Most people don't know why Apple don't want to license their OS. To understand why you have to understand why they stopped it more than 10 years ago. I am not going to say anything, I will let SJ tell you why in this video.
Circumstances change, but, IMO, It's still not a good time for Apple to be licensing the OS to run on run-of-the-mill hardware. What they do have to do is start making more compelling hardware before their market share gains start sliding again.
I don?t understand the why everyone is so upset. If the total Apple experience is superior, then you, and everyone else will continue to buy from them, no harm to Apple.
Most people who would buy a ?crappy? Psystar wouldn?t have bought from Apple anyway, so at least they get the software license fee, and any other software sales as well. So, another win for Apple.
If Psystar makes junk, it reinforces Apples claims that the total package is worth the extra $$. Another win for Apple.
It doesn?t matter what Apple wishes, if I buy a product, I can use it for whatever I want, including resell it for a profit. If I want to run OS X on a PC, Windows on a Mac, or put a Yugo engine in a BMW, if I paid for all the parts, I should be able to do it. It doesn?t matter if it hurts the manufacturer?s feelings, or you think it?s a stupid idea.
Also, if I buy a a screw driver, and want to pound nails with it, just because the maker didn?t intend for it to be used as a hammer, it shouldn?t matter to the maker, as long as I don?t blame him for it being a crappy hammer and force him to support me using it that way.
These are commercial products from profit making companies, not a religious cult. Once they get money from me, they should be more interested in how they can get more from me than what I do with it after I bought it.
And Apple is a hardware company and software company. They sell both, and you don?t always have to buy one with the other.
Apple can reinstate cloning if they learned their lessons from before.
Don't undervalue your OS. Apple's softwarre licensing fees and royalties for the hardware sold was way too low.
Realize that the cloners will go after all of the markets you hold dear. In the 90s Apple hoped the cloners would pick up the low end of the market. Instead they went for the same high margin high end systems Apple wanted to keep for themselves.
In the 90s Apple was responsible for all of the R&D work for Macs and the cloners just rode their coat takes to undercut them. Now it's an open system, Intel is doing the R&D for the whole industry. Apple would need to impose a minimum requirement for the hardware and ports (No 32bit PCI, serial or parallel ports, no PS2 ports, must have firewire, etc.)
I'm sure there are support issues that would have to be ironed out, and in the end it may not make much sense to open up cloning again. We'll see what happens. If it doesn't appear that it will help Apple in the long run, it won't happen. But it's something Apple has to control one way or another.
rubbish, nothing on the packaging or description on any site mentions upgrading. You can buy it standalone. Just because you think its' obvious doesn't make it so.
"Minimum System Requirements: Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4, (867MHz or faster) processor, 512MB of physical RAM, DVD drive for installation"
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what part of "requires a Mac" is so difficult to understand. It doesn't say "...Requirements: computer with Intel, PowerPC G5..." It says "Mac computer".
Psystar doesn't sell Macs. Therefore their hardware does not meet the requirement for installing the retail OSX. Just because Apple has chosen to trust their customers and not require complicated authentication schemes doesn't mean they've given up their rights.
I guess what is obvious to most is not obvious to all. Just because the word "upgrade" isn't literally on the box doesn't mean that it doesn't require that you have a Mac, and therefore a version of the Mac OS to upgrade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by altrenda
I don?t understand the why everyone is so upset. If the total Apple experience is superior, then you, and everyone else will continue to buy from them, no harm to Apple.
Most people who would buy a ?crappy? Psystar wouldn?t have bought from Apple anyway, so at least they get the software license fee, and any other software sales as well. So, another win for Apple.
If Psystar makes junk, it reinforces Apples claims that the total package is worth the extra $$. Another win for Apple.
It doesn?t matter what Apple wishes, if I buy a product, I can use it for whatever I want, including resell it for a profit. If I want to run OS X on a PC, Windows on a Mac, or put a Yugo engine in a BMW, if I paid for all the parts, I should be able to do it. It doesn?t matter if it hurts the manufacturer?s feelings, or you think it?s a stupid idea.
Also, if I buy a a screw driver, and want to pound nails with it, just because the maker didn?t intend for it to be used as a hammer, it shouldn?t matter to the maker, as long as I don?t blame him for it being a crappy hammer and force him to support me using it that way.
These are commercial products from profit making companies, not a religious cult. Once they get money from me, they should be more interested in how they can get more from me than what I do with it after I bought it.
And Apple is a hardware company and software company. They sell both, and you don?t always have to buy one with the other.
Because many recognize this as the key to the flood gates. Perhaps Psystar makes junk. But if Apple doesn't defined themselves against them, better, higher quality, higher volume manufacturers will start offering their own Mac clones. Right now, the volume of business Psystar does is insignificant, but if others get into the business (which there are not cloners in Germany and South America following Psystar's lead) it could start to hurt Apple's business. At the point Apple would be forced to inconvenience it's paying customers by implementing draconian installation procedures and we'd be living in Windows Activiation hell. That's what we all want to avoid happening.
All this lawsuit will accomplish if Psystar wins is making Apple's Macs and OS updates cost more and more hassle for Apple's customers. It's not going to make cheap Mac clones openly and widely available. So what is the point??
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.
You're missing the point. When you pick up OS X, or Windows, for that matter, at the store, you are not purchasing the operating system, you are purchasing a license for it. Meaning the company that retains ownership of the base code for the OS is authorizing you to put it on a specified system.
