Now this is interesting news that hit my inbox at 2:22 AM (don’t ask). It seems like the concept of selling Mac clones is more lucrative than many have anticipated, as I’ve just been informed via email that the German PearC has expanded its business into the BeNeLux (Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg) and France. Together with the news that Psystar emerged from chapter 11, it looks like the market for Mac clones is more lucrative than many of us had imagined.
PearC has been selling personal computers with Mac OS X pre-installed in Germany for a while now. The company is fully confident that German law allows them to do so, and apparently, the laws in Begium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and France aren’t a problem either – according to PearC, of course.
At their website [Dutch | French] they state that they are certainly fans of Mac OS X, but that they’re not fans of the hardware. “Hardware is often outdated, upgrade possibilities are limited, too few connection ports, still no eSata, etc.,” they write, “And let’s not even get started about gaming and the lack of modern graphic cards.”
PearC offers quality and silent machines that run Mac OS X, they claim. They use Lian Li casing, and as anyone with a bit of insight will tell you, Lian Li produces some damn fine computer cases, and I must say that the machines PearC has on offer look pretty good – better than Psystar’s, in any case.
Their store for French and BeNeLux customers is already operational. It seems like Apple is facing more and more competition from these clone makers, and with Europe being a legal patchwork, it will face an uphill battle if they’re going to pursue the matter here.
Good.
Not in any sense of the word is it “good”.
It is good in many sense of the word – especially for those who want the mac experience without the mac compromises that Apple forces upon consumers with a limited range of hardware.
But without Apple’s control over the hardware you’ll hardly have the “Apple Experience”.
Another part of the experience is Apple’s customer support. I hardly think they’ll be able to replicate that either.
Why can’t they replicate it? Does Apple have a patent on using ridiculously short warranty terms to push customers to horribly over-priced support plans?
You’re right. I’ve had two warranty issues on my Mac Book Pro and it was a very pleasant experience getting the problems fixed. I think I’m just so used to dealing with “blame-another-party” service that I just assume that’s the way most companies work.
More than anything I think a lot of people underestimate the value of having an Apple store in driving range for both initial purchase and follow-up service. That’s not the case for everyone so I guess I’m guilty of projecting my experience onto others.
What compromises? the whining for the mythical xMac I see being pushed around by ego driven geeks who see ‘towers’ as some sort of monument to their ego; akin to the person who purchases a car with half the engine stick out of their bonnet or a noisy muffler to make a point of how ‘grunty’ their car is by drawing attention to it.
It reminds me of a friend who swore he ‘needed’ a tower; 3 years later and the most he did was upgrade the memory and hard disk – all of which you can do with an iMac. Games? get a console – if you’re that into games and you’re hitting 30, then god help you; you might as well be down at the skate park with a skate board trying to be ‘cool’ with the teenagers. It smacks of desperation.
Edited 2009-07-04 02:54 UTC
If people want a tower… Then people want a tower. Who are you to dictate what people should buy? What right do you have? I thought you were a libertarian…
…not very libertarian of you to impose upon people what they should buy, or to protect a company.
Where did I dictate what someone should and shouldn’t buy?
Who said anything about protecting a company; libertarians uphold contracts and protect private property.
Again, Where did I dictate what someone should and shouldn’t buy?
But not all libertarians agree on the scope of private property. At least don’t count me in as a supporter of IP-monopoly, nor as a supporter of contracts between two parts where one is in reality more equal than the other part.
In Denmark there’s no problem in selling Mac-clones. Actually it’s a protected right (you are free to dirty room reengineer and so on), and rightfully so. You shouldn’t have the possibility to decide what I do with stuff I buy. You only get to decide whether to sell it or not. If you sell it you accept that I can do whatever I want. Otherwise, don’t sell it. Period.
P.S. What’s that crap about being too old to play games just because you’ve passed 30? … what!? Come again….
The U.S. actually has those laws as well, we just have a LOT of stupid judges which led to some bad precedence and further misinterpretations which leads us now to how software somehow isn’t necessarily covered under the same laws that govern copies of copyrighted materials – even though software is EXACTLY a copy of a copyrighted material…
It is illegal in the U.S. to control what I do with my copy of a copyrighted work unless a contract was agreed upon as a condition upon purchase. Not some little note somewhere, a signed, written, often notarized / witnessed, contract.
Even then, you do not have the right to sign away many rights you possess. This was done in right-minded legislation (a rarity in U.S. law these days ) to protect consumers even from themselves. Non-contractual Terms of Use may only be applied to unprotected/non-enumerated freedoms or may be utilized to provide additional freedoms, with any conditions for those additional freedoms.
So, if a EULA ( Terms of Use ) says you can’t do something you are legally allowed to do, those lines are invalid. If it says you have permission to do something you have no right to do, but says you must do something to gain that permission, that stands.
