It's nice to see Apple getting big enough that this sort of lawsuit is happening.
On the one hand, I completely agree with Apple that it's their hardware and their software. The combination of the two is an Apple product, not one or the other.
On the other hand, I don't like the idea that it's ILLEGAL to buy a copy of some software and install it on whatever hardware I want. Apple can certainly put in big bold letters that OS X is only supported on Apple hardware, and delete any messages from their help boards from people looking for support on third party hardware, etc. But to be under the threat of going to jail for putting OS X on unsupported hardware seems totalitarian.
And so what if Psystar and others do install OS X on other hardware? OS X gains market share. OS X gets installed on machines in niches that Apple does not make hardware in - e.g. netbooks. Apple hardware sales go up when people get tired of spotty performance on the third party machines. The only lose I see for Apple is brand/reputation damage caused by OS X not working well on non-Apple machines.
Is it better for Apple to have 4% of the market with OS X on Apple only hardware, or 5% of the market on Apple hardware and 2% of the market on non-Apple hardware? Are people really going to buy OS X on hardware not supported by the OS manufacturer for "real" work in numbers large enough to hurt Apple?
As to the legal questions; I believe Apple should have the right to tell you they will not support you in any way if you install their software on something other than an Apple machine. And they should be able to make it difficult to get OS X working on other hardware. (I'm not sure about it being illegal to bypass such measures.) But they shouldn't be able to sick the government on you for buying a copy of OS X, reselling it, and installing it on unsupported hardware.
Note: I don't believe the article or comments have noted that a new case has sprung up in Germany, which has laws less favorable to Apple's current line of defense.
This is one to watch, folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vandil
....months of litigation and "discovery" expense. Not many small companies can afford that. I wonder who is helping out Psystar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
This is definitely a test case, as we know a small company does not have the means to carry a case like this unless someone is backing them or they are getting free legal fees (which could be the case since if they win it could be big money for a law firm) or lastly a law firm is trying to make a name for themselves because a win like this could mean lots more work for a them in the future..
Could be a law firm out to "make its bones" or it could be... ...someone(s) else.
There is a Latin legal and social test to apply called "cui bono" - "who benefits?" if Psystar wins this suit. (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono for more on this)
Or to use a modern phrasing, "follow the money."
Psystar is clearly spending more than its size would allow it to earn for years (and money it wasn't likely to have lying around).
So who, besides an "ambulance chaser" legal eagle would benefit?
Hardware and component makers shut out of the growing Mac market might be interested in growing their markets as well. If Psystar is indeed a "stalking horse" for larger interests (whether Psystar fully appreciates that or not), once they won, nothing would prohibit the major makers from selling (and marketing with far more muscle than Psystar) Hackintoshes to their hearts' delight.
Or, it might seem counter-intuitive, and I strongly doubt this is the case, but MS could see a perverse benefit, i.e., if Apple only makes a percentage of the $129 price of OS X for each person who wants to run it, instead of their fat gross margins on each machine that goes out the door with it, their R&D efforts in the long run could be hobbled by earnings dilution, or sales cut by having to raise upgrade prices to "Windows Ultimate" like numbers.
Or it could be open source type believers for whom all copyright assertions are anethema, as Virgil-TB2 points out "a big 'screw you' to Apple by a bunch of folks with a giant chip on their shoulder." Not everyone loves The Steve, his empire or Apple's insistence that you need a grand to have a portable Mac.
Or, as Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" used to say on SNL, "Could it be.... ...SATAN?!?" Whatever, it would seem plausible there's more here than meets the eye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
Apple has lots of other options besides just asking people to abide by their agreements. If Apple loses the case to Psystar there are many more draconian options available to them and they will take them. This means Psystar loses (in the sense of not being able to make clones), even if they win, but we also all lose because the OS will be locked down, more expensive, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelhot
Nah, Apple could just make Snow Leopard upgradeable only in store and it will solve all this clone crap.
This poses all kinds of problems for Apple. The "in store upgrade only" will never fly. Not everyone lives within easy distance of an Apple Store, nor wants the inconvenience, and what happens if you have to wipe your drive and reinstall? Drag your MacPro 3 or 4 hours in each direction? History shows over and over again that if you make something too inconvenient for your customers, you will lose both existing and potential customers.
The "internal dongle" inside each Mac (a propreitary chip of some kind from PA Semi, e.g.) creates another set of problems. First, if you can only install Snow Leopard (or Ocelot or Lion) on new Macs with the chip, it shuts off Apple's OS upgrade revenue stream, which is big money for them.
And this has other implications. Apple's innovations and semi-closed ecosystem allow them to drop backward compatibility of software more often than is possible in the fractionated Windows world. So cutting off OS upgrades also cuts off other software upgrades and makes Apple unable to "bring the base" with them as they advance their overall system.
So, OK, you say, they'll create a USB dongle for older machines - but I believe 71% of Apple's shipments are notebooks, and how many of people want to travel everywhere with a breakable, unsightly dongle sticking out.
Again, history shows that people HATE dongle software. I know I do. So my estimate is this is a clear non-starter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
I think the copyright argument mean big trouble not for Apple but for everyone else.
It looks to me that the judge is doing the right thing by giving Psystar a fighting chance within the law.
The law does need to be clarified, and if existing law is inadequate to the digital age, it would point to the need for clarifying legislation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
If this results in my obtaining a 11" , firewired, 2 lb, non-glossy screened Sony TT with OSX installed on it, I for one welcome it.
And you'll still feel this way if Apple a) has reduced R&D resources to stay ahead in the OS wars, and b) is forced to resort to MS-like editioning of OS releases (one price for upgrades, another for a clean copy - which would probably jump to more than double the current price), etc., or c) has to relent and support endless configurations of hardware like MS does, causing code bloat, driver issues, less focused and reliable support, etc., etc., etc.?
On the other hand, I don't like the idea that it's ILLEGAL to buy a copy of some software and install it on whatever hardware I want. Apple can certainly put in big bold letters that OS X is only supported on Apple hardware, and delete any messages from their help boards from people looking for support on third party hardware, etc. But to be under the threat of going to jail for putting OS X on unsupported hardware seems totalitarian.