Microsoft's business model is to allow you to put it on any system you want. Apple prefers to tie the hardware and software together because it allows them to adopt to changes much quicker since they need not spend time coding for every single set of hardware they can think of.
Since Apple owns the base code and all the the accompanying patents and copyrights, they have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with their software. As has been said, simply desiring to put the software on whatever you please does not mean you retain the legal right to. And since there are several alternatives to OS X, Apple does not hold a monopoly position from which to gouge a consumer financially.
If you want OS X, you have to save up for an Apple or else consider another option.
apple opened the gates themselves when they switched to Intel.
If hardware comes out that rivals Apple in quality and support, but at a lower price, then apple can respond by either pulling up the drawbridge, and locking down the system, making it more expensive or more cumbersome for their customers and not adding any value,
or
keep innovating to stay ahead, or lowering their ungodly margins, and offering more value, both good for their customers. It's called competition, and it's a good thing.
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.
Where is it that people like you come from I wonder. If you want OS X, you have to have a Mac. Plain and simple. This is not a hidden fact or an illegal guideline. You're desire does not permit your action because you do not own the operating system, you own a license. If you can't afford a Mac, then buy a Linux or Windows computer and get over it.
Also, about 30% of OS X is still unfettered open source coding. The idea was not to take open source so as to have a free base code. The idea was to take the advantages of an advanced open source architecture and apply necessary proprietary additions in order to present a better and more thought out product that what's available from Linux distros and Windows.
No one benefits from OS X being open to any hardware because then you've simply reverted back to the Windows world of multi-vendor cluster f**ks when you have a problem and code so bloated as to need high end hardware for even simple tasks. The world you desire would leave you with nothing but two versions of the same bloated, worthless software that we all bought a Mac to escape.
Admit it, you like OS X because bringing up a command line prompt for anything past basic word processing on Linux is growing old.
apple opened the gates themselves when they switched to Intel.
If hardware comes out that rivals Apple in quality and support, but at a lower price, then apple can respond by either pulling up the drawbridge, and locking down the system, making it more expensive or more cumbersome for their customers and not adding any value,
or
keep innovating to stay ahead, or lowering their ungodly margins, and offering more value, both good for their customers. It's called competition, and it's a good thing.
Competition is not always a good thing and I'm tired of the overly European mindset that believes it is. When a company has to cut its margins to add value, it then has less money to invest in research and development, which in turn causes it to fall behind in the market and then shutter the quality of it product in order to regain those margins. Just look at the PC market, vendors are playing the pricing game so hard that they're sacrificing quality all over the place and the consumer is losing out as a result.
Apple has sufficient enough competition from Windows Vista/7 and the various Linux distributions that the idea that somehow allowing other vendors to sell its software would increase its quality by over-stretching the research staff and forcing it to lose market and therefore need to shrink said research staff that I find your entire argument to be a bit ludicrous.
Why so few see this is beyond me. All Apple has to do to push Psystar out of business is a simple increase of the Mac OS X upgrade price to Windows-like prices and/or make the retail discs upgrade 'only', not full installs. The latter would keep the price down for current Mac users but would come with the added hassle of needing a previous version of Mac OS X installed first. None of these are good for the consumer and, as you stated, Psystar still loses.
Or sell one version at high price (say $399) with instant discount for verified Mac owners (down to $129). To get verified you have to use Mac OS software update to verify your Mac by checking yours serial number and personal information. Then bring the printed confirmation to Apple store or order from Apple.com. No need for different versions and pricing structure. This basically similar to what Apple does with Up-To-Date service and the iPhone rebate last year.
Something needs to be done about EULAs now; it is out of hand.
Amen!
Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelab
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.
Perhaps, but Apple's EULA states the terms I believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
Most people don't know why Apple don't want to license their OS. .. I will let SJ tell you why in this video.
"Each time we were told to pound sand" (Jobs on asking a fair price for the OEM mfg. to pay for Mac OS)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halvri
When you pick up OS X, or Windows, ... you are not purchasing the operating system, you are purchasing a license...
Microsoft's business model is to allow you to put it on any system you want....
Since Apple owns the base code and all the the accompanying patents and copyrights, they have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with their software....
Well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by altrenda
apple opened the gates themselves when they switched to Intel.
You're correct. The entire PC Intel Architecture that is. In fact, what made the PowerPC-based Macs so hard to clone were their extensive BIOSes that were difficult to clean-room reverse engineer. (I read this little tidbit on Scott Mueller's PC repair book).
Apple can do something simple here. Just sell Snow Leopard as an "Upgrade for previous versions of Mac OS X on Apple Hardware" for $129. If they lose this case, and are forced to sell the software directly, they can sell "For OEM use only" at $400 (or whatever Windows Ultimate is sold at) - with very clear warning that the software comes with no support or warranties from Apple, and the end buyer can only get support from the OEM.
This takes care of one set of the problems. Now, they need to come up with a differentiating methodology, so that people will still consider buying from Apple, instead of buying from some other OEMs.
The best way to do this, is to make it such that technologies like Open CL, and other performance boosting technologies in Snow Leopard will only work if an Enabler Chip is present. The Enabler chip can be either a custom chip by PA SEMI, or a very minor modification on Intel chips specifically made for Apple. Considering Apple has sales of tens of millions, Intel can easily make the minor modification for Apple.
