No, they don't. They 'sell' you a retail version of OS X, but they 'install' a hacked copy of OS X that can only be had by illegally downloading and which has core aspects of the OS altered to run on non-Mac PCs.
Where did you get the idea that they simply inserted a fresh OS X disc and added a few drivers to make it work? The only non-Mac PC solution that doesn't violate Apple's IP or copyright is EFiX, but MoBo support is still in its infancy.
And you know this for a fact, how? From Psystar's website:
Will you provide instructions on loading the Leopard operating system?
If you purchase Leopard with your Open Computer you will be able to receive a restore disc which will allow you to reinstall your Leopard OS X operating system directly from the original retail-packaged DVD which is included in your computer.
If they're installing it from the "orignal retail-packaged" DVD, then they obviously came up with a way to install it direct from the OS X retail DVD. Of course this is taking them at their word, but until it is proven in court that they have done so otherwise, we should accept this and not pre-judge them, which is what you would want everyone to do. How would you like it if I spread a rumor you stole a bunch of computers?
No, they don't. They 'sell' you a retail version of OS X, but they 'install' a hacked copy of OS X that can only be had by illegally downloading and which has core aspects of the OS altered to run on non-Mac PCs. That 'sale' of OS X to you is their short-sided attempt to pull a fast on Apple byt saying that they technically offered a legal version of the software with the hacked software they installed.
Where did you get the idea that they simply inserted a fresh OS X disc and added a few drivers to make it work? The only non-Mac PC solution that doesn't violate Apple's IP or copyright is EFiX, but MoBo support is still in its infancy.
I agree they had no right to hack Apple's code for financial gain. Also [AFAIK] no Apple end user software license has ever granted distribution rights.
If you purchase Leopard with your Open Computer you will be able to receive a restore disc which will allow you to reinstall your Leopard OS X operating system directly from the original retail-packaged DVD which is included in your computer.
Then that is certainly a change from their original option of having you ship your HDD back to them to reinstall OS X. If they have a solution that doesn't require them to alter the OS in any way shape or form, or use the OSx86 Project OS hacks (I'm not referring to drivers) then you'd have a point, but the only info I've read about the actual Psystar installation involves using rewritten, copyrighted and patented OS X code.
But that still doesn't address the fact that Apple hasn't licensed OS X to Psystar. You mention a Free Market earlier, which specifically permits who a company chooses to be it's resellers. You have to ask yourself, if this all kosher then you need to answer two questions for me: Why haven't the othe PC vendors jumped done this? Why didn't the OS X resellers that Jobs killed when we returned to Apple continue to sell their Mac clones?
I don't think Apple cared too much about what Psystar was doing until they started to crack and distribute their updates. Psystar had no legal right to do that even if the company was just helping to make it easier for its customer to update their systems.
However, the fact is that people don't have the right to do anything they want with software they have purchased a license to use. Psystar had no OEM distribution license nor a reseller authorization from Apple retail. They crossed the line plain and simple. The fact that you think it right don't make it right or legal.
You ignore the fact that Psystar (and the OSx86 Project) had to do that because Apple included "a fix", I call it malware, to brick their systems because it wasn't running on Apple supplied hardware. Now that should be illegal and is unethical.
You also assume that its a fact that people don't have a right to do anything they want with soemthing they purchased. Just because the government, through special interest lobbying, have provided certain industries with special rights regarding their products, doesn't make it right. Laws are meant to be changed, and if more people stood up to the special interests, we wouldn't have stupid laws that create monopolies and prevent fair-use of products that you and I bought with our hard earned money. OEM distribution licenses or reseller authorizations as you call them, are just a form of vender lock-in that restrict our freedoms to innovate.
You ignore the fact that Psystar (and the OSx86 Project) had to do that because Apple included "a fix", I call it malware, to brick their systems because it wasn't running on Apple supplied hardware. Now that should be illegal and is unethical.
EFI over BIOS is malware? Seeing if an OS has the ability to support the HW it's being installed on is malware?
Quote:
You also assume that its a fact that people don't have a right to do anything they want with soemthing they purchased..
This is about another company selling another companies product without their permission. I've never a single case of Apple going after the recreational OSx86 hacker community.
Quote:
Laws are meant to be changed.
Laws are meant to be followed. Bills are meant to change a law.
Hmmm. Suppose I buy Coffeemaker A and Coffeemaker B and notice that they both use the same embedded processor. I prefer the software features of Coffeemaker A but I prefer the hardware features of Coffeemaker B. So, I pull the EEPROM out of Coffeemaker A and plug it into Coffeemaker B and -- surprise -- it works and I have my dream coffeemaker. Do either coffeemaker company have a legal case against me? I don't think so.
Now suppose Coffeemaker A Inc. sells EEPROMs with updated software every two years or so for $19. My friend likes my custom coffeemaker, so he buys a $19 EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and a whole coffeemaker from Coffeemaker B Inc. and installs the EEPROM in the unintended machine. Again, against all odds, it works and my friend is happy with his custom coffeemaker. Does either company have a case against him? I don't think so.
Finally, let's suppose that Coffeemaker B, Inc. notices that lots of people are putting Coffeemaker A EEPROMs in their hardware and decide to sell and market "Coffeemaker A compatible" coffeemakers with instructions to buy an EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and install it. Does Coffeemaker A Inc. have a case against Coffeemaker B Inc.? Maybe, but I don't see it.
But OSX does not work on any X86 system out of the box. You have to use the OSX86 hack in order for you to get it to work. That would be like you having to change a few bits in Coffeemaker A eprom in order for it to work on Coffeemaker B coffee maker. If Coffeemaker A don't have a patent or copyright on their eprom then it would be legal for you to alter the eprom to get it to work on Coffeemaker B coffee maker. But if Coffemaker A does have a copyright or patent on that eprom then you're breaking the law. But Coffeemaker A would not try to stop you from altering their IP to make it work on another coffee maker if you're only doing this for yourself, as a "hobby". But taking their IP and altering so you can sell it in someone else's coffee maker would most likely land you in court.
Apple have not gone after any of the thousands of people that hacked OSX and installed on their own machine, as a "hobby". They're going after anyone that tries to market such a machine.
Let say that I don't like the order of songs on the Sgt. Pepper album. I think "When I'm Sixty-Four" should follow "With a Little help From My Friend instead of "Within You Without You" and the album should end with "Lucy in The Sky With Diamonds". I can put my original Sgt. Pepper CD in my Mac and burn the version I like. No laws broken. (Now the RIAA might think otherwise.\). Now suppose most of the people that listen to my version of Sgt. Pepper also likes the way I changed it. Do I have the right to market my version of Sgt Pepper? Not even if I included an original Sgt. Pepper CD with my version. Not unless I get a license to do so from the copyright owner.
Then that is certainly a change from their original option of having you ship your HDD back to them to reinstall OS X. If they have a solution that doesn't require them to alter the OS in any way shape or form, or use the OSx86 Project OS hacks (I'm not referring to drivers) then you'd have a point, but the only info I've read about the actual Psystar installation involves using rewritten, copyrighted and patented OS X code.
