Then buy it ... Where's the tying? You do what you want.
Although, that doesn't mean another business can buy it, install it on non-Apple hardware and sell the machines for their own profit.
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
Then buy it ... Where's the tying? You do what you want.
Although, that doesn't mean another business can buy it, install it on non-Apple hardware and sell the machines for their own profit.
hahahahahahahahahahah
This is too good. Apple fumbles and Psystar for the interception!
kind of besides the point, but you can't intercept a fumble.. It's more like "Psystar recovers the ball," not intercepts it..
I said:
You quoted & responded to:
If you had read, comprehended & replied to the full statement you would realize that I said that the people on this board who are buying a non Apple "netbook" device to run OSX would have been highly likely to have purchased the equivalent Apple product if in fact it existed, as it does not exist and Apple has so generously switched over to mainstream Intel based processors, the unmet market is generously handled by most of the current netbook manufacturers who don't care what OS you reload onto the system once it is in your hands.
Apple loses sales of hardware every time OSX is loaded on a non Apple device, breaking of the EULA or not, the sale is lost. Yes they are potentially making a $130 odd sale of an additional copy of OSX, but even then I would question how many non Psystar hackintosh users are actually purchasing an additional copy/license of the OSX software. Apple could be losing both the hardware & software sale on many of these machines if enough existing Mac users are playing around with them.
Apple doesn't want to play in the market, but the users don't care as they are already in the market and making use of Apple's OS in such a way that Apple loses money because they can't come up with something elegant to compete.
Well, like it or not, Mac OS X is Apple's to do with as they please.
Now, that being said, the fact of the matter is the main justification for OSx86's birth and continued existence is Apple's unwillingness to license Mac OS X for any x86-based hardware of sufficient power; and, the principle causative factor is Apple's lack of certain form factors and their price-point structure in general.
So, let's reverse this whole discussion for a moment. Does anyone here know of, have documented, etc., any specific comment made by anyone in authority at Apple (Steve, Phil, etc.) about their pricing or product line-up in this regard, like why they don't produce towers (except for the Mac Pro), or have lesser-priced or higher-spec'd (or both) laptops?
Now, that being said, the fact of the matter is the main justification for OSx86's birth and continued existence is Apple's unwillingness to license Mac OS X for any x86-based hardware of sufficient power; and, the principle causative factor is Apple's lack of certain form factors and their price-point structure in general.
So, let's reverse this whole discussion for a moment. Does anyone here know of, have documented, etc., any specific comment made by anyone in authority at Apple (Steve, Phil, etc.) about their pricing or product line-up in this regard, like why they don't produce towers (except for the Mac Pro), or have lesser-priced or higher-spec'd (or both) laptops?
Tying is illegal (roughly) if two things happen: First, the tying is between unrelated products. Second the tying company has market power in the tying product, so that you are forced to buy the tied product from them, even though there are (or could be) competitors.
I think that Macintosh/MacOS X tying fails for the first criterion, but that could be debatable. However, it clearly fails for the second criterion. Neither Macintosh computers nor MacOS X have any significant market power. Macs are outsold by a factor five by their strongest competitor, and MacOS X is outsold at least by a factor ten.
I don't know the market of guitars and guitar strings very well. If Fender is the only maker of guitar strings, then demanding that you can use Fender guitar strings only on Fender guitars _might_ be illegal tying. If you can go to a guitar shop and choose between a dozen different brands of guitar strings, then Fender would have the right to do all the tying they want to do. If you have a non-Fender guitar you would still have a choice of eleven other brands. It is up to Fender to decide whether it is more profitable for them to sell strings to everyone, or to lose sales in strings and sell a few more guitars to people who think Fender strings are so superior to other strings that they will buy a Fender guitar to use them.
So: Fender _can_ force you to use their Fender guitar strings only with a Fender guitar if that is what they want to do. They can't force you to buy Fender guitar strings. Just like Apple can't force you to buy MacOS X. But if you want to buy it, it's on Apple's terms.
If Microsoft told you that you can only buy Windows if you buy a Microsoft mouse, that would be different in two ways: Mouse and OS are arguably less related, but more importantly, Windows has 90 percent market share in the OS market, so that kind of tying would make it very, very hard for say Logitech to compete (if Microsoft built a mouse that was a lot better and a lot cheaper than Logitech's, that wouldn't make it hard for Logitech to compete, it would just make it hard for them to win. But if Microsoft tied the sale of Windows and the sale of a mouse, you would be forced away from a Logitech product even if it was better and cheaper; that would be anti-competitive). Psystar on the other hand is free to sell its computers with the operating system that 90% of all users use, so nothing stops them from competing with Apple at all.