If it forbids something you have no right to do anyway, then it is really just wasted space in most cases, but sometimes not ( such as the unforeseen case – in which some action is not a protected right for the consumer, but is not illegal, but must not be allowed as Terms of Use – a real rarity, it is just an in-case type of thing ).
Problem is we have the worst judges in the world, seriously. Some are great, others have no idea what is going on ( and don’t care ). That is the problem with elected judiciary officials, and the lack of job requirements ( think a judge needs to know the law? ).
–The loon
The issue at hand though is whether a company has the right to sell computers with Mac OS X pre-installed.
Apple is not suing or pursuing Joe Consumer (I am not speculating whether or not they will, and if they do I my opinions about this will most certainly change) they are suing a company that is selling computer with the system already loaded.
If I have my own non-apple computer and I decide to buy a copy of Mac OS X and figure out some way to install it then that is my right, I own the computer and the software. But I do not agree with what Psystar and this other company are doing, they are not the consumer, they should not have this right and therefore should be stopped.
By that logic it should be illegal for a car company to buy Corvettes or Mustangs, upgrade the engines, and then resell them.
Or, more accurately, buy a Ford V8 Engine, put it in their own car model, and then resell them.
These actions are protected by law for a reason. Short of illegally obtaining the engine, no one can say a thing about what the company is doing.
And Ford ONLY would have a say if that company was cloning parts, stealing the engines directly from Ford, or infringing on patents.
See the problem is, I believe, that you are thinking of software as something different than what it actually is. It is a copy of a copyrighted work ( exactly like a book ).
Apple needs to require the purchase of a Mac or proof of ownership as a condition of purchase of a copy of MacOS to be legally binding. Simple. If you can legally purchase a copy of MacOS X at the store without signing a contract, then you own that copy of the copyrighted work without restriction. The law explicitly prohibits copyright holders from controlling or influencing what owners of copies of their covered works can or can’t do, including modification or resale.
It is like making notes in “To Kill A Mockingbird,” then reselling it as a used book, then being sued by the publishers of the book. You can’t sell the book as new, because it ain’t.
BUT, let us say you buy 500 copies of the book from the store, paying full price. Then, you wrap the book in a new cover and resell it as the same book, but with a new cover you wrapped it in ( honestly representing the product, the source, the result ). You charge a premium, and you are a business.
Is that wrong? Should I not be allowed to start a business selling books which have protected coverings applied to them?
What if I were applying something to EVERY page to protect the book from tears and liquid? What if my process made the pages black and the ink white? Should that be illegal?
I certainly don’t think so. And I really hope you don’t.
–The loon
German wanted Hitler and they got him.
I think it is definitely important to discuss what people really want, as long as you treat yourself as one of the people you talking about and you have people learn and talk in the discussion. So nothing wrong with getting what people really want by thoroughly discussion.
You’re comparing a this to Germany and Hitler?
I’m out of this discussion. We’ve clearly left the land of reason and moved into nutjob whacko land.
Your response is within my expectation. Maybe too extreme my example, but it is a lot extreme to say “when people say want something they want something” and make it unarguable, too.
So, Godwin’s law is true…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Hitler became chancellor even though the NSDAP party, of which he was a member, received only 33 percent of votes in November 1932.
In 1933, the NSDAP supposedly received 44 percent of votes. However, this happened while Hitler was already in power. Considering what other shady practices had been used by the NSDAP in the past, it is reasonable to be sceptical of this number.
Either way, the hypothesis “Germany wanted Hitler” is difficult to prove with factual data. Since the 1930s were long before the dawn of perpetual opinion polling, there is not much data besides official election results, which, if anything, prove the exact opposite.
15 assassination attempts by his own citizens and military officials.. yeah.. your grasp of history is a little shakey. The fact that you would bring such politics into a computer discussion pretty much voids anything you thought you could add.
(seriously, I truly hope you never actually voice such ignorance to a German citizen.)
I think you have a scewed view of the gaming market if your so easily dismissing adult and retired gamers. A console is good for some games but other games need a full desktop rig for proper play.
Your view of skateboarding is equally ignorant though so it’s not like your offering a reason to be taken seriously.
“It is good in many sense of the word – especially for those who want the mac experience without the mac compromises that Apple forces upon consumers with a limited range of hardware.”
Apple forces nothing upon you, you have a free choice to purchase their product or not. Nobody is entitled to a mac. If you want it buy it, if you can’t afford it, to bad.
Apple does what any other successful business does, they charge as much as they can for the products they offer, even if they lose customers and are making more money on less volume.
Of course it’s good. Now, people who buy these should be fully aware that their system may have issues and they’re not eligible for Apple support, but that aside, why should anyone care? Apple gets their money from the OS sale, and as Thom’s previous editorial postulated, Apple probably isn’t “subsidizing” the cost.
