Slashdot Mirror
Psystar "Definitely Still Shipping" Mac Clones
Preedit writes "Continuing its defiance of Apple, Psystar is reassuring customers that it is "definitely still shipping" its line of Mac clones. And, in a further nose-thumbing at Steve Jobs, Psystar this week said it's now making Leopard restore disks available to its customers, even as Apple insists that Mac clones sold to date be recalled.
In its story on the latest developments, Infoweek is reporting that tiny Psystar apparently has no intention of backing down in its legal dispute with the much larger Apple."
I for one am tired of Apple's Monopolistic business practices on their Mac range.
While I don't consider Psystar to be doing anything wrong, I'm pretty sure that given the way copyright law is at the moment, Apple's lawsuit is going to render them a smoking crater in fairly short order.
Where are Psystar getting the money from for all this? Because defending a case of this nature is going to be damn expensive and if they're such a small startup the last thing they want to be doing is spending all their money on legal bills.
...is what I say. It's nice to see the little guy stand up against big buisiness muscle. Apple is beginning to look more and more Microsoft-esque by the week.
I don't think any sane company will break Apple's agreements, licenses on USA soil.
Remember the company shipped "Apple G6 Desktop" and got sued big time? It wasn't based at USA and they weren't trying that hard to get sued. Some media guy browsing Alibaba found the machine, that is all.
For some reason we can't know, Pystar looks like they will be very, very happy if Apple sues them further or this thing becomes more complex.
Would you dare to mess with a gigantic company who even tried to sue State of New York for "Apple" logo? If you dare, would you start your business in USA? Some very big promises/guarantees by very big corporate powers must be given to Pystar. Don't get surprised if there is real IT media left and uncovers it.
Anybody remember when IBM (which was mightier than Apple can ever hope to be) failed at utterly crushing tiny Compaq?
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Isn't competition good? Isn't this like "net neutrality" or the Justice Department's efforts to let software companies provide alternatives to microsoft or "common carrier" issues? If Steve Jobs doesn't like, he can become more efficient and charge less and undercut Psystar.
I have to say that I admire their gall. They're paying a rather dangerous game*. Unless they have some really kick ass lawyers who can convince a judge of the unenforcability of Apple's licensing terms, I don't see anything happening except Psystar getting smacked down HARD. As in, take all their assets + punitive damages hard.
Of course, this could be a situation like General Computer Corporation. (The Namco & Atari partner who created Ms. Pac Man.) They were just a bunch of college kids having fun, and they didn't have money anyway. When they got sued, their reaction was: "Cool, we get to go to court!" Sometimes it's nice not having anything to lose.;-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
...so I think I'm going to buy one of these just to piss them off. Maybe we should all pitch in and buy Steve one for Christmas too.
While it may be shaky grounds to sell these machines as Mac Clones. There should be no reason not to sell those machines with a Linux Equivalent. The nice thing is that you -could- buy a Leopard disk and load it, that is your own choice.
This is no different as my Intel PC that runs Ubuntu, but -could- run Vista if I wanted to.
Load New Commander (Y/N)?
I think Compaq had Microsoft and some part of Government/Corporate scene who is very afraid of IBM monopoly behind them.
Microsoft was allowed to license MS-DOS to _anyone which wants_ from the beginning. It is part of their agreement with IBM and it is why BillG and Ballmer are called "visionary". There is no such thing on OS X. Apple believes in integrated hardware/software combination from the very beginning.
Having reports like "I pressed power button but my Mac slept 10 secs later, it must be broken" is very common on Apple scene. It is nothing on a PC running Windows or Clone OS X.
What those idiots did is also convincing Apple that clones/licensed machines was always a bad idea. They ship JUNK PC.
If PsyStar were limiting themselves to shipping hardware and bundled unmodified OS X 10.5 retail disks, I really think why would have no legal issues at all. However, by the sound of it, not only are the PsyStar systems running a modified variant of the OS X operating system (including some modifications to get the system running on generic hardware, just like OSX86), but they intend to ship 'Restore disks' that sound suspiciously like modified OS X 10.5 install sets.
That's going to be their downfall in this - the derivative work.
Apple mini is also still over a YEAR OLD AT the same PRICE and hardware. $799.00 for a 2.00GHz cpu, 1gb of ram, dvdwr, 120GB hard drive, and gma 950. Also the chipset maxes out at 3gb of ram as well. Is a very big rip off as you can get a system with the e8400, 2-4gb of ram a mid-range video card, dvdrw, big and fast desktop HD, nice MB, firewire, and more. For $700 to $1000. uses up to date parts and chip sets unlike the mini.
Wrong! I can read /. on Firefox or any other browser.
GP is right! Just that Apple fanbois will never see the wrong in it.
This is a VERY interesting case. Who is Psystar?
Seriously, out of nowhere, a tiny company starts to sell mac clones. It was so sketchy, we on slashdot originally called it a hoax.
Now, they got the guys who beat Apple once before representing them in the fight.
Curiouser and curiouser. It may be an intentionally staged dispute by various oems to create a Mac market for themselves. Vista is not moving boxes, but Mac compatible motherboards may be profitable.
The objective may be Apple's refusal to allow MacOS on non-Mac hardware. If they win, and Apple is not able to enforce this restriction, I can see a whole bunch of clones flooding the market.
This is /.! IP is evil and satanic here! Geeze! With your low 6 figure userid you should know better, man!
Psystar ships its own flavor of hackintosh... they are not clones. I don't get the persistence of the label. Is it just the desire of folks to have an actual clone as a choice to run OS X that keeps the term active in discussions?
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
The issue between Compaq and IBM wasn't DOS... It was the PC BIOS.
However, Compaq implemented their version of the PC BIOS from scratch. Psystar didn't implement their own OSX clone from scratch.
I bet it's the size of an office stapler and sounds like a jet plane at takeoff, but still ... maybe the 3G will actually work.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
Read TFA, googled a little. It seems like I'm missing something. It seems they simply charge outrageous markup on generic, mediocre Intel systems. Throw in a moderately cheap-looking case and charge $155 for the OS installation. What's new here?