This kind of confuses two arguments though, which is not surprising since Psystar and their supporters are relying on and propagating this essential confusion with their case.
The point is not installing OS-X on some other hardware, the point is doing that and selling the end result in competition to Apple. Apple has let OSX86 hobbyists do this for years and not contemplated suing them or taking them to jail. There were even some indications that Apple had (unofficially) supported such projects in the past.
The difference here is that no one should have the right to take someone else's work and sell it for a profit. Especially since doing so will also cut into the profit of the people that originally came up with the work.
As someone who was contemplating making a hackintosh, I've concluded it is not worth it. I'm not talking about the set up, it can be a fast, inexpensive Mac clone. I'm talking about the support. I've done it a couple times to test out different methods , all on different machines. The install process is easy enough, if a little cumbersome. it's the upgrades that give me pause. They are very convoluted and in some cases may break the machine for no apparent reason. And you never know it until you can't boot anymore. Recovering from it is tedious and usually not worth it. Starting from scratch is usually the fastest way to recover.
Even for casual home use it's not worth it. Maybe for hobby reasons it can be fun but I personally can't spare all that time it takes to set it up and maintain. Maybe there is some set of hardware components that works 99.9%, but then where's the benefit if you are restricted to a rigid set of components?
Something needs to be done about EULAs now; it is out of hand.
Anybody know how many pages the OSX Leopard EULA is? 4 pages of single-spaced, 7-point text-- 12 pages if you re-format it so it can actually be read. At (a mere) $200 per hour of a lawyer's time to go through it, that is about $1,000 to have the legal implications explained to you, or 10x the price of the software. There is a different EULA for every piece of software, although they do repeat some things.
Apple is no different than anybody else, but if it can't be said in common language in a single page or less then it is unreasonable to assume that customers should need to review this crap each time an update comes out.
All that aside, Pystar will lose their case since DRM and Copyright Protection aren't mutually exclusive (as they should be), and they re-distributed code that did not belong to them with modifications.
Well if the 'competition' ( we all know who that means!) is behind this I'd laugh my ass off it Psystar won and so Apple just went ' Ok, you have left us absolutely ZERO choice - Here is a $40 version for PC - screw you MS! Is this really what you wanted to FORCE us into?"
Then about 50% of the world would go buy a copy leaving MS in the crapper...this would just hasten MS demise of course...
10-15% of users would still buy the top end Apple hardware for the perfect user experience which will no doubt leverage special PPC acceleration and other bespoke hardware integrated advantages in future hardware revisions but that all the low end/mid-end users who just want to run OSX would be free to do so.
And once 70 or 80% of the world was running OSX I could even see Apple's total volume H/W sales go through the roof as corporations began to simply say 'Look, let's buy the Apple kit - it's a little more but it's less hassle and lasts longer'...
So go ahead Psyster - carry on you funny little game...I don't think Apple will be the one crying whatever the results...
Well if the 'competition' ( we all know who that means!) is behind this I'd laugh my ass off it Psystar won and so Apple just went ' Ok, you have left us absolutely ZERO choice - Here is a $40 version for PC - screw you MS! Is this really what you wanted to FORCE us into?"
Then about 50% of the world would go buy a copy leaving MS in the crapper...this would just hasten MS demise of course...
MS is the last of Apple's competitors to want this to happen, even less than Apple, but none of that could possibly happen unless Apple is somehow not allowed to go down one of the many roads that will make it impossible for Psystar to sell their clones.
It is HW PC vendors that would benefit from Apple reselling OEM copies of Mac OS X, but Apple wouldn't be selling them the same low cost copies, but perhaps more expensive versions of the OS to make their own HW more appealing in comparison.
There are just too many cards Apple can play if Psystar were to actually win... which they won't.
It's nice to see Apple getting big enough that this sort of lawsuit is happening.
On the one hand, I completely agree with Apple that it's their hardware and their software. The combination of the two is an Apple product, not one or the other.
On the other hand, I don't like the idea that it's ILLEGAL to buy a copy of some software and install it on whatever hardware I want. Apple can certainly put in big bold letters that OS X is only supported on Apple hardware, and delete any messages from their help boards from people looking for support on third party hardware, etc. But to be under the threat of going to jail for putting OS X on unsupported hardware seems totalitarian.
And so what if Psystar and others do install OS X on other hardware? OS X gains market share. OS X gets installed on machines in niches that Apple does not make hardware in - e.g. netbooks. Apple hardware sales go up when people get tired of spotty performance on the third party machines. The only lose I see for Apple is brand/reputation damage caused by OS X not working well on non-Apple machines.
Is it better for Apple to have 4% of the market with OS X on Apple only hardware, or 5% of the market on Apple hardware and 2% of the market on non-Apple hardware? Are people really going to buy OS X on hardware not supported by the OS manufacturer for "real" work in numbers large enough to hurt Apple?
As to the legal questions; I believe Apple should have the right to tell you they will not support you in any way if you install their software on something other than an Apple machine. And they should be able to make it difficult to get OS X working on other hardware. (I'm not sure about it being illegal to bypass such measures.) But they shouldn't be able to sick the government on you for buying a copy of OS X, reselling it, and installing it on unsupported hardware.
- Jasen.
Here Here! I like your argument!
I'd like to add a point here. As for the hardware sales lost to Hackintosh is I think, negligible. Look at how Apple has been doing recently in comparison to the rest of the industry through the harsh weather. I believe that Apple can use this to their advantage. Yes, they may be a hardware company, but there are plenty of folks who cannot afford even a Mac Mini, yet want the Apple experience. They may have the skill to be able to build the same computer for 200 dollars, and then purchase OS X for another 100. Add that to 300 to 400 when set and done. It gets people into the Apple ecosystem.
Better yet, Apple just made 100 dollars instead of nothing since they were unable to afford an apple in the first place.
I'm not saying Apple should support OS X on other hardware. They shouldn't! They currently don't! Honestly, I don't want to see them trying to support other hardware because they will loose resources and money doing so. But they shouldn't also have it written that it is against the EULA to install it on something else. You buy music from iTunes, you should (and now FINALLY) be able to play it on any device you own. Same for OS's.