But you’re ignoring the fall out that comes when idiot has a bad experience and it tarnishes Apples good name rather than blaming the vendor itself. How many times have Microsoft been blamed for things that the OEM does? I’m sure Apple has looked at what Microsoft has to put up with and thought, “I don’t want t have to deal with that”. Imagine all the crapware that will be installed on pre-installed versions of Mac OS X and the shonky nature of it – it basically ruin the Apple brand over night as people equate their one bad experience using non-Apple hardware with Mac OS X to the quality of the operating system.
I’ll agree with you there — I feel like clone manufacturers shouldn’t be selling these things in actual stores, but instead only online with a “build to order” type setups. Unfortunatlely, it seems like a “slippery slope” either way; if you allow the clone makers to exist, the brand dilution is bound to happen, whereas if you don’t, you implicitly acknowledge a company’s ability to legally restrict what a customer can do with a purchased product, which could lead to all sorts of crazy restrictions.
Personally, I’d say the former outcome is preferrable to the latter.
Even then I don’t think Apple would be comfortable – about the only plausible compromise I can see is if Apple has a standard motherboard what vendors base their clone upon. If they standardise the motherboard along with the firmware and so forth – it would remove 99% of the incompatibilities that exist.
Then what happens is the vendor can populate the board with video cards, decide the memory, hard disk size, the case it comes in and so forth.
I personally don’t see anything wrong with saying, “you can only use this product with this piece of hardware” considering that they’re made to go together – any more than a vendor saying that you can’t download a firmware update and retrofit it to work with another companies device. There are numerous precedents from devices to game consoles over the nature of software bundled with the hardware.
Mac OS X is Apples customised operating system for their hardware, the retail version of their operating is a customised operating system for their operating system. It is no different than an OEM who has a custom version of Windows they bundle and restricting it so you can’t use it on other hardware (by moving the licence from one computer to another) – OEM’s also sell customised versions of Windows for their customers. For example, I bought a Toshiba and was able to buy an upgrade DVD direct from Toshiba to upgrade it to Windows Vista – that was locked to my Toshiba and couldn’t be used on other hardware.
If people find that Apples policies are too restrictive – don’t purchase it. If enough people refuse to purchase their products then Apple will get the message and change their policy. That is no different to the iPhone – if the AT&T deal is so cruddy, so egregious, then don’t purchase it, go with another carrier and purchase a phone of a similar nature (there are 4 phone producers whom I can think of which produce touch based phones).
Edited 2009-07-04 04:16 UTC
If you are afraid of having your name tarnished then don´t have a name.
If you are afraid of people dissing your software don’t write software.
Of course, you could also take another approach. Give a damn about it – or maybe even (this is farfetched alright) listen to the complaints…
So its Apple’s fault when a third party doesn’t properly test their drivers and hardware configuration? nice to see your detachment from reality doesn’t have a limit when it comes to hating Apple.
Now now, kaiwai. Be nice. You are not your usual self – had a bad day? Usually you are much more constructive in your style.
I don’t hate Apple and I’ve never written anything which in any way can be understood as such. And you know that. I distrust them sometimes, true. However, I distrust all companies – and for a good reason.
Nope, it’s not Apple’s fault if a third party does a crappy job. And I’ve never written anything which can be understood as such.
The only thing I really wrote was “Don’t be afraid”.
I reply in the same way that people post, this is what you said:
Tell me how that is even remotely useful to the discourse surrounding that matter of tying hardware to software and the reasons for it? You know very well that the Windows experience can vary depending on how much (or little) effort that the third party puts into ensuring that the hardware, drivers and operating system over all functions. It can range from being a wonderful experience to something the end user would sooner push to the back of their mind.
It has nothing to do with your claims that if something doesn’t work, its obviously because Apple doesn’t care as you stated in this part:
What you stated there it is Apples fault even if it the hardware, drivers and integration is outside the control of Apple. Tell me how being snarky is of any valuable contribution to the discussion?
No, this is what you wrote:
Which is nothing short of blaming Apple for all the problems of the clone producer – even though Apple would have little to no control over what is going on. I suggest you look at what you wrote because it most certainly wasn’t of any constructive value.
I think what people miss to understand is that Psystar and PearPC are are installing OSX on machines they are going sell for a profit without the permission from Apple.
What they are practically doing is making business with someone else’s product without their permission. It’s not a case of installing OSX on your privately used PC, but of using APPLE’s product, install it on a PC and SELL it for your own profit. And this is illegal, I think.
Correct, software isn’t sold, it is licensed – and part of that licence there are conditions attached. If people here don’t like the licence – then send a message to Apple by not purchasing it. As I said many months ago – if it were a few geeks sitting around hacking away at Mac OS X to understand how it works and getting it to work on non-Apple computers in the privcacy of their own home – Apple wouldn’t care. The issue, as you said your post, it has moved from a home hobby to a business model.
I’ve refused to purchase products from a given company for all manner of reasons; from their lack of fair work practices to the lowering of product quality by using inferior ingredients (Cadbury Chocolate in New Zealand). If people find that Apples licence is so bad – it isn’t up to them to unilaterally decide what rules, laws or licences to follow. If one doesn’t like it, then use something different.
