Slashdot Mirror
Second Mac Clone Maker Set To Sell, With a Twist
CWmike writes "Another company is preparing to sell Intel-based computers that can run Apple's Mac OS X. But unlike Psystar, a Florida clone maker that's been sued by Apple, Open Tech won't pre-install the operating system on its machines. Open Tech's Home (equipped with an Intel dual-core Pentium processor, 3GB of memory, an nVidia GeForce 8600 CT video card and a 500GB hard drive) and XT (which includes an Intel Core 2 quad-core CPU, 4GB of RAM, an nVidia GeForce 8800 video card and a 640GB drive) machines will sell for $620 and $1,200, respectively. Open Tech is prepared to do battle with Apple if it comes after Open Tech. 'We definitely would defend this,' said [Open Tech spokesman] Tom. 'The only possible case that Apple can make, the only one that has any chance, would be based on the end-user licensing agreement.'"
I might just buy one. I guess Steve & Co will have to sue me for installing their operating system (which I've paid for) on a computer I privately own. Have fun with that.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Well, that is the custom firmware debate for the iPhone, PSP and the upcoming Wii... can hardware manufacturers control their product? What about software creators?
I mean, do we really BUY anything, anymore - or are we just licensing?
The purchase would be less about saving money, and more about making a statement. Copyright law was always intended to prevent unauthorized distribution of protected materials, and not to dictate use of legitimately purchased materials. In my opinion, and other reading of the law is excessively restrictive.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
I'm not sure I understand why you think such a claim would be "tenuous." Apple makes it fairly clear in their EULA that it's not allowed to install Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, as you know. Just to be sure though, here it is :)
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. 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. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
From http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
I would think the case they would make is that they, Open Tech, are not installing it, but their customers are. And that sounds like a great business plan: sell a combination of products that when used together, encourages a large company with a hefty legal department to sue you into oblivion.
Gotta get me one of these!
The problem with OSX86 is that most of the time it relies on pirated software or software of questionable legality. I mean, sure you could argue that it is fair use, but when the download directs you to a torrent on The Pirate Bay, it makes you have second thoughts. Then there is the issue of updating, etc.
Would I like to install Tiger on my EEE just for the fun of it? Yes. And if I could just buy a Tiger install disk off of e-Bay and hack it easily that way I probably would, but pirating an entire OS... I just don't really agree with it.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Which HW platform is cheaper?
Is Apple's combination HW/SW package a better deal than buying the HW and SW separately? Is the markup on Apple's product so much that the opposite is true?
We always hear about how underpriced the product is compared to Windows products, but how underpriced is it compared to a clone of itself?
And if the Apple clone HW is cheaper than comparable Windows HW, then why is the Windows HW so expensive? Have whiny Mac fanboys been lying to me all these years?
I don't think you get it. Here's how it goes:
(1) Apple sells me an operating system in the form of installable media.
(2) I receive said media, and having completed the sale, the right of first sale doctrine kicks in. I can do any damned thing I please with that media, aside from distributing the copyrighted material to others while I'm still using the product.
(3) Legally speaking, Steve can take a printed copy of his EULA and smoke it.
There, fixed that for you.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
But both you and me know that the price for OS X is the same for everyone because it's supposed to be bought by mac users only, and all macs ships with OS X so what you are buying are actually an upgrade more than a complete OS. It just doesn't say it's an update and don't do any checks for a previous version (it do however require you to install the OS on a mac which kind of is proof enough...)
If you compare the price of OS X with the price of Vista and then compare the volume of each one and what you get for the money you'll quite easily find out that those $129 or whatever isn't enough for the OS.
Both you and me know that macs sell at a premium and part of the reason to pay for that premium is to be able to use their software.
So, would you be happier if the box said "upgrade"? Because then you kind of have lost your argument since you don't own the full version and it's impossible to buy it, just as it was impossible to buy OS X 10.4 Tiger for Intel.
The software are sold under an end user agreement, so if you choose to belive those are valid which we do because if not there's no point in discussing this then what you pay for is the right to USE THE SOFTWARE ON YOUR MAC, NOT TO GET A FULL VERSION OF THE OS TO USE ON ANY COMPUTER.
Hard to comprehend?
If you can make a case rendering all EULAs invalid then you got a point. And in that case Apple have to change something, and that something would be to for example not sell full versions but require a valid/old version to begin with. Would you be happy then? Or would you just copy and install it anyway which is probably the whole point of your argument.