As for Pystar... they took it too far. Reselling the OS is a little different. Using what OSx86 did without credit or compensation is different too.
Yes, they may be a hardware company, but there are plenty of folks who cannot afford even a Mac Mini, yet want the Apple experience.
Yes, but merely wanting something does not give you the "right" to it.
The best analogy I can think of is a set-top box provided by a company in order to provide access to it's media services. If it is expensive and people can't afford it, that doesn't give them the right to steal the software off the box and put it on another generic box so they can access the same services.
They may really *want* the services and may be so poor as to genuinely not be able to pay for them, but it's just not a relevant argument unless the vendor is in a monopoly situation and Apple is far from having a monopoly on computers and software. In fact there are many free alternatives available.
Anybody know how many pages the OSX Leopard EULA is? 4 pages of single-spaced, 7-point text-- 12 pages if you re-format it so it can actually be read. At (a mere) $200 per hour of a lawyer's time to go through it, that is about $1,000 to have the legal implications explained to you, or 10x the price of the software.
It takes you 5 hours to read 12 pages? I'm not a laywer, but I bet I can read it all and understand almost all of it in 1 hour.
And all this says is that Psystar gets spend $$ in court trying to prove their claim. Since there is little case law suggesting they should lose outright, its a fair judgement to protect their rights. Still hope they lose.
As someone who was contemplating making a hackintosh, I've concluded it is not worth it. I'm not talking about the set up, it can be a fast, inexpensive Mac clone. I'm talking about the support. I've done it a couple times to test out different methods , all on different machines. The install process is easy enough, if a little cumbersome. it's the upgrades that give me pause. They are very convoluted and in some cases may break the machine for no apparent reason. And you never know it until you can't boot anymore. Recovering from it is tedious and usually not worth it. Starting from scratch is usually the fastest way to recover.
Even for casual home use it's not worth it. Maybe for hobby reasons it can be fun but I personally can't spare all that time it takes to set it up and maintain. Maybe there is some set of hardware components that works 99.9%, but then where's the benefit if you are restricted to a rigid set of components?
As someone who owns not one but two hackintoshes (MSI Wind and a home built workstation) I can say that it's definitely worth the effort. Software updates can be a pain in the ass if you install using Kalyway or any of the other distros out there, I agree. However, last week I decided that I was going to try to reinstall on my workstation using the boot-132 method using a retail Leopard disc and I can say that things work just like in a real Mac. No more worrying about whether an upgrade will break stuff at all_went straight from the original install to 10.5.6 without any issues.
Next will be the Wind and I anticipate that it will be as easy, too.
Having said that I hope that Psystar fails because I do not want Apple to have any reason to go after the osx86 project.
As long as Apple sell OS X as a shrinkwrapped product that you can buy in stores then IMO there really is very little that Apple can do about people using that product (OS X) in conjunctionion with any hardware they like. All the EULA clauses in the world won't help them. It would be like Sony Music putting an EULA on their CDs saying you can only play them on Sony CD players. Utterly laughable and utterly unenforceable.
If Psystar (or anyone else) decides to sell PCs that happen to be able to install the off the shelf copy of OS X then there's also very little that Apple can do about it. If Psystar happens to buy an off the shelf copy of OS X for each PC it sells and bundle it with those PCs then, again, there's nothing Apple can do about it. It's not copyright infringement or anything else. Psystar's only problems are if they are somehow modifying the OS X they're bundling with their PCs.
Apple has created the problem by selling OS X independently. As has been suggested several times, all they need to do is in some way tie the sale of OS X to Mac ownership. As soon as OS X is no longer available to buy as an off the shelf product then anyone buying a clone has to resort to getting an illegal copy of OS X, something which would restrict sales to a small number of hackers which would be of no significant threat to Apple's business.
Yes, but merely wanting something does not give you the "right" to it.
The best analogy I can think of is a set-top box provided by a company in order to provide access to it's media services. If it is expensive and people can't afford it, that doesn't give them the right to steal the software off the box and put it on another generic box so they can access the same services.
They may really *want* the services and may be so poor as to genuinely not be able to pay for them, but it's just not a relevant argument unless the vendor is in a monopoly situation and Apple is far from having a monopoly on computers and software. In fact there are many free alternatives available.
Services are very different from Hardware. Apple sells MobileMe as a service. MacBook Pro is Hardware. I think it is wrong to hack a cable box to get free channels you didn't pay for. Stealing a service is stealing.
Hacking your cable box to be able to show content that you own on your own network is something that shouldn't be illegal. Also, hacking a computer to be able to see the cable channels you HAVE paid for should also not be illegal (and isn't!)
In this case, you are buying the software to run on any hardware. No services are being compromised or stolen. Also, people are still BUYING OS X in my argument, not stealing it. Therefore I do not think it is a fair analogy. Apple still is making money.
Well if the 'competition' ( we all know who that means!) is behind this I'd laugh my ass off it Psystar won and so Apple just went ' Ok, you have left us absolutely ZERO choice - Here is a $40 version for PC - screw you MS! Is this really what you wanted to FORCE us into?"
I don't believe Apple would ever do that. Supporting the near-infinite variety of hardware out there would kill Apple - and their carefully guarded end-to-end user experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
The point is not installing OS-X on some other hardware, the point is doing that and selling the end result in competition to Apple. Apple has let OSX86 hobbyists do this for years and not contemplated suing them or taking them to jail. There were even some indications that Apple had (unofficially) supported such projects in the past.
The difference here is that no one should have the right to take someone else's work and sell it for a profit. Especially since doing so will also cut into the profit of the people that originally came up with the work.
Reselling what other people have made is how capitalism works. Wholesalers buy from manufacturers in large quantities, retail stores buy from wholesalers because it's easier than dealing with myriad manufacturers, and consumers buy from retailers. AND the consumer is able to resell what they bought to whoever they want.
If Psystar is buying OS X in such a way that they have the right to resell it to whoever they wish (wholesalers agree to terms about who they'll sell to) then I say let them have at it.