Snow Leopard will "work" on all hardware, but if you want really good performance, the best way will be to get the Apple hardware. If you get non-Apple hardware, you wont get the performance boost of Open CL, etc.
This is one way for Apple to get the best of all worlds. They can increase penetration and marketshare of Mac OS X, letting other manufacturers keep the lower margins. Apple can continue to sell the higher end hardware to the discerning customer. Also, with increased penetration of OS X, Apple should actually see increased sales. Getting $400 for the OEM pack should more than offset any margin losses that Apple suffers from customer drain to the cheaper vendors.
For upgrade of existing Apple Mac machines, Apple can use a simple approach where the customer runs some software that checks their machine, and then sends the details to Apple - Apple will send them a software key to unlock the performance-boosting features of Mac OS. This software key should be SPECIFIC to the machine. Of course, Apple will need to take care that this mechanism cannot be spoofed/cracked, etc. If there is any change in the hardware spec of the machine, the system will again go back to "unboosted" mode - the user then has to repeat the procedure to enable the performance boost.
This scheme should take care of all the aspects of the situation and ensure that Apple comes out better off out of this. In fact, if this stabilizes, Apple can actively court manufacturers to come out with Mac clones, without hurting their profits.
I fear this litigation will increase the DRM Apple applies to its OS and software in general. I fear the moment in which a chip on the motherboard will be required to install the OS from Apple on Apple's computer. Apple now has the capacity to design such a chip.
I fear it not because I have a hackintosh, but because this is exactly a DRM practice I don't like. But if Apple has no chance to do it in another way I bet they'll be happy to create such a chip (with a ton of patents surrounding it) and really tie their OS to their computers. PsyStar or any other clone manufacturer could then no longer claim that Apple isn't "explicitly" prohibiting the installation and therefore they would no longer be in a gray zone...
Apple will come out with such a solution if this litigation continues (they might regardless of the result they expect, just as a security measure for future attemps to install Mac OSX on other machines).
Wouldn't the chip on the motherboard be kind of a throwback to the OS9 days, or am I mistaken that there was a ROM chip called the "toolbox" or something that effectively locked the hardware to the OS and vice versa? I thought there actually was a piece of hardware to "make it go", and that's what Apple had to provide to the clone makers like Power Computing in the late 90's. Right...or... not?
I've slept since then, so the memory is a bit fuzzy on this...
You're missing the point. When you pick up OS X, or Windows, for that matter, at the store, you are not purchasing the operating system, you are purchasing a license for it. Meaning the company that retains ownership of the base code for the OS is authorizing you to put it on a specified system.
(...)
Since Apple owns the base code and all the the accompanying patents and copyrights, they have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with their software. As has been said, simply desiring to put the software on whatever you please does not mean you retain the legal right to. And since there are several alternatives to OS X, Apple does not hold a monopoly position from which to gouge a consumer financially.
But remember, this is not unique to the world of software. Whenever anybody purchases a copy of any copyrighted material, the content's creator (or his/her assignee) always retains ownership of the intellectual property associated with the material.
The purchaser, on the other hand, owns the physical medium on which the content is stored. That is to say, he/she owns a copy of the material, but he doesn't in general own the rights to make additional copies of the material.
Except in the case of software, the purchaser explicitly has the automatic right, without needing to seek or obtain the copyright holder's explicit permission, to make additional verbatim copies or adaptations for the sole purpose of running the software on a computer, provided they destroy any adaptations if they ever transfer their ownership of the copy, and they either destroy any additional verbatim copies or include them as part of a transfer of ownership.
The really interesting question, in my mind, is whether or not Apple has the authority to claim additional powers to control their copyrighted works, beyond the statutory protections provided to them by copyright law. Because they would have to assert such claims, in order to specify the type of hardware they permit the software to be run on.
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?
Just like using MS Windows. At least will a Hackintosh, you'll have a better computing experience between recoveries.
I don?t understand the why everyone is so upset. If the total Apple experience is superior, then you, and everyone else will continue to buy from them, no harm to Apple.
Most people who would buy a ?crappy? Psystar wouldn?t have bought from Apple anyway, so at least they get the software license fee, and any other software sales as well. So, another win for Apple.
If Psystar makes junk, it reinforces Apples claims that the total package is worth the extra $$. Another win for Apple.
It doesn?t matter what Apple wishes, if I buy a product, I can use it for whatever I want, including resell it for a profit. If I want to run OS X on a PC, Windows on a Mac, or put a Yugo engine in a BMW, if I paid for all the parts, I should be able to do it. It doesn?t matter if it hurts the manufacturer?s feelings, or you think it?s a stupid idea.
Also, if I buy a a screw driver, and want to pound nails with it, just because the maker didn?t intend for it to be used as a hammer, it shouldn?t matter to the maker, as long as I don?t blame him for it being a crappy hammer and force him to support me using it that way.
These are commercial products from profit making companies, not a religious cult. Once they get money from me, they should be more interested in how they can get more from me than what I do with it after I bought it.
And Apple is a hardware company and software company. They sell both, and you don?t always have to buy one with the other.
Because there are consumer laws in place. Apple can not justify making a profit selling OSX for generic PC, even if it's a small profit, and not offer some sort of support for it. If enough consumers buy it, even a small profit margin grows into a large sum on money. Then Apple will have a hard time trying to convince consumer groups (and people that bought it) why they can't support OSX on a generic PC.
