Psystar Offers $399 "OpenMac" Computer

mytrip writes to tell us that Psystar has announced a new line of Intel-based computers that promise to run an unmodified version of Mac OS X "Leopard". Unfortunately almost immediately after the launch their website went down and as of this story remains unaccessible. "Astute readers may well hear this news and ask themselves if it doesn't sound like a Mac clone, something whose time came -- during Gil Amelio's tenure at Apple -- and went shortly after current CEO Steve Jobs assumed the helm at the company. [...] It definitely defies the EULA for Mac OS X, which specifies that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install the operating system on an Apple-branded computer. If you buy the $399 OpenMac, you can check the EULA yourself if you also buy the pre-install option, as the company includes a retail copy of Leopard with your purchase."

Comments

No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[ccguy]

I'm sure it's gonna take Apple seconds to upgrade their OS so that it refuses to work on these things.

..but if they do, public perception of Leopard might go from 'just works' to 'upgrades may be fatal'. So no wonder they may want these units to not ship at all even if technically it would be trivial to render them into regular PCs.

BTW, how hard would it to hack this "EFI V8 emulator" into any PC that uses the same parts?

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[clf8]

Not sure why public perception would be like that, since the vast majority would actually own a mac and upgrades truly would just work.

Psystar has already stated that they had to modify the OS to get it to run. No big deal, but it's THEIR responsibility to make things work again if an Apple upgrade breaks things (maliciously or not).

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[ldierk]

Psystar has already stated that they had to modify the OS to get it to run. Alothough the article states:

that the company claims will run an unmodified version of Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard."

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[Joe U]

Courts really do frown upon lopsided unsigned pre-purchase contracts.

Basically, it wouldn't be an issue if the agreement was on the box for everyone to see. It probably wouldn't be an issue if Apple made you read and sign the agreement before buying a copy. But go to Best Buy, purchase a copy of osx, open it up, read the agreement, box it back up and then try and return it. Good luck.

Apple really might not like the outcome of a case like this.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[ccguy]

Not sure why public perception would be like that, since the vast majority would actually own a mac and upgrades truly would just work.

Yes, but pissed off people make more noise than happy customers. Some would rather rant in a blog and submit links everywhere than admit that their purchase wasn't that clever.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[truthsearch]

Courts really do frown upon lopsided unsigned pre-purchase contracts. Sources, please? The only case I know of on the subject decided that shrink-wrap licenses are enforceable.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

vanilla kernal on a hackintosh is really easy if the hardware specs are right... so I'm not sure why they had to modify the OS - maybe they just needed the EFI emulator, which starts up before OSX? *shrugs*

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[truthsearch]

Yes, but pissed off people make more noise than happy customers. Never met a mac fan, have you?

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[CajunArson]

Apple will win this case without any problems whatsoever and (if you were to print out the decisions) probably more than a ton of case law on Apple's side. The license is perfectly clear, not even close to being unconscionable, 100% enforceable, ans Psystar knows this. Apple probably has not bothered suing home enthusiasts who mod the software by hand since a. it is a waste of money going after individuals who are not
making money; b. there is little to no chance of it causing problems with Apple brand perception. However, as soon as this goes from a wacky and semi-functional side-project into a money making business.

    The funny thing is for all the people who think Psystar is somehow great, after doing this (assuming it's not just a prank) there is probably a GREATER chance that the hobbyists will get sued in the future since more publicity makes this more of a threat to Apple's image.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[insanemime]

What I love is this from their FAQ:

Can I run updates: The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are not non-safe. It's best to check on InsanelyMac for this information but when in doubt don't update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update. I see this blowing up in their faces big time.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[EverDense]

http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case209.cfm Court holds that Gateway's Standard Terms and Conditions, supplied along with and inside the packaging of a computer purchased by the plaintiff, do not create a binding contract with that consumer under either the law of either Missouri or Kansas. The court reached this conclusion despite the fact that the Standard Terms provide that they will constitute the terms of such an agreement if the consumer retains the computer for more than 5 days, and the consumer so retained the computer. Look up "Software license agreement", the law is not clear cut at all.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[Joe U]

There has to be benifit to both parties for a contract to be valid. I can't just throw $200 at apple and get software that I they say I can't use without having the option to return it. Since the parties involved refuse to accept returned software the return policy is unconscionable and the license may be void.

Second, you can't agree to a contract that you never had an opportunity to read and accept or decline. I think that one is obvious.

So, yes, Apple might not like the outcome of a court case.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[ePhil_One]

But is it presented before the sale? I don't have a box handy, but I bet the "requirements" list on the box says requires a Mac. If you buy it and open it w/o reading the requirements, I think that qualifies as a lack of due diligence on your part.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[hedwards]

Apple will win this case without any problems whatsoever and (if you were to print out the decisions) probably more than a ton of case law on Apple's side. The license is perfectly clear, not even close to being unconscionable, 100% enforceable, ans Psystar knows this. Apple probably has not bothered suing home enthusiasts who mod the software by hand since a. it is a waste of money going after individuals who are not
making money; b. there is little to no chance of it causing problems with Apple brand perception. However, as soon as this goes from a wacky and semi-functional side-project into a money making business. I doubt that, there are definitely reasons why this isn't clear cut. Litigation could help illuminate the subject. They can't use a license to remove a person's legal rights. The question is going to come down to whether or not fair use applies to the situation. They'll probably be able to nail Psystar for distributing the OS in violation of the terms of the contract, but it's hardly clear cut as to whether consumers have the right to install the software themselves.

Just because it's in the contract doesn't mean that it's enforcible. Contracts wouldn't contain severability clauses if that weren't the case.

The funny thing is for all the people who think Psystar is somehow great, after doing this (assuming it's not just a prank) there is probably a GREATER chance that the hobbyists will get sued in the future since more publicity makes this more of a threat to Apple's image. I don't think that's a fair characterization. Psystar is potentially doing everybody a favor here. The issue of EULAs doesn't come up as much as it might in the courts, because there's often times a significant risk to the company that wrote the EULA and very little reward in doing so.