I know many Linux and alternative operating system users who do just that – they don’t agree with the licence so instead they stand by their values and refuse to use it. I’ll be my bottom dollar that those who advocate violating Apple’s licence also regularly pirate music and software under the excuse of, “well, its too expensive, the licence is too restrictive so I’ll be robin hood and nick it from the ‘rich and evil corporatin'”.
Correct, software isn’t sold, it is licensed – and part of that licence there are conditions attached.
Do not state that as a fact when it is not true. Yes, software probably is licensed in some parts of the world but again, here, in Finland, when you buy something you OWN that copy, you aren’t licensing it. This most likely applies to several European countries. I’ve said it a gazillion times already and every single time you choose to ignore it and try to state your opinions as facts.
People have been indoctrinated with this nonsense. When you buy software, there’s a sales agreement. I hand over money, they hand me over a product.
Take a good look. There is no difference in procedure between buying software, a computer, a plant, or a doormat. The EULA is presented POST-SALE, and since post-sale restrictions are not allowed in many countries…
When you go to a store the only thing you own is the CD/DVD which it comes on – everything else, the intellectual property on the CD/DVD is still owned by the company who produced it. If they sold you their intellectual property the what would stop you from burning of 100s of copies for you mates – after all, you claim that you have bought their intellectual property! you can’t have it both ways – you can’t go and purchase and claim you own the intellectual property on the DVD/CD then turn around then claim in the same breath that it doesn’t allow you to copy and distribute because then you would be claiming that you don’t own the intellectual property – that the intellectual property is licensed to you – and thus goes right back to what I originally stated.
Of course you’ll claim copyright restricts you BUT IT DOESN’T because you are claiming in the paragraph ownership of the intellectual property! if you own the intellectual property then you can do with it as you wish – because you retain property rights over it.
Edited 2009-07-05 12:32 UTC
You can stop again here. While the intellectual property is indeed not sold, the CD/DVD is sold including the data. Copyright law does not make a distinction between data and data carrier.
View the second reply I made regarding what I dubbed the differentiation between source code and binary. You’re claiming there that binary has no ‘intellectual property value’ so therefore you’re claiming that when one purchases the DVD/CD, you not only buy the media itself but the intellectual property, be it in the form of readable source code or compiled binary.
If you claim there is no differentiator – then go out right now and repackage it with your own modifications and claim it as your own.
What I want to state is that, legally, binary and the CD/DVD it comes on are one and the same thing: A copy of a copyrighted work. While the binary is protected by copyright, it has been sold to you. You cannot make copies of that binary because of the intellectual property, but that particular binary is yours. As long as you do not violate copyrights, nobody can restrict you what you do with it.
I’m claiming property over the data on the CD. What I’m not claiming property over is the copyright on said data.
A music CD is a book is a movie DVD is software. There’s no difference.
I can resell a music CD. I can resell a book. I can resell a movie DVD. I can resell software.
I can make personal copies of a music CD. I can make personal copies of a book. I can make personal copies of a movie DVD. I can make personal copies of software.
I can make private changes to the content of a music CD. I can make private changes to the content of a book. I can make private changes to the content of a movie DVD. I can make private changes to the content of software.
Edited 2009-07-05 13:11 UTC
And quite frankly you can sing it till you’re blue in the face but it doesn’t change the reality – the fact that some clueless law makers in the EU doesn’t change the fact that ownership of the intellectual property is retained by the originator and those whom have bought it in the capacity of the final product have merely bought access to it, not ownership.
If there was any ownership being offered then I would be able to repackage it and sell it as KawaiiOS if I wished, or resell numerous copied versions to all my mates; after all, you claim that I own the intellectual property on the CD, which is ludicrous. It throws out 200 years of property rights in one swoop by claiming that sales include the ability to exercise the right over someone else’s intellectual property.
I’m sure you’ll try to then dance around differentiating source code from binary – again, how is that any different to a book which has manuscripts (source code) and the final product (binary); can I go out and purchase a book, claim the intellectual property as my own (by virtue of your ‘purchase argument’), repackage it with some additions by me and make money off it? of course not! it would never fly.
It seems that people here want to make out that software is some how different, special, unique whilst ignoring that it is the product of human intellect – intellectual property. Property which is the ownership of the programmers employers through the transference of ownership of the code in return for a salary. That is the reality – not the hocus pocus side shows in a strange little country in the middle of no where.
Edited 2009-07-05 12:42 UTC
Kaiwai, you are literally talking out of your rear end here. When you buy a TV do you also buy IP rights and copyright ownership on it? No, and the same applies to a copy of software. You own that copy, but the manufacturer holds IP and copyright ownership and you are not allowed to break their rights.
<ı>be able to repackage it and sell it as KawaiiOS if I wished, or resell numerous copied versions to all my mates[/i]
You’d be breaking copyright. You REALLY should learn what that word means. Seriously, you just showed you don’t know anything about IP and copyright in those two posts of yours and you should go research more before you make yourself look any worse.