Imagine what liabilities a screw driver company would have if they some how implied that you can also use this as a hammer, but won't guarantee it if it breaks while you're using it as a hammer.
It's like the casinos. If you're underage and snuck in to play the slots and win a jackpot after several hours of playing. They can't deny you your jackpot. Even if they didn't know you were underage and there are signs posted all over the place stating "Must be 21 years of age to play". This keeps the casino honest. Otherwise, if they knew you were underage, they can just let you play the slots and profit from your loses. But deny you any money if you win because you were underage. This would be what Apple be doing if they made money selling a version of OSX for generic PC with no support.
It is better for Apple to never offer (or condone the use of) OSX on a generic PC. In any way, shape or form. And make every effort to prevent OSX from loading on to a generic PC. This way Apple can never be held liable to support it on a generic PC.
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.
Yes, but if the set-top box company sells the software that's in their boxes in stores open to the public and people buy that software to run it on a generic box then no one is stealing anything. And that's exactly what Apple do, they sell OS X openly to the public. Why should Psystar (or anyone else) not be allowed to buy OS X just like anyone else and then re-sell it (or even give it away) with their PCs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2
There simply is no absolute "right" to re-sell *anything* as the whole system would fall apart if there was.
There is if the thing you're re-selling is openly on sale to the general public (as OS X is).
Quote:
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.
In situations like this the product is only available to the wholesaler so the third company can't do what you suggest because they can't even buy the product in the first place (and that's a perfectly legitimate business arrangement). The difference here is that OS X is on sale to anyone who wants to buy it (and re-sell it).
Quote:
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
They're not forced to do any such thing. No once forces (or can force) Apple to sell OS X to anyone. However, Apple choose to sell OS X openly to the public.
But remember, this is not unique to the world of software. Whenever anybody purchases a copy of any copyrighted material, the content's creator (or his/her assignee) always retains ownership of the intellectual property associated with the material.
The purchaser, on the other hand, owns the physical medium on which the content is stored. That is to say, he/she owns a copy of the material, but he doesn't in general own the rights to make additional copies of the material.
Except in the case of software, the purchaser explicitly has the automatic right, without needing to seek or obtain the copyright holder's explicit permission, to make additional verbatim copies or adaptations for the sole purpose of running the software on a computer, provided they destroy any adaptations if they ever transfer their ownership of the copy, and they either destroy any additional verbatim copies or include them as part of a transfer of ownership.
The really interesting question, in my mind, is whether or not Apple has the authority to claim additional powers to control their copyrighted works, beyond the statutory protections provided to them by copyright law. Because they would have to assert such claims, in order to specify the type of hardware they permit the software to be run on.
The consumer retains no such right. We are given the verbatim right to make a copy for security reasons lest the original copy become damaged. Nowhere in the software, music, or movie arenas is the consumer authorized to make copies for use on a computer. When you load software onto a computer, alot more is going on than simple copying of data.
And to answer your question: yes Apple does. Were the courts to decide otherwise, the copyright system itself would have to be called wholly into question given the manner in which it has been employed in other arenas. Why should Blackberry be able to tie its mobile OS and phones, why should Sony be allowed to use the Cross Media Bar in only its PlayStation & TV lines. Beyond that, though, why should a corporation not be forced to code its software for architectures it doesn't support just in case the consumer wants to use them.
If a company no longer retains control of its intellectual property, then its a short slide downhill before the entire system defaults. Whoever said the consumer is always right never owned a business.
Apple can do something simple here. Just sell Snow Leopard as an "Upgrade for previous versions of Mac OS X on Apple Hardware" for $129. If they lose this case, and are forced to sell the software directly, they can sell "For OEM use only" at $400 (or whatever Windows Ultimate is sold at) - with very clear warning that the software comes with no support or warranties from Apple, and the end buyer can only get support from the OEM.
This takes care of one set of the problems. Now, they need to come up with a differentiating methodology, so that people will still consider buying from Apple, instead of buying from some other OEMs.
The best way to do this, is to make it such that technologies like Open CL, and other performance boosting technologies in Snow Leopard will only work if an Enabler Chip is present. The Enabler chip can be either a custom chip by PA SEMI, or a very minor modification on Intel chips specifically made for Apple. Considering Apple has sales of tens of millions, Intel can easily make the minor modification for Apple.
Snow Leopard will "work" on all hardware, but if you want really good performance, the best way will be to get the Apple hardware. If you get non-Apple hardware, you wont get the performance boost of Open CL, etc.
This is one way for Apple to get the best of all worlds. They can increase penetration and marketshare of Mac OS X, letting other manufacturers keep the lower margins. Apple can continue to sell the higher end hardware to the discerning customer. Also, with increased penetration of OS X, Apple should actually see increased sales. Getting $400 for the OEM pack should more than offset any margin losses that Apple suffers from customer drain to the cheaper vendors.
For upgrade of existing Apple Mac machines, Apple can use a simple approach where the customer runs some software that checks their machine, and then sends the details to Apple - Apple will send them a software key to unlock the performance-boosting features of Mac OS. This software key should be SPECIFIC to the machine. Of course, Apple will need to take care that this mechanism cannot be spoofed/cracked, etc. If there is any change in the hardware spec of the machine, the system will again go back to "unboosted" mode - the user then has to repeat the procedure to enable the performance boost.