There are definitely issues here which need to be tested. More specifically, it is not clear to me that Apple is in the clear on this one. They probably have grounds to sue and get an injunction on licensing grounds, but in terms of preventing a competitor from producing compatible hardware, they haven't a chance in hell. Perhaps if they can demonstrate that Psystar reverse engineered the hardware in a way which isn't legal they can win. But other than that, they don't have grounds to prevent the infringement.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Right? But the idea was that you (the user) would do the install of OS X and be the ones breaking the EULA. Seeing that Psystar isn't installing it for you, they aren't the ones breaking the license.

If you RTFA you'd see, "...and we will preinstall Leopard for free so you can begin to use your computer right out of the box."

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[Cajun Hell]

Not sure why public perception would be like that, since the vast majority would actually own a mac and upgrades truly would just work.

I wouldn't count on that. Once you start putting "deliberately fail" code in your product (to deal with the customers whose money you don't want), you risk it getting triggered for the customers you did want. Every logic bomb that Apple adds to their product with the intention of crippling it for non-Apple-hardware customers, is a logic bomb that might go off unintentionally (e.g. when the user runs MacOS on Mac hardware with a virtualizer in between the OS and hardware).

You see this with DRM systems all the time, where the user isn't doing something the attacker really wanted to prevent, but stuff fails to "just work" anyway.

Apple might pull it off, but it's nontrivial.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[Joe U]

I'm guessing you're a law student who got halfway through the Contracts casebook and then just stopped reading? See the above case, which is taught in most first year Contracts courses and is still good law. Not in all districts, some have ruled differently, and you should know that. (http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case209.cfm)

Whether it seems fair or not, you are wrong, shrink wrap licenses ARE enforceable. You're obviously posting anonymously to avoid paying my reading fee, which you agreed to by reading my message. Since all comments are owned by the poster (see below), and licenses you can't read before hand are enforcable (according to you), you owe me $50. So, please pay up or I'll have to call a collection agency.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[AusIV]

Apple might have trouble suing a user who bought a boxed copy of Leopard and installed it on a PC, but they should have little problem demonstrating that Psystar was aware of the license and deliberately violated it.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[ceoyoyo]

I doubt Apple has the slightest interest in suing individuals who try to put OS X on their PCs (as they haven't so far).

The EULA is so they can go after companies like this.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[anagama]

Their only mistake is selling OSX pre-installed. Now if they sold it with Darwin (the open source underpinnings to OSX) pre-installed, how would that be bad? They could load up X11 and gnome or KDE for the GUI part of things. Granted, that isn't what people expect with OSX, but it avoids the EULA issue altogether. I would imagine, but don't know, that once Darwin is running, it would be relatively easy for people to install OSX over it. But as a business, Pystar needs to leave the dirty work to the end user if they want to stay in business.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[jelton]

I don't mean to get nit-picky, but this isn't very good legal analysis:

There has to be benifit [sic] to both parties for a contract to be valid. I can't just throw $200 at apple and get software that I they say I can't use without having the option to return it. Since the parties involved refuse to accept returned software the return policy is unconscionable and the license [sic] may be void.

A working definition for a contract, at least for lawyers and courts in the US, is that it is a bargained-for agreement with consideration. In a case where a plaintiff is suing for breach of contract, these are the bare minimum elements that must be proved by the plaintiff in order to make out a prima facie case.

Unconscionability, on the other hand, is most typically used as an affirmative defense to the enforcement of an otherwise valid contract. While a consumer could certainly raise this defense if sued for violating an EULA, it's not typically a claim one raises as a plaintiff.

In theory, at least, if a box of software says clearly and unequivocally that you agree to the EULA if you use the software, and that EULA is available in some form (including online on the company's website), then it is enforceable.

That being said, there is a potential for (some, at least) EULA's to be considered contracts of adhesion. In particular, because EULA's on consumer software involve boiler-plate agreements that are non-negotiable by the consumer and sometimes permit the developer to change those terms after acceptance by the consumer, it's possible that future rulings may reverse the existent doctrine developed by Step Saver v. Wyse or distinguish between business dealings and consumer dealings.

This is a rapidly developing area of law. Anyone who speaks in absolutes, saying either that EULA's are or are not enforceable, is either ignorant of the law or advocating their position. These types of enforceability issues are ripe for review and any given ruling may, in large part, turn on the provisions of a given EULA and who the parties are (i.e. is purchaser of the software a business or a consumer?).

To what extent licensing law varies from traditional contract law, I can't say, having not studied licensing law in depth (yet). Also, if you buy software from an actual retailer, get it home, open the box and then disagree with the EULA, you can often seek and receive a return from the developer/publisher if the retailer won't accept a return.

I welcome any corrections, comments or flames of my analysis.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[cashman73]

Hmm, that's funny. The same logic hasn't stopped the MAFIAA.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[ceoyoyo]

Yup, if they don't install it then they're just another PC retailer. Of course, they can't advertise that you can install Leopard on it either, since that would be knowingly encouraging others to break the EULA.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[Divebus]

This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. That's why the OS X boxed product has Apple stickers in it.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[jelton]

I thought those were for placement on my car's rear window so that thieves would know to break into my car and steal my backpack...

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[jeremyp]

You're obviously posting anonymously to avoid paying my reading fee, which you agreed to by reading my message. Since all comments are owned by the poster (see below), and licenses you can't read before hand are enforcable (according to you), you owe me $50. So, please pay up or I'll have to call a collection agency.

You obviously forgot to read the Slashdot Terms of Service.

In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

You can't make a charge for your postings on Slashdot.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop Psystar

[eck011219]

Nah, it's so thieves know that you already spent all your money on a Mac and there's no point in rifling through your glovebox.

Website Slow...

[s0litaire]

Just been on to the website. It's up but Very very slow... Apple will probably Kill this dead but if i did buy a Mac it would be something like an 'OpenMac' just so that i know i can stick it to Jobs and Co :D lol. Wonder if they will go to court and test the EULA?? (Has an EULA been defended in court yet??)

Re:Website Slow...

[MightyYar]

This is fortunate:
coral cache

(slow, of course...)

Here's the page specific to their Mac clone.

EULA's

[dreamchaser]

So are they good and enforcable this week, or evil and unenforceable? Seeing as this pertains to Apple it's probably a coin toss. The fanbois will all chime in with how it's such a good thing that Apple restricts what hardware one can run OS X on, and how this company should be shut down. If this were about some MS EULA there would be a firestorm about how EULA's are bogus anyways and unenforceble.