But that still doesn't address the fact that Apple hasn't licensed OS X to Psystar. You mention a Free Market earlier, which specifically permits who a company chooses to be it's resellers. You have to ask yourself, if this all kosher then you need to answer two questions for me: Why haven't the othe PC vendors jumped done this? Why didn't the OS X resellers that Jobs killed when we returned to Apple continue to sell their Mac clones?
PS: I run OSx86 on an MSI Wind.
Why does Psystar have to have a license from Apple to install a retail copy of OS X on computer hardware of their choice? I can take a retail copy of Windows and install it on any computer of my choice. What's the difference? I am running under the assumption and taking Psystar at face value that they are indeed using the retail copy of OS X. I can then sell that PC to anyone I want, and I don't need Microsoft's approval. Now am I losing a lot of money by not going the traditional reseller route, hell yeah, but then I am also preserving my freedom of operating the way that I want and not having to follow the single-sided rules imposed by Microsoft and their reseller program.
If it is indeed found - in court - that Psystar uses a hacked copy of OS X, then I am all in favor of them being sued into oblivion. But I'm not going to throw them under the bus until that happens. I think the little guy should be given the same chances in the free market that the big guys have.
I've already answer the question of why the big guys won't play yet. The same reasoning I mentioned - risk and end-user support - also extends to the original Mac cloners who were selling their systems as Macs (not Mac-compatibles). That is why they relied on Apple for licensing. They also had to get their hardware for their Macs to even run from Apple, who was the only one manufacturing the special ROM chips at the time. This is why there was a real risk when Apple moved to Intel. They no longer had control over the hardware platform and that is why we are even seeing the possibility of 3rd party clones now.
Why does Psystar have to have a license from Apple to install a retail copy of OS X on computer hardware of their choice? I can take a retail copy of Windows and install it on any computer of my choice. What's the difference?
Technically, you can't, just as I am technically be 'illegal' by installing OSx86 on my Wind. But if you have absolutely no knowledge or understand of what licensing is then I can not respond to anymore of your posts, so go ahead and get get the last word in.
EFI over BIOS is malware? Seeing if an OS has the ability to support the HW it's being installed on is malware?
No, I'm referring to the O/S updates that purposely break the "innovations" that the OSx86 and other projects use to allow OS X to work on standard Intel hardware. EFIs use by Apple to restrict the hardware OS X can be installed on has nothing to do with hardware compatibility. Remember most of OS X is BSD, that runs on any hardware. Which brings up another point, where does Apple get the right to restrict the distribution of a free and open source O/S like BSD without which OS X would not even function?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
This is about another company selling another companies product without their permission.
No that is what Apple and you apparently would want other people to believe. If I buy a retail item and resell it to someone else, I am perfectly within my rights to do so. If I sell it for a higher price, the purchaser is stupid, and I am a good salesman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I've never a single case of Apple going after the recreational OSx86 hacker community..
Which you would think is completely contradictory to this case, because OSx86 are using a hacked version of OS X and not buying a retail copy. You would think this is where Apple should be spending their attention. By not doing so, they do risk their trademarks and patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Laws are meant to be followed. Bills are meant to change a law.
Perhaps I should of said BAD laws, which is what I meant to say. Of course laws are meant to be followed, but bad laws are meant to be disobeyed. Besides businesses and our own government hardly follow our laws anyways, so what's the point. They're all made to control the people.
Technically, you can't, just as I am technically be 'illegal' by installing OSx86 on my Wind. But if you have absolutely no knowledge or understand of what licensing is then I can not respond to anymore of your posts, so go ahead and get get the last word in.
I perfectly understand licensing. It's an illegal one-way contract imposed by the licensor to make you use a product the way they want you to use it. And EULAs, which is where the clause your referring to is located, have been succesfully challenged and overuled in court making them invalid. Which is why this case is going to arbitration and not court.
But OSX does not work on any X86 system out of the box.
True, you have to use it on a computer that has an EFI chip or use an EFI emulator.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
That would be like you having to change a few bits in Coffeemaker A eprom in order for it to work on Coffeemaker B coffee maker. If Coffeemaker A don't have a patent or copyright on their eprom then it would be legal for you to alter the eprom to get it to work on Coffeemaker B coffee maker. But if Coffemaker A does have a copyright or patent on that eprom then you're breaking the law.
No, this is called improving a product. If they use encryption to protect the EEPROM, then you may be violating the DMCA, however that's another law that needs to be gotten rid of.
Copyrights have no bearing on your case, however if they have a patent, you may be oblidged to pay a royalty on your derivitive work to them as compensation for the duration of their patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
But Coffeemaker A would not try to stop you from altering their IP to make it work on another coffee maker if you're only doing this for yourself, as a "hobby". But taking their IP and altering so you can sell it in someone else's coffee maker would most likely land you in court.
If they don't stop hobbyists from stealing their IP, their IP is no longer valid under US trademark and patent law. Both trademarks and patents put the enforcement of trademarks and patents on the trademark and patent holders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Let say that I don't like the order of songs on the Sgt. Pepper album. I think "When I'm Sixty-Four" should follow "With a Little help From My Friend instead of "Within You Without You" and the album should end with "Lucy in The Sky With Diamonds". I can put my original Sgt. Pepper CD in my Mac and burn the version I like. No laws broken. (Now the RIAA might think otherwise.\). Now suppose most of the people that listen to my version of Sgt. Pepper also likes the way I changed it. Do I have the right to market my version of Sgt Pepper? Not even if I included an original Sgt. Pepper CD with my version. Not unless I get a license to do so from the copyright owner.
This is one of those special cases that government has caused by establishing special rights for the music industry through the DMCA and artistic copyright extensions. You can create a derivitive work of a song or album (rappers do this all the time) but you have to pay a royalty to the original copyright holder for it to be legal.
With the Bootcamp question the other poster posited, it has nothing to do with Microsoft licensing. He asked what keeps Dell from making a Bootcamp like application. The answer is - nothing. All Bootcamp is, is a utility to reboot the system into another operating system. It also happens to help the user by initially re-partitioning the hard drive to be able to install the other O/S. Anyone can do this. The trick to run Mac OS X is implementing a legal EFI emulator (or just include the chip on the mainboard in the first place). The practice of Apple using software to "brick" a system based on the hardware or software it is using should be deemed illegal and unethical. We're supposed to be a free country here and our freedom to innovate and freedom to experiment should be protected.
Apple is not purposely "bricking" other system with software. OSX, out of the box, just doesn't support other systems. If you want to hack your copy of OSX so that it works on your own system, you're are free to do so. Thousands of people have already done this and none of them are in jail for doing so.
Quote:
I can't believe you'd use the RIAA argument to justify Apple having to compete on selling an O/S. If everyone truly believes OS X is a better operating system, then it should be able to hold its own in the free market.