This scheme should take care of all the aspects of the situation and ensure that Apple comes out better off out of this. In fact, if this stabilizes, Apple can actively court manufacturers to come out with Mac clones, without hurting their profits.
they can't add a Enabler as they will also not work on today's macs and the intel ones form the least few years as well.
Comments
bad translation..... Yugo describes Apple's hardware.
Posting from a Mac btw...
Just wondering, going along with your auto analogy, what hardware do you consider to be BMW?
Most people don't know why Apple don't want to license their OS. To understand why you have to understand why they stopped it more than 10 years ago. I am not going to say anything, I will let SJ tell you why in this video.
Circumstances change, but, IMO, It's still not a good time for Apple to be licensing the OS to run on run-of-the-mill hardware. What they do have to do is start making more compelling hardware before their market share gains start sliding again.
Most people who would buy a ?crappy? Psystar wouldn?t have bought from Apple anyway, so at least they get the software license fee, and any other software sales as well. So, another win for Apple.
If Psystar makes junk, it reinforces Apples claims that the total package is worth the extra $$. Another win for Apple.
It doesn?t matter what Apple wishes, if I buy a product, I can use it for whatever I want, including resell it for a profit. If I want to run OS X on a PC, Windows on a Mac, or put a Yugo engine in a BMW, if I paid for all the parts, I should be able to do it. It doesn?t matter if it hurts the manufacturer?s feelings, or you think it?s a stupid idea.
Also, if I buy a a screw driver, and want to pound nails with it, just because the maker didn?t intend for it to be used as a hammer, it shouldn?t matter to the maker, as long as I don?t blame him for it being a crappy hammer and force him to support me using it that way.
These are commercial products from profit making companies, not a religious cult. Once they get money from me, they should be more interested in how they can get more from me than what I do with it after I bought it.
And Apple is a hardware company and software company. They sell both, and you don?t always have to buy one with the other.
Don't undervalue your OS. Apple's softwarre licensing fees and royalties for the hardware sold was way too low.
Realize that the cloners will go after all of the markets you hold dear. In the 90s Apple hoped the cloners would pick up the low end of the market. Instead they went for the same high margin high end systems Apple wanted to keep for themselves.
In the 90s Apple was responsible for all of the R&D work for Macs and the cloners just rode their coat takes to undercut them. Now it's an open system, Intel is doing the R&D for the whole industry. Apple would need to impose a minimum requirement for the hardware and ports (No 32bit PCI, serial or parallel ports, no PS2 ports, must have firewire, etc.)
I'm sure there are support issues that would have to be ironed out, and in the end it may not make much sense to open up cloning again. We'll see what happens. If it doesn't appear that it will help Apple in the long run, it won't happen. But it's something Apple has to control one way or another.
rubbish, nothing on the packaging or description on any site mentions upgrading. You can buy it standalone. Just because you think its' obvious doesn't make it so.
"Minimum System Requirements: Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4, (867MHz or faster) processor, 512MB of physical RAM, DVD drive for installation"
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC...mco=MzgxMDgwNQ
I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what part of "requires a Mac" is so difficult to understand. It doesn't say "...Requirements: computer with Intel, PowerPC G5..." It says "Mac computer".
Psystar doesn't sell Macs. Therefore their hardware does not meet the requirement for installing the retail OSX. Just because Apple has chosen to trust their customers and not require complicated authentication schemes doesn't mean they've given up their rights.
I guess what is obvious to most is not obvious to all. Just because the word "upgrade" isn't literally on the box doesn't mean that it doesn't require that you have a Mac, and therefore a version of the Mac OS to upgrade.
I don?t understand the why everyone is so upset. If the total Apple experience is superior, then you, and everyone else will continue to buy from them, no harm to Apple.
Most people who would buy a ?crappy? Psystar wouldn?t have bought from Apple anyway, so at least they get the software license fee, and any other software sales as well. So, another win for Apple.
If Psystar makes junk, it reinforces Apples claims that the total package is worth the extra $$. Another win for Apple.
It doesn?t matter what Apple wishes, if I buy a product, I can use it for whatever I want, including resell it for a profit. If I want to run OS X on a PC, Windows on a Mac, or put a Yugo engine in a BMW, if I paid for all the parts, I should be able to do it. It doesn?t matter if it hurts the manufacturer?s feelings, or you think it?s a stupid idea.
Also, if I buy a a screw driver, and want to pound nails with it, just because the maker didn?t intend for it to be used as a hammer, it shouldn?t matter to the maker, as long as I don?t blame him for it being a crappy hammer and force him to support me using it that way.
These are commercial products from profit making companies, not a religious cult. Once they get money from me, they should be more interested in how they can get more from me than what I do with it after I bought it.
And Apple is a hardware company and software company. They sell both, and you don?t always have to buy one with the other.
Because many recognize this as the key to the flood gates. Perhaps Psystar makes junk. But if Apple doesn't defined themselves against them, better, higher quality, higher volume manufacturers will start offering their own Mac clones. Right now, the volume of business Psystar does is insignificant, but if others get into the business (which there are not cloners in Germany and South America following Psystar's lead) it could start to hurt Apple's business. At the point Apple would be forced to inconvenience it's paying customers by implementing draconian installation procedures and we'd be living in Windows Activiation hell. That's what we all want to avoid happening.
All this lawsuit will accomplish if Psystar wins is making Apple's Macs and OS updates cost more and more hassle for Apple's customers. It's not going to make cheap Mac clones openly and widely available. So what is the point??
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.
