No, it doesn't. I've been running OSx86 machines for years now. They have many, many little issues.
Apple shouldn't be forced by to socialize its IP and support power optimized systems because people who have gotten so used to steal software on the internets want to run on their PC HW but are too lazy or techtarded to build their own systems.
Building your own system is as legal or illegal as Psystar making them. The only difference is that your too small to be picked up by Apple's radar.
Quote:
This is a capitalist natiom, which gives Apple the right to license the sale of its IP to anyone it wishes. If Apple doesn't wish to allow clones then it doesn't have to.
Capitalism has nothing to do with it, and anybody is free to make clones. The only question is whether they're allowed to violate the EULA and re-sell OSX with them.
Apple is selling OSX. Bundling does not make it a single product. The "many little issues" you speak of are not things that just happened. They're not because of some essential component of OSX. Instead, they are defects intentionally caused by Apple to make their OS incompatible with 3rd party hardware. That's OK, they're allowed to do that, but just as IBM was forced to allow Amdahl and Hitachi hardware, Apple may be forced to also sell OSX separately.
Insults are typically the fallback for those with weak arguments. My advice is to get the facts and present the evidence. People who use computer software - illegally or not - are not Nazis.
In truth, I think Apple has a stronger position in this case because their software was clearly reverse engineered. This violates the DMCA.
While I do see the perspective of the other side in this case because I currently cannot afford a new Apple computer, it doesn't mean I can go out and buy a computer that has MacOS on it illegally. I prefer the whole Apple "experience" but I hate how expensive it remains; especially for minor point upgrades on the operating system.
Building your own system is as legal or illegal as Psystar making them. The only difference is that your too small to be picked up by Apple's radar.
It's illegal, I don't deny that, but it's not even in the same ballpark of illegalness of Psystar since I'm not distributing stolen software or illegally propping myself up as a reseller of Apple's OS without their permission which is protected under free market trade or potentially destroying Apple's brand name to make a quick a buck on some hacked Macs with stolen software twist tied together.
Quote:
Instead, they are defects intentionally caused by Apple to make their OS incompatible with 3rd party hardware.
No, there isn't. Are you really going to claim that Apple use of EFI over the antiquated BIOS is a defect? The chances of Apple being forced to support OS X on any and all HW is an asinine statement.
Besides destroying Apple's business model, it would destroy every other company that also sells a bundled OS with their HW. It would also end up costing the consumer a lot more money. Forcing Apple to Socialize its OS in a free market makes absolutely no sense from a legal or business standpoint.
Building your own system is as legal or illegal as Psystar making them. The only difference is that your too small to be picked up by Apple's radar.
Capitalism has nothing to do with it, and anybody is free to make clones. The only question is whether they're allowed to violate the EULA and re-sell OSX with them.
Apple is selling OSX. Bundling does not make it a single product. The "many little issues" you speak of are not things that just happened. They're not because of some essential component of OSX. Instead, they are defects intentionally caused by Apple to make their OS incompatible with 3rd party hardware. That's OK, they're allowed to do that, but just as IBM was forced to allow Amdahl and Hitachi hardware, Apple may be forced to also sell OSX separately.
You will twist everything to conform to your opinion. You seem to feel that anyone should be allowed to essentially steal someone's IP property.
You try to insert many shades of grey into this discussion when it is in fact as simple as black and white.
Psystar will lose. They will probably find a way to do a Chapter 11 and disappear with the end-users holding the bag. Yet even with that, you'll still find a way to whine about how Psystar was denied the opportunity to fill a niche of disgruntled apple-haters.
You will twist everything to conform to your opinion. You seem to feel that anyone should be allowed to essentially steal someone's IP property.
buying or licensing != stealing
Quote:
You try to insert many shades of grey into this discussion when it is in fact as simple as black and white.
Life is more complicated than you think. The law definitely is.
Quote:
Psystar will lose. They will probably find a way to do a Chapter 11 and disappear with the end-users holding the bag. Yet even with that, you'll still find a way to whine about how Psystar was denied the opportunity to fill a niche of disgruntled apple-haters.
Not necessarily Apple-haters. They keep coming here and opening thread after thread in "Future Hardware" about the XMac. The end-users will not be left holding any "bag". They will be left with a perfectly functional computer running Mac OS X.
Building your own system is as legal or illegal as Psystar making them.