If I buy OS X I'll damn well run it on any machine I want. In fact, one of my two OS X machines is *not* Appple Branded. That's right, it's a Hackintosh. Sue me, Jobs.

Re:EULA's

[stewbacca]

Jobs doesn't care about your home-brew Hackintosh. He does care about Brand X selling hackintoshes, however.

Re:EULA's

[dreamchaser]

I understand that. My point as about EULA's and about the fact that if Apple wants to restrict OS X to Apple only hardware then they should require proof of Mac ownership in order to buy a copy. They do not. If anyone can buy one then anyone should be able to install it on any computer. That goes for little shops that decide to sell hardware to run it on.

I know why Jobs cares. He is every bit as much a wannabe monopolist as is Gates. He loves total control and complete product lock down. I don't hate Apple, like I said I have a Mac. What I hate is the hypocrisy exhibited by zealots.

Re:EULA's

[ForumTroll]

Does anybody doubt that if Apple made Mac OS run on clone PCs, they'd take over Microsoft's position in a year?

Yes.

Re:EULA's

[stewbacca]

The only real difference between Microsoft and Apple: ...is that Apple actually makes good products. You could have just said that and saved a lot of typing. :-)

Re:EULA's

[russotto]

Well, actually, I _don't_ have to go to court. First the author of the EULA would have to bring me to court.... and how would they know I'm violating the EULA? They don't even know I have an agreement with them (which in itself argues strongly against there being one).

OpenMac website...

[downix]

I imagine it now...
Webmaster: We just put up the site!
Technician: Oh no, the site just went down!
Webmaster: Did Apple slap us with a S&D letter?
Technician: No, someone posted our link on Slashdot!

Re:OpenMac website...

[CompMD]

In English, the word "cease" does not start with the letter "S."

This is /.

[elrous0]

I predict 100 posts from people saying "Apple can do whatever they damn well want with their OS!" from the very same people who scream bloody murder if MS so much as includes a media player with their OS.

Re:This is /.

[downix]

Likely, and they'll be right. Apple makes computers. Microsoft doesn't. World of difference.

Re:This is /.

[calebt3]

So what does Apple care if you use their OS on a PC?

Re:This is /.

[joeytmann]

Very good point, so MS "forces" IE/MediaPlayer/Whathaveyou on you, Apple "forces" you to their hardware. Which is worse?

Re:This is /.

[Mongoose Disciple]

Apple makes computers. Microsoft doesn't. World of difference.

In other words, all Microsoft has to do is open a hardware division of PCs they build that run Windows and they instantly have the moral high ground on more or less everything?

I doubt anyone would agree with that, but if that's not what you're saying, then I can't understand how what you are saying would make any sense.

Re:This is /.

[Constantine XVI]

Second thing? Support issues. Now they are going to have to field support calls for non-Apple supported hardware. No they don't. While the legality of not allowing the OS on other hardware is questionable, it's perfectly legal to not provide support for anything but Apple hardware.

Re:This is /.

[Kalriath]

So... if Microsoft uses their OS to sell a crappy Media Player it's bad, but if Apple uses their OS to sell an overpriced PC it's good? Face it, it's bullshit from both parties. What applies to one applies to the other.

And do not whip out that fucking monotonous response "Apple is not a convicted monopolist" because they fucking should be, and we're all (except the Apple fanbois) sick of hearing it

Re:This is /.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Very good point, so MS "forces" IE/MediaPlayer/Whathaveyou on you, Apple "forces" you to their hardware. Which is worse?

You are a little to self centered it seems. This isn't about you. MS forces IE/media player/Whathaveyou upon PC OEMs and enterprise businesses by leveraging a monopoly. This is illegal and undermines free trade. They sell very little to people directly. The detrimental effects of MS's bundling for you, are fairly incidental.

Apple forces people who buy their OS to run it on their hardware, but they don't have a monopoly on OS's or computer systems. Don't like it, buy a Dell or buy Windows. You have choices. What Apple does is perfectly legal. OEMs do not have any practical choices when it comes to what MS does to them.

I fear you simply don't understand antitrust law, or how the markets operate or how these apply to Apple and MS. I'm not even going to try to explain the reasons for the laws because I'm sick of educating people on the topic. Why don't you go read about antitrust laws and their purpose and then when you have an educated viewpoint, if you still want to discuss the topic, go ahead and reply to my post.

Not the first

[MBCook]

These aren't the first people to try something like this. People used to post instructions on buying various 3rd party PPC boards to build your own Mac.

The interesting part of this is that they have vowed to challenge Apple's EULA in court if (he he he, "if") they get sued. The outcome of that battle will be interesting. I want to say I'm on Apple's side on this one (they should get to say "only on Macs"), but a big part of me hates all the crazy restrictions in EULAs and I'm sure if Apple wasn't in a minority position I'd be crying foul over that clause as monopolistic.

The somewhat sad part is that this could satisfy quite a bit of the complains I've seen on /. and other places asking for an upgradeable Mac that costs less than the Mac Pro. Yet the hobbled the default configuration with integrated graphics. I also enjoy the bits I've read about this where they recommend AGAINST installing OS X updates until they say it's OK because it could easily hose the system.

All and all, while I don't expect this to go anywhere, it will be amusing to watch.

Re:Not the first

[Life2Short]

Not only are others trying to do this now, there are also plenty of examples from Apple's past that illustrate how dangerous such a product would be to Apple's bottom line. Whether it's Franklin Apple II's, the Brazilian early Mac clones, or Apple's own licensing fiasco in the early PowerPC days, it's clear that Apple must be very protective or take a serious punch to profits. Remember Power Computing? In the licensing days of Apple, before Jobs returned and pole-axed the licenses, Power Computing was really starting to hurt Apple. They were releasing faster hardware earlier than Apple, and even their primitive marketing efforts (who remembers, "Let's kick Intel's Ass" with the Sluggo cartoon?) were getting the best of Apple. They were really starting to carve out their own share of Apple's customers before Jobs pulled the plug.

Re:Not the first

[feepness]

They were really starting to carve out their own share of Apple's customers before Jobs pulled the plug. So what you're saying is that Apple's legal tactics to protect their profits are ultimately malevolent towards the consumer?