You just dont get it.
Your still missing the point.
The majority of consumers want a device that just works, that is simple, straight forward, has everything you need right out of the box. No Googaling, no manuals, no tech support etc just to get started.
This is what Apple, the Macintosh and OSX offer and not what pystar offers. Inturn they are destrying all that apple has done to establish image. The average consumer may not realise it is not a genuine apple product, they then get it home and have issue after issue with it. They update it and now it doesnt work. They are incredably unhappy and no apple support is offered, it doesnt live up to the expectation advertised or the significanty better user experience apple has promised.
In the long run the OSX and Apple image of simplicity is tarnished and hard to regain. An unhappy customer will tell twice as many people as a happy customer.
Your still missing the point.
The majority of consumers want a device that just works, that is simple, straight forward, has everything you need right out of the box. No Googaling, no manuals, no tech support etc just to get started.
This is what Apple, the Macintosh and OSX offer and not what pystar offers. Inturn they are destrying all that apple has done to establish image. The average consumer may not realise it is not a genuine apple product, they then get it home and have issue after issue with it. They update it and now it doesnt work. They are incredably unhappy and no apple support is offered, it doesnt live up to the expectation advertised or the significanty better user experience apple has promised.
In the long run the OSX and Apple image of simplicity is tarnished and hard to regain. An unhappy customer will tell twice as many people as a happy customer.
Curveball.
I just thought i might throw a silly little conspiracy theorie to whoever is behind psystar.
What if Apple themselves was behind psystar and setting this whole thing up to become a precedent in future cases stoping any Mac clone maker dead in their tracks? Sure it seems silly and costly but they have the money to do so and its better to stop it before it becomes a serious problem.
Whatever, i also belive Elvis killed JFK!
I really hope its some other shady charicter that deserves to get his neck broke. Harsh.
I just thought i might throw a silly little conspiracy theorie to whoever is behind psystar.
What if Apple themselves was behind psystar and setting this whole thing up to become a precedent in future cases stoping any Mac clone maker dead in their tracks? Sure it seems silly and costly but they have the money to do so and its better to stop it before it becomes a serious problem.
Whatever, i also belive Elvis killed JFK!
I really hope its some other shady charicter that deserves to get his neck broke. Harsh.
Hardly. Once the courts find out that Psystar is not playing ball, the courts can do all sorts of things that Apple would not like if they were the backer. THe court also doesn't like their tie wasted. COnspiracies only work when both (or all) parties have an incentive to keep quiet . Trouble is, once the court steps in, that guarantee no longer can exist and there is a strong risk of legal penalties (contempt of court is serious business). If psystar were really fronted by APple, it wouldn't take long for Psystar to prove that or even allege that once they realized they have no protection. Not to mention, it would be damaging for Apple as a business to engage in frivolous activities. Companies do not make competitors for themselves just so that they can shut them down in court. It is a waste of money.
Does it really matter?? We might as well ask why Apple doesn't just give their OS away. Finding a quote or a comment by Apple on that is pointless as well even though it would be desired. It doesn't matter. Apple doesn't need an excuse or a reason why not to sell something. Its their choice. End of story.
I cannot argue with the fact that OS X is Apples product and they can do whatever they want with it. Psystar is breaking the law.
But the thing is, I was at the Psystar webshop earlier today, and I though: This is how the Apple store should be. Different types of computers for every purpose, loads of choice in the CPU, RAM, hard drives departments, a couple of different GPUs to choose between...
They offer a mini tower, a midi tower, a big tower, and even a rack version.
Thing is, people talk about how OS X i stable because it has few different components and the system can be optimized for that hardware. But look at the options Psystar gave me. All of this hardware can use pretty much the same drivers (chipset-wise and such). I do believe that Apple could offer the freedom that Psystar does without loss in stability, but they willingly don't. Why, I won't speculate.
Even though I really want one of those rack mounted ones, I'm still going to buy from Apple, because I can't risk a computer turning into an expensive piece of rock because of a software update.
But the thing is, I was at the Psystar webshop earlier today, and I though: This is how the Apple store should be. Different types of computers for every purpose, loads of choice in the CPU, RAM, hard drives departments, a couple of different GPUs to choose between...
They offer a mini tower, a midi tower, a big tower, and even a rack version.
Thing is, people talk about how OS X i stable because it has few different components and the system can be optimized for that hardware. But look at the options Psystar gave me. All of this hardware can use pretty much the same drivers (chipset-wise and such). I do believe that Apple could offer the freedom that Psystar does without loss in stability, but they willingly don't. Why, I won't speculate.