Hacking the MacOS software to run on generic PC hardware is not illegal. It is protected under fair use. I can do anything I wish to something I have purchased (modify, burn or smash it!!!).
If I distribute modified copyrighted material for a profit, it no longer qualifies as fair use and is now illegal. Psystar is turning a profit on selling generic PC hardware with an illegally modified OS. Had they used some kind of EFI hardware hack, like the EFI-X, they might have been on slightly sturdier ground and only had the EULA to litigate.
Data General cloned the VAX hardware in a clean room. Allowing them to sell cheaper hardware which was instruction-set compatible with VMS. Customers then could buy Data General computers, and install VMS software.
Psystar did not have to reverse-engineer Intel Macs. Because Apple did it for them. This happened when Apple cloned standard PC hardware. Psystar is not stealing Apple's software. It includes a boxed copy of Mac OS in each box.
Yes it breaks a EULA, but there are thousands of EULAs which are illegal and unenforceable. Remember when the EULA on Windows Safari said it was not allowed to run on non Apple machines?
Here's where I think this is going:
Apple has billions in the bank.
And frankly that's a dangerous place to have billions right now. Apple should do something with those billions.
They have a boutique computer hardware business with a profitable model, but one which will never see them gaining much more (hardware) market share. It's healthy but no rocketship.
They have invested and won, by moving into consumer electronics and mobile phones. W00t!
The question is - what should they do next? What is the next big thing for Apple?
If I were Jobs, the answer would be. Time to take down Windows. Go balls-out - and take OS X mainstream.
I think this will be the next big thing that Apple does. But only when it is good and ready. The Psystar case may force their hand sooner than they would have preferred.
C.
(yeah I can hear the screaming) At this point the same old same old objections are screamed.
1) It would take down their hardware business. Overpriced Mac hardware cannot possibly survive. If people could buy Asus Netbooks and install OSX no one would be stupid enough to pay top dollar for an Air.
and
2) If OS X had to support every PC in the known universe. Including the Commodore 64. It would become rubbishware like Windows.
Both of these arguments are horseshit.
If Apple's hardware is such terrible value that it needs the OS X USP to sell. Then Apple is a terrible hardware manufacturer. And the fact is, it is not. Mac hardware would sell even if it ran Windows Vista.
And Apple could easily license OS without making the foolish backwards compatibility guarantees that Microsoft does. In fact, that would be a huge plus for OS X.
The Mac maker filed a formal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 3rd, just one day after Psystar began distributing a modified version of the Mac OS X 10.5.4 Leopard update to customers who had previously purchased one of its unauthorized Mac systems.
Psystar did not have to reverse-engineer Intel Macs. Because Apple did it for them.
This case is about software, not hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
This happened when Apple cloned standard PC hardware.
Apple didn't clone standard PC hardware, they used standard PC hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Psystar is not stealing Apple's software. It includes a boxed copy of Mac OS in each box.
Psystar do not have permission to distribute the software the way they are doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
They have a boutique computer hardware business with a profitable model, but one which will never see them gaining much more (hardware) market share. It's healthy but no rocketship.
Apple's marketshare is growing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
If I were Jobs, the answer would be. Time to take down Windows. Go balls-out - and take OS X mainstream.
If OS X went mainstream it would inherit all the horrible problems Windows has with being mainstream (such as compatibility, stability). Jobs has already said that they have no desire to be #1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
I think this will be the next big thing that Apple does. But only when it is good and ready. The Psystar case may force their hand sooner than they would have preferred.
Great, Vista was rushed to market and that didn't exact turn out great.
OTOH saying that Apple has the right to force people who want to buy the OS to also buy a piece of hardware, may be right, but also may not be right. That's for a court to decide.
Wrong, turn the coin over. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. They want you to buy their hardware.
The software/OS is an added extra which, up until the Intel Macs, was required for your Macintosh to function.
Everyone thinks Apple and Microsoft are in direct competition with each other and assumes that the OS is what Apple is peddling. When in actual fact the OS is what everyone wants, but can't have unless they buy a Mac.
If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it. The fact that they sell it bundled with hardware, and the price is "included" in the bundle does not mean that they're not selling it. by deciding to sell a license to everyone, Apple has given up some control, and they may not refuse to sell to anyone without a very good reason. Not having bought a Mac may not be such a good reason.
You and everyone else against this is applying the old "Windows model" to Mac OS X. The flaw here is that Mac OS X isn't distributed using the old Windows model.