Sounds familiar...

Re:Not the first

[LordLucless]

So what you're saying is that back in the day, there was actual competition propelling innovation and improvements in the industry, and Apple should put a stop to that right quick?

Website is fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Web site works fine. Quit copying from the macobserver.com and do your own homework.

Re:Mmm....

[MBCook]

Because Apple said so. They are allowed to put whatever restrictions in their license they want, as long as they are legal. They can put some really weird things in that and have each product have conflicting requirements.

The question here is: is that particular restriction legal (and thus valid) or illegal (and thus can be ignored)

Reality check

[jmorris42]

This is just reality calling Steve. Macs are PC clones now. Pretty, overpriced PC clones. Nobody as stopped cloned hardware before in the computing world for any length of time, Steve's reality distortion field has actually succeeded better than any realistic observer would have expected, but if this attempt fails more will follow.

Why? Follow the money. Macs carry anywhere between a 25% (the optimistic assertions from the Mac faithful) to 100% surcharge on the hardware compared to the prices for generic crap. That means there is enough margin for even good quality clones to undercut Apple's pricing. The big vendors have dominated the Windows PC world with their OEM pricing deals and at the same time would be terrified of tangling with Apple's legal goons. That leaves an opportunity for small offshore builders and where there is an opportunity for profit the Asian factories will sell products.

Re:Reality check

[diamondsw]

Profit margins are about 25% depending on the product line. This is according to actual financial figures. You know, profit reports and such. Things that have to be correct and accurate for legal purposes or they're in trouble with the SEC for misleading stockholders. Real data, instead of you pulling shit out of your ass.

Macs are not more expensive; they're just less flexible. True, you can't get a Mac with slots for less than a Mac Pro. You can't get a Mac laptop with a 7-inch screen and ultra low processor/memory/drive for $400. But for what they do sell - Mac Mini, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro - they're similar, generally only varying by a few bucks here and there (except Apple's memory is damn expensive for some reason). This little dance has been done a billion times, and will be done a billion times again.

Re:Reality check

[netwiz]

The catch with the "Mac Tax" is that while you can't configure a Mac to have less than the shipping hardware (integrated camera, gigabit ethernet, do-it-yourself RAM, firewire, etc.), when pricing against equivalent hardware, they usually are cost-equal or a hair less. In the case of the Mac Pro, the difference is almost 25% given the CPU horsepower with which the system ships. At release, it was impossible to find a four-way workstation within $1000 of Apple's hardware.

This isn't to say Apple's the value leader, quite the opposite. Their surcharge on disk and RAM borders on userous; the video choices, while current at release, are updated slowly and tend not to support the more advanced configurations (SLI). That said, I'll take Apple's build quality over almost anything else, and for me at least, OSX significantly improves my workflow over Windows. YMMV.

Re:Reality check

[Midnight Thunder]

Macs are not more expensive; they're just less flexible.

If you are talking about internal upgrade ability, then only really the MacPros are genuinely upgradeable. The MacBooks are no less expandable than you average portable and the desktops are targeted towards a market that is more comfortable connecting a cable, than opening up their computer. For all the rest USB and Firewire offer most of the expandability that people want.

Re:Reality check

[vought]

Why should Steve listen to you, or anyone who advocates Mac cloning?

The last time Apple tried it, the move almost cost the company its life. Power Computing and UMAX moved in on the high end and cannibalised Apple's most lucrative sales of Power Macs (and cannibalised is the right word; Apple did all the engineering for PCC, while the Austin firm just built boxes).

Power and Motorola also moved in on the bottom end (which is where Apple wanted them to sell anyway), but it was the PowerTower Pros that really hurt Apple's business and licensing program.

There's an error in the submission, too. There was no Apple "cloning" program. None of the Mac OS Licensees designed their own boards until well into the program (two years), and they all used "Old World" architecture. The licensing program actually started under Spindler, not Amelio.

If Apple licensed the OS for non-Apple PCs, it'd be the same story all over again, albeit less severe, as Apple has diversified in the past several years. Dell (or whoever) would race Apple to the bottom on prices, and Apple's R+D budget would be cut short. Macs wouldn't "just work" anymore, and someone at Apple would be stuck writing drivers for every piece of nonstandard hardware junk the licensees wanted to install to get the price down.

If a $300.00 premium every few years when I buy a new Mac is the cost of avoiding these kinds of headaches, I'm happy to pay it.

Re:Reality check

[tepples]

The MacBooks are no less expandable than you average portable and the desktops are targeted towards a market that is more comfortable connecting a cable, than opening up their computer. For all the rest USB and Firewire offer most of the expandability that people want. What kind of 3D video card can be connected to a Mac through USB, FireWire, or Ethernet? That's why there are so few Mac games: because there are so few Mac Pros.

Re:Reality check

[igb]

Compaq certainly didn't have IBM's blessing.

They did, however, have Microsoft's blessing. Geeks buy hardware, but everyone else buys systems. The point about Compaq was that they could ship a box that was from an end-user's perspective the same as an IBM-PC, with the active and enthusiastic support of the software vendor who controls said perspective. Compaq's only legal issue was over the BIOS, but as the specification was openly distributed (and was in essence rather similar to CP/M anyway) a cleanroom implementation was hardly a barrier to entry. Microsoft were selling more copies of the software, which they wanted to do, and would support and indeed cheer on Compaq and the rest.

In the case of trying to do the same thing with Apple, at the very best a vendor of clones without Apple's agreement would be able to sail through a very narrow strait on licensing. Apple would have no obligation or enthusiasm to help, and would be legally perfectly OK to erect arbitrary roadblocks in future releases. Arguments that `Microsoft aren't allowed to do that' aren't relevant, because Apple aren't a monopoly: the rules (in most jurisdictions) for monopolists trying to control the market further are rather different.

ian

Re:Reality check

[jmorris42]

Apple didn't use TPM or this discussion would be moot. I probably should not discuss it in detail due to the DMCA but I suspect that reminding people that Google is your friend is safely on the legal side of the DMCA.

And being a little more bold I'll narrow your searching and just mention that there is a fairly radioactive set of patches for Qemu to allow unmodified copies of OS X to boot.