If this was back when Apple was using PowerPC processors, maybe they'd have a point. But I don't see this as being a "clone" of a Mac, because clone implies hardware and this (and the Mac's) hardware is the same as everyone else's.
Compaq did a clean-room implementation of the IBM BIOS. Psystar didn't do a clean-room implementation of OS X.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
BSD developers should start building an OSX clone from some flavor of BSD specifically for Mac Clones like Pystar, plenty of desktop apps out there now for BSD flavors just take a look at PCBSD which uses KDE but other desktop environments would suffice too XFCE is a good one,,,
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Apple has always held a tight grip on their hardware and software standards. If you don't approve, you don't have to buy their stuff. That is what ~95% (though rapidly decreasing) of people choose to do.
But it is precisely that total control that lets Apple deliver such a relatively high quality product. I'll admit that Leopard is not up to Apple standards... but overall, their products are vastly superior to Windows, despite the huge resources and community working on the Windows environment compared to the Mac world.
The control of hardware and software allows Apple to not have to adapt to the whims of a thousand hardware makers, and it lets them produce a computer like the iPhone (which is mostly just a little Mac), which clearly people love as compared to other "smart" phones. Why do people love it? Because the crushing grip Apple keeps on their standards results in a relatively easy experience for the end-user.
Does this qualify as fanboy bullshit? Why? I'm just saying if you don't like it, don't use it. But the facts speak for themselves. People hate Vista, the average Joe can't/won't figure out linux, and people generally enjoy the Apple experience.
Another funny thing is, Apple kept shipping Darwin ISO binaries freely to x86 Machines and nobody got interested. Some clever people figured they may also have a Quicktime server that way (which perfectly performs) but that is all.
IMHO you can have a very advanced OS X experience (minus Adobe/iTools) via installing FreeBSD 6 and running WindowMaker on top of it. Games? Well, even after Intel switch, scene doesn't look that bright anyway :)
Even if Psystar somehow manages a court victory that would allow them to purchase and sell copies of OS X installed on generic x86 boxes, all that Apple has to do is stop selling OS X to any retail outlet other than its own. If Psystar can't get legal copies of the software to put on the machines it sells, there isn't any legal way that they can stay in business at that point, other than going to Apple stores and purchasing copies of OS X at full retail price.
We're also heading towards a future of digital distribution. It started with music, has moved to movie rentals, and looks as though it can be expanded to anything in the near future. What's to stop Apple from selling you the newer versions of OS X online? In five years when everyone wants to upgrade to Puma or whatever else they end up calling it, you have the option of downloading the upgrade to your computer instead of having to go out and purchase any physical install media.
Does it really matter if the court rules that Psystar can do whatever they want with a copy of OS X once they already have it if Apple does everything that they possibly can in order to prevent Psystar from ever obtaining a copy of OS X?
The law was different back then. Intellectual property protections are now much, much stronger in the United States.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
I wouldn't be too sure about the guarantee either, seeing as how they're about to be made bankrupt by Apple.
There is a huge difference between Apple and Microsoft from a monopoly perspective.
Microsoft was using strong-arm, anti-competitive tactics to ensure that all desktop PC systems were using their operating system.
Remember how hard it was for people to try and get these companies to ship Linux on a PC? Remember how MS had them all tied up in licensing agreements that said that they couldn't ship a different OS?
And then, because Microsoft had all the desktop PC vendors locked up it was able to force them to ship it's web browser and have it set as the default?
That's completely different than Apple. Apple makes their own desktop PCs and they make the OS that runs on it. They aren't forcing Dell to adopt OSX. They aren't forcing HP to adopt OSX. They're saying... you guys use whatever OS you want, we are using our own, home-grown OS on our own hardware. We're selling an integrated system. You're selling a composite of mostly off-the-shelf parts bundled with support.
It'd be like saying Ford is exploiting their monopoly on Ford engine's because GM starts selling GM cars with Ford engines and labeling them as "Ford Clones". Because GM is using sub-standard parts or parts for which the Ford engine was never designed to support people are going to start buying the GM "Ford clone" and having problems... and will possibly blame Ford for incompatabilities, thus tarnishing Ford's brand.
I don't understand how people are confused about this. If Psystar wins this will pretty much destroy a lot more than the computer industry.
fanboi much??
I keep reading about how PsyStar modified OS X, so I'm assuming they're not using EFI emulation. Would Apple still have case against them if they started using the EFI emulation? If they started using this they could probably even ship the computers without OS X preinstalled and just ship the boxed OS X, letting the end user install it when they receive it.
Even if they installed it at the factory, wouldn't this ruin Apple's case since OS X would then be unmodified (even being able to get updates straight from the Apple servers)?
Psystar is going to win this as long as Apple sells their OS as a boxed product.
Insisting that Apple's separately sold software has to be run on Apple's hardware is an unenforceable and illegal tying arrangement under US antitrust law. This exact issue has come up before in 734 F.2d 1336 DIGIDYNE CORP. v. DATA GENERAL.. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: The issue presented for review is whether Data General's refusal to license its NOVA operating system software except to purchasers of its NOVA central processing units (CPUs) is an unlawful tying arrangement under section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 (1976) and section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 14 (1976). We conclude that it is.
That's clear enough.
In antitrust tying cases, it's very unusual for a tying provision in a contract to be found legally enforceable. A more common situation is that some victim of a tying arrangement wants a court to compel the company in a monopoly position to do something, like sell them spare parts. Even then, the tying company usually loses.
... and why is he suddenly posting here so much? Is he new? :-)
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I was trying to figure out something on osx86's website. now that this story is up, the site is down.
If Psystar wins this, Apple's going to have two choices:
1. Go to hard DRM to really lock OS X to Apple hardware, close the kernel and install Microsoft-esque 'tilt switches' in the kernel and applications, shut down their open source releases, and add something like Vista activation to OS X.
2. increase the retail cost of OS X to maybe $500 to cover the loss of the Mac hardware business.
Well, I guess they could have a third option... dump the Mac and just make music players and phones.
Whatever way it turns out, it's not going to be good.
Why does Apple do things this way?