You're missing the point. When you pick up OS X, or Windows, for that matter, at the store, you are not purchasing the operating system, you are purchasing a license for it. Meaning the company that retains ownership of the base code for the OS is authorizing you to put it on a specified system.
Microsoft's business model is to allow you to put it on any system you want. Apple prefers to tie the hardware and software together because it allows them to adopt to changes much quicker since they need not spend time coding for every single set of hardware they can think of.
Since Apple owns the base code and all the the accompanying patents and copyrights, they have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with their software. As has been said, simply desiring to put the software on whatever you please does not mean you retain the legal right to. And since there are several alternatives to OS X, Apple does not hold a monopoly position from which to gouge a consumer financially.
If you want OS X, you have to save up for an Apple or else consider another option.
If hardware comes out that rivals Apple in quality and support, but at a lower price, then apple can respond by either pulling up the drawbridge, and locking down the system, making it more expensive or more cumbersome for their customers and not adding any value,
or
keep innovating to stay ahead, or lowering their ungodly margins, and offering more value, both good for their customers. It's called competition, and it's a good thing.
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.
Where is it that people like you come from I wonder. If you want OS X, you have to have a Mac. Plain and simple. This is not a hidden fact or an illegal guideline. You're desire does not permit your action because you do not own the operating system, you own a license. If you can't afford a Mac, then buy a Linux or Windows computer and get over it.
Also, about 30% of OS X is still unfettered open source coding. The idea was not to take open source so as to have a free base code. The idea was to take the advantages of an advanced open source architecture and apply necessary proprietary additions in order to present a better and more thought out product that what's available from Linux distros and Windows.
No one benefits from OS X being open to any hardware because then you've simply reverted back to the Windows world of multi-vendor cluster f**ks when you have a problem and code so bloated as to need high end hardware for even simple tasks. The world you desire would leave you with nothing but two versions of the same bloated, worthless software that we all bought a Mac to escape.
Admit it, you like OS X because bringing up a command line prompt for anything past basic word processing on Linux is growing old.
apple opened the gates themselves when they switched to Intel.
If hardware comes out that rivals Apple in quality and support, but at a lower price, then apple can respond by either pulling up the drawbridge, and locking down the system, making it more expensive or more cumbersome for their customers and not adding any value,
or
keep innovating to stay ahead, or lowering their ungodly margins, and offering more value, both good for their customers. It's called competition, and it's a good thing.
Competition is not always a good thing and I'm tired of the overly European mindset that believes it is. When a company has to cut its margins to add value, it then has less money to invest in research and development, which in turn causes it to fall behind in the market and then shutter the quality of it product in order to regain those margins. Just look at the PC market, vendors are playing the pricing game so hard that they're sacrificing quality all over the place and the consumer is losing out as a result.
Apple has sufficient enough competition from Windows Vista/7 and the various Linux distributions that the idea that somehow allowing other vendors to sell its software would increase its quality by over-stretching the research staff and forcing it to lose market and therefore need to shrink said research staff that I find your entire argument to be a bit ludicrous.
Why so few see this is beyond me. All Apple has to do to push Psystar out of business is a simple increase of the Mac OS X upgrade price to Windows-like prices and/or make the retail discs upgrade 'only', not full installs. The latter would keep the price down for current Mac users but would come with the added hassle of needing a previous version of Mac OS X installed first. None of these are good for the consumer and, as you stated, Psystar still loses.
Or sell one version at high price (say $399) with instant discount for verified Mac owners (down to $129). To get verified you have to use Mac OS software update to verify your Mac by checking yours serial number and personal information. Then bring the printed confirmation to Apple store or order from Apple.com. No need for different versions and pricing structure. This basically similar to what Apple does with Up-To-Date service and the iPhone rebate last year.
Something needs to be done about EULAs now; it is out of hand.
Amen!
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.
Perhaps, but Apple's EULA states the terms I believe.
Most people don't know why Apple don't want to license their OS. .. I will let SJ tell you why in this video.
"Each time we were told to pound sand" (Jobs on asking a fair price for the OEM mfg. to pay for Mac OS)
When you pick up OS X, or Windows, ... you are not purchasing the operating system, you are purchasing a license...
Microsoft's business model is to allow you to put it on any system you want....
Since Apple owns the base code and all the the accompanying patents and copyrights, they have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with their software....
Well said.
apple opened the gates themselves when they switched to Intel.
You're correct. The entire PC Intel Architecture that is. In fact, what made the PowerPC-based Macs so hard to clone were their extensive BIOSes that were difficult to clean-room reverse engineer. (I read this little tidbit on Scott Mueller's PC repair book).
This takes care of one set of the problems. Now, they need to come up with a differentiating methodology, so that people will still consider buying from Apple, instead of buying from some other OEMs.
The best way to do this, is to make it such that technologies like Open CL, and other performance boosting technologies in Snow Leopard will only work if an Enabler Chip is present. The Enabler chip can be either a custom chip by PA SEMI, or a very minor modification on Intel chips specifically made for Apple. Considering Apple has sales of tens of millions, Intel can easily make the minor modification for Apple.
Snow Leopard will "work" on all hardware, but if you want really good performance, the best way will be to get the Apple hardware. If you get non-Apple hardware, you wont get the performance boost of Open CL, etc.