In a free market the owner of the IP should be able to decide how to use it. Apple choses to not compete in the computer OS market with MS. Instead they chose to compete in the computer hardware market with Dell, HP, Sony, Acer, etc.. And Apple has the right to use their IP to enhance the hardware they sell.
Quote:
Also, once again you use the phantom and untrue argument of forcing Apple to have to support other hardware vendor's equipment. Complete FUD. Show me the department at Microsoft that makes other vendor's software drivers. You can't, because there is none. The only thing Microsoft does is provide developer assistance on how to hook to their system APIs, just like Apple does now through the Apple Developer community. The computer vendors and hardware accessory market are on their own to provide drivers. You can see this plainly by visiting any of their support sites. If they don't make a driver, then their stuff won't work with Mac OS X, plain and simple.
It's not about Apple having to support thousands of different hardware configurations. It's about OSX being bloated with all the codes needed to support thousands of different hardware configurations. As an OSX and Mac user, would you be happy if OSX ended up running like Vista because it's bogged down with the codes needed to run on machines you would never buy?
Quote:
You want to support Apple, that's fine, but find a better, truthful argument, and stop spreading FUD. I like Apple and enjoy my Apple Macbook, but I'm against their trying to manipulate the market, and I think we're all seeing that they know their vendor lock-in policies are about to blow up in their face. Apple has the money to take this to trial and put Psystar out of business, but they know that their case is weak and might get ruled against. That's why they?re going with arbitration - non-binding arbitration at that.
Your logic doesn't make sense. Since the arbitration is non-binding, Apple can still (and will) go to trial if they don't like the outcome. What does Apple have to lose? If the outcome favors Apple then it's Psystar that will most likely not go to trial and waste what little money they have. So Apple will avoid a costly court battle. Logic would dictate that if Apple have a weak case they would fight Psystar in court. Where their billions in cash gives them the advantage and may make up for a weak case. Apple lawyers can tied this up in the court systems for years. By agreeing to non-binding arbitration Apple is confident that they can win without having to exercise their monetary strength over Psystar.
Apple is not purposely "bricking" other system with software. OSX, out of the box, just doesn't support other systems. If you want to hack your copy of OSX so that it works on your own system, you're are free to do so. Thousands of people have already done this and none of them are in jail for doing so.
In a free market the owner of the IP should be able to decide how to use it. Apple choses to not compete in the computer OS market with MS. Instead they chose to compete in the computer hardware market with Dell, HP, Sony, Acer, etc.. And Apple has the right to use their IP to enhance the hardware they sell.
In a free market, the consumer decides what market a product maker is in with their wallet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
It's not about Apple having to support thousands of different hardware configurations. It's about OSX being bloated with all the codes needed to support thousands of different hardware configurations. As an OSX and Mac user, would you be happy if OSX ended up running like Vista because it's bogged down with the codes needed to run on machines you would never buy?
What kind of BS is that? There's no codes in an O/S that dictate what hardware it can work with, that's what drivers are for. If you install only the OS X essentials and then add the drivers you need, you have a decently streamlined OS X install. Vista is bloated because they have to support operating system APIs all the way back to Windows 95. One of these days Microsoft will get around to cutting people off like Apple did in the OS 9 to OS X transition. Then Windows won't be so bloated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW
Your logic doesn't make sense. Since the arbitration is non-binding, Apple can still (and will) go to trial if they don't like the outcome. What does Apple have to lose? If the outcome favors Apple then it's Psystar that will most likely not go to trial and waste what little money they have. So Apple will avoid a costly court battle. Logic would dictate that if Apple have a weak case they would fight Psystar in court. Where their billions in cash gives them the advantage and may make up for a weak case. Apple lawyers can tied this up in the court systems for years. By agreeing to non-binding arbitration Apple is confident that they can win without having to exercise their monetary strength over Psystar.
So your saying it makes more sense for Apple to pay for arbitration and then pay again to go to trial, rather then just go to trial, bury Psystar,and be done with it?
Whose logic doesn't make sense?
This arbitration is non-binding, so even if it's decided in Apple's favor, they'll still need to go to court to enforce it, or pay for another binding arbitration that Psystar would be stupid to agree to.
Since the arbitration is non-binding, Apple can still (and will) go to trial if they don't like the outcome. What does Apple have to lose? If the outcome favors Apple then it's Psystar that will most likely not go to trial and waste what little money they have. So Apple will avoid a costly court battle. Logic would dictate that if Apple have a weak case they would fight Psystar in court. Where their billions in cash gives them the advantage and may make up for a weak case. Apple lawyers can tied this up in the court systems for years. By agreeing to non-binding arbitration Apple is confident that they can win without having to exercise their monetary strength over Psystar.
I think you are exactly right. I am a little concerned though that Psystar might get some financial
backing from one or more large PC hardware companies who would like to see Psystar
prevail, so that other companies could sell Mac OS X installed on their machines. Such
support might allow Psystar to hang on longer in court, and would make the process
True, you have to use it on a computer that has an EFI chip or use an EFI emulator.
No, this is called improving a product. If they use encryption to protect the EEPROM, then you may be violating the DMCA, however that's another law that needs to be gotten rid of.
Copyrights have no bearing on your case, however if they have a patent, you may be oblidged to pay a royalty on your derivitive work to them as compensation for the duration of their patent.
Yes it does. The software that goes into programming an eprom is copyrightable. The BIOS on a PC is on an eprom and it's protected by copyright laws.
Quote:
If they don't stop hobbyists from stealing their IP, their IP is no longer valid under US trademark and patent law. Both trademarks and patents put the enforcement of trademarks and patents on the trademark and patent holders.
That would imply that all song writers no longer has the copyright to their songs because they failed to sue everyone that downloaded it illegally. All the owner of a patent, copyright or trademark have to do is inform the violators that they are infringing on their work. This constitute "enforcement". It is not necessary to bring every violator to court in order to keep from losing your rights as the owner of the IP.
Quote:
This is one of those special cases that government has caused by establishing special rights for the music industry through the DMCA and artistic copyright extensions. You can create a derivitive work of a song or album (rappers do this all the time) but you have to pay a royalty to the original copyright holder for it to be legal.
You also have to pay for a license or royalty even if you don't create a derivative of some one else's work. For instance if you use some else's copyrighted work, in it's original form, to market a product. You can not use some one else's song in a commercial to sell a product without permission. You can not use the image of Superman to sell your product without permission. And you can not market a product using some else's patent without permission. You can not put some else's trademark on your product without permission.
Then MS will also be guilty of "bricking" tens of thousands of PC's and cell phones every time they put out a patch or update.
Quote:
In a free market, the consumer decides what market a product maker is in with their wallet.
And if a consumer don't want to use OSX on a Mac, they're free to take their money and buy a Dell and use Windows.