This is my own musing on the subject - MS did the smart thing in just making software and letting people install it on whoever's hardware. This allowed dozens of companies to create systems for Windows to run. i think that was a big part of what allowed Windows to become dominant (more than the anti-competitive stuff they did later). Wouldn't the MacOS run on more machines if there was competition in the market to build hardware to run it? If Psystar can build less expensive and less queefy looking boxes, Apple might lose money on hardware but sell more copies of the OS. Part of the fun of playing in Windows world is that i've got dozens of vendors that can sell me an assemble system, or i can buy the parts from hundreds of vendors/manufacturers and build it myself. That's another thing Apple seemed to miss.... The MS model created entirely new industries. Apple spawned a few companies that make things for hte iPod, but that's about it. From a previous /. conversation i learned that it is possible to home brew a mac, but it's very difficult and few people have the knowledge to do it.
Could someone more familiar with the history post on why they this is their business model?
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
That's a really interesting point. So had the IBM PC come out today, no one would be able to copy it, the phrase "IBM compatible" would never be coined, and the PC revolution wouldn't have happened, or would happen MUCH more slowly. I think this a wonderful gedanken experiment for how patents (in their current form) actually stifle, rather than promote innovation.
Yeah, the verb tenses are a little confused, but you know what I mean.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Didn't we go through this very sort of thing in the 80's with IBM? Didn't the proliferation of IBM-PC clones create the ultimate dominance of the PC in the marketplace? Apple would do well in this situation to appear all righteously indignated over some upstart company selling Apple clones, but in the end let them get away with it, because ultimately it will increase the demand for genuine Apple products.
Remember when IBM wrote and maintained their own OS on that hardware?
I'm a user of Apples products. I feel that the trade offs are worth the price. However, if Pystar wins it's suit, Apple will be forced to increase the cost of OS upgrades to be a realistic reflection of the development costs of the OS.
Apple sells the OS upgrades but that in no way actually covers the cost of developing the OS. I expect that we'd see a doubling, or possibly trippling of the OS upgrade cost. It would be perceived by the "IP Bad - Stealing Good!" crowd as Apple trying to penalyze Pystar, but in actuallity it would be absolutly necessary to keep being able to invest in improving the OS at the expense of Hardware sales.
Anecdotal as it is, I view my computer as a single device. The Hardware and the software together are "The Computer," and I don't appreciate this cretin endangering the one cohesive computing experience out there because he has an undeserved sense of entitlement to someone elses work. Anyone that actually purchases his computers is contributing to the "Windows-ification" of the Mac ecosystem.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
How can they run Apple out of business? Firstly, most Apple sales are iPods, then laptops, and Psystar aren't selling anything in either of these markets. Secondly they are bundling a retail copy of OS X with every Mac clone they sell. Apple is getting $129 for every Psystar sale. This isn't like the authorised clone makers, where they were getting MacOS 7 very cheaply, they're paying the full retail price for every machine shipped.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Darwin isn't all that great a version of BSD (FreeBSD is a MUCH faster and more reliable server OS than OS X), and OS X is a whole lot more than Darwin.
It's the stuff on top of Darwin that makes OS X worth using on the desktop. If you don't want all the code Apple wrote, then you're way better off buying a generic Wintel box and running FreeBSD on it.
As mentioned elsewhere, the key issue was the Compaq whiteroom creation of a clone bios and compatible hardware. These machines were not super cheap, but they opened to door to super cheap machines and created the market for standard commodity hardware. Throw the MS OS in the mix, and businesses did not have to go to IBM unless they needed complete solutions.
What is interesting is this same thing is now threatening MS. Businesses need long term solutions, not innovative eye candy. Consumers want ever cheaper computers, but, like IBM, MS has become too bloated and inefficient to deliver a cheap product at a profit. Would there be any complaints against Vista if am ultimate upgrade were $100 instead of $200+? That and forcing businesses to honor the MS business plan instead of their own is quite a bold move.
So what does this mean for Apple? Not much. If MS can enforce the EULA that says the home edition cannot be virtualized, or OEM editions cannot be transfered to a new machine, then it seems that Apple should be able to limit the use of it's OS to Apple branded machines. I see no problem with shipping a computer that can run the current version of Mac OS X, but it would be shipped as a 'naked pc', which, of course MS would then file lawsuit against as encouraging piracy.
In any case as long as such machine had a warning that Apple would likely upgrade the OS so it would no longer run on the machine, I think companies should be able to sell as many Apple compatible machines as they want. As I mentioned before, the only problem would be that users would then call Apple for tech support, reveal they were running a clone, and Apple would give not support. This would create a cost for Apple, which they would then sue the clone manufacturer to recover.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
..of the shrink Wrap EULA definitively ruled upon.
Doubt if it is going to happen here.
From TFA:
"Psystar also this week said it is making Leopard OS restore disks available to its customers" "Psystar is definitely still shipping Open Computing products and we've introduced our restore utilities to enhance the computing experience for our customers at no extra cost."
I think this kills it as a straight up EULA fight.
What? Have you ever looked inside your Mac? Are the components plated in gold? Are the cables oxygen free copper? Are the LEDs shrouded in diamond?
No. Of course not.
The hardware in your Mac is completely the same as commodity hardware you can buy off the shelf. The only difference is the BIOS and the OS. If you're going to rant on about how Apple aren't playing the "lowest common denominator manufacturing" at least do yourself a favour and post as AC, because otherwise you just make yourself look like a fool.
4 of my friends bought a Mac last year. Their reason was exactly "It just works", nothing else. They had no clue about inner workings of OS X, how modern it is, how evil MS is or they didn't even care about them.
For them, having a laptop which will boot to desktop each time you turn on/wake from sleep is something like "magic".
I don't think a generic, cheap parts PC can offer that kind of experience and it automatically makes Apple's prestige and brand value obsolete.
It is why this troll company should be investigated by IT media. I don't expect it from CNET if you understand what I mean.