And I think that last sentence is the crux of the matter (or one of them). Can Apple put in the EULA a prohibition on reselling OS X? Whether it is installed on non-Apple hardware or not, I think should be irrelevant. Once it is installed on non-Apple hardware, Apple's support obligation goes away, but they shouldn't be able to use the force of law to keep Psystar from selling what they bought.
There's discussion over on Slashdot about Psystar modifying OS X to run on their hardware, and modifying software updates and redistributing them so they work. That opens another can of worms. Sure Psystar can buy 5000 copies of OS X and manually install them on 5000 machines. But in this digital age they will likely buy 5000 copies, install it on one machine, clone the drive, and clone the clone for all future installs. That sounds like making copies for resale to me. Regardless of whether Psystar bought 5000 licenses, I'm not sure they should be allowed to make copies in such a manner.
To all those who argue that Psystar winning would really be losing.
Your arguments are valid, but they contain some ignorance. Psystar is making Mac clones WITH already implimented methods to keep them from being made in the first place. Now if Psystar wins then why would all the sudden Apple have a way to keep those computers from upgrading from previous versions?
Quote:
make the retail discs upgrade 'only',
If it didnt make sense the first time, it is a Mac Clone. That means software wise, it is Mac, and through the implimented methods Psystar is using, it sees the hardware as a REAL Apple, which means if Psystar wins, they win, they can still make Mac Clones without any issue and if Apple does add a new line of defense it wont be software or hardware wise because in todays age of hackers, anything is possible.
Of course the only thing that could happen is they increase their prices for their OS and so forth. But that takes into account if they are willing to risk uping their prices as the economy is not getting any better and possibly losing customers. While making clones will open up more businesses and Apple's OS will be sold for each machine. So then Apple doesnt really lose. They will in turn recieve a bigger customer base.
In summary, if Psystar wins even if Apple puts only upgradable OS's or refuse to add non-Apple hardware compatibility, but somewhat loses if the price of the OS goes up. Apple wins (if Psystar wins) by opening up a new market because all the clone makers have to have legal valid licenses for each OS, but they may lose customers to their own hardware.
If Apple wins then we will see the business of clones disappear and Apple will remain as the "flawless" PC, which if Apple keeps its software exclusive to its hardware, then they have NO excuse for it to NOT be flawless.
good for them what them hell. Even if i didnt like apple at all I would still be pissed off by Psystar. When you make something, in this instance software, GOOD or BAD, for your devices, so Macs. Who the FCUK has the right to come in and take your shit and be lik e well your being a bully keeping it to yourself and heres how I can prove it. We live on earth not OPENSOURCE world. If Microsoft didnt inspire so many companies that its a right of passage to have shitty versions of software not crafted for the specific device its made we wouldnt be here today
2 points....
1/ Nothing is being stolen or taken, each computer has a fully paid copy of OSX on it.
2/ Since you brought up Open Source, then take a guess as to how much of OSX is actually open source code..!
OSX is a great OS and it should NOT be limited to the sh!tty hardware that Apple cripples it with.
And you'll still feel this way if Apple a) has reduced R&D resources to stay ahead in the OS wars, and b) is forced to resort to MS-like editioning of OS releases (one price for upgrades, another for a clean copy - which would probably jump to more than double the current price), etc., or c) has to relent and support endless configurations of hardware like MS does, causing code bloat, driver issues, less focused and reliable support, etc., etc., etc.?
Yes along as I get a 11" , firewired, 2 lb, non-glossy screened laptop with OSX on it.
And FYI-their OS resources would probaly go up as well as their OS market share.
1/ Nothing is being stolen or taken, each computer has a fully paid copy of OSX on it.
2/ Since you brought up Open Source, then take a guess as to how much of OSX is actually open source code..!
OSX is a great OS and it should NOT be limited to the sh!tty hardware that Apple cripples it with.
OSX for all = big win for everybody.
I like and support open source and Linux in my network. But seriously if you want OSX then run it on the hardware that it comes on, run linux on everything else. I mean people want so badly for OSX to run on multiple platforms and to be open source to cover up for Linux short comings. That is really the issue, people feel like apple has integrated its system with open source tools in so many of the right ways and now want to force the platform to run on anything to cover the short sighted integrations of other platforms. That is really not fair to Apple, they have place an huge amount of resources into OS X. If you want OS X on a different platform than make it, re-engineer Linux with the same type of integration.
But don't be bitter, and say oh apple hardware is crap, then build a better OS and run it on non crap hardware.
Reselling what other people have made is how capitalism works. Wholesalers buy from manufacturers in large quantities, retail stores buy from wholesalers because it's easier than dealing with myriad manufacturers, and consumers buy from retailers. AND the consumer is able to resell what they bought to whoever they want.
If Psystar is buying OS X in such a way that they have the right to resell it to whoever they wish (wholesalers agree to terms about who they'll sell to) then I say let them have at it.
I still don't think this is the same situation as with Psystar.
Capitalism has never been absolute or unfettered. There are rules as to what you can buy and sell even within individual capitalist enterprises, and irrespective of the laws of a given country, state or province. There simply is no absolute "right" to re-sell *anything* as the whole system would fall apart if there was.
A rough analogy to your wholesalers argument would be a wholesaler that has lucrative agreements with companies to re-sell their product and a third company with no agreement in place decides to also re-sell their product. The wholesaler has a right to restrict who they sell to. It's a very basic feature of business that a business has to have the rights to sell to who they want to and not sell to who they don't want to. It's also a basic right to have control over your own IP.
Why should Apple spend decades developing software that differentiates their hardware from the rest of the market and then be forced to sell it to their competitors, thus removing the advantage? It's patently unfair no matter how you look at it. The only way to justify such a thing would be to hang it on the ludicrous myth of total "Free-market Capitalism" where there are simply no rules, no copyright etc. Such a system has never actually existed and (hopefully) never will.
The difference here is that no one should have the right to take someone else's work and sell it for a profit. Especially since doing so will also cut into the profit of the people that originally came up with the work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
Why should Apple spend decades developing software that differentiates their hardware from the rest of the market and then be forced to sell it to their competitors, thus removing the advantage? It's patently unfair no matter how you look at it. The only way to justify such a thing would be to hang it on the ludicrous myth of total "Free-market Capitalism" where there are simply no rules, no copyright etc. Such a system has never actually existed and (hopefully) never will.