Quote:
What kind of BS is that? There's no codes in an O/S that dictate what hardware it can work with, that's what drivers are for. If you install only the OS X essentials and then add the drivers you need, you have a decently streamlined OS X install. Vista is bloated because they have to support operating system APIs all the way back to Windows 95. One of these days Microsoft will get around to cutting people off like Apple did in the OS 9 to OS X transition. Then Windows won't be so bloated.
Granted that Windows is loaded with a lot of legacy codes that bogs it down. It's also written to handle the hundreds of different ways in which hardware venders write their drivers. Even if Windows only uses one graphic driver at a time it must be able to deal with as many variations as possible. If all drivers interact the same way with the OS then there shouldn't have been any problems with drivers when switching from XP to Vista. OSX on the other hand knows it only has to deal with a hand full of drivers.
Don't think for a second that it's all up to the vender to write the driver for the OS. If MS (or Apple) market an OS that is suppose to work on as many different hardware configuration as possible, they have a responsibility to see that it does. They will help the venders with writing the drivers. They need to make sure a venders graphic card driver don't conflict with another venders sound card driver. Even if it means changing or adding codes on their OS to better handle all the different possible drivers. Otherwise they pay for it on the support end.
Quote:
So your saying it makes more sense for Apple to pay for arbitration and then pay again to go to trial, rather then just go to trial, bury Psystar,and be done with it?
Whose logic doesn't make sense?
This arbitration is non-binding, so even if it's decided in Apple's favor, they'll still need to go to court to enforce it, or pay for another binding arbitration that Psystar would be stupid to agree to.
It's gotta cost a lot less to go into arbitration that into a court trial. Don't you think? Apple could be done with it at arbitration if they have a strong enough case. They only have to go to court if they don't agree with the outcome or if Psystar doesn't agree with the outcome. And I doubt if Psystar is going to go to court if the outcome is in Apple's favor just so that they can spend more money to lose again. There is no going to court to "enforce" anything since it's non-binding. If Psystar loses and agrees to Apple's terms then it becomes binding and no court trial. If Psystar loses and don't agree to Apple's term then it start from square one again with a court trial. And of course if Apple loses, they will fight it in a court trial.
...Perhaps I should of said BAD laws, which is what I meant to say. Of course laws are meant to be followed, but bad laws are meant to be disobeyed. Besides businesses and our own government hardly follow our laws anyways, so what's the point. They're all made to control the people.
Wow. Just wow. Who gets to decided what is a bad law? The only way I can see something being defined as a "bad law" is one that is unconstitutional or goes against something in the Bill of Rights. Who are you to decided a law is bad and you don't have to follow it? Just because Psystar decided to break a "bad law" (yes, they are stealing. I don't care if you deny it) it doesn't mean they won't have to suffer the consequences. I hope they do.
If Apple were to lose this, everyone would lose out. Apple would sell OS X for a lot more, or they wouldn't bother investing as much in R&D and even the Psystar customer would lose out.
I don't care what the x86 people do. I don't care that they have a hobby, but the moment you commercialize it, it is a big deal. Now you are profiting from Apple's hard work and stealing a hardware sale from them.
It's stealing. And it is wrong. Apple can sell a Mac Mini for $100,000,000 and there isn't a thing we can do about it, other than decided to purchase it or not. If you don't like that Apple is charging so much, vote with your wallet and don't buy anything. You don't have a right to Mac OS X.
Yup, I just checked the Bill of Rights. I guess they forget to mention the 28th Amendment, the Right to Bear Mac OS X.
EDIT: Laws are made to control people????? DUH! You make that sound like a bad thing! People need laws to keep from bashing each others' brains in. Common sense is rarity, indeed.
What has stopped the big PC vendors? One, risk - they want to see how this case works out. Two, they'd have to come up with a system that is user-friendly to avoid support nightmares. Psystar's systems suck, but a certain segment will still buy them because they want it anyways and Psystar can get away with it because they are small. Big PC vendors are all about the mainstream public, which wouldn't put up with the issues of the OSx86 project.
Dell and others would love to have more leverage with Microsoft, but the legal costs of creating an unauthorized Mac could be massive and most legal departments would probably suggest that their company would be better off steering clear of a possible lawsuit with Apple. I am not too clear about the EFix device, but if the device merely emulates the EFI as claimed then save for the lack of EFI support there are a few Intel boards that could support MacOS without modification in which case Apple case against clone lies purely upon the EULA that says you can't run this software on any non-Apple computers. IANAL, but AFAIK relying upon the EULA is not as strong a legal argument as violating IP law.
While I am not fond of the Psystar machines, I think Apple could put Psystar out of business quite easily by simply releasing their own minitower. If Apple created a box that used a MicroATX case with a single CPU that maxed out at 8Gib of DDR2 that was officially supported by Apple there wouldn't be much market for Psystar. The Psystar Open Computer isn't that cheap honestly. Apple could position a box at ~$800-$1000 and still have ample margin to make it worth selling. Furthermore, save for the true hobbyists, most people would prefer to have something supported by Apple then something slapped together with technical support that may be of questionable value.
I always hear the criticism that Apple shouldn't make this standalone model in between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, but the chasm is so large that it wouldn't be terribly difficult for Apple to market something in between the two that is crippled enough not to pose a threat to their Mac Pro sales, but provide sufficient power over the Mac Mini to justify to upgrade in price for customers. I remember selling computers for a while and anecdotally found a lot of people who wanted a Mac and already owned a good size monitor, but wanted something more powerful than the Mac Mini, but didn't want to go towards the Mac Pro because it was way overkill for their needs. Apple's answer has always been that one should buy an iMac if the specs for the Mac mini were insufficient(that basic answer is even part of their sales training), but that answer really doesn't really work very well with real customers.
Apple inaccurately presumes that nobody already has a monitor that they are already happy with. Furthermore, Apple's iMac panels aren't much better than anything else on the market (Apple was sued for exaggerating the color depth of the panels IIRC) so in many cases Apple can't even say that the included panel in the iMac is better than what the customer already has. Unless Apple is going to offer a credit towards their iMac purchase for their existing monitor, I think Apple is always going to have an uphill battle selling to this audience regardless of whether they are geeks who want a machine that is easy to upgrade or not. The mini-tower configuration is still the de facto standard for most consumer computers. Apple shouldn't be fighting for the sub $500 market, but there are plenty of people willing to pay ~$800 for Mac, but want something a little more powerful and upgradeable then the Mac Mini.
The mini-tower configuration is still the de facto standard for most consumer computers.
Apart from the fact that.... it's not.
Most consumers are purchasing notebooks.
This year's growth area is the NetBook
Dell, Gateway and HP have joined Sony in offering desktop AIOs.
Dell are now selling their Studio Hybrid (Mac Mini Killer!)
A lot of consumers (especially in the US) are already buying Apple solutions.
I am not denying that there is a market for the product that you and others on this board seem to desire, but it's not as large as you think and in the US (Apple's largest market) it is actually shrinking.
