They'll be getting a letter from Apple real soon now. But this brings an interesting question. Why doesn't Apple let licensed companies build PCs capable of running MacOS X as long as they keep it in an Apple specified price range. It's a copy of MacOS X and they have huge gaps in their range, specifically the under $600 economy desktop.
And, as to the case, it's not the prettiest thing but I've seen far uglier cases.
... Why doesn't Apple let licensed companies build PCs capable of running MacOS X as long as they keep it in an Apple specified price range. ...
If Apple opens its OS to non-Apple hardware, then it becomes subject to the same laws as Microsoft. What you are advocating is called price fixing and collusion. It is illegal.
There is another point that you seem to be unaware of. MacOS X is subsidized by Apple's hardware sales. Take away the hardware/software connection and the price of MacOS X will have to rise dramatically. OpenSTEP was substantially more expensive than MacOS X after NeXT dropped its hardware. The retail price of Microsoft Windows--at least the versions that people actually want--are cheaper than OpenSTEP but still substantially more expensive than MacOS X. Without the hardware subsidy, the retail price of MacOS X would have to fall somewhere between Microsoft Windows and OpenSTEP in order to be profitable. I see no credible business case for MacOS X's being price high enough to make it profitable as an OS on generic Intel hardware.
If Apple opens its OS to non-Apple hardware, then it becomes subject to the same laws as Microsoft. What you are advocating is called price fixing and collusion. It is illegal.
There is another point that you seem to be unaware of. MacOS X is subsidized by Apple's hardware sales. Take away the hardware/software connection and the price of MacOS X will have to rise dramatically. OpenSTEP was substantially more expensive than MacOS X after NeXT dropped its hardware. The retail price of Microsoft Windows--at least the versions that people actually want--are cheaper than OpenSTEP but still substantially more expensive than MacOS X. Without the hardware subsidy, the retail price of MacOS X would have to fall somewhere between Microsoft Windows and OpenSTEP in order to be profitable. I see no credible business case for MacOS X's being price high enough to make it profitable as an OS on generic Intel hardware.
I agree. I don't see how Apple could handle clone makers or the selling of the OS unless they were to sell it at +$500.
Why doesn't Apple let licensed companies build PCs capable of running MacOS X as long as they keep it in an Apple specified price range. It's a copy of MacOS X and they have huge gaps in their range, specifically the under $600 economy desktop.
Besides the other reasons mentioned above, Apple would have to make OSX run on all hardware not just a select few. This would create a big problem. It explains it in the link
I know, I just thought it was weird that someone thought they could sell a pre-made computer with Leopard pre-installed, where the only market that would consider getting it is the same group of people that would prefer to make their own anyways.
They'll be getting a letter from Apple real soon now. But this brings an interesting question. Why doesn't Apple let licensed companies build PCs capable of running MacOS X as long as they keep it in an Apple specified price range. It's a copy of MacOS X and they have huge gaps in their range, specifically the under $600 economy desktop.
And, as to the case, it's not the prettiest thing but I've seen far uglier cases.
They did what you suggested right before Jobs returned, in a Mac Clone scheme, licensing the Mac OS to 3rd party manufacturers. In short it was a complete disaster. That's because while the basic correlation in markets between competition vs. Price was in this case great for the consumer it wrecked havoc on Apple's profits. They were no longer getting 100% of Mac sales. This is why it was immediatly shut down by Jobs upon his return.
For those wishing for more information, I would suggest the Wikipedia article. (Sorry I don't have a link for it at the moment.)
They'll be getting a letter from Apple real soon now. ...
I'd say that's 100% likely.
From the EULA for Leopard:
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one
computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
How can these guys advertise something so blatantly illegal???
it's not that ugly. I honestly think the Mac Pro looks kind of weird with all the holes on the front. hopefully Apple will release something exactly like this. (of course with a nicer design) and hopefully even cheaper
Apple must have sic'd that new high falutin HP attorney on them. Man he works fast!
Actually I just opened their web site and found that I could place an order. I did not buy, of course. I am sure the hardware/OS issues would be daunting, and I don't need the headache, not even for a price like this.
This product, if it is ever actually ships, will be only for supreme techies who love that sort of thing and don't mind the challenges.
How can these guys advertise something so blatantly illegal???