And as a result 95% of the arguments against the way Apple is doing this fall flat on their face (including this one).
The specific hardware being sold by Psystar is generic, off-the-shelf stuff which is available, no questions asked and no infringement alleged, through countless other channels. Apple would never succeed in obtaining a blanket prohibition against everybody who independently produces and sells the hardware involved in this case.
It is exclusively because of the fact that one of the distributors who makes use of the hardware, Psystar, is alleged to be pushing the use of specific software in ways for which they don't own the rights, that the case exists in the first place.
The specific hardware being sold by Psystar is generic, off-the-shelf stuff which is available, no questions asked and no infringement alleged, through countless other channels. Apple would never succeed in obtaining a blanket prohibition against everybody who independently produces and sells the hardware involved in this case.
It is exclusively because of the fact that one of the distributors who makes use of the hardware, Psystar, is alleged to be pushing the use of specific software in ways for which they don't own the rights, that the case exists in the first place.
D'oh. I meant it was about software, and not hardware. Forgot to engage my brain before typing.
I think it would be great for everyone if apple licensed the OS to 3rd parties. For people who like Mac OS, having more hardware sold with it would give more developers reason to sell software for Mac. It would also force apple to remain competitive with hardware quality and prices... where there is currently no competition if you want Mac OS.
Right and they would also run the Mac division into the ground by doing this.
Wrong, turn the coin over. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. They want you to buy their hardware.
All the bolds and italics in the world won't make your point valid. Apple is a company. It sells hardware. It sells software. Oh, and mice, screens, keyboards, MP3/AAC players, phones, raw conversion software, etc.
Quote:
The software/OS is an added extra which, up until the Intel Macs, was required for your Macintosh to function.
It's not some added extra. It's something that can run with or without the Apple hardware. The Apple hardware can run Mac OS, Linux, and since the Intel Macs, also Windows. So no, Mac OS was never required.
Quote:
Everyone thinks Apple and Microsoft are in direct competition with each other and assumes that the OS is what Apple is peddling. When in actual fact the OS is what everyone wants, but can't have unless they buy a Mac.
Actually, there is some history on Psystar's side, but it's quite old, so newer rulings may override them.
In the '70s IBM was forced to allow their operating system, MVS, to run on other manufacturer's hardware. This allowed mainframes from Amdahl and Hitachi as well as IBM to run MVS. In fact, IBM was forced to publish a book (still available today) called "principles of operation, that detailed the requirements from a computer that runs MVS.
That same IBM decided to add file permissions to MVS so that not every user would be able to read or modify every file. Sounds basic enough. Should be in every operating system, right? Wrong, said other software vendors. IBM was forced to modularize the permission subsystem, so that other vendors could compete with IBM. Still today, IBM mainframes (or rather, their administrators) can choose from at least three security packages, only one of which is from IBM.
That last case was the precedent that people thought would lead a court to force Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer. If file permissions are not part of an OS, a browser definitely isn't.
Still, the Microsoft ruling is more recent, so I'm not sure that Psystar has a case. OTOH saying that Apple has the right to force people who want to buy the OS to also buy a piece of hardware, may be right, but also may not be right. That's for a court to decide.
IMO a legal system that takes so long to start trial is seriously flawed. But that's all legal system all over the world.
The reason why IBM was forced to allow their MVS software to run on other hardware was because IBM had a near monopoly in the Mainframe computer market and the Mainframe software market. Businesses did not have a choice but to buy from IBM. If you have a big business, there were no other options available at the time. It had nothing to do with IBM tying their software to their hardware.
Apple do not have a monopoly in the personal computer market. And Apple do not have a monopoly in the personal computer OS market. Consumers have plenty of choices. And most are cheaper than what Apple sells. A PC can do everything that a Mac can do. And if you listen to the Windows fans, Vista can do everything that OSX can do. And more because you can play games and there are millions of more software available for Vista. There is no reason why you have to use a Mac.
The reason why Microsoft got in trouble with bundling IE with Windows was because Microsoft has a monopoly in the personal computer OS market. They were abusing their monopoly by bundling a browser with it. For free. This put Netscape out of business. Microsoft not only bundled IE with Windows. IE installed itself and could not be uninstalled. You could only set it as your non-default browser. Microsoft tried to prove that the browser was an integral part of Windows and could not be separated. They were proven wrong. Windows ran fine without IE. Microsoft still bundle IE with Windows. But now a consumer has a choice to install a browser from other companies. Without ever having to install IE.