EULA

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

It definitely defies the EULA for Mac OS X, which specifies that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install the operating system on an Apple-branded computer.

And the first-sale doctrine states that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install it wherever he wants, EULA notwithstanding.

Re:EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

the problem is, you can't purchase anything but an upgrade copy of Mac OS. The hardware is your license key to the full copy (think of it as a very large dongle). You can't purchase a "full" legal copy of Leopard without buying a Mac.

This makes upgrading fairly painless because the upgrade software assumes you must have a valid license because it is designed to only run on hardware that came with a valid license (no searching for previous version product keys).

Re:EULA

[zjbs14]

And the first-sale doctrine states that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install it wherever he wants, EULA notwithstanding.

First sale doctrine applies to the re-sale of the disks/content. Doing something else with the content comes under fair use. Whether that can be controlled by a EULA is pretty much up in the air from a legal perspective.

Stores already do this...

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

There are two independent computer shops near my place which will put together a hackintosh for you. They won't install the OS, but they'll build a computer that is fully compatible with os X and sell you a copy of osx too...

So... for me, this isn't news, really.

EXCELLENT!!

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I've been wanting to replace my Franklin Ace!

"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them in summer school".

EULA flipflop

[Umuri]

Alright, to everyone posting the sarcastic comments wondering whether slashdot is Pro EULA or Anti EULA this week because it's apple and not microsoft, lets try to spell out things that hopefully everyone can agree on.

1. EULAs are pretty much unenforcable in what littel court cases have involved them to any degree.

2. Apple has every right to say that they won't support or vouch for the stability software that isn't running on hardware they approve of.

Beyond that, you can argue how you wish. However that's pretty much what this eula thing boils down to.

Apple makes it a point to ensure stability in their operating system, sometimes at the purported sacrifice of flexible code for hardware they don't sell. But if people want to try to get it working on other hardware, i really don't think apple will mind. If they do, the only reason i could think of it is they're worried about their image as the "cool" and "hip" computers getting tied in with people's hacked together junker computers running MacOS.

Apple cares about image, and it's image is "just works". They use an eula to spell it out, albeit in a nonbinding way.

Re:Mmm....

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

the EULA for safari says 'only on apple branded hardware'
the EULA for OSX says 'only on apple branded hardware'

I don't see the difference EITHER... and apple is actively distributing safari to anyone with itunes, which includes a LOT of PCs.

Feature list

[goombah99]

the computer this compares to is the imac not the powermac. on that basis:
faster CPU: 1.8-2 Ghz versus 2.2 Hhz
more memory in base model: 1Gb versus 2
bigger hard drive in base mode: 80gb versus 200gb

I note that places like mac-mall already slightly discount the price of macs and give memory upgrades so the memory comparison is irrelevant.

what you give up:
size: the mac is teeny weenie. this thing is a full sized box

quiet: this is not really known, but it's a fair guess that you don't get a quiet fan on a budget machine.

other costly items:
software: buy a copy of leopard $125
other missing: bluetooth and wifi. not clear on GB ethernet or firewire.

thus this thing is not very welcome in the living room, nor even on your desktop. since it will go under the desk this means lots of coords and down on your knees crawling under the desk.

The main drawback is no software update. which is of course what you really are paying for when you buy the OS. having all your apple apps staying secure automatically is peace of mind. Their website says that software update will occasionaly be unsafe to use. One can bet this will quickly become defacto true.

other things: no apple support. this is really good service. if you have computer problems apple is very good to you.

$399 + 125, does not really seem like much of a bargain.

conversely this sort of shows that the "apple tax" may be a myth.

Re:Feature list

[ender-]

other things: no apple support. this is really good service. if you have computer problems apple is very good to you. I only have 1 personal experience with Apple's service. I worked for a small company [only 4 ppl in the office]. They had a 2-cpu G4 tower that was out of warranty. One of the internal fans had come out off its bearings and broke in half. It took me 30 seconds to remove that fan.

I called Apple, knowing the machine was out of warranty. All I wanted was the part number and price for a replacement part [just an 80mm fan, with an odd connector]. Apple support wouldn't give me the information. They told me to call an authorized Apple service place.

So I called the local Apple store and asked to speak with one of the techs. I asked how much it would cost me to buy a replacement fan. I was told that it wasn't a user serviceable part, and that they couldn't give me that information over the phone. They said I *HAD* to bring the computer into the store and have one of their Apple 'gurus' look at the computer.

What the hell kind of service is that? I don't have time to drive 25 miles to have some zit-faced dork look at the computer and tell me the fan is broken. I already know it's broken. Just fucking tell me how much the part will cost me.

With that kind of service, I'm not exactly inclined to spend 3x as much on a new Apple.

Re:Feature list

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple policy is that I'm not supposed to sell service parts to anyone but another authorized service provider, unless I install the parts in a computer.

Apple doesn't have a problem with me giving you a price quote on a part.

Now, I don't give a fuck what Apple policy is, and if I'm convinced you know what you're doing, I'll sell you the parts anyway. If it's a 661- (return dead part to Apple) part, you're going to pay a lot more to do it yourself, since I'm going to charge you stock price for the part. If you'd posted which model G4 and which fan, my reply would likely have a price for you.

I do have to be convinced you know what you're doing, because I don't want you calling Apple when you break something.

And I'm not a zit-faced dork. I've been working on Apple computers for over 15 years. The certification I have doesn't mean anything, but the experience does.

I'm posting as anonymous because I just admitted I break Apple's rules.

Re:Feature list

[TheRaven64]

I've had a few experiences with Apple 'support.' My PowerBook went in for some repairs to the screen. After six weeks and ten hours on the telephone (most of it on hold, on a 10p/minute number) during which time I was repeatedly lied to (told it had already been shipped back to me), they admitted that it had been lost sometime between UPS delivering it and it entering their repair system. The eventually sent me a replacement which was DOA. Two months after initially sending it in for repair, I had a new one, which had some minor faults, such as the second DIMM slot being defective and it only seeing half of my RAM, but which I kept for about a year before sending it back because I didn't trust them not to lose it.

I have a Mac Mini in a colo centre in the US which had its hard disk fail just under a year after I bought it. The Apple Store refused to honour the warranty because it was not in their tracking system somehow. The colo company eventually replaced it at their own expense.