Comments
No, they don't. They 'sell' you a retail version of OS X, but they 'install' a hacked copy of OS X that can only be had by illegally downloading and which has core aspects of the OS altered to run on non-Mac PCs.
Where did you get the idea that they simply inserted a fresh OS X disc and added a few drivers to make it work? The only non-Mac PC solution that doesn't violate Apple's IP or copyright is EFiX, but MoBo support is still in its infancy.
And you know this for a fact, how? From Psystar's website:
Will you provide instructions on loading the Leopard operating system?
If you purchase Leopard with your Open Computer you will be able to receive a restore disc which will allow you to reinstall your Leopard OS X operating system directly from the original retail-packaged DVD which is included in your computer.
If they're installing it from the "orignal retail-packaged" DVD, then they obviously came up with a way to install it direct from the OS X retail DVD. Of course this is taking them at their word, but until it is proven in court that they have done so otherwise, we should accept this and not pre-judge them, which is what you would want everyone to do. How would you like it if I spread a rumor you stole a bunch of computers?
No, they don't. They 'sell' you a retail version of OS X, but they 'install' a hacked copy of OS X that can only be had by illegally downloading and which has core aspects of the OS altered to run on non-Mac PCs. That 'sale' of OS X to you is their short-sided attempt to pull a fast on Apple byt saying that they technically offered a legal version of the software with the hacked software they installed.
Where did you get the idea that they simply inserted a fresh OS X disc and added a few drivers to make it work? The only non-Mac PC solution that doesn't violate Apple's IP or copyright is EFiX, but MoBo support is still in its infancy.
I agree they had no right to hack Apple's code for financial gain. Also [AFAIK] no Apple end user software license has ever granted distribution rights.
If you purchase Leopard with your Open Computer you will be able to receive a restore disc which will allow you to reinstall your Leopard OS X operating system directly from the original retail-packaged DVD which is included in your computer.
Then that is certainly a change from their original option of having you ship your HDD back to them to reinstall OS X. If they have a solution that doesn't require them to alter the OS in any way shape or form, or use the OSx86 Project OS hacks (I'm not referring to drivers) then you'd have a point, but the only info I've read about the actual Psystar installation involves using rewritten, copyrighted and patented OS X code.
But that still doesn't address the fact that Apple hasn't licensed OS X to Psystar. You mention a Free Market earlier, which specifically permits who a company chooses to be it's resellers. You have to ask yourself, if this all kosher then you need to answer two questions for me: Why haven't the othe PC vendors jumped done this? Why didn't the OS X resellers that Jobs killed when we returned to Apple continue to sell their Mac clones?
PS: I run OSx86 on an MSI Wind.
I don't think Apple cared too much about what Psystar was doing until they started to crack and distribute their updates. Psystar had no legal right to do that even if the company was just helping to make it easier for its customer to update their systems.
However, the fact is that people don't have the right to do anything they want with software they have purchased a license to use. Psystar had no OEM distribution license nor a reseller authorization from Apple retail. They crossed the line plain and simple. The fact that you think it right don't make it right or legal.
You ignore the fact that Psystar (and the OSx86 Project) had to do that because Apple included "a fix", I call it malware, to brick their systems because it wasn't running on Apple supplied hardware. Now that should be illegal and is unethical.
You also assume that its a fact that people don't have a right to do anything they want with soemthing they purchased. Just because the government, through special interest lobbying, have provided certain industries with special rights regarding their products, doesn't make it right. Laws are meant to be changed, and if more people stood up to the special interests, we wouldn't have stupid laws that create monopolies and prevent fair-use of products that you and I bought with our hard earned money. OEM distribution licenses or reseller authorizations as you call them, are just a form of vender lock-in that restrict our freedoms to innovate.
You ignore the fact that Psystar (and the OSx86 Project) had to do that because Apple included "a fix", I call it malware, to brick their systems because it wasn't running on Apple supplied hardware. Now that should be illegal and is unethical.
EFI over BIOS is malware? Seeing if an OS has the ability to support the HW it's being installed on is malware?
You also assume that its a fact that people don't have a right to do anything they want with soemthing they purchased..
This is about another company selling another companies product without their permission. I've never a single case of Apple going after the recreational OSx86 hacker community.
Laws are meant to be changed.
Laws are meant to be followed. Bills are meant to change a law.
Hmmm. Suppose I buy Coffeemaker A and Coffeemaker B and notice that they both use the same embedded processor. I prefer the software features of Coffeemaker A but I prefer the hardware features of Coffeemaker B. So, I pull the EEPROM out of Coffeemaker A and plug it into Coffeemaker B and -- surprise -- it works and I have my dream coffeemaker. Do either coffeemaker company have a legal case against me? I don't think so.
Now suppose Coffeemaker A Inc. sells EEPROMs with updated software every two years or so for $19. My friend likes my custom coffeemaker, so he buys a $19 EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and a whole coffeemaker from Coffeemaker B Inc. and installs the EEPROM in the unintended machine. Again, against all odds, it works and my friend is happy with his custom coffeemaker. Does either company have a case against him? I don't think so.
Finally, let's suppose that Coffeemaker B, Inc. notices that lots of people are putting Coffeemaker A EEPROMs in their hardware and decide to sell and market "Coffeemaker A compatible" coffeemakers with instructions to buy an EEPROM from Coffeemaker A Inc. and install it. Does Coffeemaker A Inc. have a case against Coffeemaker B Inc.? Maybe, but I don't see it.
But OSX does not work on any X86 system out of the box. You have to use the OSX86 hack in order for you to get it to work. That would be like you having to change a few bits in Coffeemaker A eprom in order for it to work on Coffeemaker B coffee maker. If Coffeemaker A don't have a patent or copyright on their eprom then it would be legal for you to alter the eprom to get it to work on Coffeemaker B coffee maker. But if Coffemaker A does have a copyright or patent on that eprom then you're breaking the law. But Coffeemaker A would not try to stop you from altering their IP to make it work on another coffee maker if you're only doing this for yourself, as a "hobby". But taking their IP and altering so you can sell it in someone else's coffee maker would most likely land you in court.
Apple have not gone after any of the thousands of people that hacked OSX and installed on their own machine, as a "hobby". They're going after anyone that tries to market such a machine.
Let say that I don't like the order of songs on the Sgt. Pepper album. I think "When I'm Sixty-Four" should follow "With a Little help From My Friend instead of "Within You Without You" and the album should end with "Lucy in The Sky With Diamonds". I can put my original Sgt. Pepper CD in my Mac and burn the version I like. No laws broken. (Now the RIAA might think otherwise.
Then that is certainly a change from their original option of having you ship your HDD back to them to reinstall OS X. If they have a solution that doesn't require them to alter the OS in any way shape or form, or use the OSx86 Project OS hacks (I'm not referring to drivers) then you'd have a point, but the only info I've read about the actual Psystar installation involves using rewritten, copyrighted and patented OS X code.
