about 4 video cards to support whereas windows needs to support everything from a Geforce FX series to the GTX295, which Macs dont support at all.

 

[localoid]

i purchased a Dell 9 just to put OSX on it, as it is the easiest to get running, and it uses a legit retail copy of OS X Leopard, not a hacked one from a torrent site, so apple gets it money for a copy of leopard.

------> much info snipped <-------

Lot's of good 1st hand info in your post about OSX on the Dell 9.

Thanks for sharing!

 

[BaldiMac]

Why? Are they planning to arrest them?

Why would anyone be arrested?

So...
They are stealing nothing.

No, Psystar is stealing a copy of OS X. Or, if you prefer, they are violating copyright law by installing a copy of OS X on their PCs without a valid license.

Apple's EULA is not law. No matter how you look at it, apple does not create laws.

Apple's SLA is not law. It is a contract. Violating a legal contract is illegal.

In fact, the way apple ties two completely separate products together via the eula could be seen as an illegal maneuver.

Tying laws only apply to monopolies and other companies with significant market power. Apple has neither in the personal computer market.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/tying-arrangement/
1. Two products: OS X and the Macintosh computer.
2. If i buy Leopard install disc it is required (by apple) that i also have purchased a Mac.
3. The fact that Apple is suing Psystar validates point 3.
4. Their entire computer line isnt "insubstantial"

Economic or market power refers to an ability to significantly control the entire market (all PCs). Apple suing Psystar does not validate point 3. No company has been found to have market power with as small a market share as Apple has.

Also, in regards to your second point, in dismissing Psystar's original counterclaims, the judge said that "Apple asks its customers to purchase Mac OS knowing that it is to be used only with Apple computers. It is certainly entitled to do so."

 

[iPhoneNYC]

Psystar looks like that stuff that come from China. But they are the mouse that roared. One can assume that Apple will stop them but it's fun for now.

 

[Sun Baked]

Looking at the legal documents, Psystar isn't interested in being serious.

If they were a serious company, they would have hired an accountant to keep a current set of books a long time ago so they could go to banks for loans.

Since they don't have a set of organized books, they don't even know if they are making a profit. They just know they have enough to pay current bills.

 

[leekohler]

Psystar looks like that stuff that come from China. But they are the mouse that roared. One can assume that Apple will stop them but it's fun for now.

And it's too bad that Apple isn't listening to the roar. One can only hope they will someday.

 

[jbernie]

With Psystar not yet stopped from selling hackintosh machines and apparently going to release more, I am starting to wonder if/when Apple will stop with the "not interested" line regarding mini towers & netbooks and realize that at some point they will need to enter the market before all potential sales are gone to an unauthorized company.

I'm sure alot of the people on here who are going with the Dell Mini and making it run OSX would more than likely be happy to give Apple their money instead for the Apple netbook version as opposed to going the other route.

If Apple doesn't want to play then they best be wise to wave goodbye to all those potential sales, I don't hear Dell complaining.

 

[Eric S.]

Netbooks are most certainly not "cutting edge." At all. Take a notebook, take stuff out, make it smaller and more cramped and then price it to the point where you're lucky to even turn a profit. That's not cutting edge.

And it's certainly not Apple's strategy: take a notebook, take stuff out, make it smaller and more cramped and then price it to the point where you make an obscene profit.

 

[BaldiMac]

And it's certainly not Apple's strategy: take a notebook, take stuff out, make it smaller and more cramped and then price it to the point where you make an obscene profit.

What makes Apple's profits obscene? As a company, they are just a couple of percentage points above the industry average. And their computers have significantly lower margins than an iPhone.

 

[leekohler]

With Psystar not yet stopped from selling hackintosh machines and apparently going to release more, I am starting to wonder if/when Apple will stop with the "not interested" line regarding mini towers & netbooks and realize that at some point they will need to enter the market before all potential sales are gone to an unauthorized company.

I'm sure alot of the people on here who are going with the Dell Mini and making it run OSX would more than likely be happy to give Apple their money instead for the Apple netbook version as opposed to going the other route.

If Apple doesn't want to play then they best be wise to wave goodbye to all those potential sales, I don't hear Dell complaining.

Exactly- and it's we long-term pro Mac users who are getting the shaft. We don't buy Macs because they're pretty, we buy them for the OS. They've stopped listening to us completely, as is obvious by their entire line right now. BTW- calling a laptop "Pro" when all that's available is a glossy screen should be criminal.