We went through this with cars. The manufacturers, who had just as deep of pockets and just as many or more of lawyers as apple could possibly throw at this situation wanted to make it so you could only get and install bloated price OEM parts to go on their cars. They lost in court and now you can go to the parts store and get a variety of parts that don't come from the major manufactuers and have their stamp on them, but they will fit into place and work. You can get out your welder and mix and match for that matter, if you want a belchfire motor and an Acme transmission in a roadhog chassis, it is legal to do so. IOW you can get 50 buck starters that work just as good as the original 150 buck starters. Or engines or what have you. And they can't insist you only burn "their" brand of gasoline either, nor can the gasoline company insist you can only put it into approved brand cars. So there's your car analogy, hardware is the cars, software is the gasoline.
Now the car parts clone makers can't claim they are the original manufacturer, but they can still do it and the consumer is obviously better off by a wide margin. Apple is out to lunch, hope it makes it to the supreme court.
With that said, I don't want either a mac clone nor OSX, Linux works just fine on generic commodity hardware if you do just a bit of homework before you buy components or systems. But the *principle* is important. And if Apple throws a hissy fit about patents, that needs to go to the supreme court as well as to why if they can get a patent there is no warranty as to being suitable for purpose for software. That is such a blatantly glaring ripoff to the end user consumer it ain't funny. One or the other for software, copyright or a patent, but not both.
The law should not care about apple's (or anyone else's) buiseness model. It should just care about providing a framework for a competitive market.
In my opinion, any license provision which enforces vertical integration should be unenforcable. I have not read TFA (hey, this is slashdot!), so I'll make a generic example. Let's say apple sells an operating system. It also sells computers with the os preinstalled. Let's say somebody else starts buying the operating system from apple, buying hardware from somewhere else, and selling the hardware with the operating system preinstalled. First sale doctrine should allow this. The assertion that the software is licensed rather than sold shouldn't in my non-lawyer opinion hold in court, since there are no recurring payments.
This is good for competition because it would force apple to have their hardware be competitively priced. Of course, if their hardware has a high cool factor (like the macbook air, or the iphone) and people are willing to pay extra for that, that doesn't mean it has to be cheap.
From their website: "This utility will allow your Open Computer to boot from the native Leopard installation DVD" - Pystar Restore disk That "utility" sounds like EFI emulation. Can I get an amen?
Mod me up, mod me down, do your worst you modding clown.
Okay, this is a tough one. I thought about this case for a while and I actually seeing Psystar winning. I believe that Apple will actually to convince the court that by selling "Mac Clones" with a hacked copy of Leopard, they are making customers who are looking for a cheap "Mac" that just works in a bit of a situation. This puts the regular user in a bind because what if their computer messes up? They then call up Apple or go to an Apple Store to be turned down and possibly have their contact information stored for further legal dispute against Psystar. Granted Psystar offers support, but how helpful will they be compared to Apple's?
The issue is not the EULA or Copyright, it's over support of hardware and software and where to get serviced.
If anyone thinks that Psystar winning would mean they'd suddenly explode in popularity and start raking in cash, you are deluding yourself.
If they win, Apple will simply find the easiest to use method of constricting the availability of OS X. As others have mentioned they'll probably go the digital distribution route, pulling physical copies from stores and requiring you have an Apple store account and a valid Mac serial number tied to it.
Psystar's whole value add (not much of one) of having OS X preinstalled would dry up instantly.
But go ahead, cheer them on in their effort to leech off Apple's brand. Apple won't (can't!) stop you from putting OS X on your own hardware as it is. Being able to buy a machine with it preinstalled is of zero value unless you're trying to pass it off as somehow being "official."
I've been following the OXS86 scene pretty closely (as I have built a hackintosh myself). Nowadays they are at the point where you can install the retail Leopard DVD onto a PC.
There's a bit of setup work, but I bet they are looking into this closely. They may have a "setup" dvd, and then you use the Leopard install disc after the system is prepped.
What are you missing? In the case of this system you are comparing a Intel Pentium Dual Core (*Cough* rebranded dual core celeron *cough*) To a Intel Core 2 Duo. One is junk and the other is a top of the line processor. Worth more than that price difference if you ask me. Plus size/form factor are a consideration.
if psystar started making macbook clones?
finally, i could be just as trendy as a coffee shop mac user, and have cash left over to buy coffee!
Good people go to bed earlier.
there's nothing to stop people buying the apple bundle just because of clone makers. Apple could maintain their same standards if there were one clone maker or a thousand and consumers could still choose them. They are the only ones can stamp Apple on their computer products though. There's nothing stopping Mac owners now buying apple branded RAM either, even though other generic RAM will fit and work, and they could choose that (and a lot do because Apple charges a lot more for their RAM) if they wanted to and it might void the warranty (I don't know on that, maybe not though), but they *can* do it legally. This is just taking that same idea and legal rights and extending it to the whole hardware package, and as to software, as long as you aren't selling illegal cloned copies, you can cram it in anyplace you feel like. There's a distinct difference between a copyright and some EULA.
Competition is good within a framework of law. Stealing a bunch of Rolex watches and selling them at 1/10th the price out of the trunk of your car with no legal consequences does not promote a healthy marketplace.
I guess we would be back to PowerPC processors or something else doublequick if that was the case! Apple does make a few bucks on other things than it's hardware however, don't panic just yet.
I get this picture of a tiny little mouse flipping the finger at this giant eagle swooping down on the mouse.. Then the mouse pulls out a 50cal machine gun and blasts the eagle... Or at least that's how I *hope* this goes... In case, you can't tell, I'm definitely FOR Psystar...
Who needs Apple or MacOS? A nice Dell Vostro1400 with Ubuntu does the trick nicely without Microsoft...
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Or Apple's reputation of "just working" will go down the tubes because they no longer have total control over the hardware.
I predict in 2012, we'll see the OSX BSOD projected on the ceiling at the Olympics.
Except, knowing Apple, it will be fuchsia instead blue.
In any case, this is pretty much exactly what Microsoft did: clone an OS marketed by someone much bigger and more powerful (IBM). Nobody objected then...
Insisting that Apple's separately sold software has to be run on Apple's hardware is an unenforceable and illegal tying arrangement under US antitrust law.