EULAs are a weird sort of contract that you sign *after* you have paid. There has never been a court case that involves EULAs. No vendor has ever sued a user for breach of a EULA. There are some opinions that they are void in many localities.
Anyway, the site is still up. Unless Apple wants to make legal history and try to enforce a EULA for the first time, they'll need to prove that Psystar are either using Apple's intellectual property, or else are somehow "cracking security measures" and violating the DMCA. Both arguments are thin.
On the business side, Apple might ignore them and hope they'll either go away or that the many extra sales of OSX will offset the few lost sales of Mac hardware, or else they might buy one and make sure that every point release breaks compatibility.
They did what you suggested right before Jobs returned, in a Mac Clone scheme, licensing the Mac OS to 3rd party manufacturers. In short it was a complete disaster. That's because while the basic correlation in markets between competition vs. Price was in this case great for the consumer it wrecked havoc on Apple's profits. They were no longer getting 100% of Mac sales. This is why it was immediatly shut down by Jobs upon his return.
For those wishing for more information, I would suggest the Wikipedia article. (Sorry I don't have a link for it at the moment.)
I remember selling clones at Computer Town when I was still in college. Umax, Power Computing, Motorola (remember PRep?), and Apple. The clones were very often late to the table with technology that Apple had already implemented. One exception was Power, but they were notorious for hardware failures.
EULAs are a weird sort of contract that you sign *after* you have paid. There has never been a court case that involves EULAs. No vendor has ever sued a user for breach of a EULA. There are some opinions that they are void in many localities.
This is incorrect. There have been many EULA cases. Blizzard has had at least two (won both), Dell several (won some lost some), Lexmark (won), and Davidson (no reverse engineering EULA, won).
I don't recall but I would guess that Leopard EULA belongs in the "Click-wrap" category where the user must assent to the EULA in order to proceed. These have been upheld.
This is incorrect. There have been many EULA cases. Blizzard has had at least two (won both), Dell several (won some lost some), Lexmark (won), and Davidson (no reverse engineering EULA, won).
I don't recall but I would guess that Leopard EULA belongs in the "Click-wrap" category where the user must assent to the EULA in order to proceed. These have been upheld.
Yes, Leopard would fall under both the "shrink-wrap" and "click-wrap" categories. There are some very good public policy reasons - reasons that favor consumers as much as they do corporations - for enforcing EULAs. I believe Gateway was involved in the pioneering "shrink-wrap" case. If this goes to court, I'd be surprised if Apple lost.
How can these guys advertise something so blatantly illegal???
I don't understand all the fuss about this.
In my view it boils down to this:
You can buy Leopard and install it wherever you want. But Apple guarantees for and supports it only on Apple hardware.
If you buy Apple's software and install it on non-Apple hardware, I don't think they can do anything about that. You are not harming Apple, in fact you just purchased a product from them, so it's good for them.
If this then works for you, good, if it doesn't, well, don't expect any help from Apple. You're on your own.
It's a bit like jailbreaking iPhones. If it works for you, great, if not, you're on your own, with possibly a bricked iPhone.
Or in OpenComputer's terms, you might end up with a computer that doesn't work with the MacOS you just bought. You might still be able to install Windows or Linux on it...
You can buy Leopard and install it wherever you want. But Apple guarantees for and supports it only on Apple hardware.
If you buy Apple's software and install it on non-Apple hardware, I don't think they can do anything about that. You are not harming Apple, in fact you just purchased a product from them, so it's good for them.
If this then works for you, good, if it doesn't, well, don't expect any help from Apple. You're on your own.
It's a bit like jailbreaking iPhones. If it works for you, great, if not, you're on your own, with possibly a bricked iPhone.
Or in OpenComputer's terms, you might end up with a computer that doesn't work with the MacOS you just bought. You might still be able to install Windows or Linux on it...
I think the issue is that all the development effort put into OSX is partially subsidized by the sales of hardware. The purchase of the OS X disk for $129 is assuming that at one point you purchased (or someone purchased if used) a Mac capable of running OS X, and part of that cost subsidized the effort put into making the OS you just purchased.
This is exactly the computer I want Apple to make for me. I'm still very angry at Apple for giving me no other usable choice besides the iMac I was essentially forced to buy if I wanted to run OS X.
I'm not even concerned about the price on this unit. Its most significant selling feature is the fact that it exists. If Apple sold a mid-tower, this product would get a resounding WhoGAS, even if Apple's version was more than twice the price.