 

[*LTD*]

I'm sure alot of the people on here who are going with the Dell Mini and making it run OSX

Which the vast majority of Apple's market won't be doing.

We, as tech/Apple enthusists discussing all of this in an internet forum, hardly represent the average user.

Apple will only listen when the market they target stops buying Macs, or dramatically shrinks. That hasn't happened. We saw a slight 3% shift due mostly to the economy. And even then Apple still sold more year-obver-year, if I'm not mistaken. Not to mention that they had a record quarter in a recession. They can maintain the Mac as premium product - an ecosystem which they dictate and which you freely buy into and accept and still maintain current growth more or less or increase it, form what we've seen up until now. With about 35-40 million Mac users, there are plenty of folks who are just fine with things the way they are, and up to this point Apple's numbers bear this out.

Exactly- and it's we long-term pro Mac users who are getting the shaft. We don't buy Macs because they're pretty, we buy them for the OS. They've stopped listening to us completely, as is obvious by their entire line right now. BTW- calling a laptop "Pro" when all that's available is a glossy screen should be criminal.

OK. But unless your specific, personal needs are reflected by Apple's wider market, I don't see how that flies.

Careful how you use the term "we." Most of us on Macrumors members are a very small segment of the userbase. If your needs aren't met by Apple, then maybe Apple and its products just aren't for you.

 

[leekohler]

OK. But unless your specific, personal needs are reflected by Apple's wider market, I don't see how that flies.

Careful how you use the term "we." Most of us on Macrumors members are a very small segment of the userbase. If your needs aren't met by Apple, then maybe Apple and its products just aren't for you.

You continue to miss the point. But I believe I already told you that I will most likely be getting a Psystar. BTW- I'm talking about the pro market, not the personal one. Just because market share hasn't gone down yet, doesn't mean it won't. Look what happened the last time they ignored what consumers needed.

 

[BaldiMac]

Look what happened the last time they ignored what consumers needed.

To what period are you referring?

 

[leekohler]

To what period are you referring?

When Windows took over and Apple nearly went under.

 

[netnothing]

Exactly- and it's we long-term pro Mac users who are getting the shaft. We don't buy Macs because they're pretty, we buy them for the OS. They've stopped listening to us completely, as is obvious by their entire line right now. BTW- calling a laptop "Pro" when all that's available is a glossy screen should be criminal.

Well it sounds like Apple as a company is no longer meeting your needs. Sorry to say, but it sounds like you should move on to find something that does meet your needs.

Apple's system is simple and clear. They make the hardware and the software to run that hardware. That's it. You don't like it, then you have other choices in the market for computers and software.

-Kevin

 

[leekohler]

Well it sounds like Apple as a company is no longer meeting your needs. Sorry to say, but it sounds like you should move on to find something that does meet your needs.

Apple's system is simple and clear. They make the hardware and the software to run that hardware. That's it. You don't like it, then you have other choices in the market for computers and software.

-Kevin

Unfortunately, in my business, Mac OS is the standard. The business would have to change. I'm not saying that couldn't happen.

 

[Pika]

Psystar's open computers are still legal.

 

[*LTD*]

When Windows took over and Apple nearly went under.

That was a long, long time ago, without Steve Jobs and without the current development team. A lot of it was due to poor management, but the issue to which you're referring is certainly related to that.

Apple has been doing everything right since Steve Jobs' return, and even in his absence, we're seeing some impressive results.

It really all depends on demand. I agree with you completely about the Pro segment of Apple's market. Their needs differ to whatever degree from the Consumer and "Pro-sumer" segment. But that's why we have the Mac Pro and the 17-inch MBP, and to a lesser degree the highest-end iMac (more of a Pro-sumer device, really.) Perhaps the higher-end configs of the iMac and 15-inch MBP qualify as well, I don't know.

Do we have evidence that the Mac Pro and the 17-inch MBP doesn't adequately address the needs of the Pro market? I don't know, myself.

 

[BaldiMac]

When Windows took over and Apple nearly went under.

I don't see how that is analogous to the current situation in any way. In fact, Apple's beleaguered days were marked by there decision to license their OS to third parties.

 

[BaldiMac]

Psystar's open computers are still legal.

Of course they are. As long as they don't sell them with OS X installed.