But that still doesn't address the fact that Apple hasn't licensed OS X to Psystar. You mention a Free Market earlier, which specifically permits who a company chooses to be it's resellers. You have to ask yourself, if this all kosher then you need to answer two questions for me: Why haven't the othe PC vendors jumped done this? Why didn't the OS X resellers that Jobs killed when we returned to Apple continue to sell their Mac clones?
PS: I run OSx86 on an MSI Wind.
Why does Psystar have to have a license from Apple to install a retail copy of OS X on computer hardware of their choice? I can take a retail copy of Windows and install it on any computer of my choice. What's the difference? I am running under the assumption and taking Psystar at face value that they are indeed using the retail copy of OS X. I can then sell that PC to anyone I want, and I don't need Microsoft's approval. Now am I losing a lot of money by not going the traditional reseller route, hell yeah, but then I am also preserving my freedom of operating the way that I want and not having to follow the single-sided rules imposed by Microsoft and their reseller program.
If it is indeed found - in court - that Psystar uses a hacked copy of OS X, then I am all in favor of them being sued into oblivion. But I'm not going to throw them under the bus until that happens. I think the little guy should be given the same chances in the free market that the big guys have.
I've already answer the question of why the big guys won't play yet. The same reasoning I mentioned - risk and end-user support - also extends to the original Mac cloners who were selling their systems as Macs (not Mac-compatibles). That is why they relied on Apple for licensing. They also had to get their hardware for their Macs to even run from Apple, who was the only one manufacturing the special ROM chips at the time. This is why there was a real risk when Apple moved to Intel. They no longer had control over the hardware platform and that is why we are even seeing the possibility of 3rd party clones now.
Why does Psystar have to have a license from Apple to install a retail copy of OS X on computer hardware of their choice? I can take a retail copy of Windows and install it on any computer of my choice. What's the difference?
Technically, you can't, just as I am technically be 'illegal' by installing OSx86 on my Wind. But if you have absolutely no knowledge or understand of what licensing is then I can not respond to anymore of your posts, so go ahead and get get the last word in.
EFI over BIOS is malware? Seeing if an OS has the ability to support the HW it's being installed on is malware?
No, I'm referring to the O/S updates that purposely break the "innovations" that the OSx86 and other projects use to allow OS X to work on standard Intel hardware. EFIs use by Apple to restrict the hardware OS X can be installed on has nothing to do with hardware compatibility. Remember most of OS X is BSD, that runs on any hardware. Which brings up another point, where does Apple get the right to restrict the distribution of a free and open source O/S like BSD without which OS X would not even function?
This is about another company selling another companies product without their permission.
No that is what Apple and you apparently would want other people to believe. If I buy a retail item and resell it to someone else, I am perfectly within my rights to do so. If I sell it for a higher price, the purchaser is stupid, and I am a good salesman.
I've never a single case of Apple going after the recreational OSx86 hacker community..
Which you would think is completely contradictory to this case, because OSx86 are using a hacked version of OS X and not buying a retail copy. You would think this is where Apple should be spending their attention. By not doing so, they do risk their trademarks and patents.
Laws are meant to be followed. Bills are meant to change a law.
Perhaps I should of said BAD laws, which is what I meant to say. Of course laws are meant to be followed, but bad laws are meant to be disobeyed. Besides businesses and our own government hardly follow our laws anyways, so what's the point. They're all made to control the people.
Technically, you can't, just as I am technically be 'illegal' by installing OSx86 on my Wind. But if you have absolutely no knowledge or understand of what licensing is then I can not respond to anymore of your posts, so go ahead and get get the last word in.
I perfectly understand licensing. It's an illegal one-way contract imposed by the licensor to make you use a product the way they want you to use it. And EULAs, which is where the clause your referring to is located, have been succesfully challenged and overuled in court making them invalid. Which is why this case is going to arbitration and not court.
But OSX does not work on any X86 system out of the box.
True, you have to use it on a computer that has an EFI chip or use an EFI emulator.
That would be like you having to change a few bits in Coffeemaker A eprom in order for it to work on Coffeemaker B coffee maker. If Coffeemaker A don't have a patent or copyright on their eprom then it would be legal for you to alter the eprom to get it to work on Coffeemaker B coffee maker. But if Coffemaker A does have a copyright or patent on that eprom then you're breaking the law.
No, this is called improving a product. If they use encryption to protect the EEPROM, then you may be violating the DMCA, however that's another law that needs to be gotten rid of.
Copyrights have no bearing on your case, however if they have a patent, you may be oblidged to pay a royalty on your derivitive work to them as compensation for the duration of their patent.
But Coffeemaker A would not try to stop you from altering their IP to make it work on another coffee maker if you're only doing this for yourself, as a "hobby". But taking their IP and altering so you can sell it in someone else's coffee maker would most likely land you in court.
If they don't stop hobbyists from stealing their IP, their IP is no longer valid under US trademark and patent law. Both trademarks and patents put the enforcement of trademarks and patents on the trademark and patent holders.
Let say that I don't like the order of songs on the Sgt. Pepper album. I think "When I'm Sixty-Four" should follow "With a Little help From My Friend instead of "Within You Without You" and the album should end with "Lucy in The Sky With Diamonds". I can put my original Sgt. Pepper CD in my Mac and burn the version I like. No laws broken. (Now the RIAA might think otherwise.
This is one of those special cases that government has caused by establishing special rights for the music industry through the DMCA and artistic copyright extensions. You can create a derivitive work of a song or album (rappers do this all the time) but you have to pay a royalty to the original copyright holder for it to be legal.
With the Bootcamp question the other poster posited, it has nothing to do with Microsoft licensing. He asked what keeps Dell from making a Bootcamp like application. The answer is - nothing. All Bootcamp is, is a utility to reboot the system into another operating system. It also happens to help the user by initially re-partitioning the hard drive to be able to install the other O/S. Anyone can do this. The trick to run Mac OS X is implementing a legal EFI emulator (or just include the chip on the mainboard in the first place). The practice of Apple using software to "brick" a system based on the hardware or software it is using should be deemed illegal and unethical. We're supposed to be a free country here and our freedom to innovate and freedom to experiment should be protected.
Apple is not purposely "bricking" other system with software. OSX, out of the box, just doesn't support other systems. If you want to hack your copy of OSX so that it works on your own system, you're are free to do so. Thousands of people have already done this and none of them are in jail for doing so.
I can't believe you'd use the RIAA argument to justify Apple having to compete on selling an O/S. If everyone truly believes OS X is a better operating system, then it should be able to hold its own in the free market.
In a free market the owner of the IP should be able to decide how to use it. Apple choses to not compete in the computer OS market with MS. Instead they chose to compete in the computer hardware market with Dell, HP, Sony, Acer, etc.. And Apple has the right to use their IP to enhance the hardware they sell.