If you don't like it and don't think it's worth it then just don't buy it. Simple as that, no one is forcing you to run OS X on the mac you think is to expensive, you don't have to buy one and use OS X at all.
The main reason to get a Mac is because the hardware and software have designed for each other. Things "just work".
For Joe Sixpack yes, but if you looked at /.'s slogan, it is "news for nerds" not "news for the mainstream public", most of us want a A) fast OS B) Secure OS C) Good looking OS and D) compatible OS. Out of all of the OSes, Windows only has good software compatibility but nothing else, BSD and Linux are fast, secure and can be good looking, but a lot of niche software isn't written for them. With OS X you get a fast OS, secure because it is UNIX, looks nice, and is compatible with a lot of apps (Note: I am not a Mac fanboy, I don't even own a Mac).
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
What moron moderated you flamebait? Rather insightful.
That thinking is part of the problem. Why do business with a company so actively hostile toward its customers?
how to invest, a novice's guide
Contrary the the statement there, I don't the even pretty wild interpretations of an EULA would apply at all. If they wished to pursue that angle Apple would need to go after individual users. From Apple's POV, I believe the only true point of contention would be if Open Tech uses any of their trademarks in its advertising or general web. They can't just plaster Apple OS X images all over the place for example.
No, the real potential source of suits isn't even necessarily from Apple. Rather, Open Tech will have to be very careful in their wording when it comes to promotion. From what I've seen an early draft of their PR used phrases like "Mac Compatible." What exactly does that mean, legally? What happens when a software update breaks the OS? If a customer sees "Mac Compatible" and nothing else, and then buys based on that, I could see grounds for a false advertising suit.
Of course, that can be avoided quite neatly I think with some very careful wording, and by making the limitations and lack of support from Apple very explicit. "Capable of running OS X", with a big fat bold "Not supported by Apple, future updates may not be compatible" warning might work just fine. This just seems like the area where, if these guys are amateur or don't think about it much, they could get tripped up.
Apple's choice of business model is its problem, not ours!
No it doesn't; it requires you only to install on an "Apple-labeled" computer. Conveniently, Apple includes stickers in the Mac OS retail package, so you can stick an Apple label on whatever computer you want! : )
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
indeed, if it's about 'making a statement' rather than a money issue, I'm sure the OP would be delighted to donate the appropriate extra money to Apple.
what does the most expensive version of Windows OS sell for these days? you can just make a donation of about that much, fair?
IANAL, but if Apple can show that permitting people to install their OS on unapproved hardware causes them harm (which seems easy to do if you can show that it is less reliable because Apple has done more rigorous testing and compatibility checks on their own builds), and you can show that the PC manufacturer is in any way encouraging the users to violate the terms of the EULA, then it seems like you have a case of tortious interference.
Any of the actual lawyers on /. know if anyone has ever tried to claim tortious interference over an explicit or implied encouragement to break a shrink-wrap EULA?
1) Apple sells you a CD with a license bound software.
Fixed that for you.
Unless your point of view are proven correct, which I find unlikely since sort of any software are sold under a license as the market works now and I doubt any court would like to render it all useless.
Also I guess your point also makes it ok to steal the code of any open source project and release it in your own closed product, I mean, the code was there to grab, I took it, now it's mine, how does the license matter now when I have the code? Thanks ..
Apple apologists dump whole clips of mod points against people who point things like that out, or who dare suggest that Apple's products are overpriced for fairly low-powered commodity PCs. And heaven help you if you point out Apple's support for DRM (the apologists will blame the record companies) and harassment of hobbyists such as skin developers or the folks that helped patch their DVD authoring software to run on DVD drives other than the grossly overpriced Apple one.
If you compare the price of OS X with the price of Vista and then compare the volume of each one and what you get for the money you'll quite easily find out that those $129 or whatever isn't enough for the OS.
Both you and me know that macs sell at a premium and part of the reason to pay for that premium is to be able to use their software.
Surely $129 is more than enough for the cost of making a CD and the flimsy manuals they provide these days.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
and all are practically unenforceable against consumers
Says WHO? You? And now everyone have to obey? #1195047 is the new law interpreter, court and separator of right and wrong?
How does it matter if it's "weak" aslong as it's "valid"?
Since Apple is a hardware company, if you don't buy an Apple computer, how are you their customer?