Even though I really want one of those rack mounted ones, I'm still going to buy from Apple, because I can't risk a computer turning into an expensive piece of rock because of a software update.
And who do you complain to if an os x update of future release inadvertently causes issues with the psystar hardware configuration?
And you've missed several of my points apparently.
In that case, you're stuck waiting for Apple to make what you want or need. I own several real Macs (that suit my needs) but I've also built a Hackintosh (since Apple doesn't make what I need) that runs a retail copy of Leopard. Right at this moment, I have one real Mac that needs to go into the shop (under AppleCare) but my Hackintosh is running fine. I'll soon make a four hour (one way) trip to my nearest Apple Store seeking repair. If my Hackintosh breaks, I can fix it myself within 24-48 hours, without the hassle of having to schedule a mini-vacation just to visit the nearest Apple Store.
I have yet to make a pro Psystar statement. I consider them to be opportunists wanting to make a quick buck off the works Apple and the Hackintosh community.
What I have stated in this thread is that the average person, who can read and follow instructions, could install OS X on a netbook after purchasing a retail copy of Leopard.
Yes they could. So what does that mean in the grand scheme of things? Simply because you can install OSX on other devices only indicates that the OS is flexible and thats it. It still doesn't make hankintoshes legal or a good idea. All it proves is that you can manipulate software to do things it was not intented to do. Big deal.
On the other hand, Psystar is lacking a few things, at least according to what their CEO claimed in a deposition under oath: They don't know who their customers are, they don't know how much income they have, they don't know what bills the have paid, they don't know how many MacOS X boxes they have bought, they don't know what profit they are making. They know nothing. The tax man will be quite interested in how they are running their business.
Frankly, I think anyone who'd buy a Psystar instead of building their own machine is clueless. In either case, some tinkering under the hood will be required. I see no advantage in supporting a company like Psystar. Etc.
Apple is (rightfully, in my opinion) concerned about Psystar, and activity pursuing relief for copyright and trademarks violations. However, Apple has yet to go after any individual running OSX on x86 hardware or talking about it online unless piracy of the OS is involved. I can't see Apple making efforts in civil court cases against individuals in regards to the EULA.
As far as the "manipulate software to do things it was not intented to do" thing: Yes, I've been doing that since the days of the 8080, 6502, 1802, etc. And that "pushing" of things (both hardware and software) beyond their limits is exactly what Steve and Woz were doing in their early years. And that sort of technic is exactly what helped them to develop the first Apple computers.
MacOS X 10.5.6 doesn't work on non-Apple computers, unless very specific steps are made to work around a small amount of copy protection in MacOS X. There are a few files in the operating system that are encrypted, and to use them, a decryption key must be read from a chip that is only available on Apple's motherboard. The reason why Apple has done that:
1. It is encrypted well enough to make it impossible to install MacOS X on a non-Apple computer without violation of the DMCA act. Which makes the act legally a lot worse than just plain copyright infringement. It is not particularly difficult to get around Apple's copy protection, but just the fact that the copy protection is there makes a legal difference.
2. It is still simple enough that there is very little chance of interfering with the operation of MacOS X on a genuine Apple computer. Apple doesn't want anything that is bad for its genuine customers.
Apple can of course make copying MacOS X harder. But what purpose would it serve? Hackers will find a way around it anyway. It just costs Apple time and money, and it may make the OS run less stable. Microsoft gets lots of complaints because Windows sometimes thinks that a legally made copy is actually illegal, and Apple doesn't want that kind of trouble for its customers. Companies like Psystar should be met in the courts, and trying to prosecute individual hackers is pointless.
True that. And even if there was no DMCA, it wouldn't change much since the encryption is there for a reason, to enforce its copywrites regarding distribution. The fact is Apple asserts their rights both in license and practice in hardware. That should meet legal muster right there. Of course I don't see the DMCA going away or being altered for that anyway,
Right Apple knows that draconian DRM only hurts legitmate paying customers - which constitutes a large percentage of its userbase.
Exactly. Its an expensive pursuit that should be left to companies like Microsoft who get regularaly ripped off.
The said that about Leopard too.
Every time a new product is released in the tech world a bunch of people say its "uncrackable" and yet it always gets cracked. Several people have Snow Leopard running on their PC already, but the Insanelymac forums wont let people talk about it for obvious reasons. They also like to keep it quiet until release so Apple cant counter the methods used to make it work on a PC.