Also, once again you use the phantom and untrue argument of forcing Apple to have to support other hardware vendor's equipment. Complete FUD. Show me the department at Microsoft that makes other vendor's software drivers. You can't, because there is none. The only thing Microsoft does is provide developer assistance on how to hook to their system APIs, just like Apple does now through the Apple Developer community. The computer vendors and hardware accessory market are on their own to provide drivers. You can see this plainly by visiting any of their support sites. If they don't make a driver, then their stuff won't work with Mac OS X, plain and simple.
It's not about Apple having to support thousands of different hardware configurations. It's about OSX being bloated with all the codes needed to support thousands of different hardware configurations. As an OSX and Mac user, would you be happy if OSX ended up running like Vista because it's bogged down with the codes needed to run on machines you would never buy?
You want to support Apple, that's fine, but find a better, truthful argument, and stop spreading FUD. I like Apple and enjoy my Apple Macbook, but I'm against their trying to manipulate the market, and I think we're all seeing that they know their vendor lock-in policies are about to blow up in their face. Apple has the money to take this to trial and put Psystar out of business, but they know that their case is weak and might get ruled against. That's why they?re going with arbitration - non-binding arbitration at that.
Your logic doesn't make sense. Since the arbitration is non-binding, Apple can still (and will) go to trial if they don't like the outcome. What does Apple have to lose? If the outcome favors Apple then it's Psystar that will most likely not go to trial and waste what little money they have. So Apple will avoid a costly court battle. Logic would dictate that if Apple have a weak case they would fight Psystar in court. Where their billions in cash gives them the advantage and may make up for a weak case. Apple lawyers can tied this up in the court systems for years. By agreeing to non-binding arbitration Apple is confident that they can win without having to exercise their monetary strength over Psystar.
Apple is not purposely "bricking" other system with software. OSX, out of the box, just doesn't support other systems. If you want to hack your copy of OSX so that it works on your own system, you're are free to do so. Thousands of people have already done this and none of them are in jail for doing so.
Really? Where have you been?
Apple Bricking the iPhone
New Lawsuit Against Apple's Bricking of Unlocked iPhones
OSX86 Doesn't start after apple update?
Apple serves DMCA notice to OSx86 Project
In a free market the owner of the IP should be able to decide how to use it. Apple choses to not compete in the computer OS market with MS. Instead they chose to compete in the computer hardware market with Dell, HP, Sony, Acer, etc.. And Apple has the right to use their IP to enhance the hardware they sell.
In a free market, the consumer decides what market a product maker is in with their wallet.
It's not about Apple having to support thousands of different hardware configurations. It's about OSX being bloated with all the codes needed to support thousands of different hardware configurations. As an OSX and Mac user, would you be happy if OSX ended up running like Vista because it's bogged down with the codes needed to run on machines you would never buy?
What kind of BS is that? There's no codes in an O/S that dictate what hardware it can work with, that's what drivers are for. If you install only the OS X essentials and then add the drivers you need, you have a decently streamlined OS X install. Vista is bloated because they have to support operating system APIs all the way back to Windows 95. One of these days Microsoft will get around to cutting people off like Apple did in the OS 9 to OS X transition. Then Windows won't be so bloated.
Your logic doesn't make sense. Since the arbitration is non-binding, Apple can still (and will) go to trial if they don't like the outcome. What does Apple have to lose? If the outcome favors Apple then it's Psystar that will most likely not go to trial and waste what little money they have. So Apple will avoid a costly court battle. Logic would dictate that if Apple have a weak case they would fight Psystar in court. Where their billions in cash gives them the advantage and may make up for a weak case. Apple lawyers can tied this up in the court systems for years. By agreeing to non-binding arbitration Apple is confident that they can win without having to exercise their monetary strength over Psystar.
So your saying it makes more sense for Apple to pay for arbitration and then pay again to go to trial, rather then just go to trial, bury Psystar,and be done with it?
Whose logic doesn't make sense?
This arbitration is non-binding, so even if it's decided in Apple's favor, they'll still need to go to court to enforce it, or pay for another binding arbitration that Psystar would be stupid to agree to.
Since the arbitration is non-binding, Apple can still (and will) go to trial if they don't like the outcome. What does Apple have to lose? If the outcome favors Apple then it's Psystar that will most likely not go to trial and waste what little money they have. So Apple will avoid a costly court battle. Logic would dictate that if Apple have a weak case they would fight Psystar in court. Where their billions in cash gives them the advantage and may make up for a weak case. Apple lawyers can tied this up in the court systems for years. By agreeing to non-binding arbitration Apple is confident that they can win without having to exercise their monetary strength over Psystar.
I think you are exactly right. I am a little concerned though that Psystar might get some financial
backing from one or more large PC hardware companies who would like to see Psystar
prevail, so that other companies could sell Mac OS X installed on their machines. Such
support might allow Psystar to hang on longer in court, and would make the process
more costly for Apple.
True, you have to use it on a computer that has an EFI chip or use an EFI emulator.
No, this is called improving a product. If they use encryption to protect the EEPROM, then you may be violating the DMCA, however that's another law that needs to be gotten rid of.
Copyrights have no bearing on your case, however if they have a patent, you may be oblidged to pay a royalty on your derivitive work to them as compensation for the duration of their patent.
Yes it does. The software that goes into programming an eprom is copyrightable. The BIOS on a PC is on an eprom and it's protected by copyright laws.
If they don't stop hobbyists from stealing their IP, their IP is no longer valid under US trademark and patent law. Both trademarks and patents put the enforcement of trademarks and patents on the trademark and patent holders.
That would imply that all song writers no longer has the copyright to their songs because they failed to sue everyone that downloaded it illegally. All the owner of a patent, copyright or trademark have to do is inform the violators that they are infringing on their work. This constitute "enforcement". It is not necessary to bring every violator to court in order to keep from losing your rights as the owner of the IP.
This is one of those special cases that government has caused by establishing special rights for the music industry through the DMCA and artistic copyright extensions. You can create a derivitive work of a song or album (rappers do this all the time) but you have to pay a royalty to the original copyright holder for it to be legal.
You also have to pay for a license or royalty even if you don't create a derivative of some one else's work. For instance if you use some else's copyrighted work, in it's original form, to market a product. You can not use some one else's song in a commercial to sell a product without permission. You can not use the image of Superman to sell your product without permission. And you can not market a product using some else's patent without permission. You can not put some else's trademark on your product without permission.
Really? Where have you been?
Apple Bricking the iPhone
New Lawsuit Against Apple's Bricking of Unlocked iPhones
OSX86 Doesn't start after apple update?
Apple serves DMCA notice to OSx86 Project
Then MS will also be guilty of "bricking" tens of thousands of PC's and cell phones every time they put out a patch or update.
In a free market, the consumer decides what market a product maker is in with their wallet.
And if a consumer don't want to use OSX on a Mac, they're free to take their money and buy a Dell and use Windows.
What kind of BS is that? There's no codes in an O/S that dictate what hardware it can work with, that's what drivers are for. If you install only the OS X essentials and then add the drivers you need, you have a decently streamlined OS X install. Vista is bloated because they have to support operating system APIs all the way back to Windows 95. One of these days Microsoft will get around to cutting people off like Apple did in the OS 9 to OS X transition. Then Windows won't be so bloated.