What if the software has to be modified in order to run, and that modified version is then redistributed as these "Restore" discs?
I can understand that a tying provision might not be enforceable, but if the OS is being modified against the EULA, and then the modified version is redistributed at a profit... isn't that what's really at issue here?
Shouldn't the comparison be to Psystar doing a clean-room implementation of Apple's hardware? AFAIK Compaq didn't do a clean-room implementation of MS-DOS.
Andy
This is seriously not a big deal for Apple. If they lose in court, they will simply start selling their OS as an upgrade. And since the only way to get an "upgradable" MacOS computer will be through Apple, Psystar's business model will fail because they will not be able to claim first-sale principle. (Assuming the idea of upgrades does not get tossed, but that probably will not)
Of course, if Apple does lose, the case may change the shape of the computer industry because of implications for the EULA.
Cheers,
m
DAMMIT PSYSTAR, YOU ARE ONLY GOING TO RUIN IT ALL FOR THE REST OF US! I love apple products and i dont mind paying extra cash for the extra shiny, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside.
NOW CUT IT THE HELL OUT! BEFORE YOU DO SOMETHING THAT WILL END UP RUINING IT FOR ALL THE REST OF US!
... back in the mid-90s. Best to forget about them... hey sucked hard. All sorts of hardware compatibility problems cropped up, if memory serves. But as others have said, Apple is fundamentally a hardware company - not a software company. So they really don't give a rat's ass that Psystar is paying for copies of Mac OS - Psystar is still trying to grab Apple's bread and butter - hardware.
More on Mac clone history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clones#Official_Macintosh_clone_program
I like rooting for the underdog, or the little guy as much as the next slashdotter, but spending more money on an unlicensed, unsupported clone running a closed source operating system is just plain stupid from a security standpoint.
Apple already sucks at delivering patches in a timely fashion (bind, anyone?), they're certainly not going to go out of their way to ensure their patches are installable on Pystar machines.
So while the idea of saying up yours to EULAs and non-enforcable clauses and arguing that point in court is entertaining, and tickles my "aww neat" spot, spending money on an unmaintainable, closed source, hacked, unlicensed piece of crap does not.
Also, I doubt Pystar did all the work to get OS X on their boxes. I can't vouch for this but I would not be surprised if they were simply making you pay for the stuff from osx86, which is even worse, in my book.
Bottom line, running a Hackintosh should probably be restricted to the hacking lab, or entertainement value, or for quick and dirty testing, not production use -- which is not what Pystar is implying.
So that's sad, but I probably won't shed any e-tears when Pystar crashes and burns.
A big thank you to the folks who responded to my question. i'd mod you all informative but i don't have any points and i've already posted.
Please hook up these folks with some karma if you have some handy!
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
Forgot to mention... similar scenario with Sun. Did anyone here every have to use an Axis (sparc clone) workstation running Solaris? Horrible.
Well the "restore disks" can simply be images of the install disks, I don't think that Apple can sue them for that, as long as the OSX disks that they used to install the system come with it.
The money you save buying this Apple knock-off will be spent stuffed in your swear jar.
You're better off just building your own PC and using any of the already available hacks to install MacOS X. Or better yet, just buy a Mac if you really want the OS--you'll get supported hardware *and* all of your gear will work.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
I bought one on Day -17. It arrived on Day 4 or so. It didn't work. Period. On nothing. Their customer service was useless. Their return policy says "Our shit doesn't stink, you're an idiot." Then they try to sell me MORE stuff to see if they can make it work. I am letting American Express handle their BS. There were too many problems to allow this to be called the MacClone we all want.
Winn Schwartau
Wouldn't THAT be something to think about?
"END USER license agreement" Then END USER is not the one who installed it on the hardware. Case Closed :-)
I have said it before and I will say it again. If I could buy a standalone copy of Apple's OS I would buy one tomorrow.
As it is I don't want to be locked in to their crappy hardware.
_______________________________
Q: What is the problem with Vista?
A: XP
I'll try anything once. Twice if it tastes good
Maybe just some guys with balls doing business how it's supposed to be.
Maybe they do something not 100% legal, but morally I hardly see them doing something terribly wrong.
If Apple loses, I'd expect the next logical step would be to turn OSX into a subscription or a leased product rather than a bought product. By making the end-user pay an on-going fee and signing a contract for the OS Apple would once again be on solid ground for requiring their software to only be installed/run on approved hardware.
Plus c*a change, plus c'est pareil fyi.
*C-cedilla. /. editor sucks
As long as Apple makes clear that Apple doesn't intend its software to run on Psystar's hardware, Apple hasn't staked its reputation on how its software runs on Psystar's hardware.
When a Apple application fails on a Psystar rig, what does the user do? Go to the Internet. A quick bit of Googling will reveal whether it's (1) also a problem on Apple's hardware, or (2) Psystar-specific. If (1) then the Psystar gear has introduced no new problem for Apple's rep. If (2) then the only rep at risk is Psystar's - which Psystar can deal with by (a) providing their own product support and a quick fix, or (b) growing a user community to do that. If Psystar manages neither, then its rep suffers, and its sales follow. On the other hand, if it manages one or both, then it acquires a good rep, and Apple gains a larger hardware base to sell to.
So it's critical to Apple that it represent that its software may well not run on Psystar. But shutting down Psystar is against Apple's interests. The only way Apple's reputation is involved is in how such anti-competitive actions, when not even rationally self-serving, engender disgust among potential customers.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I go buy a toaster. I take it apart and turn it into a small space heater. I can sell that, right?
I go buy a Mac OS X DVD. I remove some files, add some files, and make it into a DVD which I can use to install Mac OS X on any Intel-based computer.
Can I sell that?
In theory, the answer is no because I am modifying the Intellectual Property of Apple. However, somebody designed that toaster and I am modifying their intellectual property to make it into a space heater.
disregard this... I suck
Apple is not led by a visionary. It is led by a good businessman. A good businessman, who, like Microsoft, wishes to lock competitors out of the market. Considering that Apple's market cap. now exceeds Google, I have to wonder if it is just borderline psychosis behind Mr. Jobs attempt to shut down Psystar -- it just screams "antitrust violation." Maybe Jobs now believes his own marketing gimmick, and thinks there is a legitimate difference between Apple and the rest of the computer industry.
Palm trees and 8
This is very similar to Microsoft going after mod chip makers for XBOX. While it may appear different on surface, it is quite similar. Microsoft was mad that people were using their hardware to do things other than play their games. This was a problem for them because they subsidized the hardware in order to make profit on the games. Apple is doing the same thing basically, only they subsidize the software to make it back on hardware. In both cases it hits the bottom line. Although in Apple's case, they don't really take a loss outright like Microsoft. They assume though that each sale of these Apple clones means 1 less sale of Apple brand machine.
Has no one noticed that Psystar sounds suspiciously like Scheister?
It's bloatware, the windows registry, bad ui etc etc etc
Drivers for third party hardware is way way down on the list of windows suckitude.
...
I think one reason Apple can be so nimble in the OS market is that they have fewer hardware variables to deal with. This is exactly because they place limits the hardware that OSX can run on.
Maybe they're reluctant to have the perceived quality of their software tarnished by having it fail more often on a larger variety of (probably lower end) hardware.
I *have* a clue, and much of the reason my latest laptop is a Mac is the same: it just works.
Both of my previous laptops had issues with sleep mode. The last one towards the end also tended to overheat and shut down if I was doing something as simple as watching a Youtube video. I needed an external card to work in Reason without a noticeable delay between playing a note and hearing it sound. Not to mention all the little annoyances that regularly plague Windows machines.
All this went down a few months after Apple switched to Intel architecture. When the dust settled and Boot Camp was introduced, I realized I could have the best of both worlds: a laptop designed for multimedia processing, and (through Boot Camp) retain access to my collection of (pre-2004) Windows games.
Five months with the MacBook Pro and I'm a pretty happy camper. Macs aren't as trouble-free as the fanboys would lead you to believe: I am experiencing a minor yet annoying sound glitch when using the headphone jack and a mysterious failure to connect to my gf's Netgear wireless router, but other than that everything really has just worked.
Regarding the current issue with Psystar, I wish them the best of luck as I would love to see more people using a decent operating system. Maybe they'll open the door for a new round of Mac clones so I can get a desktop system running OS X without paying an arm and a leg for crippled expansion. As long as I remain a laptop user, however, I'm going to stick with Apple's hardware.
Your brain is not a computer.
If Apple loses this is just going to cause them to start implementing tighter hardware restrictions. Think TPM this time for real, or some other custom chip that does something that no one else can do without it.. Macs don't have it now but they could in the future. Obviously this will take a while to phase in but Apple is not going to transition to selling software only.
If they win, they will have invsestors beating down their door. And they will break into the market of the fastest growing personal computer manufacturer. Plus, it will resolve a long standing legal question as to the validity of EULAs. I see no down side here for them at all.
The downside I see is that if they win they paid a bunch for the win and the benefits go equally to them and to people who did not chip in.
The new guys have "second mover advantage" - they're able to go into a proven workable business model with lower startup costs.
Psystar, however, still has "first mover advantage" - they're already up and running, and may be able to make and hold market share, build brand name, and/or pay off much or all the extra costs before the crowd of "me-too" baby ducks is hatched and nibbling their legs.
Interestingly, Psystar (if they win) are in a second mover position with respect to Apple. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You're absolutely right that someone can buy it off the shelf and take it home and do whatever they want with those bits... and if they aren't doing what Apple says they will support then Apple doesn't have to support them.
But that's not what's going on here.
What's going on here is that Psystar is RESELLING the product claiming that the user is getting Apple OS X on compatible hardware. That's a far cry from "I go home and hack it onto my toaster". Now they are using Apple's brand name and Apple's marketing investment to push an inferior product to customers. How is it inferior? Becuase it's not running on the same hardware for which it was designed. They are making a lot of claims about their hardware's capabilities and compatability with Apple's software.
They are exploiting Apple's trademarks and copyrights.
I'm running Archlinux, if that helps.
Learn about Photography Basics.
The bottom line here is that Apple sells OS X in stores, without them being clearly marked as an "upgrade". Therefore, since it's not an upgrade version the user is free to attempt to install it on any system he chooses. No?
If that's correct, I don't see how Apple has a leg to stand on.
Or is the potential end result that it doesn't matter whether or not it's an "upgrade" version?
Anyone got some insight on this?
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Good luck to Psystar, they will need it. Given the current state of copyright their fight is probably not going to pan out well. They may have very little to lose though: at worst they will simply go bankrupt, and at best they might crack an interesting nut.
I'm wondering why Apple did not make it much harder to install OS/X on non-Apple hardware : DRM, magic useless piece of hardware, etc. Surely that would not cost more than a few cents per machine and a trivial amount of software development. Are they really so greedy? Did they want to have their day in court about their concept of copyright?
However, even though I'm typing this on Apple hardware, I think Apple needs some reminders that they cannot simply ride the cheap commodity hardware wave like any old PC maker without giving anything back. At least align their price to something more reasonable than they are now.
What reliability problems do you have?
I have never had Windows 2k or XP lockup or crash for any reason other than bad drivers (or bad hardware) particularly ones that can't handle the computer being suspended.
My bad... I hadn't realized it, but the client also is UNIX certified, when run on Intel-based Macs.
http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/brand3555.htm
P.S. No, the Open Gorup is not a bunch of Mac fanboys.
It's not really clear that they've done anything illegal. Apple should let them be, and make it clear to customers that the clones are not authorized and not supported. The law wasn't meant to be used to enforce a vertical monopoly, and only a sociopath would think it is acceptable to use it that way. It is also not good for their image to be stifling entrepreneurship and small business.
I'm surprise to see that Apple is again, after more than 25 yrs, dealing with a new generation of "clone" issues.
In truth, I'm not an Apple expert, but, if Apple's hardware would contain a chip which, would contain special instructions that would allow an Apple only OS to be installed, if this chip isn't included int the hardware, then the Apple OS doesn't work. Now, if that was there and of course, some legal hooplah about "thou shall not modify thy OS else.. clause" and a "thy chip is only available in Apple approved hardware.. and thy chip cannot be installed or modified or read by third party blah blah.. clause.."
I mean let's face it, wouldn't that make sense?
If this had been implemented, It wouldn't stop the smart asses from cloning and hacking, but it sure would make it easier for Apple to nip anyone in the bud so to speak in a legal sense!
Oh well, maybe they did think about it, but it would make too much sense somehow and the legal department at Apple would get bored and become the "Maytag" department of Apple..
Could be Apple is looking forward with glee to a new type of confrontation in court! :)
Ah, I swear, the ultimate oxymoron has to be "common sense" :P
Ooooh maaaaaaaaaaaaaan! And I even cut the proof of purchase out of the Leopard box and glued it to the side of my intel/nvidia based pc!!@2!1
I've ruined the box, haven't I? =(
If you are not a window expert, why the fuck you keep on shouting at top of your lung that Mac is superior to windows? Get the fuck off this planet!
I have seen enough apple fanbois - but not too many like you who would just sit permanently under Job's table forever.
I would rather live with 'inferior' windows machines than the company of such asshole fanbois.
Who is shouting here? All I said was that there is a reason why Macs have closed hardware, and some people (something like 5%, as I said) think that that is a nice way to do computing. If you don't, then don't use a Mac. Whatever.
I think what you are trying to say here is this, right? Is that what you're trying to prove? 'Cause you're not even making a good case for that...
Love the anonymous coward name-calling though.
I do know that the Mac Pro has a nice clean interior, with fancy features such as toolless and cableless HDD installation. Most computers don't have that. And a recent Tom's Hardware article actually found out that other Macs aren't really that much more expensive than an equivalent, anyway. And their EFI is better than BIOS for my use. Apple are playing to the common denominator, but it's not to the lowest when you get out there and look at the competition.
I don't believe I've ever met a gay Mac user.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
I assert that if non-Apple hardware is allowed to operate with the Mac OS X operating system, the quality assurance can never be adequate to provide the expected reliability that has been previously observed by Apple owners, and that this would reduce the "Goodwill" factor thereby harming Apple Corporation by reducing its appraised value as a corporation. This is my opinion and I approve of it, IANABCL.
This isn't the only difference. There are better quality parts out there, and Apple use them. Not every company is a HP or Dell, using the cheapest parts they can get.
Everybody will win: more folks will run a more secure OS than Windows and Apple will still get all the OS sales.
How can you praise Apple for the security if it is time and again slow to fix the bugs, such as the DNS vulnerability?
Busy helping non technical users of OpenOffice.org - http://plan-b-for-openoffice.org/
I wonder what is really the risk for Psystar on the recall question? While it sounds horrendous, it does not really seem to be such a financial risk.
A manufacturer can recall a product as much as he wants, if I decide to not give it back there is no recourse, or is there? Can a buyer be compelled to return the product when it is recalled?
If I had gotten a computer that works and cost me half of what I would have to pay otherwise, why would I return it to the manufacturer (on recall), if I won't get it back? Even if I get my money back, I would only be able to replace it with half an Apple branded machine.
Hence Psystar does not need to fear (financially) the thread of a mandatory recall.
Busy helping non technical users of OpenOffice.org - http://plan-b-for-openoffice.org/
ah, Apple doesn't have anything close to a "monopoly"... you only achieve that status when you get to around 80% control of a given market, AND act as a predatory company blocking competition.
Apple is simply a VERTICALLY oriented company, and that is not illegal since customers have plenty of choices to buy similar products elsewhere.
You made a common mistake, so look up the definition before you use the word "monopoly" again in conjunction with Apple.
It's not that Apple hardware is simpler to write drivers for, because Apple hardware, since the early '90s, has increasingly been just generic PC hardware... first they went to PCI, then they went to generic bridge chips, finally they went Intel... and everything in a Mac is off the shelf.
And reliability has IMPROVED as it's become more generic. They had horrible problems with the "Grackle" PCI bridge in the original G3 desktops.
The Apple boot sequence is not specific to Macs, they picked a new industry standard that was already being developed, EFI, rather than porting their existing PPC bootstrap code to Intel.
What makes Macs "just work" is software. To be precise, it's software they don't have any more. They shed a lot of horrible legacy code when they shifted to a UNIX base. Microsoft kept all the legacy APIs and interfaces when they switched to NT, and they're all still there in Vista... they're talking about *maybe* putting those into some kind of emulator for Windows 7, but given that Vista is still missing features that were promised for Cairo (Windows NT 5.0, AKA Windows 2000) I wouldn't hold your breath.
Didn't we go through this very sort of thing in the 80's with IBM?
IBM didn't write the OS, and you didn't run IBM PC DOS on the clone, you ran MS-DOS or CP/M-86.
So, um, "No".
And where is Apple preventing you from installing any OS you want on your Mac?
That I'm this much of a Thinkpad fan and would buy an Apple notebook to replace a Thinkpad really speaks to the quality of the hardware. OK, some people would say it speaks to my stupidity, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it :)
I'm a big thinkpad fan too, and I am super unimpressed by the quality of my Macbook Pro. The keyboard is among the worst I have had on a laptop... it causes me physical pain if I use it for more than half an hour. The hardware is unexceptional, the lack of a docking port is a twice-daily pain in the back (from bending down to retrieve cables), and I really miss the ultrabay, the two-button trackpad, the easily replaced (ONE fat thumb screw) hard drive, and the matte high-traction scratch-resistant finish. Oh, and hat little lip around the lid that keeps loose objects from working in between the screen and the keyboard. And the *drive lights*... damn, I miss knowing whether the damn thing is hung or just busy. And the OS-independent hibernation in firmware that works for Windows, FreeBSD, Linux, and BeOS (yes, really).
And I could do without the overheating as well.
If you prefer the Macbook Pro, I don't know if you're stupid. Maybe you're just crazy.
they don't sell any low-end junk in their product line
I've had a lot of Macs, starting with the original 128k model M0001. My SE/30 was pretty damn junky, and the Powermac 8100 was horrible. What, that was before the Return of Jobs? OK, how about the iMac G3 (have you ever opened one up?), Mac Mini (a cheap laptop without the screen in too small a box for proper cooling), and several models of the iMac G5 and Intel iMac. Oh, it's not *priced* like low-end junk, but it's sure *built* like it. Low end generic hardware in a moderately expensive nice-looking plastic or aluminum box. With really crappy keyboards and mice, just to add injury to insult.
we're talking about the freedom to run software that I've paid for on whatever system I damn well like.
That hasn't been a right in the US since the DMCA was passed. Next?
Darwin is not OS X.
I think the problem is that people buy too much into marketing and not what they really need.
If you like PCs and they fill your needs, use them.
If you like Macs and they fill your needs, use them.
Everything else is just more meaningless bullshit.
"You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
"Thank you, Master Control"
-Sark and the MCP
A seller's intent does not enter into it.
Apple sells an OS X "Family Pack" where the EULA says you can install it on up to 5 Macs in one household. It costs less than twice as much as a Single User copy of OS X -- thereby giving the multi-Mac household a price break. AFAIK, the only difference between the Family Pack and the regular distribution is the content of the EULA. Apple intends for you to buy the Family Pack if you are going to install it on anywhere from two to five Macs in a household.
Now -- since you believe the seller's intent doesn't matter -- would it be OK with you if all five-Mac households consider only their own self-interest, buy a Single User copy, and install it on all five Macs? In other words, is the concept of a "Family Pack" a naive and foolish construct in your world? (If it's OK to disregard the provision about using it only on Apple hardware, hey, why not disregard the provision where a Single User license allows installation on only one computer?)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Thank goodness it's not just me:
This one totally puzzles me as to why someone thought this was a sensible default behaviour. I don't suppose you have any insight? As you note, it means inevitable lost calls, which don't even show up as missed calls in the logs.
Another mystery -- every time it switches cells, it sits there for 15-20 seconds (maybe my model is just slower than yours?) completely frozen, with the screen and keyboard backlights turned on. Why is this useful? Who could have possibly thought this was a good idea?
So thanks for confirming that it's not just my one particular phone. On the other hand, what you describe means I'll probably need to pony up for an iPhone if I want a reliable smartphone... and I'm not sure yet if my needs justify the iPhone's not-inconsiderable price...
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I cannot understand some people here⦠Monopolistic business? What is Monopolistic business? Are Sony Ericsson monopolistic? I cannot install Nokia software on my Sony Ericsson! I am very angry about that.
I agree with your opinion on EULAs, but we're not lawyers (at least I'm not), let alone the judges who are going to hear this case.
I'm probably missing something here, but in the case of Psystar, Apple did not sell any hardware. With hardware, once it's sold, they can't say what to do and what not to do with it. You can smash it to pieces. You can surf the net and send emails with it. You can use it as a doorstop. You can use it to figure out how to increase global warming exponentially just to be a dick. You can take the damn thing apart and use the parts to build a spaceship. They can't be saying don't be doing that with the hardware. Now in the case of this Psystar, I'm not sure if they made a software sale. Now software is licensed and they can put all kinds of things into the license agreement. It's up to you to decide if what they write down in there is fair or not. The way I see it, if I paid for a piece of software, then what the hell difference does it make what I do with it? Who cares if I run it on a Mac, or throw the CD for my dog to catch as a frisbee? In this case, nobody cares. But on the other hand, I understand Apple's problem. They have certain quality standards, and a large part of their brand image and whatnot depends on people having the perception of such quality. Now OS X is based in large part on Mach and BSD, with tons of Apple code thrown in, so chances are that if you're a 1337 h4x0rz, you could get Darwin to run on just about anything from a Cray X/MP to a toaster. But try and install Mac OS X Leopard on a toaster, or a Cray, or any damn thing that Apple hasn't tested and debugged it against, and I betcha you're gonna have problems. Like, maybe it'll work pretty well, but it'll have all kinds of strange effects, kernel panics, and all kinds of other nonsense. It'll be for reasons that have nothing to do with Apple's quality control. For example, the processor, or the chipset, or the type of RAM memory you have, or conflicts with whatever hardware you have that Apple hasn't tested OS X against, or any of a zillion other things, and it'll be a crappy OS experience. It's not Apple's fault. After all, it's not their responsibility to make sure OS X executes properly on anything and everything from a mechanical Turing machine to Deep Thought. But the perception will be that Apple is making something crappy, and that's bad for their image. Because people don't care why it fails. They see that it does and without thinking for even a second, they go, "this is the suxx0rz." Thus, they want you to run the OS on hardware they produce. Yes, they earn another 2 or 3 or 10 thousand bucks when you buy a computer. But believe me, it's not that money they're concerned about so much. It's their brand image and perception of quality. That's worth a billion times more than some measly box with some electronics in it. It's tested against their hardware. There is quality control in the hardware itself. They make damn sure that the software will work as well as it possibly can and you'll never get such an experience from Windoze, Linux, *BSD, or whatever. Because OS X is the only OS that is made for specific computers from a finite set of models. All other OSes are made to run on everything and anything. Because with Apple, the computer is an integrated appliance. It does what it's supposed to do, and it doesn't require you to be a Windows registry h4x0rz or a *NIX sed/awk wizard. You turn it on and it does what it's supposed to. For that, I have a lot of respect for Apple. And if they say, "Don't go running this software on non-Apple hardware," well, if you think you're smarter than they are, go and try to outdo their achievements and let's see you design a computer and operating system that is nearly as good. In ten years, you'll still be working on the bootloader (I love it when an Open Source project says, "blahblah is an operating system that can run on any hardware, supports all protocols, runs programs from any architecture and OS no matter what hardware you have, provides a 3D desktop with unlimited numbers of screens," etc., etc., etc., and then you keep reading and the status is, "We're finally getting the bootloader to work. Next step, let's figure out how to start writing this OS kernel. Our biggest problem right now is getting GCC to compile on our development box. What is this "make" program and how does it fit in with compiling a compiler?":
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!