Okay, you can stop here. Software like MacOS is sold, not licensed, and usually the sales agreement can be proven with an invoice. As the customer can prove there was sale, it is end of discussion.
I doubt it that you can purchase software and RE_SELL by re-packaging it around your own hardware of choice without the permission of the owner of the SW.
When you download a free application for arguments sakes it clearly states in the license terms that you are not to re-sell it!
What Psystar and Pear PC are doing is purchasing OSX and RE-SELL with a margin it without Apple’s Permission.
For goodness sake, just install OSX on your privately used PC if you love it – just DO NOT RE-SELL it
Why not? I can resell any damn purchased product I want. I have a valid sales agreement between myself and the seller, so the copy is my legal property. As such, I am allowed to re-sell it whenever the hell I damn well please.
What bollocks. What if I want to re-sell my iPhone? It contains software too!
I doubt it that you can purchase software and RE_SELL by re-packaging it around your own hardware of choice without the permission of the owner of the SW.
I can’t speak for other countries, but here you CAN legally sell anything you’ve bought, including OSX. You don’t need the permission from the manufacturer. You can legally sell it even if the manufacturer says you can’t. It is your copy, not their, and as such you can do as you please with it as long as you don’t break copyright.
Nobody prohibits you to sell your copy of OSX anywhere in the world.
What is illegal though is assembling a PC and sell it with OSX pre-installed.
Would that be possible, DELL and HP would have jumped on the OSX bandwagon ages ago!!
Actually, If I am not wrong, DELL asked Apple for licensing OSX some time ago – Apple refused – end of story.
Nobody prohibits you to sell your copy of OSX anywhere in the world.
What is illegal though is assembling a PC and sell it with OSX pre-installed.
Actually, that too is legal here.
Would that be possible, DELL and HP would have jumped on the OSX bandwagon ages ago!!
Actually, If I am not wrong, DELL asked Apple for licensing OSX some time ago – Apple refused – end of story.
Of course Apple can refuse to sell to them, that’s a whole different thing. And DELL and HP are global manufacturers, they’d get loads of people whining to them if they started selling computer with OSX in Finland but nowhere else. It also wouldn’t make sense from business standpoint: they’d have to make a separate support department for only those computers with OSX preloaded.
Why do you think that?
Why shouldn’t it be? It’s always Microsoft’s fault, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Funny this post as you were blaming Linux for it’s drivers only 2 days ago.
So I’ll remember post this next time you take a cheap shot at other OSs for their less-than-100% support with 3rd party hardware.
You are under the impression that Apple has a good name?
Apples name, branding, reputation in the mainstream (not the geek filled forums on the net) – the fact that you have a chip on your shoulder because its the ‘cool’ thing to hate Apple along with Microsoft doesn’t change the fact that in the eyes of the vast majority of users – Apple is a cool, hip, and innovative company. What you or anyone else thinks is meaningless because perception is reality and the reality for the vast majority of people is Apple is a reliable brand that is cool, hip and on the cutting edge. Apple has to maintain that image to retain the market they have fought hard to create.
Edited 2009-07-05 12:49 UTC
There is a VERY easy way for Apple to get rid of that threat.
Just have the OS name not contain any reference to their “Apple” brand.
Then cloners can only market their computers as “OS-x”. But not as “Apple’s OS-X”, or Apple clone.
They could even put their OS business guys into a daughter company, and have them not make any advertisements.
The mother company, then sells Apple computers, as they did before.
If you buy a system from a company that is not apple, why would anyone assume they would get apple support?
Jup it is good, there is a market for a more afordable mac, one slightly larger than a mac mini so you can use proper RAM and a decent 3,5″ harddisk.
Besides their OS of choice (scnr), the PC seems to be pretty nifty. And yeah, there’s nothing better than a Lian Li case
Good.
Hmm, well, it’s good for the geek audience and anyone who understands that it’s only a clone and not an official Apple product. They should make it clearer to their customers that those clones are not eligible for Apple customer support and that they buy those at their own risk.
Good for me? Nope. I have a Mac and I very much dislike OSX. I only use my Mac to watch movies with since it has a good widescreen display..
I just don’t understand why you feel justified in essentially trying to undermine the Apple brand. Rather than you and others spending time ranting about how you can’t get OS X on non-Apple hardware, invest some time & money in getting Linux up to that level of usability and supported on the hardware you want.
Sometimes it’s so sad with the way everyone says “I want it, but I can’t believe they won’t sell as cheaply as I want to pay.” For that matter, I demand that Microsoft release a copy of Windows 7 that I can run on Alpha (after all, they supported the platform). Can you make them do that for me please?
Difference here is that OSX will work on traditional PC’s. and Apple also gets its cut.
The only ones hurt by this are those who see a premium in the mac hardware business.
If you want to install Windows on any traditional PC you are free to do so. OSX is also x86 in the package now and artificially limiting its possibilities is not favoured by everyone.