Both excellent points. I don't seem to get why people think that Psystar gets to suddenly start selling Mac clones because they shelled out a hundred bucks for OS X.
Pystar's message is so vague and really cannot understand how they plan to support their argument in any sort of linear fashion. These accusatory bunny trails (Apple is intimidating competitors) are most likely not going to fly.
I believe personally that EULA overstep their boundaries and that individuals can and should fight the ridiculous parts that many of them contain but I do not believe that EULA are wrong nor that a company should be able to base it's business on the backs of another.
Comments
On the one hand, I completely agree with Apple that it's their hardware and their software. The combination of the two is an Apple product, not one or the other.
On the other hand, I don't like the idea that it's ILLEGAL to buy a copy of some software and install it on whatever hardware I want. Apple can certainly put in big bold letters that OS X is only supported on Apple hardware, and delete any messages from their help boards from people looking for support on third party hardware, etc. But to be under the threat of going to jail for putting OS X on unsupported hardware seems totalitarian.
And so what if Psystar and others do install OS X on other hardware? OS X gains market share. OS X gets installed on machines in niches that Apple does not make hardware in - e.g. netbooks. Apple hardware sales go up when people get tired of spotty performance on the third party machines. The only lose I see for Apple is brand/reputation damage caused by OS X not working well on non-Apple machines.
Is it better for Apple to have 4% of the market with OS X on Apple only hardware, or 5% of the market on Apple hardware and 2% of the market on non-Apple hardware? Are people really going to buy OS X on hardware not supported by the OS manufacturer for "real" work in numbers large enough to hurt Apple?
As to the legal questions; I believe Apple should have the right to tell you they will not support you in any way if you install their software on something other than an Apple machine. And they should be able to make it difficult to get OS X working on other hardware. (I'm not sure about it being illegal to bypass such measures.) But they shouldn't be able to sick the government on you for buying a copy of OS X, reselling it, and installing it on unsupported hardware.
- Jasen.
This is one to watch, folks.
....months of litigation and "discovery" expense. Not many small companies can afford that. I wonder who is helping out Psystar.
This is definitely a test case, as we know a small company does not have the means to carry a case like this unless someone is backing them or they are getting free legal fees (which could be the case since if they win it could be big money for a law firm) or lastly a law firm is trying to make a name for themselves because a win like this could mean lots more work for a them in the future..
Could be a law firm out to "make its bones" or it could be... ...someone(s) else.
There is a Latin legal and social test to apply called "cui bono" - "who benefits?" if Psystar wins this suit. (check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono for more on this)
Or to use a modern phrasing, "follow the money."
Psystar is clearly spending more than its size would allow it to earn for years (and money it wasn't likely to have lying around).
So who, besides an "ambulance chaser" legal eagle would benefit?
Hardware and component makers shut out of the growing Mac market might be interested in growing their markets as well. If Psystar is indeed a "stalking horse" for larger interests (whether Psystar fully appreciates that or not), once they won, nothing would prohibit the major makers from selling (and marketing with far more muscle than Psystar) Hackintoshes to their hearts' delight.
Or, it might seem counter-intuitive, and I strongly doubt this is the case, but MS could see a perverse benefit, i.e., if Apple only makes a percentage of the $129 price of OS X for each person who wants to run it, instead of their fat gross margins on each machine that goes out the door with it, their R&D efforts in the long run could be hobbled by earnings dilution, or sales cut by having to raise upgrade prices to "Windows Ultimate" like numbers.
Or it could be open source type believers for whom all copyright assertions are anethema, as Virgil-TB2 points out "a big 'screw you' to Apple by a bunch of folks with a giant chip on their shoulder." Not everyone loves The Steve, his empire or Apple's insistence that you need a grand to have a portable Mac.
Or, as Dana Carvey's "Church Lady" used to say on SNL, "Could it be.... ...SATAN?!?"
Apple has lots of other options besides just asking people to abide by their agreements. If Apple loses the case to Psystar there are many more draconian options available to them and they will take them. This means Psystar loses (in the sense of not being able to make clones), even if they win, but we also all lose because the OS will be locked down, more expensive, etc.
Nah, Apple could just make Snow Leopard upgradeable only in store and it will solve all this clone crap.
This poses all kinds of problems for Apple. The "in store upgrade only" will never fly. Not everyone lives within easy distance of an Apple Store, nor wants the inconvenience, and what happens if you have to wipe your drive and reinstall? Drag your MacPro 3 or 4 hours in each direction? History shows over and over again that if you make something too inconvenient for your customers, you will lose both existing and potential customers.
The "internal dongle" inside each Mac (a propreitary chip of some kind from PA Semi, e.g.) creates another set of problems. First, if you can only install Snow Leopard (or Ocelot or Lion) on new Macs with the chip, it shuts off Apple's OS upgrade revenue stream, which is big money for them.
And this has other implications. Apple's innovations and semi-closed ecosystem allow them to drop backward compatibility of software more often than is possible in the fractionated Windows world. So cutting off OS upgrades also cuts off other software upgrades and makes Apple unable to "bring the base" with them as they advance their overall system.
So, OK, you say, they'll create a USB dongle for older machines - but I believe 71% of Apple's shipments are notebooks, and how many of people want to travel everywhere with a breakable, unsightly dongle sticking out.
Again, history shows that people HATE dongle software. I know I do. So my estimate is this is a clear non-starter.
I think the copyright argument mean big trouble not for Apple but for everyone else.
It looks to me that the judge is doing the right thing by giving Psystar a fighting chance within the law.
The law does need to be clarified, and if existing law is inadequate to the digital age, it would point to the need for clarifying legislation.
If this results in my obtaining a 11" , firewired, 2 lb, non-glossy screened Sony TT with OSX installed on it, I for one welcome it.
And you'll still feel this way if Apple a) has reduced R&D resources to stay ahead in the OS wars, and b) is forced to resort to MS-like editioning of OS releases (one price for upgrades, another for a clean copy - which would probably jump to more than double the current price), etc., or c) has to relent and support endless configurations of hardware like MS does, causing code bloat, driver issues, less focused and reliable support, etc., etc., etc.?