Comments
And, as to the case, it's not the prettiest thing but I've seen far uglier cases.
... Why doesn't Apple let licensed companies build PCs capable of running MacOS X as long as they keep it in an Apple specified price range. ...
If Apple opens its OS to non-Apple hardware, then it becomes subject to the same laws as Microsoft. What you are advocating is called price fixing and collusion. It is illegal.
There is another point that you seem to be unaware of. MacOS X is subsidized by Apple's hardware sales. Take away the hardware/software connection and the price of MacOS X will have to rise dramatically. OpenSTEP was substantially more expensive than MacOS X after NeXT dropped its hardware. The retail price of Microsoft Windows--at least the versions that people actually want--are cheaper than OpenSTEP but still substantially more expensive than MacOS X. Without the hardware subsidy, the retail price of MacOS X would have to fall somewhere between Microsoft Windows and OpenSTEP in order to be profitable. I see no credible business case for MacOS X's being price high enough to make it profitable as an OS on generic Intel hardware.
If Apple opens its OS to non-Apple hardware, then it becomes subject to the same laws as Microsoft. What you are advocating is called price fixing and collusion. It is illegal.
There is another point that you seem to be unaware of. MacOS X is subsidized by Apple's hardware sales. Take away the hardware/software connection and the price of MacOS X will have to rise dramatically. OpenSTEP was substantially more expensive than MacOS X after NeXT dropped its hardware. The retail price of Microsoft Windows--at least the versions that people actually want--are cheaper than OpenSTEP but still substantially more expensive than MacOS X. Without the hardware subsidy, the retail price of MacOS X would have to fall somewhere between Microsoft Windows and OpenSTEP in order to be profitable. I see no credible business case for MacOS X's being price high enough to make it profitable as an OS on generic Intel hardware.
I agree. I don't see how Apple could handle clone makers or the selling of the OS unless they were to sell it at +$500.
Apple must have sic'd that new high falutin HP attorney on them. Man he works fast!
Why doesn't Apple let licensed companies build PCs capable of running MacOS X as long as they keep it in an Apple specified price range. It's a copy of MacOS X and they have huge gaps in their range, specifically the under $600 economy desktop.
Um... because they don't need to?
http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9918069-37.html
Um... because they don't need to?
I know, I just thought it was weird that someone thought they could sell a pre-made computer with Leopard pre-installed, where the only market that would consider getting it is the same group of people that would prefer to make their own anyways.
They'll be getting a letter from Apple real soon now. But this brings an interesting question. Why doesn't Apple let licensed companies build PCs capable of running MacOS X as long as they keep it in an Apple specified price range. It's a copy of MacOS X and they have huge gaps in their range, specifically the under $600 economy desktop.
And, as to the case, it's not the prettiest thing but I've seen far uglier cases.
They did what you suggested right before Jobs returned, in a Mac Clone scheme, licensing the Mac OS to 3rd party manufacturers. In short it was a complete disaster. That's because while the basic correlation in markets between competition vs. Price was in this case great for the consumer it wrecked havoc on Apple's profits. They were no longer getting 100% of Mac sales. This is why it was immediatly shut down by Jobs upon his return.
For those wishing for more information, I would suggest the Wikipedia article. (Sorry I don't have a link for it at the moment.)
They'll be getting a letter from Apple real soon now. ...
I'd say that's 100% likely.
From the EULA for Leopard:
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use
or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one
computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
How can these guys advertise something so blatantly illegal???
Page is down.
Apple must have sic'd that new high falutin HP attorney on them. Man he works fast!
Actually I just opened their web site and found that I could place an order. I did not buy, of course. I am sure the hardware/OS issues would be daunting, and I don't need the headache, not even for a price like this.
This product, if it is ever actually ships, will be only for supreme techies who love that sort of thing and don't mind the challenges.
How can these guys advertise something so blatantly illegal???
Perhaps they want to take on Apple Legal? Its not illegal if the EULA is found to be invalid for some reason.
As for why Apple doesn't license their OS.... well, they tried that and it didn't work. Steve shut it down when he got back.
I'd say that's 100% likely.
How can these guys advertise something so blatantly illegal???