Problem is: with Apple having to write the drivers for hardware (to keep quality) it does cost more to develop in that regard… compared to Windows which Microsoft decided to rely upon hardware OEMs.
So if you install on your hackintosh and you have a sub-par experience, are you going to say “oh well, maybe it’s my machine?”
Apple _chooses_ to sell the hardware & software as a set. You’re perfectly free to choose to use Linux, Windows, or one of the BSDs.
Edited 2009-07-04 01:48 UTC
Apple also chooses to sell stand-alone copies of OSX.
Or OSX.
Edited 2009-07-04 02:04 UTC
A lot car vendor choose to sell spare parts alone. Does that mean you are eligible to get support and warrant in installing a VM spare parts to a Hondar car or some car you make by yourself?
Of course not. Why would you ask?
Do you think people who install OSX on uncertified hardware should be eligible for Apple support? I don’t, and I never said otherwise.
It’s a non-issue.
Because it is pointless to say Apple sell OS X alone while someone says Apple set hardware and software as a set. Selling OS X alone like selling spare parts and that’s not the essence of the business model. If you mix any single channel you can get something with the essence of the business model in the reasoning, you will get no conclusion meaningful.
So as you said, they don’t and don’t expect support, and Apple set H/S as a set.
But Apple does sell OSX alone. That’s a fact.
And I do ask a question for a reason and get some useful conclusion and that’s a fact, too.
Your metaphors need a little work. Hitler? Spare auto parts?
I am running OS X on a home-built PC right now. It smokes (quad core, 8 gigs of ram, ICH10, 2.5 Terabytes of disk space, 9800 GTX+… All for 1,000 USD. On the other hand, I do have a house full of Macs (wife, and kids have them)… I always buy the family pack of OS X, iWork and iLife whenever a new version is released.
I do not expect Apple to offer ANY support for my PC, and if it comes to the point where Mac OS X won’t upgrade on my machine then, oh well, I either stay where I am or move to Linux or Windows 7. My problem.
Why do you assume the “experience” will be “sub-par”? It’s not as if the Taiwanese and Chinese workers building Macs sprinkle magic Apple pixie dust on each and every Mac as it rolls out the factories in Guangdong and Peitou.
Why do you assume the “experience” will be “sub-par”? It’s not as if the Taiwanese and Chinese workers building Macs sprinkle magic Apple pixie dust on each and every Mac as it rolls out the factories in Guangdong and Peitou.
Who knows, maybe the actually DO sprinkle some of their magics on top of the machines
But yeah, I don’t really understand why people assume those clones will provide a subpar experience. Of course the companies selling those clones have tested their hardware that it does work correctly with OSX, and the quality of the components is the same as everywhere else.
As for OSX itself.. well, I am not saying it’s bad, but I don’t want it anywhere near me
“are you going to say “oh well, maybe it’s my machine?” ”
Yes, thats exactly what I would say
Actually, I think the huge difference here is that people just want Apple to leave them alone.
Now, if Microsoft came and told you that you cannot use their OS in a virtual machine on top of Linux, would you tell them to f–k off? Probably.
Yes, they will say f–k to Microsoft. But the difference is Microsoft choose from the beginning to be a software company. And Apple choose a different commercial model.
No one so far is really clear about which model really suit software business. The open source movement shows that treating software as a standalone product neither really generate good software, nor getting good money from it. Maybe software is just another way to improve productivity, and in order to making money from it, you need to sell some concrete things embodying it. As in the old age you can really make good money from a way to improve productivity, you have to sell machine using that way to get the improved productivity. A *way* itself is too inmaterial. To make money from an inmaterial leads to 1) have a difficult to prevent others stealing the idea, 2) have a difficult to advance the whole technical level of world because the owner of the inmaterial will keep it too secret.
Good for Apple. They chose a different model, just as I can choose to ignore it. As long as they sell the OSX as a different product (the retail discs), the law seems to be on my side, at least in my part of the world, that they can’t dictate what I can use it with.
I’m not quite sure of the details, and I’m not very interested in them because I’ve seen enough Macs to let go of a lot of the “magic” feeling they seemed to have from afar.
But, as far as every other kind of service goes, and as far as I know, since I’m not a lawyer, in Brazil, they have no right to force me to use a producte only the way they want me to.
If Apple wants to allow people to only use OSX on Apple’s hardware, I guess they’ll have to stop selling the discs outside U.S.A. Because it seems to be perfectly legal in quite a few places.
Please, don’t take my view as serious fact. I *believe* it to be true, but I don’t have enough interest in the matter to actually check it thoroughly. Perhaps I should ask it to my lawyer the next time I see him, just out of curiosity.
Yeah, I really need to buy a Mac clone to satisfy my Mac envy.
You do realise that I’ve bought about… Uh, 10 or so Macs the past few years, right?
“It’s the economy, stupid…”
I like Apple, well, I mean, I use a Mac, and PC, with Windows and Linux on it, so I am not being partisan here.