On the other hand, I don't like the idea that it's ILLEGAL to buy a copy of some software and install it on whatever hardware I want. Apple can certainly put in big bold letters that OS X is only supported on Apple hardware, and delete any messages from their help boards from people looking for support on third party hardware, etc. But to be under the threat of going to jail for putting OS X on unsupported hardware seems totalitarian.
This kind of confuses two arguments though, which is not surprising since Psystar and their supporters are relying on and propagating this essential confusion with their case.
The point is not installing OS-X on some other hardware, the point is doing that and selling the end result in competition to Apple. Apple has let OSX86 hobbyists do this for years and not contemplated suing them or taking them to jail. There were even some indications that Apple had (unofficially) supported such projects in the past.
The difference here is that no one should have the right to take someone else's work and sell it for a profit. Especially since doing so will also cut into the profit of the people that originally came up with the work.
Even for casual home use it's not worth it. Maybe for hobby reasons it can be fun but I personally can't spare all that time it takes to set it up and maintain. Maybe there is some set of hardware components that works 99.9%, but then where's the benefit if you are restricted to a rigid set of components?
Anybody know how many pages the OSX Leopard EULA is? 4 pages of single-spaced, 7-point text-- 12 pages if you re-format it so it can actually be read. At (a mere) $200 per hour of a lawyer's time to go through it, that is about $1,000 to have the legal implications explained to you, or 10x the price of the software. There is a different EULA for every piece of software, although they do repeat some things.
Apple is no different than anybody else, but if it can't be said in common language in a single page or less then it is unreasonable to assume that customers should need to review this crap each time an update comes out.
All that aside, Pystar will lose their case since DRM and Copyright Protection aren't mutually exclusive (as they should be), and they re-distributed code that did not belong to them with modifications.
Then about 50% of the world would go buy a copy leaving MS in the crapper...this would just hasten MS demise of course...
10-15% of users would still buy the top end Apple hardware for the perfect user experience which will no doubt leverage special PPC acceleration and other bespoke hardware integrated advantages in future hardware revisions but that all the low end/mid-end users who just want to run OSX would be free to do so.
And once 70 or 80% of the world was running OSX I could even see Apple's total volume H/W sales go through the roof as corporations began to simply say 'Look, let's buy the Apple kit - it's a little more but it's less hassle and lasts longer'...
So go ahead Psyster - carry on you funny little game...I don't think Apple will be the one crying whatever the results...
Well if the 'competition' ( we all know who that means!) is behind this I'd laugh my ass off it Psystar won and so Apple just went ' Ok, you have left us absolutely ZERO choice - Here is a $40 version for PC - screw you MS! Is this really what you wanted to FORCE us into?"
Then about 50% of the world would go buy a copy leaving MS in the crapper...this would just hasten MS demise of course...
MS is the last of Apple's competitors to want this to happen, even less than Apple, but none of that could possibly happen unless Apple is somehow not allowed to go down one of the many roads that will make it impossible for Psystar to sell their clones.
It is HW PC vendors that would benefit from Apple reselling OEM copies of Mac OS X, but Apple wouldn't be selling them the same low cost copies, but perhaps more expensive versions of the OS to make their own HW more appealing in comparison.
There are just too many cards Apple can play if Psystar were to actually win... which they won't.
It's nice to see Apple getting big enough that this sort of lawsuit is happening.
On the one hand, I completely agree with Apple that it's their hardware and their software. The combination of the two is an Apple product, not one or the other.
On the other hand, I don't like the idea that it's ILLEGAL to buy a copy of some software and install it on whatever hardware I want. Apple can certainly put in big bold letters that OS X is only supported on Apple hardware, and delete any messages from their help boards from people looking for support on third party hardware, etc. But to be under the threat of going to jail for putting OS X on unsupported hardware seems totalitarian.
And so what if Psystar and others do install OS X on other hardware? OS X gains market share. OS X gets installed on machines in niches that Apple does not make hardware in - e.g. netbooks. Apple hardware sales go up when people get tired of spotty performance on the third party machines. The only lose I see for Apple is brand/reputation damage caused by OS X not working well on non-Apple machines.
Is it better for Apple to have 4% of the market with OS X on Apple only hardware, or 5% of the market on Apple hardware and 2% of the market on non-Apple hardware? Are people really going to buy OS X on hardware not supported by the OS manufacturer for "real" work in numbers large enough to hurt Apple?
As to the legal questions; I believe Apple should have the right to tell you they will not support you in any way if you install their software on something other than an Apple machine. And they should be able to make it difficult to get OS X working on other hardware. (I'm not sure about it being illegal to bypass such measures.) But they shouldn't be able to sick the government on you for buying a copy of OS X, reselling it, and installing it on unsupported hardware.
- Jasen.
Here Here! I like your argument!
I'd like to add a point here. As for the hardware sales lost to Hackintosh is I think, negligible. Look at how Apple has been doing recently in comparison to the rest of the industry through the harsh weather. I believe that Apple can use this to their advantage. Yes, they may be a hardware company, but there are plenty of folks who cannot afford even a Mac Mini, yet want the Apple experience. They may have the skill to be able to build the same computer for 200 dollars, and then purchase OS X for another 100. Add that to 300 to 400 when set and done. It gets people into the Apple ecosystem.
Better yet, Apple just made 100 dollars instead of nothing since they were unable to afford an apple in the first place.
I'm not saying Apple should support OS X on other hardware. They shouldn't! They currently don't! Honestly, I don't want to see them trying to support other hardware because they will loose resources and money doing so. But they shouldn't also have it written that it is against the EULA to install it on something else. You buy music from iTunes, you should (and now FINALLY) be able to play it on any device you own. Same for OS's.
As for Pystar... they took it too far. Reselling the OS is a little different. Using what OSx86 did without credit or compensation is different too.
Yes, they may be a hardware company, but there are plenty of folks who cannot afford even a Mac Mini, yet want the Apple experience.
Yes, but merely wanting something does not give you the "right" to it.