My next experience was having the hinges repaired on the PowerBook. They decided to close their mail-in repair centre in the UK (violating their own AppleCare T&Cs) and require me to take it to an authorised repair centre. The nearest one of these was an hour's train ride away. Apple also refused to cover the cost of this (even though the hinges had been broken the last time I sent it in for repair) but the repair centre did.

I was eventually contacted by an Apple Executive Relations person, who basically told me I must have imagined their piss-poor support because they did surveys which said everyone was very satisfied with them.

Filling a chronic void in the Mac marketplace

[Tumbleweed]

Apple has for YEARS flat-out *refused* to build a Mac of this type - a normal headless box. They come out with the Mac Mini, which many said was the same thing, but it uses laptop memory and harddrives, which are more expensive per MB/GB, and the thing isn't even upgradable. The Mac Pro is a Xeon workstation, and uses memory to match, and starts at, what, $2k or so? C'mon!

And here's what's really sad for Apple and their shareholders -- the profit margins at what Apple would likely price these things at would likely be much higher than those for iMacs and Mac Minis. Normal 3.5" HDs and regular DDR2 DIMMs are much less expensive than the laptop and workstation-class hardware.

This is a gaping hole in their product lineup, and it's been there as long as I can remember. It's no wonder someone wants to fill that hole. It's just too bad that Apple is going to wipe them out of existence by the end of the week for doing what Apple should've done ten years ago.

Of course, Apple knows all this. Selling machines with built-in displays and non-upgradable machines with limited storage is great for Apple's bottomline: it forces people to upgrade when non-replaceable parts break and non-upgradable machines are too slow to handle modern tasks. But it's also screwing the customer. Fortunately, Jobs' Reality Distortion Field overrides people's common sense (and lack of knowledge about computer hardware in general) so that they FEEL good about their purchase.

Re:Filling a chronic void in the Mac marketplace

[PapayaSF]

This is a gaping hole in their product lineup

You're absolutely correct, and it's a huge opportunity for Apple. All they need is a cut-down Mac Pro, call it a Mac Pro Mini. One (not four) hard drive bays, one (not two) optical bays, two (not eight) RAM slots, one slot for a graphics, and maybe one other slot. They can't sell that for $999 and make a profit? Or sell it for $799 and use it to storm the gates of corporate America.

One more comment, not mentioned so far: Psystar is doomed if for no other reason than that they are selling a computer with "Mac" in the name. Talk about painting a bull's eye on yourself for Apple's lawyers!

Re:Filling a chronic void in the Mac marketplace

[Dekortage]

Psystar is doomed if for no other reason than that they are selling a computer with "Mac" in the name.

Actually the computer is called "Open Computer". Maybe the name has changed since TFA was posted, but Psystar's web site currently calls it an Open Computer.

Re:Filling a chronic void in the Mac marketplace

[kris.montpetit]

*scratches head about vanishing reply*

Two points I'll make to you that you seem to have missed, one of which I addressed already:

OSx86 project As I mentioned before, this is a harmless and free way to get mac OS without buying a mac. It works on almost anything. So if you dont want to buy a mac but want OS X, once again, here you go...

I guess this is just me being an 'apple fanboy' (actually they regularly piss me off..) but realistically speaking, consumers LIKE apple's products! there's no force feeding involved! You can't really deny that.

Re:Filling a chronic void in the Mac marketplace

[Tumbleweed]

but realistically speaking, consumers LIKE apple's products! there's no force feeding involved! You can't really deny that.

You're missing the point - consumers who like the limited range of products Apple makes like Apple products. Apple could expand their product line into a big gaping VOID that currently exists and make even MORE people happy, and do so with a very nice profit margin considering the hardware that would be used. There's a giant stream of money flowing past Cupertino, and all they have to do is reach out and scoop some of it up, but they refuse to do so.

Re:Filling a chronic void in the Mac marketplace

[kris.montpetit]

There's a giant stream of money flowing past Cupertino, and all they have to do is reach out and scoop some of it up, but they refuse to do so. yes, and point taken. The reason they don't, however is an obvious and often commented upon brand move: Apple is the BMW of computers. Just like BMW doesn't make a Geo Metro, apple doesn't make a budget, upgradeable computer. they make a really cool budget computer (mini) and a really insane upgradeable computer (mac pro) and of course a really high end all in one desktop (iMac). But they don't make a run of the mill computer because they figure they are better off not 'stooping so low' as to make a standard, mediocre box. Think of what it would do to their reality distortion field!

Which is why I'm OSX-86'ing my girlfriend's crappy computer that she got for free through an internet subscription, instead of buying a mac mini...I've come to accept apple is a snobby, high end company, and even if they did make this box, I can make my own for cheaper XD

Re:Mmm....

[vought]

Why does this Apple-hardware-only provision of the EULA pertain to OSX but not to Safari? I'm going to take a shot in the dark here, but I think it's probably because Apple makes Safari for Windows which runs on non Apple-branded computers.

OS X, on the other hand, is tied to hardware sales so Apple doesn't have to support the vast and sometimes flaky hardware of the greater PC world. And also so they can make more money selling hardware.

PC_EFI is not new.

[Anonymous Coward]

PC_EFI is a bootloader that's been around in the OSx86 community for some time now. Version 8 allows for GPT partition booting and a host of other features, including the ability to wrap OS X's early graphical booting to a card with a VGA BIOS instead.

These guys are just stealing work contributed to OSx86, throwing it on a standard PC, and trying to sell it. That's very shady, if you ask me.

BTW: OS X 10.5 boots on *many* different motherboards and *many* different configurations, if the kernel and kernel extensions support it (SSE3, PCI-E, etc). PC_EFI is purely a bootloader that emulates some EFI things so a stock Macintosh kernel thinks it's booting on a Mac. It has nothing to do with the hardware, there's plenty of kernel extensions and drivers floating around that support quite a fair chunk of hardware.

-DN

It's About Time...

[Nom du Keyboard]

It's about time the legality of some of Apple's claims and actions are tested in the legal system. Apple gets away with a lot, some of which is questionable?

(I.e. once you sell an operating system, are you really allowed to restrict it to your hardware? Ford can't restrict their cars to only running on Ford gas, and only being repaired with Genuine Ford Parts, for example.)