The world economy is in bad shape – and this has been recognized by Apple I think in its recent upspeccing of machines while prices have come down, relative to previous Apple bang for buck.
Also, those who live by the sword, die by the sword – if you rely on markets, then it’s precisely keeping up with what established and even potential customers demand that’s going to keep you in business. If you make a decision not to address a certain known niche, you either lose that potential custom per se, or someone else will seek to address it.
Apple is choosing steadfastly not to respond to this niche, that’s fine but the choice has consequences for Apple, ones that they seek to deal with not through being in the market but through legal channels. That’s also Apple’s choice but it may mean that they will be hoist by one of their own legal petards. The situation will evolve, they may raise the cost of retail versions of OS X, or make it more dificult to hack onto non-Apple branded hardware, etc., etc.
Meanwhile, in the background, in a very small way, there may be alternative systems that come to provide the market relief that customers seemingly seek – PCBSD and iXsystems new hardware range, for example.
I do not think it is just OS X envy, myself – as long as it’s simple to use, is versatile, and allows people to do what they normally do with computers (a little office work, a few games, surfing, etc.) while being relatively secure, it will have appeal.
I would personally like to see a comparative review of the iXsystems laptop with PC-BSD preinstalled and pre-configured once it’s out with a MacBook or MacBook Pro.
Those guys (both the company and the consumers) are playing with fire. Apple may not even try suing them, but they may push a technical update that will break OS X on non-Apple hardware. There’s gotta be a way to do so that we’re not aware yet. I could imagine suddenly thousands of Hackintoshes stopping working, everybody complaining and PearC, Psystar disappearing…Apple certainly had anticipated that.
and suddenly Apple wins in the Courts over there.
I very much doubt that. The EU is VERY consumer friendly, and VERY pro free market.
If a consumer buys something, he is free to do anything he wants with it, as long as it is legal to do (you still must not stab someone into the heart with a legally bought knife).
The contract between a consumer and a store is entered into, when the installation medium is bought. As I do not sign the EULA at the store but later at installation, only those parts of the EULA are valid which give me MORE rights, not less.
It is different with business to business sales, but for consumers it is a really good situation in my country (Austria).
Yes, this is excellent news, and the bigger PearC gets, and the more places it operates in, the better. And the more companies join it in defying the Apple EULA, the better. And the reason has nothing to do with ‘the Mac experience’ or OSX, or the fortunes of Apple. It has to do with companies that think they can sell copies of their software at retail, and then tell us what we can do with it after we have bought it. Whether this is what environment we may install it in, or what we may do with the files we generate with it, or what content we use it to access….and so on.
Or for that matter, companies that think they can sell us tools, and then tell us whether we can use them in way of trade, or only for DIY.
Or for that matter, companies that think they can sell us appliances, and then tell us what clothes we may wash in them and what parts we may repair them with and what soap powder we may use in them.
I have no problem at all with Apple restricting the use of OSX to Apple sourced machines. Feel perfectly free to do that. I don’t think its a sensible business strategy, but its their own business. Just like I have no problem with Maytag making machines that require a special sort of soap powder.
What I have a problem with is them insisting on selling retail copies that are installable on non-Apple sourced machines, and then demanding legal powers to prevent this rather than implementing the restraints by technical means.
There is no reason why we should give the entire software industry, or manufacturers in general, draconian powers to limit our freedom, just so Apple can implement their business strategy in this one particular technically lazy way.
They want to restrict OSX, feel free. Do some work, and do it. Don’t try to take legal powers against buyers of your retail packages which no supplier should have against his customers.
Edited 2009-07-04 07:55 UTC
That’s my biggest beef with this entire argument; that a vocal minority feel they are entitled to ignore contractual requirements like the End User License Agreement. This isn’t just a problem in IT, but in banking, telecommunications, oh… the list just goes on. It may seem harsh and unfair, but the consumer always has the option, nay a right to choose not to sign the dotted line, or click the tickbox confirming that they have read the EULA and agree to it!
While far-fetched, if the terms of the purchase were such then there would have to be a very compelling reason to go ahead with the purchase; you cannot simply sign a contract and claim some percieved right to simply ignore it just because you feel your freedoms are being trampled on, man.
I think its a very effective strategy; to provide a combined software and hardware package that users identify with and I daresay it is the cornerstone of Apple’s success—the complete package, not just bits and pieces. If this advantage were to be eroded I and many other shareholders would take our business elsewhere, but reluctantly; Apple is a success story in a time of financial strife in the world. Hence, I hope the company persues this matter thoroughly and aggressively.
Blah blah blah.
The terms of purchase when buying Mac OS X are regular, normal unaltered terms of purchase, which apply to toothpaste, tires, and dildos. These terms of purchase go into effect the moment I hand over my money, and get the product.
The EULA is agreed upon *post-sale* and and as such, are by definition NOT terms of purchase. In many countries, imposing post-sale restrictions is illegal.