EULAs are a weird sort of contract that you sign *after* you have paid. There has never been a court case that involves EULAs. No vendor has ever sued a user for breach of a EULA. There are some opinions that they are void in many localities.
Anyway, the site is still up. Unless Apple wants to make legal history and try to enforce a EULA for the first time, they'll need to prove that Psystar are either using Apple's intellectual property, or else are somehow "cracking security measures" and violating the DMCA. Both arguments are thin.
On the business side, Apple might ignore them and hope they'll either go away or that the many extra sales of OSX will offset the few lost sales of Mac hardware, or else they might buy one and make sure that every point release breaks compatibility.
They did what you suggested right before Jobs returned, in a Mac Clone scheme, licensing the Mac OS to 3rd party manufacturers. In short it was a complete disaster. That's because while the basic correlation in markets between competition vs. Price was in this case great for the consumer it wrecked havoc on Apple's profits. They were no longer getting 100% of Mac sales. This is why it was immediatly shut down by Jobs upon his return.
For those wishing for more information, I would suggest the Wikipedia article. (Sorry I don't have a link for it at the moment.)
I remember selling clones at Computer Town when I was still in college. Umax, Power Computing, Motorola (remember PRep?), and Apple. The clones were very often late to the table with technology that Apple had already implemented. One exception was Power, but they were notorious for hardware failures.
EULAs are a weird sort of contract that you sign *after* you have paid. There has never been a court case that involves EULAs. No vendor has ever sued a user for breach of a EULA. There are some opinions that they are void in many localities.
This is incorrect. There have been many EULA cases. Blizzard has had at least two (won both), Dell several (won some lost some), Lexmark (won), and Davidson (no reverse engineering EULA, won).
I don't recall but I would guess that Leopard EULA belongs in the "Click-wrap" category where the user must assent to the EULA in order to proceed. These have been upheld.
This is incorrect. There have been many EULA cases. Blizzard has had at least two (won both), Dell several (won some lost some), Lexmark (won), and Davidson (no reverse engineering EULA, won).
I don't recall but I would guess that Leopard EULA belongs in the "Click-wrap" category where the user must assent to the EULA in order to proceed. These have been upheld.
Yes, Leopard would fall under both the "shrink-wrap" and "click-wrap" categories. There are some very good public policy reasons - reasons that favor consumers as much as they do corporations - for enforcing EULAs. I believe Gateway was involved in the pioneering "shrink-wrap" case. If this goes to court, I'd be surprised if Apple lost.
Long live rolling contracts!
How can these guys advertise something so blatantly illegal???
I don't understand all the fuss about this.
In my view it boils down to this:
You can buy Leopard and install it wherever you want. But Apple guarantees for and supports it only on Apple hardware.
If you buy Apple's software and install it on non-Apple hardware, I don't think they can do anything about that. You are not harming Apple, in fact you just purchased a product from them, so it's good for them.
If this then works for you, good, if it doesn't, well, don't expect any help from Apple. You're on your own.
It's a bit like jailbreaking iPhones. If it works for you, great, if not, you're on your own, with possibly a bricked iPhone.
Or in OpenComputer's terms, you might end up with a computer that doesn't work with the MacOS you just bought. You might still be able to install Windows or Linux on it...
I don't understand all the fuss about this.
In my view it boils down to this:
You can buy Leopard and install it wherever you want. But Apple guarantees for and supports it only on Apple hardware.
If you buy Apple's software and install it on non-Apple hardware, I don't think they can do anything about that. You are not harming Apple, in fact you just purchased a product from them, so it's good for them.
If this then works for you, good, if it doesn't, well, don't expect any help from Apple. You're on your own.
It's a bit like jailbreaking iPhones. If it works for you, great, if not, you're on your own, with possibly a bricked iPhone.
Or in OpenComputer's terms, you might end up with a computer that doesn't work with the MacOS you just bought. You might still be able to install Windows or Linux on it...
I think the issue is that all the development effort put into OSX is partially subsidized by the sales of hardware. The purchase of the OS X disk for $129 is assuming that at one point you purchased (or someone purchased if used) a Mac capable of running OS X, and part of that cost subsidized the effort put into making the OS you just purchased.
I'm not even concerned about the price on this unit. Its most significant selling feature is the fact that it exists. If Apple sold a mid-tower, this product would get a resounding WhoGAS, even if Apple's version was more than twice the price.