That is not even slightly true. There is a fundamental difference between any EULA and a copyright license like the GPL. In fact, the difference is indicated by the name itself: an EULA, or End User License Agreement, is designed to apply to the end user. There is no copying or distribution involved; copyright law does not apply. In contrast, a license like the GPL is a distribution license. It only kicks in when a person tries to perform an act, such as copying or distribution, that would otherwise violate copyright law. You can legally use GPL software without agreeing to the GPL at all; if you perform an act that would require agreeing to the GPL, then that act wasn't mere "use."
Incidentally, this exact issue is explained in the GPL FAQ. To wit:
Incidentally, this means that some software's (e.g. OpenOffice's) practice of presenting the GPL in the installer as if it were an EULA (requiring you to agree to it before continuing the installation) is at best useless, and at worst, dangerously misleading.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
If Apple fought this very strongly, they would be hurting themselves.
Obviously Apple wants more control, for profit motives. But you can't have everything. Especially if what you want is unethical.
Do less evil, Steve.
Yea, i mean its just plastic, in fact any old CD will do just fine. What's on it doesn't matter at all.
Maybe the point is that $129 is the right price for a lovely operating system, if one has the choice of operating systems.
Money is the root of all evil?
And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses when they jump.
I don't have any contract with Apple promising that I'll only buy OS X to install on a Mac running a previous version. If I can get a computer that will work with Apple operating systems, and a legal copy of that OS, Apple has no claim over me.
I mean, if I print a book that's sealed with tape saying, "If you break this seal, you promise not to use this book as toilet paper," do you think I have any legal recourse if you use the book as toilet paper?
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
Apple isn't going to lose any hardware sales off of this -- people buy Macs for the whole package experience, not to install operating systems, and don't really mind the lock-in, probably aren't even aware of it.
Apple is going to gain software sales off of this from people who otherwise wouldn't buy Macs because of the lock-in.
"Orthodoxy means not thinking--not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." --Eric Blair
You know that is not the intention. That is the only way they can phrase their intention, due to the fact they don't manufacture their own computers - and don't want to be tied into a single manufacturer (especially since other lines from that manufacturer may qualify). Remember, just like legislation, when before a judge intent (especially when intent can be fairly easily surmised) is an issue - the verdict isn't necessarily on the letter of the law: that is the reason we have judges and juries.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
Well, they've gained ground with their computers too. You cant really sell apple that short, but With apple its about the overall experience rather then the hardware. Things like the feel, the aesthetics, ect. are as much a part of their branding and advertising as the mac vs pc adds.
Its hard not to see the appeal of their laptops. The design in particular vs most PC manufacturers is much more appealing, feels sturdier, etc. It's not the hardware that mac wants to compete with, its the image, both in software and in the tangible product.
That is a pairing that most PC manufactures neglect. So unless MS finds some pc makers with that vision to pair with their software they are fighting a losing battle to those that aren't particularly concerned about actual hardware capabilities, or that buy into the macOS hype. (its really not any better then windows xp, or gnome sitting on linux (just slightly prettier out of the box) in my experience).
No, it has nothing to do with contract laws. It has to do with who a company perceives as a customer. That means from the company's perspective you are not a customer.
A business relationship should be one where both parties benefits (symbiotic). If only one side benefits then it's not going to last since it's typically at the cost of the other side (parasitic).
If a company is not benefiting you when you buy their goods and services, you should consider no longer buying their goods and services. Likewise, if you operate a company and taking care of a customer's needs ends up costing you, it's smart to encourage that customer to go somewhere else.
Since companies are fond of making money and less fond of losing money, you can tell where you stand as to whether or not you are a customer based on the company's attitudes towards you. Look at who they treat well and whose business they desire to determine who their real customers are.
1. No he had it much closer than you did. Which is ironic because what you say demonstrates that you didn't even bother to read or understand that license. They sold you both a medium containing the Operating System and more importantly the right or license for to install and use a single instance (lets stick to COTS product for now) of their Operating System. And if you read the last line of ANY EULA ever they almost always say something to the effect of "these terms may be superceded by the laws of your state" or in this cae when they in item 'F' "except as... or by applicable law"
But more importantly since you don't like to read there is a fundamental difference.
A. Apple's stuff is something you PURCHASE to acquire. The BS invalid eula you are ignoring is a license pretaining to USAGE something they can't restrict.
B. Open source code by definition doesn't ever restrict you from the mere USAGE. It does however much like apple restrict how you distribute it and how you can possibly distribute something that contains it.
Notice how the parent isn't saying he's free to burn duplicates of OS X and give them away to others and sell them.