Could Apple legally say that no other O/S than OS-X is allowed to be run on their computers - just to ensure that you have to buy the O/S from them?

Re:It's About Time...

[pressman]

Gasoline is fuel for the engine of a car. Electricity is the fuel for the computer and I believe any old wall socket will do.

Apple uses industry standard hard drives and RAM. Granted, replacing the HD in some models can be tricky, but it's doable. You don't need Apple branded parts to replace failed ones.

Your analogy fails. Sad considering it was a car analogy and you compared Apple to Ford.

"includes a retail copy of Leopard..."

[Theatetus]

If TFA is right, the $399 includes Leopard.

And, as I keep pointing out whenever I hear this "bundling is great when Apple does it" argument: the whole point is I don't want half of the crap that a mac makes me pay for, anyways.

Re:"includes a retail copy of Leopard..."

[goombah99]

If TFA is right, the $399 includes Leopard.

TFA is wrong. they sell it as a $150 install add on, or you can do it yourself for $125.

And, as I keep pointing out whenever I hear this "bundling is great when Apple does it" argument: the whole point is I don't want half of the crap that a mac makes me pay for, anyways.

Well this comes down to philosophy. On most mac's i've owned there's been some feature I did not use. e.g. PC card, or a scsi port or bluetooth. that's true.

But what I have noticed is too things. First, developers can target more fully featured software because they can assume high level features will be installed. For example, who can foreget the old nightmare days if configuring soundcards or interupts on PCs and the difficulty of finding software that worked with your card. Macs all had (somewhat) high end sound cards from very early days and the driver's for them in the OS distro. So developers could assume they existed.

As a result even though I might not actually need some cheerful toon in some piece of software I bought, the developer just threw it in because they could have no fear it would work.

As a result, I actually tend to use the extras mac includes more often simply because software I buy happens for one purpose takes advantage of them.

The other thing I notice is that while I might not have used firewire on the first mac I bought I definitely started using it on later macs. And bought firewire disks. But then I noticed that my new hardware was backwards compatible with my old macs.

nice... this meant my macs had longer service lifetime because I was not going and trying to find comaptiblilty extensions and drivers. the old macs had them.

In the long run, specing at the high end and getting bundles that are quite cheap for what they include, seems to pay off even if you don't use all the features right away.

the only place where ala-carte specing seems to really pay off is on racks of servers or fleets of comuters (for say an office). There dropping something you know you won't need can save a few dollars.

As a Mac User, and a Realist...

[oahazmatt]

As a Mac User, and a Realist, I feel a sudden urge to express my opinions bluntly, without remorse, smuggly and wearing a turtleneck, yet my opinions are not irrational, bolsterous claims. And the turtleneck? Machine washable.

Apple likes to control the hardware, that's no secret. In fact, I believe if Microsoft only had to design an OS for two or three active production models at any given time, Windows might be far more reliable than I find it to be.

Apple also likes to control the software. As does Microsoft. Both companies are, understandably, against the piracy of their operating systems. It's Microsoft's bread-and-butter, and the main feature pushing Apple's hardware.

Apple is reaching a very crucial stage, where the demand for their product is extending outside of their intended production area. They want to sell both the hardware and the software, and this $399 OpenMac would be an incredible loss in sales.

It could also be a loss in integrity. OS X has not been evaluated on the OpenMac's configuration by anyone within Apple (that we know of) and therefore the stability of the operating system may not be what is expected of OS X on the Apple-branded hardware.

And if OS X isn't as reliable on the OpenMac as it is on an Apple-branded system, where will the fingers point? I doubt very much they'll point at the OpenMac team.

The blame may very well be put on Apple. "You can't make your software work on every computer! You won't let me install it whever I want! You don't let me use any piece of hardware I want!"

Apple has never claimed the above hypothetical comments, and for some reason, that's all I ever see expected of the operating system.

Apple's response may be to act against the OpenMac team as quickly as possible (as it may have already) and sweep this under the rug. Apple can also point to the EULA and say "Not authorized".

Or, Apple could say "Install at your own risk" and simply not offer any support for the operating system when installed on a non-approved PC. However, I feel that would be the worst possible decision, as the tech-world media would not only have a field day with that news, but the judge handling the inevitable class-action lawsuit as well.

Apple is trying to provide as solid a product as possible. They limit themselves to specific hardware models, and it is expensive. These prices are hidden before purchase, they're readily available. I weighed my options and used several PCs before I could finally afford my first iBook.

When I went shopping for a new car, I wanted the BMW Z3 that was sitting on the lot. I found the monthly payments to be outrageously expensive, and settled on a Mercury Sable. I didn't complain to BMW that they should make their car more affordable to everyone, or that they should allow just any other manufacturer produce the exact same car without asking for BMW seal of approval. I bit the bullet and took the cheaper option, which provided me the exact same functionality, without the pleasing but unnecessary asthetics.

If Apple branches out onto additional hardware, honestly that's all the operating system will boil down to: asthetics. The stability is in the hardware restrictions and the lack of options for expansion. And the stability is implied through the sale of a new PowerMac just as much as through the retail sale of a boxed-edition of Leopard. And if OS X doesn't live up to the hype on any other PC, it's Apple that will receive the backlash, not anyone else.

I'm sure an argument could spawn for years, back and forth about why Apple's business practices and the OS X EULA are hypocritical, unethical and flat-out wrong, but what's the point in arguing that?

My only question is this: if someone is so dissatisfied with the way a product is packaged why would they want to buy it and support that company at all?

Re:As a Mac User, and a Realist...

[evilviper]

In fact, I believe if Microsoft only had to design an OS for two or three active production models at any given time, Windows might be far more reliable than I find it to be.

This is pure, unadulterated, urban legend. A hold over from the days when Microsoft would blame the hardware manufacturers for all their software bugs.

You'll note there are innumerable operating systems out there which are stable as a rock, and yet support a vast range of hardware. Linux/BSD are the first to come to mind, but there are others (Solaris, BeOS, et al.)

No matter what kind of hardware you have, 2+2=4 (Intel CPU bugs aside). Crashes should not happen. Period. Diversity does not contribute to this in the slightest.

