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.
The only tenuous EULA claim Apple may make in this case is that this company is encouraging people to violate the EULA by installing OS X on their unauthorized hardware. I doubt such a claim would find much favor in a court, but that doesn't mean Apple won't attempt it (and try to bully this upstart into submission).
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
That might work. Although, why you would purchase a computer from a company that guarantees that it will work with OSX is beyond me. You're paying them the price markup, when you could just visit the osx86project websites (insanelymac.org, etc) and find out that way...
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?
Fine, Apple can't stop people from selling computer that have the ability to run MacOS. But there isn't much market for machines where you have to install the OS yourself.
"Huh? I'd buy a computer like that. So would my friends. We install OSs all the time." True. But you and your friends are not typical consumers. Most people will not buy a computer that doesn't already have an OS on it.
Of course, there's the corporate customers, who have the resources for to install their own OSs, and who buy most computers anyway. But they have a disadvantage individual consumers don't: they're big enough for Apple to sue.
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.
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.
Apple is simply getting too sassy. I just want to see them taken down a notch with this. Just because Apple has a hot girlfriend and is popular doesn't mean Apple has be mean to Apple and Apple Apple Apple Apple Apple Apple Apple Apple
and XT (which includes an Intel Core 2
One day PPC Macs started to use commodity chipset (started with G3 Macs, I think).
Then Macs switched to x86 (Intel processors btw, makes me remember that advertisement Apple did showing a Pentium II carried by a snail).
Soon after Boot Camp arrived, so people started to run Windows in Macs.
Now a clone appears, called "XT"?
What next, Macs shipping with a DB15 joystick connector?
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.
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?
If they win the case, it opens up a precedent that I don't think is in anyone's interest, other than Apple's. What if MS sued HP saying they're not allowed to sell machines that run Windows? It would either be suicide or some weird form of extortion.
This could be THE case that forces MacClones into reality. It won't work for Mister John Q Public from Anytown USA who expect their food to be injected into their stomachs predigested. But for those who are willing to sit with a machine for an hour or so, I don't see how this is much of a problem.
This would be a benefit to people who already have one Apple machine, but want another but don't want to pay premium price. They already have the OS disks.
This is much more interesting than PSystar. I could see they were screwed from the gitgo, but these guys have it sussed.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
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 ..
"Open Tech's site is hosted on a domain belonging to Tokelau, a South Pacific island territory of New Zealand that has in the past been widely used by cybercriminals and scammers."
But that's in the past. Now Open Tech's here, and they're legitimate!
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?
You could not possibly be more wrong. I'm a programmer myself, and make a habit of releasing my software under the GPL (among other OSI-compatible licenses). If I were to incorporate someone else's code into a product I distribute, in violation of their licensed terms of distribution, I would be legally and ethically in the wrong (of course, I'd never do that). However, if someone takes my software (say it's GPL licensed), makes modifications to it, and uses it in his business, he has no legal burden to release those changes back to me unless he distributes the software to others.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
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
Even though Apple prohibit installation of their software on non-apple hardware, I think this is a good think as it might just make Jobs realise that it's time to open-up and prove that their OS is really up to the battle with the competition. If only there were a specific hardware component such as a usb key that could be purchased to turn any computer into an apple-compatible one I would most certainly buy one to try out OS X once and for all.
Oh, by the way, here's the relevant portion explaining this concept from the license itself:
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The only site I could find for Open Tech is here: http://www.freewebs.com/iopentech/. It seems pretty sketchy - a legitimate business hosting on FreeWebs? Also, the photos of the machines (XT) seem to be empty cases, with no drives or anything installed. It puts me off that I don't see any with the side panels off or anything which would reveal an actual computer inside. FWIW I tried their .tk domain (http://www.iopentech.tk/) and I got a 502 Proxy Error.
This is not the second Mac clone maker, it's the third. How soon everyone forgets Power Computing, and what Apple did to them.
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
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
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.
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.