What's really sad is that the more you read the license the more they try to make it sound like they haven't sold or given you anything. They don't want to be responsible for anything other than collecting money and maintaining control of ho gets to use their crap. I would absolutely love to see some good EULA cases hit the supreme court to end the absurdity that is becoming the shrink wrap license for anything and everything you ever do.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
Ahh yes, intent is an issue. Consumer intent to sign a contract. I don't see much.
Whatever Apple intends, as long as it sells its OS at retail it doesn't have a very good case for including crazy restrictions.
Especially since brand-tying is generally not enforceable.
Breaking what, the "contract" you don't see until long after you've become the legal owner of the software?
There's a big difference between selling a program and selling a box which contains an unknown contract you may or may not be willing to sign. If the second is their intent, they should label it as such and charge accordingly. I might be willing to risk $.50 on that - like an AOL cd ... save on downloading something to try it out. But it sure isn't a real product, like everything else on store shelves, that becomes full property of the owner upon completion of the sale.
Imagine how ridiculous it would be if we gave this privilege to other copyright holders... Toys wouldn't be sold, they'd be licensed because they contain IP - the sounds, images, characters. Cars too, just trivially, contain computers whose programs are copyrighted and thus wouldn't actually be sold, just "licensed" under insane terms.
Or we could just take a deep breath and realize that letting both parties read a contract, and doing so before the contract is finalized (payment made), are both necessary if a contract was going to be valid. At a minimum they'd need to get you to sign at the cash register - or in some other way tell you that it wasn't a simple sale and reasonably let you examine the conditions.
So was mine.
But that's probably because we are willing to spend the $129 in sweat equity to make our operating systems what we want. Most people don't have that option and are happy to pay $129. In other words: A carpenter wouldn't pay another carpenter to remodel his home...
Money is the root of all evil?
I dunno, $129 for an OS seems like a lot to me
Hear hear.
When we got a Mac, in a very short time (when we actually didn't use it much at all) they released two versions that were around that mark each. And they really were just upgrades; they didn't add much.
So after about $250 in not so impressive OS updates we decided to pay with our $$$ and put the Mac on eBay. Let some other sucker follow that track.
I love competition and all, but having to pay over a $100 for something that (as a freaking Windows user) appeared as an update got old really fast.
Good luck to people that are okay with that; you are the people that make Apple get away with it, and quite seriously, I don't think they can ever hit true mainstream with pricing like that. (but who cares what I think, they can have whatever business model they damn well please).
The good news is, that leaves an opportunity open for a company that can produce a sane product at a reasonable price.
but MS has a much smarter business model. Provide just the software, and don't lock down
You lost me there. Back then you COULDN'T get a PC without MS Windows on it. I'd say MS pretty much locked down every other piece of hardware (that wasn't Apple) on the planet. And that was enough to get them a headstart, and a trip to the courthouse.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
people buy Macs for the whole package experience, not to install operating systems
Speak for yourself, Kemosabe.
People buy Macs for all kinds of reasons, but given how anemic the hardware is for the price ($600 for a $600 laptop without the most costly component in a laptop... the sceren? That's what you get with a Mac mini) it's not reasonable to blithely assert that the hardware is a significant part of the draw.
Apple won't lose hardware sales from these people because anyone who was going to make a hackintosh from these boxes is capable of buying the same parts for less money piecemeal. Not because they wouldn't lose hardware sales to someone who had a legitimate Mac clone.
That doesn't mean they couldn't make money off legitimate clones. Selling an "unlocked" version of OS X retail for $400-$500 would cover their profits nicely. They screwed up on the original clones by selling the OS for too little to pay for the lost sales.
A carpenter can still acknowledge a better carpenter, or one with better connections or more labour available. Maybe he wants a larger/higher quality home than he could make himself.
If you disagree with the terms of the EULA, you can return the software to the vendor and you are entitled to (usually) complete refund.
Ok go to your local BestBuy, Target, WallMart, {insert other box stores here} and buy some boxed software. Take it home and open it, insert the disk and decline the EULA. (You can just pull the shrink wrap off in the parking lot too to test my theory). Now try and return it, you can even tell them its because you found the EULA unacceptable. You are going to get stonewalled. Few retail places are taking returns of open item movies, music, or software. I don't know but I don't think you will get very far attempting to return it directly to the publisher either, even if you can I am certain you will have to eat the shipping costs.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Once Apple sells it, it's not "Apple's product" anymore. Instead, it's the buyer's property. I don't understand why it would be so hard to accept that people decide what the fuck they want to do with their own private property. If Apple doesn't like it, then Apple can decide not to sell it!