It's How MS Started

[WebmasterNeal]

Perhaps this is the first step in Apple becoming a giant monopoly selling their OS and other software.

Lawyers' wet dream

[noewun]

This must be the kind of case Apple's lawyers fantasize about. You can almost hear them snarling and clawing at their cage door.

I don't want everything for free.

[StarKruzr]

I want the Mac Apple refuses to sell me: an upgradeable machine that doesn't have ridiculous components (Xeons, FB-DIMMS) that maybe 0.01% of the userbase actually needs.

Jobs refuses to sell it because he knows people will buy it. He fears this because he is in love with AIO and wants people to buy iMacs even when they aren't a fit for their needs. He also is under the delusion that creating a Mac upgradeable prosumer desktop will somehow "Dell-ize" Apple. The reality, which most Mac users understand, is that what is actually valuable about Macs is not their different-ness, but the fact that they run OS X, which is the best consumer operating system on the market. Mac hardware is not special. It got even less special after 2005. Mac SOFTWARE is what is special.

Re:I don't want everything for free.

[bogjobber]

He also is under the delusion that creating a Mac upgradeable prosumer desktop will somehow "Dell-ize" Apple.

That's not a delusion. The reason Apple makes so much money is because they sell high-end machines almost exclusively. Those high-end AIO machines have nice, fat profit margins. The huge majority of what Dell sells has razor-thin profit margins, that's why they're trying to move into high-end gaming machines. I personally would like to buy a $400 PC and install OS X, and dislike Apple because I can't, but it's a sound business decision. Mac software may be what's great from a user's point of view, but hardware is where they make their money.

Re:I don't want everything for free.

[aliquis]

Especially considering the macs use EFI and not BIOS, but then again the hacks works nice with BIOS graphics cards so it can't be that much of a deal if Apple wanted to use them. To require a special mac graphics card are so fucking retarded I don't know where to start.

Re:Fair Use

[notamisfit]

You're talking copyright law. EULA's are contracts and fall under contract law. Barring a few select exceptions (minors, contracts of adhesion, yadda yadda yadda), if you do something that constitutes accepting the contract, you're bound by it. And nothing personal, but could anyone discussing "fair use" on /. take a sec to learn what the term actually means? You know, section 107 of the Copyright Act and all?

Re:Mmm....

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

we're talking about apples, not mangos. get a clue ;)

Re:What?

[domatic]

It doesn't preclude creating an OS monopoly but Jobs' particular variety of control freakery does. MS supplied the OS for a universe of third-party hardware and imperfectly smoothed over the differences between audio from this vendor and video from that and so on. MS' model is or at least was to be Good Enough on a massive scale and beat a little bit of change from everybody. Jobs on the other hand wants control of the entire experience from firmware boot to Desktop and wants make a hefty chunk on every purchase.

the legal argument for Psystar

[djtack]

Maybe Pstystar is trying to get sued, to establish a precedent?

They could argue that the first sale doctrine allows them to modify and resell it.

To get around the EULA, they could bypass the "I agree to sell my soul" box by disassembling the installer program, and disabling the EULA dialog. So they never "Agree" to the license.

Of course installing the software necessarily involves making a copy, from the DVD media to the computer's memory and hard drive. While you might think a license would be needed to perform this copying, in fact Title 17, section 117 specifically exempts this copying:

117 Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53 (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

I don't think Psystar can win, but this is more a reflection of the power that the copyright cartels wield over the government. (BTW I like Apple and would not look forward to another clone war, but that's a different post).

Re:Mmm....

[aliquis]

But I have to say that sometimes it's rather convenient when I get things like new firmwares for my battery1!!, EFI, new graphics drivers and so on thru their software update. It's not like Windows (last time I checked, Linux and Solaris even less) yells and tell me: There are a new BIOS update for your motherboard, and a new firmware for your DVD-player and let me install them, and if there was the suggestions may be of worse versions when the ones you already had. With Apple soft- and hardware this can and is done and even thought I haven't noticed any difference and on a normal PC maybe it wouldn't had mattered it was done and I didn't had to do anything to find the updates or try to find out if there was any.

Apple is going to lose - antitrust law

[Animats]

Apple is going to lose this one. It's a illegal tying arrangement under the Clayton Act:

The basic requirements that must be met for tying to be per se illegal are as follows:

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.

Apple would have to try to enforce their EULA in court against an antitrust claim that their EULA is an illegal tying arrangement, which, on its face, it is.

Apple was able to put the previous generation of clone-makers out of business because some key portions of the original MacOS were in ROM, shipped with the machine. So they could make copyright arguments against cloning the Mac ROMs. But for today's machines, the OS isn't built onto the motherboard, so there's no copyright claim.

IBM lost this issue a long time ago, when Compaq made the first PC clone. That's why there's a PC industry.

Apple could put DRM hardware in future Macs and encrypt future OS releases, like a game console. Not having done that, they're stuck.

Re:Apple is going to lose - antitrust law

[garote]

The concept of "free competition for buying" a single offering produced by a single company is a contradiction in terms, like saying that Nintendo has "a monopoly" on the Nintendo DS. Your argument does not even make grammatical economic sense. Also, you have it backwards. OS X comes INCLUDED with every purchase of a Mac. The only way to be exposed to tying is to buy OS X when you don't own a Mac, which makes OS X the product that is doing the tying, NOT the product being tied. And even THEN, you are not required by the EULA to go out and purchase a Mac to run OS X on. You can just shove the DVD in a drawer. So there is not even any tying taking place. The only sensible legal question raised by the EULA and Pystar is about fair use: Are they allowed to prohibit you from hacking the software to run on whatever hardware you choose? Are they allowed to prohibit a company from selling hardware/software/services that facilitate this? This Clayton Act nonsense is a pleasant geek diversion being bandied about by Slashdotters who think they can interpret law like they can read code fragments.

Re:No wonder Apple wants to stop PsystarDON'T UNDE

[Nom du Keyboard]

All this does is prove how overpriced Apple gear really is.

Umm, did you end with an attempt to troll?

When another company can make a profit selling a more powerful system for half the price, it's not trolling to point out the obvious that the more expensive one is likely overpriced. Only hyper-sensitive Apple FanBois (who did pay too much) can take offense at common sense.