Apple on the other hand can bundle the iLife suite (along with QuickTime) their Macs. For free. Even the EU aren't complaining about this. But they go after Microsoft for bundling a media player in Windows. That's because Apple do not have any monopolistic power in either the personal computer market or the personal computer OS market. A software company that wants to market a media player would be locked out of 90% of the OS market if Microsoft had their way. But they are only losing 4% of the OS (and computer) market when Apple bundles iLife with their Macs. And the iLife suit comes pre-installed. But it can be uninstalled.
So neither the IBM case or the Microsoft case will apply to Apple.
All the bolds and italics in the world won't make your point valid. Apple is a company. It sells hardware. It sells software. Oh, and mice, screens, keyboards, MP3/AAC players, phones, raw conversion software, etc.
It still doesn't change the fact that Apple is a hardware company that sells some software, unlike Microsoft which is a software company that sells some hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp
It's not some added extra. It's something that can run with or without the Apple hardware. The Apple hardware can run Mac OS, Linux, and since the Intel Macs, also Windows. So no, Mac OS was never required.
Evidently my bold lettering is required as you completely missed the point I was making there.
Up until the Intel-based Macs (i.e. when they were Power PC), Mac OS was required for a Mac to function (except for the odd really bad Linux distribution).
Also, when up until Mac OS 8/9, Mac OS was the only operating system you could run on a Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by synp
And that's what the trial is about.
No the trial is not about whether the public has the correct opinion that Apple is in direct competition with Microsoft. The trial is about whether Psystar have broken the law.
Comments
No, it doesn't. I've been running OSx86 machines for years now. They have many, many little issues.
Apple shouldn't be forced by to socialize its IP and support power optimized systems because people who have gotten so used to steal software on the internets want to run on their PC HW but are too lazy or techtarded to build their own systems.
Building your own system is as legal or illegal as Psystar making them. The only difference is that your too small to be picked up by Apple's radar.
This is a capitalist natiom, which gives Apple the right to license the sale of its IP to anyone it wishes. If Apple doesn't wish to allow clones then it doesn't have to.
Capitalism has nothing to do with it, and anybody is free to make clones. The only question is whether they're allowed to violate the EULA and re-sell OSX with them.
Apple is selling OSX. Bundling does not make it a single product. The "many little issues" you speak of are not things that just happened. They're not because of some essential component of OSX. Instead, they are defects intentionally caused by Apple to make their OS incompatible with 3rd party hardware. That's OK, they're allowed to do that, but just as IBM was forced to allow Amdahl and Hitachi hardware, Apple may be forced to also sell OSX separately.
In truth, I think Apple has a stronger position in this case because their software was clearly reverse engineered. This violates the DMCA.
While I do see the perspective of the other side in this case because I currently cannot afford a new Apple computer, it doesn't mean I can go out and buy a computer that has MacOS on it illegally. I prefer the whole Apple "experience" but I hate how expensive it remains; especially for minor point upgrades on the operating system.
Building your own system is as legal or illegal as Psystar making them. The only difference is that your too small to be picked up by Apple's radar.
It's illegal, I don't deny that, but it's not even in the same ballpark of illegalness of Psystar since I'm not distributing stolen software or illegally propping myself up as a reseller of Apple's OS without their permission which is protected under free market trade or potentially destroying Apple's brand name to make a quick a buck on some hacked Macs with stolen software twist tied together.
Instead, they are defects intentionally caused by Apple to make their OS incompatible with 3rd party hardware.
No, there isn't. Are you really going to claim that Apple use of EFI over the antiquated BIOS is a defect? The chances of Apple being forced to support OS X on any and all HW is an asinine statement.
Besides destroying Apple's business model, it would destroy every other company that also sells a bundled OS with their HW. It would also end up costing the consumer a lot more money. Forcing Apple to Socialize its OS in a free market makes absolutely no sense from a legal or business standpoint.
Building your own system is as legal or illegal as Psystar making them. The only difference is that your too small to be picked up by Apple's radar.
Capitalism has nothing to do with it, and anybody is free to make clones. The only question is whether they're allowed to violate the EULA and re-sell OSX with them.
Apple is selling OSX. Bundling does not make it a single product. The "many little issues" you speak of are not things that just happened. They're not because of some essential component of OSX. Instead, they are defects intentionally caused by Apple to make their OS incompatible with 3rd party hardware. That's OK, they're allowed to do that, but just as IBM was forced to allow Amdahl and Hitachi hardware, Apple may be forced to also sell OSX separately.
