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.
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
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?
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.