Granted that Windows is loaded with a lot of legacy codes that bogs it down. It's also written to handle the hundreds of different ways in which hardware venders write their drivers. Even if Windows only uses one graphic driver at a time it must be able to deal with as many variations as possible. If all drivers interact the same way with the OS then there shouldn't have been any problems with drivers when switching from XP to Vista. OSX on the other hand knows it only has to deal with a hand full of drivers.
Don't think for a second that it's all up to the vender to write the driver for the OS. If MS (or Apple) market an OS that is suppose to work on as many different hardware configuration as possible, they have a responsibility to see that it does. They will help the venders with writing the drivers. They need to make sure a venders graphic card driver don't conflict with another venders sound card driver. Even if it means changing or adding codes on their OS to better handle all the different possible drivers. Otherwise they pay for it on the support end.
So your saying it makes more sense for Apple to pay for arbitration and then pay again to go to trial, rather then just go to trial, bury Psystar,and be done with it?
Whose logic doesn't make sense?
This arbitration is non-binding, so even if it's decided in Apple's favor, they'll still need to go to court to enforce it, or pay for another binding arbitration that Psystar would be stupid to agree to.
It's gotta cost a lot less to go into arbitration that into a court trial. Don't you think? Apple could be done with it at arbitration if they have a strong enough case. They only have to go to court if they don't agree with the outcome or if Psystar doesn't agree with the outcome. And I doubt if Psystar is going to go to court if the outcome is in Apple's favor just so that they can spend more money to lose again. There is no going to court to "enforce" anything since it's non-binding. If Psystar loses and agrees to Apple's terms then it becomes binding and no court trial. If Psystar loses and don't agree to Apple's term then it start from square one again with a court trial. And of course if Apple loses, they will fight it in a court trial.
Exactly. It's cheaper for Apple and Psystar and Apple has nothing to lose.
Nothing to lose??
Hardware is a very big and profitable business for Apple. Apple has a tremendous amount to lose.
...Perhaps I should of said BAD laws, which is what I meant to say. Of course laws are meant to be followed, but bad laws are meant to be disobeyed. Besides businesses and our own government hardly follow our laws anyways, so what's the point. They're all made to control the people.
Wow. Just wow. Who gets to decided what is a bad law? The only way I can see something being defined as a "bad law" is one that is unconstitutional or goes against something in the Bill of Rights. Who are you to decided a law is bad and you don't have to follow it? Just because Psystar decided to break a "bad law" (yes, they are stealing. I don't care if you deny it) it doesn't mean they won't have to suffer the consequences. I hope they do.
If Apple were to lose this, everyone would lose out. Apple would sell OS X for a lot more, or they wouldn't bother investing as much in R&D and even the Psystar customer would lose out.
I don't care what the x86 people do. I don't care that they have a hobby, but the moment you commercialize it, it is a big deal. Now you are profiting from Apple's hard work and stealing a hardware sale from them.
It's stealing. And it is wrong. Apple can sell a Mac Mini for $100,000,000 and there isn't a thing we can do about it, other than decided to purchase it or not. If you don't like that Apple is charging so much, vote with your wallet and don't buy anything. You don't have a right to Mac OS X.
Yup, I just checked the Bill of Rights. I guess they forget to mention the 28th Amendment, the Right to Bear Mac OS X.
EDIT: Laws are made to control people????? DUH! You make that sound like a bad thing! People need laws to keep from bashing each others' brains in. Common sense is rarity, indeed.
What has stopped the big PC vendors? One, risk - they want to see how this case works out. Two, they'd have to come up with a system that is user-friendly to avoid support nightmares. Psystar's systems suck, but a certain segment will still buy them because they want it anyways and Psystar can get away with it because they are small. Big PC vendors are all about the mainstream public, which wouldn't put up with the issues of the OSx86 project.
Dell and others would love to have more leverage with Microsoft, but the legal costs of creating an unauthorized Mac could be massive and most legal departments would probably suggest that their company would be better off steering clear of a possible lawsuit with Apple. I am not too clear about the EFix device, but if the device merely emulates the EFI as claimed then save for the lack of EFI support there are a few Intel boards that could support MacOS without modification in which case Apple case against clone lies purely upon the EULA that says you can't run this software on any non-Apple computers. IANAL, but AFAIK relying upon the EULA is not as strong a legal argument as violating IP law.
While I am not fond of the Psystar machines, I think Apple could put Psystar out of business quite easily by simply releasing their own minitower. If Apple created a box that used a MicroATX case with a single CPU that maxed out at 8Gib of DDR2 that was officially supported by Apple there wouldn't be much market for Psystar. The Psystar Open Computer isn't that cheap honestly. Apple could position a box at ~$800-$1000 and still have ample margin to make it worth selling. Furthermore, save for the true hobbyists, most people would prefer to have something supported by Apple then something slapped together with technical support that may be of questionable value.
I always hear the criticism that Apple shouldn't make this standalone model in between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro, but the chasm is so large that it wouldn't be terribly difficult for Apple to market something in between the two that is crippled enough not to pose a threat to their Mac Pro sales, but provide sufficient power over the Mac Mini to justify to upgrade in price for customers. I remember selling computers for a while and anecdotally found a lot of people who wanted a Mac and already owned a good size monitor, but wanted something more powerful than the Mac Mini, but didn't want to go towards the Mac Pro because it was way overkill for their needs. Apple's answer has always been that one should buy an iMac if the specs for the Mac mini were insufficient(that basic answer is even part of their sales training), but that answer really doesn't really work very well with real customers.
Apple inaccurately presumes that nobody already has a monitor that they are already happy with. Furthermore, Apple's iMac panels aren't much better than anything else on the market (Apple was sued for exaggerating the color depth of the panels IIRC) so in many cases Apple can't even say that the included panel in the iMac is better than what the customer already has. Unless Apple is going to offer a credit towards their iMac purchase for their existing monitor, I think Apple is always going to have an uphill battle selling to this audience regardless of whether they are geeks who want a machine that is easy to upgrade or not. The mini-tower configuration is still the de facto standard for most consumer computers. Apple shouldn't be fighting for the sub $500 market, but there are plenty of people willing to pay ~$800 for Mac, but want something a little more powerful and upgradeable then the Mac Mini.
The mini-tower configuration is still the de facto standard for most consumer computers.
Apart from the fact that.... it's not.
Most consumers are purchasing notebooks.
This year's growth area is the NetBook
Dell, Gateway and HP have joined Sony in offering desktop AIOs.
Dell are now selling their Studio Hybrid (Mac Mini Killer!)
A lot of consumers (especially in the US) are already buying Apple solutions.
I am not denying that there is a market for the product that you and others on this board seem to desire, but it's not as large as you think and in the US (Apple's largest market) it is actually shrinking.