You will twist everything to conform to your opinion. You seem to feel that anyone should be allowed to essentially steal someone's IP property.
You try to insert many shades of grey into this discussion when it is in fact as simple as black and white.
Psystar will lose. They will probably find a way to do a Chapter 11 and disappear with the end-users holding the bag. Yet even with that, you'll still find a way to whine about how Psystar was denied the opportunity to fill a niche of disgruntled apple-haters.
You will twist everything to conform to your opinion. You seem to feel that anyone should be allowed to essentially steal someone's IP property.
buying or licensing != stealing
You try to insert many shades of grey into this discussion when it is in fact as simple as black and white.
Life is more complicated than you think. The law definitely is.
Psystar will lose. They will probably find a way to do a Chapter 11 and disappear with the end-users holding the bag. Yet even with that, you'll still find a way to whine about how Psystar was denied the opportunity to fill a niche of disgruntled apple-haters.
Not necessarily Apple-haters. They keep coming here and opening thread after thread in "Future Hardware" about the XMac. The end-users will not be left holding any "bag". They will be left with a perfectly functional computer running Mac OS X.
Building your own system is as legal or illegal as Psystar making them.
Hacking the MacOS software to run on generic PC hardware is not illegal. It is protected under fair use. I can do anything I wish to something I have purchased (modify, burn or smash it!!!
If I distribute modified copyrighted material for a profit, it no longer qualifies as fair use and is now illegal. Psystar is turning a profit on selling generic PC hardware with an illegally modified OS. Had they used some kind of EFI hardware hack, like the EFI-X, they might have been on slightly sturdier ground and only had the EULA to litigate.
The Parties do not believe that this type of case can be handled on an expedited basis with streamlined procedures,
Roughly translated, Apple are pissed that Psystar are planning a notebook. This move by Psystar clearly indicates they don't care about this case.
In the meantime, the extended timetable may afford Psystar more time to grow its unsanctioned Mac clone business with the introduction of new models.
More money for Apple to get there hands on when they win.
Data General cloned the VAX hardware in a clean room. Allowing them to sell cheaper hardware which was instruction-set compatible with VMS. Customers then could buy Data General computers, and install VMS software.
Psystar did not have to reverse-engineer Intel Macs. Because Apple did it for them. This happened when Apple cloned standard PC hardware. Psystar is not stealing Apple's software. It includes a boxed copy of Mac OS in each box.
Yes it breaks a EULA, but there are thousands of EULAs which are illegal and unenforceable. Remember when the EULA on Windows Safari said it was not allowed to run on non Apple machines?
Here's where I think this is going:
Apple has billions in the bank.
And frankly that's a dangerous place to have billions right now. Apple should do something with those billions.
They have a boutique computer hardware business with a profitable model, but one which will never see them gaining much more (hardware) market share. It's healthy but no rocketship.
They have invested and won, by moving into consumer electronics and mobile phones. W00t!
The question is - what should they do next? What is the next big thing for Apple?
If I were Jobs, the answer would be. Time to take down Windows. Go balls-out - and take OS X mainstream.
I think this will be the next big thing that Apple does. But only when it is good and ready. The Psystar case may force their hand sooner than they would have preferred.
C.
(yeah I can hear the screaming) At this point the same old same old objections are screamed.
1) It would take down their hardware business. Overpriced Mac hardware cannot possibly survive. If people could buy Asus Netbooks and install OSX no one would be stupid enough to pay top dollar for an Air.
and
2) If OS X had to support every PC in the known universe. Including the Commodore 64. It would become rubbishware like Windows.
Both of these arguments are horseshit.
If Apple's hardware is such terrible value that it needs the OS X USP to sell. Then Apple is a terrible hardware manufacturer. And the fact is, it is not. Mac hardware would sell even if it ran Windows Vista.
And Apple could easily license OS without making the foolish backwards compatibility guarantees that Microsoft does. In fact, that would be a huge plus for OS X.
C.
I don't give two shits about Apple's business model. I want to load OS X on what I want. It's a monopoly and they should be stopped.
Sadly for you, this is NOT a right. Also, it's not a monopoly. It's called a PACKAGE.
Anti-Mac? I own a iMac, Mackbook Pro, and have bought 2 iPhones. Just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean I'm Anti-anything.