This is one way for Apple to get the best of all worlds. They can increase penetration and marketshare of Mac OS X, letting other manufacturers keep the lower margins. Apple can continue to sell the higher end hardware to the discerning customer. Also, with increased penetration of OS X, Apple should actually see increased sales. Getting $400 for the OEM pack should more than offset any margin losses that Apple suffers from customer drain to the cheaper vendors.
For upgrade of existing Apple Mac machines, Apple can use a simple approach where the customer runs some software that checks their machine, and then sends the details to Apple - Apple will send them a software key to unlock the performance-boosting features of Mac OS. This software key should be SPECIFIC to the machine. Of course, Apple will need to take care that this mechanism cannot be spoofed/cracked, etc. If there is any change in the hardware spec of the machine, the system will again go back to "unboosted" mode - the user then has to repeat the procedure to enable the performance boost.
This scheme should take care of all the aspects of the situation and ensure that Apple comes out better off out of this. In fact, if this stabilizes, Apple can actively court manufacturers to come out with Mac clones, without hurting their profits.
bad translation..... Yugo describes Apple's hardware.
Posting from a Mac btw...
You remain unflappable in your beratement of Apple.
I fear this litigation will increase the DRM Apple applies to its OS and software in general. I fear the moment in which a chip on the motherboard will be required to install the OS from Apple on Apple's computer. Apple now has the capacity to design such a chip.
I fear it not because I have a hackintosh, but because this is exactly a DRM practice I don't like. But if Apple has no chance to do it in another way I bet they'll be happy to create such a chip (with a ton of patents surrounding it) and really tie their OS to their computers. PsyStar or any other clone manufacturer could then no longer claim that Apple isn't "explicitly" prohibiting the installation and therefore they would no longer be in a gray zone...
Apple will come out with such a solution if this litigation continues (they might regardless of the result they expect, just as a security measure for future attemps to install Mac OSX on other machines).
Wouldn't the chip on the motherboard be kind of a throwback to the OS9 days, or am I mistaken that there was a ROM chip called the "toolbox" or something that effectively locked the hardware to the OS and vice versa? I thought there actually was a piece of hardware to "make it go", and that's what Apple had to provide to the clone makers like Power Computing in the late 90's. Right...or... not?
I've slept since then, so the memory is a bit fuzzy on this...
You're missing the point. When you pick up OS X, or Windows, for that matter, at the store, you are not purchasing the operating system, you are purchasing a license for it. Meaning the company that retains ownership of the base code for the OS is authorizing you to put it on a specified system.
(...)
Since Apple owns the base code and all the the accompanying patents and copyrights, they have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with their software. As has been said, simply desiring to put the software on whatever you please does not mean you retain the legal right to. And since there are several alternatives to OS X, Apple does not hold a monopoly position from which to gouge a consumer financially.
But remember, this is not unique to the world of software. Whenever anybody purchases a copy of any copyrighted material, the content's creator (or his/her assignee) always retains ownership of the intellectual property associated with the material.
The purchaser, on the other hand, owns the physical medium on which the content is stored. That is to say, he/she owns a copy of the material, but he doesn't in general own the rights to make additional copies of the material.
Except in the case of software, the purchaser explicitly has the automatic right, without needing to seek or obtain the copyright holder's explicit permission, to make additional verbatim copies or adaptations for the sole purpose of running the software on a computer, provided they destroy any adaptations if they ever transfer their ownership of the copy, and they either destroy any additional verbatim copies or include them as part of a transfer of ownership.
The really interesting question, in my mind, is whether or not Apple has the authority to claim additional powers to control their copyrighted works, beyond the statutory protections provided to them by copyright law. Because they would have to assert such claims, in order to specify the type of hardware they permit the software to be run on.
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?
Just like using MS Windows. At least will a Hackintosh, you'll have a better computing experience between recoveries.
I don?t understand the why everyone is so upset. If the total Apple experience is superior, then you, and everyone else will continue to buy from them, no harm to Apple.
Most people who would buy a ?crappy? Psystar wouldn?t have bought from Apple anyway, so at least they get the software license fee, and any other software sales as well. So, another win for Apple.
If Psystar makes junk, it reinforces Apples claims that the total package is worth the extra $$. Another win for Apple.
It doesn?t matter what Apple wishes, if I buy a product, I can use it for whatever I want, including resell it for a profit. If I want to run OS X on a PC, Windows on a Mac, or put a Yugo engine in a BMW, if I paid for all the parts, I should be able to do it. It doesn?t matter if it hurts the manufacturer?s feelings, or you think it?s a stupid idea.
Also, if I buy a a screw driver, and want to pound nails with it, just because the maker didn?t intend for it to be used as a hammer, it shouldn?t matter to the maker, as long as I don?t blame him for it being a crappy hammer and force him to support me using it that way.
These are commercial products from profit making companies, not a religious cult. Once they get money from me, they should be more interested in how they can get more from me than what I do with it after I bought it.
And Apple is a hardware company and software company. They sell both, and you don?t always have to buy one with the other.
Because there are consumer laws in place. Apple can not justify making a profit selling OSX for generic PC, even if it's a small profit, and not offer some sort of support for it. If enough consumers buy it, even a small profit margin grows into a large sum on money. Then Apple will have a hard time trying to convince consumer groups (and people that bought it) why they can't support OSX on a generic PC.
Imagine what liabilities a screw driver company would have if they some how implied that you can also use this as a hammer, but won't guarantee it if it breaks while you're using it as a hammer.