The best analogy I can think of is a set-top box provided by a company in order to provide access to it's media services. If it is expensive and people can't afford it, that doesn't give them the right to steal the software off the box and put it on another generic box so they can access the same services.
They may really *want* the services and may be so poor as to genuinely not be able to pay for them, but it's just not a relevant argument unless the vendor is in a monopoly situation and Apple is far from having a monopoly on computers and software. In fact there are many free alternatives available.
Anybody know how many pages the OSX Leopard EULA is? 4 pages of single-spaced, 7-point text-- 12 pages if you re-format it so it can actually be read. At (a mere) $200 per hour of a lawyer's time to go through it, that is about $1,000 to have the legal implications explained to you, or 10x the price of the software.
It takes you 5 hours to read 12 pages? I'm not a laywer, but I bet I can read it all and understand almost all of it in 1 hour.
And all this says is that Psystar gets spend $$ in court trying to prove their claim. Since there is little case law suggesting they should lose outright, its a fair judgement to protect their rights. Still hope they lose.
As someone who was contemplating making a hackintosh, I've concluded it is not worth it. I'm not talking about the set up, it can be a fast, inexpensive Mac clone. I'm talking about the support. I've done it a couple times to test out different methods , all on different machines. The install process is easy enough, if a little cumbersome. it's the upgrades that give me pause. They are very convoluted and in some cases may break the machine for no apparent reason. And you never know it until you can't boot anymore. Recovering from it is tedious and usually not worth it. Starting from scratch is usually the fastest way to recover.
Even for casual home use it's not worth it. Maybe for hobby reasons it can be fun but I personally can't spare all that time it takes to set it up and maintain. Maybe there is some set of hardware components that works 99.9%, but then where's the benefit if you are restricted to a rigid set of components?
As someone who owns not one but two hackintoshes (MSI Wind and a home built workstation) I can say that it's definitely worth the effort. Software updates can be a pain in the ass if you install using Kalyway or any of the other distros out there, I agree. However, last week I decided that I was going to try to reinstall on my workstation using the boot-132 method using a retail Leopard disc and I can say that things work just like in a real Mac. No more worrying about whether an upgrade will break stuff at all_went straight from the original install to 10.5.6 without any issues.
Next will be the Wind and I anticipate that it will be as easy, too.
Having said that I hope that Psystar fails because I do not want Apple to have any reason to go after the osx86 project.
If Psystar (or anyone else) decides to sell PCs that happen to be able to install the off the shelf copy of OS X then there's also very little that Apple can do about it. If Psystar happens to buy an off the shelf copy of OS X for each PC it sells and bundle it with those PCs then, again, there's nothing Apple can do about it. It's not copyright infringement or anything else. Psystar's only problems are if they are somehow modifying the OS X they're bundling with their PCs.
Apple has created the problem by selling OS X independently. As has been suggested several times, all they need to do is in some way tie the sale of OS X to Mac ownership. As soon as OS X is no longer available to buy as an off the shelf product then anyone buying a clone has to resort to getting an illegal copy of OS X, something which would restrict sales to a small number of hackers which would be of no significant threat to Apple's business.
Michael.
Yes, but merely wanting something does not give you the "right" to it.
The best analogy I can think of is a set-top box provided by a company in order to provide access to it's media services. If it is expensive and people can't afford it, that doesn't give them the right to steal the software off the box and put it on another generic box so they can access the same services.
They may really *want* the services and may be so poor as to genuinely not be able to pay for them, but it's just not a relevant argument unless the vendor is in a monopoly situation and Apple is far from having a monopoly on computers and software. In fact there are many free alternatives available.
Services are very different from Hardware. Apple sells MobileMe as a service. MacBook Pro is Hardware. I think it is wrong to hack a cable box to get free channels you didn't pay for. Stealing a service is stealing.
Hacking your cable box to be able to show content that you own on your own network is something that shouldn't be illegal. Also, hacking a computer to be able to see the cable channels you HAVE paid for should also not be illegal (and isn't!)
In this case, you are buying the software to run on any hardware. No services are being compromised or stolen. Also, people are still BUYING OS X in my argument, not stealing it. Therefore I do not think it is a fair analogy. Apple still is making money.
Well if the 'competition' ( we all know who that means!) is behind this I'd laugh my ass off it Psystar won and so Apple just went ' Ok, you have left us absolutely ZERO choice - Here is a $40 version for PC - screw you MS! Is this really what you wanted to FORCE us into?"
I don't believe Apple would ever do that. Supporting the near-infinite variety of hardware out there would kill Apple - and their carefully guarded end-to-end user experience.
The point is not installing OS-X on some other hardware, the point is doing that and selling the end result in competition to Apple. Apple has let OSX86 hobbyists do this for years and not contemplated suing them or taking them to jail. There were even some indications that Apple had (unofficially) supported such projects in the past.
The difference here is that no one should have the right to take someone else's work and sell it for a profit. Especially since doing so will also cut into the profit of the people that originally came up with the work.
Reselling what other people have made is how capitalism works. Wholesalers buy from manufacturers in large quantities, retail stores buy from wholesalers because it's easier than dealing with myriad manufacturers, and consumers buy from retailers. AND the consumer is able to resell what they bought to whoever they want.
If Psystar is buying OS X in such a way that they have the right to resell it to whoever they wish (wholesalers agree to terms about who they'll sell to) then I say let them have at it.
And I think that last sentence is the crux of the matter (or one of them). Can Apple put in the EULA a prohibition on reselling OS X? Whether it is installed on non-Apple hardware or not, I think should be irrelevant. Once it is installed on non-Apple hardware, Apple's support obligation goes away, but they shouldn't be able to use the force of law to keep Psystar from selling what they bought.
There's discussion over on Slashdot about Psystar modifying OS X to run on their hardware, and modifying software updates and redistributing them so they work. That opens another can of worms. Sure Psystar can buy 5000 copies of OS X and manually install them on 5000 machines. But in this digital age they will likely buy 5000 copies, install it on one machine, clone the drive, and clone the clone for all future installs. That sounds like making copies for resale to me. Regardless of whether Psystar bought 5000 licenses, I'm not sure they should be allowed to make copies in such a manner.
- Jasen.
Your arguments are valid, but they contain some ignorance. Psystar is making Mac clones WITH already implimented methods to keep them from being made in the first place. Now if Psystar wins then why would all the sudden Apple have a way to keep those computers from upgrading from previous versions?
make the retail discs upgrade 'only',
If it didnt make sense the first time, it is a Mac Clone. That means software wise, it is Mac, and through the implimented methods Psystar is using, it sees the hardware as a REAL Apple, which means if Psystar wins, they win, they can still make Mac Clones without any issue and if Apple does add a new line of defense it wont be software or hardware wise because in todays age of hackers, anything is possible.
Of course the only thing that could happen is they increase their prices for their OS and so forth. But that takes into account if they are willing to risk uping their prices as the economy is not getting any better and possibly losing customers. While making clones will open up more businesses and Apple's OS will be sold for each machine. So then Apple doesnt really lose. They will in turn recieve a bigger customer base.
In summary, if Psystar wins even if Apple puts only upgradable OS's or refuse to add non-Apple hardware compatibility, but somewhat loses if the price of the OS goes up. Apple wins (if Psystar wins) by opening up a new market because all the clone makers have to have legal valid licenses for each OS, but they may lose customers to their own hardware.
If Apple wins then we will see the business of clones disappear and Apple will remain as the "flawless" PC, which if Apple keeps its software exclusive to its hardware, then they have NO excuse for it to NOT be flawless.
good for them what them hell. Even if i didnt like apple at all I would still be pissed off by Psystar. When you make something, in this instance software, GOOD or BAD, for your devices, so Macs. Who the FCUK has the right to come in and take your shit and be lik e well your being a bully keeping it to yourself and heres how I can prove it. We live on earth not OPENSOURCE world. If Microsoft didnt inspire so many companies that its a right of passage to have shitty versions of software not crafted for the specific device its made we wouldnt be here today
2 points....
1/ Nothing is being stolen or taken, each computer has a fully paid copy of OSX on it.
2/ Since you brought up Open Source, then take a guess as to how much of OSX is actually open source code..!
OSX is a great OS and it should NOT be limited to the sh!tty hardware that Apple cripples it with.
OSX for all = big win for everybody.
And you'll still feel this way if Apple a) has reduced R&D resources to stay ahead in the OS wars, and b) is forced to resort to MS-like editioning of OS releases (one price for upgrades, another for a clean copy - which would probably jump to more than double the current price), etc., or c) has to relent and support endless configurations of hardware like MS does, causing code bloat, driver issues, less focused and reliable support, etc., etc., etc.?
Yes along as I get a 11" , firewired, 2 lb, non-glossy screened laptop with OSX on it.
And FYI-their OS resources would probaly go up as well as their OS market share.
2 points....
1/ Nothing is being stolen or taken, each computer has a fully paid copy of OSX on it.
2/ Since you brought up Open Source, then take a guess as to how much of OSX is actually open source code..!
OSX is a great OS and it should NOT be limited to the sh!tty hardware that Apple cripples it with.
OSX for all = big win for everybody.
I like and support open source and Linux in my network. But seriously if you want OSX then run it on the hardware that it comes on, run linux on everything else. I mean people want so badly for OSX to run on multiple platforms and to be open source to cover up for Linux short comings. That is really the issue, people feel like apple has integrated its system with open source tools in so many of the right ways and now want to force the platform to run on anything to cover the short sighted integrations of other platforms. That is really not fair to Apple, they have place an huge amount of resources into OS X. If you want OS X on a different platform than make it, re-engineer Linux with the same type of integration.
But don't be bitter, and say oh apple hardware is crap, then build a better OS and run it on non crap hardware.
Reselling what other people have made is how capitalism works. Wholesalers buy from manufacturers in large quantities, retail stores buy from wholesalers because it's easier than dealing with myriad manufacturers, and consumers buy from retailers. AND the consumer is able to resell what they bought to whoever they want.
If Psystar is buying OS X in such a way that they have the right to resell it to whoever they wish (wholesalers agree to terms about who they'll sell to) then I say let them have at it.
I still don't think this is the same situation as with Psystar.
Capitalism has never been absolute or unfettered. There are rules as to what you can buy and sell even within individual capitalist enterprises, and irrespective of the laws of a given country, state or province. There simply is no absolute "right" to re-sell *anything* as the whole system would fall apart if there was.
A rough analogy to your wholesalers argument would be a wholesaler that has lucrative agreements with companies to re-sell their product and a third company with no agreement in place decides to also re-sell their product. The wholesaler has a right to restrict who they sell to. It's a very basic feature of business that a business has to have the rights to sell to who they want to and not sell to who they don't want to. It's also a basic right to have control over your own IP.
Why should Apple spend decades developing software that differentiates their hardware from the rest of the market and then be forced to sell it to their competitors, thus removing the advantage? It's patently unfair no matter how you look at it. The only way to justify such a thing would be to hang it on the ludicrous myth of total "Free-market Capitalism" where there are simply no rules, no copyright etc. Such a system has never actually existed and (hopefully) never will.
The difference here is that no one should have the right to take someone else's work and sell it for a profit. Especially since doing so will also cut into the profit of the people that originally came up with the work.
Why should Apple spend decades developing software that differentiates their hardware from the rest of the market and then be forced to sell it to their competitors, thus removing the advantage? It's patently unfair no matter how you look at it. The only way to justify such a thing would be to hang it on the ludicrous myth of total "Free-market Capitalism" where there are simply no rules, no copyright etc. Such a system has never actually existed and (hopefully) never will.
Both excellent points. I don't seem to get why people think that Psystar gets to suddenly start selling Mac clones because they shelled out a hundred bucks for OS X.
Pystar's message is so vague and really cannot understand how they plan to support their argument in any sort of linear fashion. These accusatory bunny trails (Apple is intimidating competitors) are most likely not going to fly.
I believe personally that EULA overstep their boundaries and that individuals can and should fight the ridiculous parts that many of them contain but I do not believe that EULA are wrong nor that a company should be able to base it's business on the backs of another.