But, just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you can ignore the terms either.
Psystar is not stealing Apple's software. It includes a boxed copy of Mac OS in each box.
The reason Apple sued Psystar: Distributing modified versions of OS X
The Mac maker filed a formal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 3rd, just one day after Psystar began distributing a modified version of the Mac OS X 10.5.4 Leopard update to customers who had previously purchased one of its unauthorized Mac systems.
Psystar did not have to reverse-engineer Intel Macs. Because Apple did it for them.
This case is about software, not hardware.
This happened when Apple cloned standard PC hardware.
Apple didn't clone standard PC hardware, they used standard PC hardware.
Psystar is not stealing Apple's software. It includes a boxed copy of Mac OS in each box.
Psystar do not have permission to distribute the software the way they are doing so.
They have a boutique computer hardware business with a profitable model, but one which will never see them gaining much more (hardware) market share. It's healthy but no rocketship.
Apple's marketshare is growing.
If I were Jobs, the answer would be. Time to take down Windows. Go balls-out - and take OS X mainstream.
If OS X went mainstream it would inherit all the horrible problems Windows has with being mainstream (such as compatibility, stability). Jobs has already said that they have no desire to be #1.
I think this will be the next big thing that Apple does. But only when it is good and ready. The Psystar case may force their hand sooner than they would have preferred.
Great, Vista was rushed to market and that didn't exact turn out great.
OTOH saying that Apple has the right to force people who want to buy the OS to also buy a piece of hardware, may be right, but also may not be right. That's for a court to decide.
Wrong, turn the coin over. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. They want you to buy their hardware.
The software/OS is an added extra which, up until the Intel Macs, was required for your Macintosh to function.
Everyone thinks Apple and Microsoft are in direct competition with each other and assumes that the OS is what Apple is peddling. When in actual fact the OS is what everyone wants, but can't have unless they buy a Mac.
If Apple had decided that Mac OS X is only to be used inside the company, that's their right. But they have decided to sell it. The fact that they sell it bundled with hardware, and the price is "included" in the bundle does not mean that they're not selling it. by deciding to sell a license to everyone, Apple has given up some control, and they may not refuse to sell to anyone without a very good reason. Not having bought a Mac may not be such a good reason.
You and everyone else against this is applying the old "Windows model" to Mac OS X. The flaw here is that Mac OS X isn't distributed using the old Windows model.
And as a result 95% of the arguments against the way Apple is doing this fall flat on their face (including this one).
Mac OS runs perfectly well on hackintoshes
I disagree on the following grounds:
- you have ensure you have a specific subset of "standard" PC hardware.
- you have to download a "special" hack to get it to boot.
- you have to apply some special updates to the Apple patches for the OS to continue to function.
I know in the Windows world that would fit the definition of "perfectly" quite well, but it most definitely is nothing like perfectly well.This case is about hardware, not software.
The specific hardware being sold by Psystar is generic, off-the-shelf stuff which is available, no questions asked and no infringement alleged, through countless other channels. Apple would never succeed in obtaining a blanket prohibition against everybody who independently produces and sells the hardware involved in this case.
It is exclusively because of the fact that one of the distributors who makes use of the hardware, Psystar, is alleged to be pushing the use of specific software in ways for which they don't own the rights, that the case exists in the first place.
The specific hardware being sold by Psystar is generic, off-the-shelf stuff which is available, no questions asked and no infringement alleged, through countless other channels. Apple would never succeed in obtaining a blanket prohibition against everybody who independently produces and sells the hardware involved in this case.
It is exclusively because of the fact that one of the distributors who makes use of the hardware, Psystar, is alleged to be pushing the use of specific software in ways for which they don't own the rights, that the case exists in the first place.
D'oh. I meant it was about software, and not hardware. Forgot to engage my brain before typing.
I think it would be great for everyone if apple licensed the OS to 3rd parties. For people who like Mac OS, having more hardware sold with it would give more developers reason to sell software for Mac. It would also force apple to remain competitive with hardware quality and prices... where there is currently no competition if you want Mac OS.
Right and they would also run the Mac division into the ground by doing this.
Wrong, turn the coin over. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. They want you to buy their hardware.
All the bolds and italics in the world won't make your point valid. Apple is a company. It sells hardware. It sells software. Oh, and mice, screens, keyboards, MP3/AAC players, phones, raw conversion software, etc.
The software/OS is an added extra which, up until the Intel Macs, was required for your Macintosh to function.
It's not some added extra. It's something that can run with or without the Apple hardware. The Apple hardware can run Mac OS, Linux, and since the Intel Macs, also Windows. So no, Mac OS was never required.
Everyone thinks Apple and Microsoft are in direct competition with each other and assumes that the OS is what Apple is peddling. When in actual fact the OS is what everyone wants, but can't have unless they buy a Mac.
And that's what the trial is about.
Actually, there is some history on Psystar's side, but it's quite old, so newer rulings may override them.
In the '70s IBM was forced to allow their operating system, MVS, to run on other manufacturer's hardware. This allowed mainframes from Amdahl and Hitachi as well as IBM to run MVS. In fact, IBM was forced to publish a book (still available today) called "principles of operation, that detailed the requirements from a computer that runs MVS.
That same IBM decided to add file permissions to MVS so that not every user would be able to read or modify every file. Sounds basic enough. Should be in every operating system, right? Wrong, said other software vendors. IBM was forced to modularize the permission subsystem, so that other vendors could compete with IBM. Still today, IBM mainframes (or rather, their administrators) can choose from at least three security packages, only one of which is from IBM.
That last case was the precedent that people thought would lead a court to force Microsoft to unbundle Internet Explorer. If file permissions are not part of an OS, a browser definitely isn't.
Still, the Microsoft ruling is more recent, so I'm not sure that Psystar has a case. OTOH saying that Apple has the right to force people who want to buy the OS to also buy a piece of hardware, may be right, but also may not be right. That's for a court to decide.
IMO a legal system that takes so long to start trial is seriously flawed. But that's all legal system all over the world.
The reason why IBM was forced to allow their MVS software to run on other hardware was because IBM had a near monopoly in the Mainframe computer market and the Mainframe software market. Businesses did not have a choice but to buy from IBM. If you have a big business, there were no other options available at the time. It had nothing to do with IBM tying their software to their hardware.
Apple do not have a monopoly in the personal computer market. And Apple do not have a monopoly in the personal computer OS market. Consumers have plenty of choices. And most are cheaper than what Apple sells. A PC can do everything that a Mac can do. And if you listen to the Windows fans, Vista can do everything that OSX can do. And more because you can play games and there are millions of more software available for Vista. There is no reason why you have to use a Mac.
The reason why Microsoft got in trouble with bundling IE with Windows was because Microsoft has a monopoly in the personal computer OS market. They were abusing their monopoly by bundling a browser with it. For free. This put Netscape out of business. Microsoft not only bundled IE with Windows. IE installed itself and could not be uninstalled. You could only set it as your non-default browser. Microsoft tried to prove that the browser was an integral part of Windows and could not be separated. They were proven wrong. Windows ran fine without IE. Microsoft still bundle IE with Windows. But now a consumer has a choice to install a browser from other companies. Without ever having to install IE.
Apple on the other hand can bundle the iLife suite (along with QuickTime) their Macs. For free. Even the EU aren't complaining about this. But they go after Microsoft for bundling a media player in Windows. That's because Apple do not have any monopolistic power in either the personal computer market or the personal computer OS market. A software company that wants to market a media player would be locked out of 90% of the OS market if Microsoft had their way. But they are only losing 4% of the OS (and computer) market when Apple bundles iLife with their Macs. And the iLife suit comes pre-installed. But it can be uninstalled.
So neither the IBM case or the Microsoft case will apply to Apple.
All the bolds and italics in the world won't make your point valid. Apple is a company. It sells hardware. It sells software. Oh, and mice, screens, keyboards, MP3/AAC players, phones, raw conversion software, etc.
It still doesn't change the fact that Apple is a hardware company that sells some software, unlike Microsoft which is a software company that sells some hardware.
It's not some added extra. It's something that can run with or without the Apple hardware. The Apple hardware can run Mac OS, Linux, and since the Intel Macs, also Windows. So no, Mac OS was never required.
Evidently my bold lettering is required as you completely missed the point I was making there.
Up until the Intel-based Macs (i.e. when they were Power PC), Mac OS was required for a Mac to function (except for the odd really bad Linux distribution).
Also, when up until Mac OS 8/9, Mac OS was the only operating system you could run on a Mac.
And that's what the trial is about.
No the trial is not about whether the public has the correct opinion that Apple is in direct competition with Microsoft. The trial is about whether Psystar have broken the law.