It's like the casinos. If you're underage and snuck in to play the slots and win a jackpot after several hours of playing. They can't deny you your jackpot. Even if they didn't know you were underage and there are signs posted all over the place stating "Must be 21 years of age to play". This keeps the casino honest. Otherwise, if they knew you were underage, they can just let you play the slots and profit from your loses. But deny you any money if you win because you were underage. This would be what Apple be doing if they made money selling a version of OSX for generic PC with no support.
It is better for Apple to never offer (or condone the use of) OSX on a generic PC. In any way, shape or form. And make every effort to prevent OSX from loading on to a generic PC. This way Apple can never be held liable to support it on a generic PC.
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.
Yes, but if the set-top box company sells the software that's in their boxes in stores open to the public and people buy that software to run it on a generic box then no one is stealing anything. And that's exactly what Apple do, they sell OS X openly to the public. Why should Psystar (or anyone else) not be allowed to buy OS X just like anyone else and then re-sell it (or even give it away) with their PCs?
There simply is no absolute "right" to re-sell *anything* as the whole system would fall apart if there was.
There is if the thing you're re-selling is openly on sale to the general public (as OS X is).
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.
In situations like this the product is only available to the wholesaler so the third company can't do what you suggest because they can't even buy the product in the first place (and that's a perfectly legitimate business arrangement). The difference here is that OS X is on sale to anyone who wants to buy it (and re-sell it).
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
They're not forced to do any such thing. No once forces (or can force) Apple to sell OS X to anyone. However, Apple choose to sell OS X openly to the public.
Michael.
But remember, this is not unique to the world of software. Whenever anybody purchases a copy of any copyrighted material, the content's creator (or his/her assignee) always retains ownership of the intellectual property associated with the material.
The purchaser, on the other hand, owns the physical medium on which the content is stored. That is to say, he/she owns a copy of the material, but he doesn't in general own the rights to make additional copies of the material.
Except in the case of software, the purchaser explicitly has the automatic right, without needing to seek or obtain the copyright holder's explicit permission, to make additional verbatim copies or adaptations for the sole purpose of running the software on a computer, provided they destroy any adaptations if they ever transfer their ownership of the copy, and they either destroy any additional verbatim copies or include them as part of a transfer of ownership.
The really interesting question, in my mind, is whether or not Apple has the authority to claim additional powers to control their copyrighted works, beyond the statutory protections provided to them by copyright law. Because they would have to assert such claims, in order to specify the type of hardware they permit the software to be run on.
The consumer retains no such right. We are given the verbatim right to make a copy for security reasons lest the original copy become damaged. Nowhere in the software, music, or movie arenas is the consumer authorized to make copies for use on a computer. When you load software onto a computer, alot more is going on than simple copying of data.
And to answer your question: yes Apple does. Were the courts to decide otherwise, the copyright system itself would have to be called wholly into question given the manner in which it has been employed in other arenas. Why should Blackberry be able to tie its mobile OS and phones, why should Sony be allowed to use the Cross Media Bar in only its PlayStation & TV lines. Beyond that, though, why should a corporation not be forced to code its software for architectures it doesn't support just in case the consumer wants to use them.
If a company no longer retains control of its intellectual property, then its a short slide downhill before the entire system defaults. Whoever said the consumer is always right never owned a business.
Apple can do something simple here. Just sell Snow Leopard as an "Upgrade for previous versions of Mac OS X on Apple Hardware" for $129. If they lose this case, and are forced to sell the software directly, they can sell "For OEM use only" at $400 (or whatever Windows Ultimate is sold at) - with very clear warning that the software comes with no support or warranties from Apple, and the end buyer can only get support from the OEM.
This takes care of one set of the problems. Now, they need to come up with a differentiating methodology, so that people will still consider buying from Apple, instead of buying from some other OEMs.
The best way to do this, is to make it such that technologies like Open CL, and other performance boosting technologies in Snow Leopard will only work if an Enabler Chip is present. The Enabler chip can be either a custom chip by PA SEMI, or a very minor modification on Intel chips specifically made for Apple. Considering Apple has sales of tens of millions, Intel can easily make the minor modification for Apple.
Snow Leopard will "work" on all hardware, but if you want really good performance, the best way will be to get the Apple hardware. If you get non-Apple hardware, you wont get the performance boost of Open CL, etc.
This is one way for Apple to get the best of all worlds. They can increase penetration and marketshare of Mac OS X, letting other manufacturers keep the lower margins. Apple can continue to sell the higher end hardware to the discerning customer. Also, with increased penetration of OS X, Apple should actually see increased sales. Getting $400 for the OEM pack should more than offset any margin losses that Apple suffers from customer drain to the cheaper vendors.
For upgrade of existing Apple Mac machines, Apple can use a simple approach where the customer runs some software that checks their machine, and then sends the details to Apple - Apple will send them a software key to unlock the performance-boosting features of Mac OS. This software key should be SPECIFIC to the machine. Of course, Apple will need to take care that this mechanism cannot be spoofed/cracked, etc. If there is any change in the hardware spec of the machine, the system will again go back to "unboosted" mode - the user then has to repeat the procedure to enable the performance boost.
This scheme should take care of all the aspects of the situation and ensure that Apple comes out better off out of this. In fact, if this stabilizes, Apple can actively court manufacturers to come out with Mac clones, without hurting their profits.
they can't add a Enabler as they will also not work on today's macs and the intel ones form the least few years as well.