What the fuck does that have to do with anything? The price Apple chooses to charge has nothing whatsoever to do with the rights the owner has after the product is sold!
Again, what the fuck? "Apple-labeled" means "Apple-labeled." Nothing more, nothing less. If I stuck one of those stickers on my Thinkpad, then it would become an "Apple-labeled Lenovo Thinkpad." This is not a difficult concept to understand!
And yes, the sticker is Apple's trademark, and Apple provided the damn thing in the box! I'd say that's some pretty strong evidence that Apple intended exactly this -- why else would it provide a sticker of its trademarked logo?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I suspect Apple will sue if Open Tech uses an Mac trademarks or alludes to Apple's trade dress in any way. There's no way that Open Tech will be able to defend themselves - things will get very expensive, very quickly. I doubt Apple would risk playing the EULA card in case the judge finds against them and finds it reasonable for Open Tech to use Apple software on whatever bloody hardware they wish. If that was to occur, Apple would find themselves starring in their very own version of "Attack of the Clones."
Apple will wait quietly to see what ammunition Open Tech provides them. I can't imagine the new company will be able to successfully advertise without alluding to Mac, Apple, or OS X. Apple is the patient shark, and sooner or later the surfer will dangle a limb over the edge of the board.
Which is exactly why Leopard will be the last version of Mac OS X that Apple sells at retail. How much is someone willing to bet that you'll have to purchase entire OS updates in the future via some type of Software Update mechanism?
I love how these companies are "making a statement", but seriously, what statement does it make? How does selling a computer without the OS installed great for consumers? Apple really doesn't care about hobbiests on on OSX86.org trying to get this to work themselves. However, if the loophole is the EULA in the retail box, then, I don't believe they'll continue to let the loophole exist.
Get used to running only Leopard on these computers. There won't be a "retail boxed" version of Snow Leopard out there in the future, and these small "clone" hardware companies are almost guaranteeing it.
No it's not. Label is a term with a legal definition.
"An informative display of written or graphic matter, such as a logo, title, or similar marking, affixed to goods or services to identify their source. A label may be put on the packaging or container of a manufactured product, or on the packaging or surface of a natural substance." Black's, 8th.
The sticker does not magically transform it into an Apple-labeled machine, despite your best efforts, no matter how badly Slashdotters wish it were so.
If they lose the challenge, then Apple will change its business model, since the retail sale of OS X does not even account for 1% of their revenue, and it is the sale of Macs, with their full license, that pays for development. OS X packages are released for Macintosh computers at $129 as an upgrade. That will end if it is ever forced to permit reselling of upgrade packages for white box systems.
Of course, that will never happen, because the discounted upgrade price is a consumer benefit, and no court in its right mind would eliminate that source of low-cost purchasing.
The media does not require any "license" to use, any more than a book or a shirt or a lawnmower requires a "license!"
First of all, why should I review the terms when they don't actually matter anyway (as per my previous sentence)? Second, the only situation where I could reasonably be expected to review the terms is if the damn cashier handed them to me and refused to take my money for the software until after I'd read and signed them.
Once again, Apple's business model is not my problem. The only thing that matters is the terms under which they sell the software, and those terms begin and end with the price unless they want to require me to sign a real contract before the fucking sale is completed!
WTF does that mean? Nothing! Why? Because the copy is the product! Nothing more, nothing less! Ford's blueprints are not the product. Ford's trademarks are not the product. The actual physical car, from the body (that happens to be an expression of Ford's design) to the little metal oval on the trunk lid (that happens to be an expression of Ford's trademark) is entirely mine
And it's exactly the same with the software: yes, Apple owns the copyrights and patents and trademarks, but those are not the product! The product is my copy, and I own it! Completely!
Apple does not have the right to simultaneously claim to be selling me a copy, while also telling me that I'm not allowed to use it. Why the fuck would I buy a thing without expecting to use it?! It's fucking common sense!
My high-school Latin teacher had a saying: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck." Similarly, if it looks like a sale and acts like a sale, then it is a fucking sale!
That's a dirty fucking lie. I'm sure at least some things that I've bought barely had any packaging. And if the only piece of paper you get with the damn thing is the receipt (from the store, not the manufacturer) then there's most certainly not any fucking license!
Liar!
I didn't say "real estate," I said "real property." That means actual, physical, tangible objects, for which the concept of ownership has existed since people were carving them out of rocks, as opposed to abstract, ephemeral concepts (like copyright or contract law) thought up by lawyers and politicians.
Yes, I'm also sad that you can't make a non-bullshit argument.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz