Mac clone maker vows to test Apple on OS X licensing terms
Psystar Corporation, which this week began selling a series of Mac clone systems without Apple's blessing, is determined to challenge the Mac maker in court over the licensing terms for its Mac OS X operating system.
Speaking to InformationWeek, a Psystar employee identified only as Robert said his company sees Apple's end-user license agreement, which prohibits third-party installations of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, as a violation of antitrust laws.
"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"
As such, the Psystar representative implied that the company is eager to bring the matter before a court, where it believes Apple will have a tough time defending its stringent licensing terms.
As part of its defense, the Miami-based reseller also appears to be accusing Apple of price gouging its customers with each Mac OS X-based computer it sells.
"They're charging an 80 percent markup on hardware," Robert told InformationWeek.
He said Psystar plans to continue selling its $400 OpenMac clone and insisted that the company isn't "breaking any laws."
Ironically, Psystar on Monday evening changed the name of its offering from "OpenMac" to "Open Computer," presumably to avoid charges that it was indeed violating trademark law.
Speaking to InformationWeek, a Psystar employee identified only as Robert said his company sees Apple's end-user license agreement, which prohibits third-party installations of Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, as a violation of antitrust laws.
"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"
As such, the Psystar representative implied that the company is eager to bring the matter before a court, where it believes Apple will have a tough time defending its stringent licensing terms.
As part of its defense, the Miami-based reseller also appears to be accusing Apple of price gouging its customers with each Mac OS X-based computer it sells.
"They're charging an 80 percent markup on hardware," Robert told InformationWeek.
He said Psystar plans to continue selling its $400 OpenMac clone and insisted that the company isn't "breaking any laws."
Ironically, Psystar on Monday evening changed the name of its offering from "OpenMac" to "Open Computer," presumably to avoid charges that it was indeed violating trademark law.
Comments
That would be worth its weight in gold if we can glean some significant reliability data on these clones to see if they walk the walk.
I mean, the ultimate test is whether Apple's approach creates a better computer, and whether its significant markup is worth paying for.
Ironically, as "Robert" points out, the reason Windows sucks is that you can put the OS on a billion computer systems. I don't know if I want some fly-by-night shop--in Miami, no less!--putting together a Mac made with hardware they deem worthy--I doubt the company is run by anything more than a few good salesman and one guy who was a engineer (sanitation) at one point in his life.
Hmmm, can someone buy one of these computers and put it through some stringent reliability tests?
That would be worth its weight in gold if we can glean some significant reliability data on these clones to see if they walk the walk.
I mean, the ultimate test is whether Apple's approach creates a better computer, and whether its significant markup is worth paying for.
Ironically, as "Robert" points out, the reason Windows sucks is that you can put the OS on a billion computer systems. I don't know if I want some fly-by-night shop--in Miami, no less!--putting together a Mac made with hardware they deem worthy--I doubt the company is run by anything more than a few good salesman and one guy who was a engineer (sanitation) at one point in his life.
If these computers aren't reliable, they won't sell. This is a perfect test of, as you say, "whether Apple's approach creates a better computer, and whether its significant markup is worth paying for." Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers. Apple's hardware doesn't have the same competition that Dell's hardware has. Dell has to make a reliable product at a competitive price to whatever HP, Sony, etc., are putting out. That's one of the main reasons PC's are cheaper than Macs. Economics has drive the price down.
The problem is that Dell, HP, etc. have to work with Microsoft to resolve technical issues. If it works, this Psystar Corp. will have a tough go with no technical support from Apple if there are compatibility issues with their hardware.
p.s. Slamming people by location is not a sign of maturity. There are lots of intelligent people in Miami.
They're charging an 80 percent markup on hardware
Well of course they do! Would you rather they charged $600 for a copy of Leopard?
Since OS X is the property of Apple Pststar has no right to interfere with Apple's right to establish the terms of use - specifically the rights to invest heavily in OS X in order to make the Mac a desirable hardware product for customers. I can see a lot of court action on this one if they continue - it's cheaper to simply close the business down and stat flipping burgers.
Psystar will lose. Plain and simple.
I am not a lawyer by any means but I am sure Apple will hit them with everything they can. They are not going to want Dell, HP and others doing the same, they have to put the foot down and make these guys an example.
What I am sorry for is the non-techie customers that buy this system based on the broad advertisement and end up with a BRICK when Apple releases an upgrade.
Specially the kids putting their money together to get a Mac and then see this opportunity, they jump and get hurt. I don't like kids getting hurt.
Joe average consumer is not going to understand what will happen or how to fix it. They are not going to go to forums and blogs to learn how to hack the system back into health.
Not only that but because the systems wont be upgraded, they will not get the security patches and as such they will be vulnerable while the real Mac community is nice and secured. I see a whole BotNet made from these unsecured systems and everyone saying that Macs are vulnerable.
Since this is basically a "hillbilly" computer (or aimed at that market spec), service and support are probably not needed, but if you add those back in as well, the *actual* cost of this thing is far above what you would pay Apple for comparable gear.
As an option for home hobbyists it's interesting perhaps, but as a value proposition for a "cheap Apple computer" it just doesn't add up. Anyone that thinks they are going to be getting a "deal" will be severely disappointed. Those that are buying a junky "throwaway" computer box so they can tool with OS-X for laughs will be the only ones happy with these computers.
If these computers aren't reliable, they won't sell. This is a perfect test of, as you say, "whether Apple's approach creates a better computer, and whether its significant markup is worth paying for." Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers. Apple's hardware doesn't have the same competition that Dell's hardware has. Dell has to make a reliable product at a competitive price to whatever HP, Sony, etc., are putting out. That's one of the main reasons PC's are cheaper than Macs. Economics has drive the price down.
The problem is that Dell, HP, etc. have to work with Microsoft to resolve technical issues. If it works, this Psystar Corp. will have a tough go with no technical support from Apple if there are compatibility issues with their hardware.
p.s. Slamming people by location is not a sign of maturity. There are lots of intelligent people in Miami.
I'm looking to get a new professional-grade machine soon. Out of curiosity I've been pricing Mac Pro's against Dells. The Dells don't even seem to be in the same ballpark in price-- they're way, way higher. A vanilla $2800 2.8GHz 8 core Mac Pro equivalent, or anything close to it, costs at least $500 more at Dell's store. Am I doing something wrong? Everyone seems to claim Dells are cheaper but I don't see it.
Now yes, in the sub-$1000 market you can get a LOT more on the PC side (where's the mini with a video card slot?) But for most of Apple's products they don't seem to be out of line from what everyone else is charging.
Without their payment for the license, it's just plain old theft.
I hope they have fun in jail...
Apple owns OSX...just as Microsoft owns Windows. Each company has a right as part of a free trade society to license and sell its products to whomever and however they choose.
In no way does this even come close to anti-trust laws. Apple is not inhibiting other companies from manufacturing computers...simply manufacturing computers with the software that Apple owns. I hope Psystar doesn't decide to spend too much money just so this can get thrown out of court.
The lack of education on "Robert's" part is simply mind boggling. Companies are not required to allow other people to use their products. If they own it, they own it. Software is nothing more than written "words" and images. If this goes through, then we should all be free to copy every printed word/image/musical notation etc. that we own, then have the freedom to distribute freely.
My word...just when I thought I had seen everything, this comes along.
I'd be interested to see if this is blowback from Megashaft's Vista damage -- FUD to harass Apple.
* Allow installation on non-Apple systems. (Remember that retail OS X is essentially an upgrade--not an original version. The original version came with the Mac. Look at how Windows pricing is different for an upgrade vs. original install. Apple would charge more--just like Microsoft--for a full version. Now technically the upgrade can install all by itself, and that's great--it's the same when I bought a Photoshop upgrade--but what you're buying is still an upgrade to something you bought already.)
* SUPPORT people who have issues with non-Apple hardware.
* TEST every patch and new feature on non-Apple hardware.
* Add code and bloat to their OS to support non-Apple hardware.
* DELAY every patch or feature or OS Apple ever creates, to accommodate the above.
* Take the heat when an OS X feature only works right on Apple hardware. (Imagine the cries of sabotage!)
* PAY for all that support and development time out of Apple's pockets, when they didn't make the hardware profit, only the OS cost.
* Do all of the above for every other little box maker once the precedent was set.
...forever and all time! And I'd hate to see what happened to the pace and quality of Apple's innovation if they did. (That's a burden that Microsoft can't escape--and I'm glad my chosen OS doesn't share those issues.)
I like CHOICE in computing, and one choice I like to have is to have hardware and software designed TOGETHER as a whole. Those who don't want that have other choices... but this choice has proven to have real benefits. I don't see a court making that choice impossible.
From engadget - Psystar says rumors of its demise are greatly exaggerated, still selling Open Computers
Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers.
Not to put too fine a point on it, that's a nonsensical statement.
'Monopoly' is a legal term that's been badly misused lately.
Saying Apple has a Monopoly on OS/X computers is akin to saying that Coke has a monopoly on, well, Coke.
Well, yeah... so?
Apple OWNS OS/X... that's not a monopoly.
BTW, before anyone jumps in the the "BUT I OWN MY OS... I CAN LOAD IT ON ANY HARDWARE I WANT!" rant, no, you don't own your OS... you license it.
Well of course they do! Would you rather they charged $600 for a copy of Leopard?
The only 80% markup I see when compared to other 3rd-party products is on RAM. And when you compare the whole of the parts to a similar machine by Dell the markup seems to completely vanish.
PS: Do you think they planned this ahead of time? They are rivaling Apple in their ability to generate free press.
By installing the operating system themselves, they are opening themself up to apple legal. Maybe they will argue that they make compatible mac hardware (which is legal) and that they are contracted to install the operating system on the hardware by the user (maybe shift the responsibility to the customer) but then refuse to provide customer information. Hmm.. not a lawyer but i wonder how exactly they will defeat Apple in court.
I think the smart thing to do is make the mac compatible hardware and let the customers violate the EULA.
This is only possible because apple runs on intel of course.. PsyStar could then claim that the machine could be used to install unix, or windows or mac and poor innocent souls, they had no idea the user would violate the EULA of apple. Hey, how can they be at fault if the user does something that stupid??(wink, wink).
Psystar will lose. Plain and simple.
Unfortunately for Psystar (and any sofware user mac or windows) EULAs are evil E.V.I.L.
By clicking on the agreement, which you have to do to open the installer, or in some cases just by opening the wrapper to be able to even read the EULA, you agree to its terms. So, unless the courst want to open up a can of worms with the big layers, they will throw Psystar out on their ear.
Psystar will lose. Plain and simple.
Unfortunately for Psystar (and any sofware user mac or windows) EULAs are evil E.V.I.L.
By clicking on the agreement, which you have to do to open the installer, or in some cases just by opening the wrapper to be able to even read the EULA, you agree to its terms. So, unless the courst want to open up a can of worms with the big layers, they will throw Psystar out on their ear.http://forums.appleinsider.com/image...ies/1oyvey.gif
I'm sure every mac user would welcome some competition to drive down prices. There are of course compatibility issues, and Mac OS not running as Mac OS does, but Apple could simply provide the OS X product and stay well away from supporting third party products (graphics cards etc), leaving this to others.
There are interesting competition law points here. If we assume that the relevant market is 'Computer hardware capable of running Mac OS X' then clearly Apple is in a dominant position with 100% market share. It is not completely unforseeable that Apple could be forced to licence OS X or remove the relevant paragraphs from the agreement.
Of course, one could argue that in that case, Nokia should be releasing its software so that Sony Ericsson users can use it etc.
A few complaints to national competition authorities might raise some interesting results.