The EULA is agreed upon *post-sale* and and as such, are by definition NOT terms of purchase. In many countries, imposing post-sale restrictions is illegal.
In most countries post-sale means on delivery of the product. The product in question being the physical medium and the service it delivers. You may have noticed you don’t get the service if you don’t agree to the contract but are free to return the product.
In most countries post-sale means on delivery of the product. The product in question being the physical medium and the service it delivers. You may have noticed you don’t get the service if you don’t agree to the contract but are free to return the product.
Subscribing to a service and buying a product are two different concepts. And as Thom already said, EULAs can’t dictate post-sale restrictions in many European countries. Here in Finland atleast if the EULA tries to limit what hardware you can use in combination with the product, whether you are allowed to sell your copy of the product when you don’t need it anymore or such similar clauses then those clauses are rendered invalid. And yes, it has already been tested in court.
Totally true.
In Austria, Microsoft wanted to keep stores from selling OEM software without accompanying hardware.
It turned out, that the highest court told Microsoft to go weeping in the cellar. The resellers are selling CDs. That is it. They do not sign a contract with Microsoft when they resell any OEM Software with a funny sticker on it saying “only for use with accompanying hardware” or some such.
And the same is with the EULA. A customer can rightly challenge any terms of the EULA which are to his disadvantage, because the Software was ADVERTIZED and SOLD without the disadvantages you might only discover when reading the EULA.
More so, you might have bought some hardware, in the expectation to use it with OS-X. Because of this you did took compatible hardware which was 50,- € more expensive than the cheapest but otherwise comparable hardware. Now you buy at a different store an OS-X CD, and at the time of installation you find out, that you are not allowed to use it on that hardware.
Now you bring back the OS-X CD and get your money back. So far no damage.
But if you now want to bring back the hardware, to get something equally fast, but cheaper by the afore mentioned 50,- €, you are out of luck. Because the hardware vendor does NOT have to take back the hardware. So in effect, the customer was screwed over for an amount of at least 50,- €.
Many countries in the EU will not let the customer stumble into such a situation. If you want to put restrictions on the ways how to use your product, make those terms clear whenever the contract is signed, not afterwards.
The problem with this line of argument is that as a matter of fact, in all OECD jurisdictions, limits on what contracts a seller may impose on a buyer are accepted and part of sale of goods law.
For example, the obvious one, in the UK if you buy mail order, the distance selling regulations give you the right to return for refund within 7 days, no questions asked. It does not matter what contract you sign, it will not be enforceable against this. Similarly, you have various rights under the Sale of Goods laws, and even if you sign a contract renouncing them as a consideration for getting a more generous warranty, this renunciation will not have any legal effect. The same applies to anti competitive practices.
What you are basically doing is adopting a libertarian attitude, but restricted to powers you want Apple to have, without considering what effect giving everyone including Apple those powers. This is why I say that it is not primarily about Apple. Of course, what you would like is for Apple but no-one else to have those powers. That is not going to happen, and should not happen.
Now, it may be reasonable to say that any seller should be able to impose any conditions of sale and that buyers’ only recourse should be not to buy. One can imagine societies which regulate consumer purchases in this way. It is just that our societies have chosen a different way, and in them it is not a reasonable argument to say, of one particular company, that “you cannot simply sign a contract and claim some percieved right to simply ignore it just because you feel your freedoms are being trampled on, man”.
It depends on the conditions. Some will be enforceable under consumer protection and contract and competition law, others not. There is no reason why you should comply with contractual conditions which have no legal validity in your jurisdiction.
I have two views on this. One is that Apple’s specific clause about where you may install or cause to be installed will not in fact be enforceable in the EC.
The second is that it should not be, because, like the ability to incent people to give up their rights under the sale of goods acts, it is not good for society or consistent with the way we run retail sales at present.
One can amusingly turn your argument on its head. Yes, if Apple loses exclusivity on OSX and this causes you not to want to buy Macs or Apple shares, well, sell the shares, don’t buy the machines. Yes indeed, follow your own advice!
Well, it can be explained with a simple analogy. You sell me a television, I can do with it what I want. It’s mine, mwuhuhahahahahaaa!!! In other words, a television manufacturer that puts a note in the box that by switching on the television I agree with not watching television on saturday will have wasted its time, he has no right tell what I can do with *my* television. It’s only me who has the authority to say who can do what with my property.
For the same reason, Apple cannot tell people what to do with its software. It has no authority at all to do that, after it sold the software, it’s no longer Apple’s program, it’s mine. Sure there is copyright on it, but the copy of the program has been sold and Apple can in no way tell people what to do with the copy.
You are right this is a problem in IT: EULA’s are a plague that are being used to take away the consumers rights. IT should become a normal industy that sells software like a supermarket is selling apples: Without 10 pages of legalese.
Edited 2009-07-04 11:58 UTC
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but you are not buying a cd that you can do with whatever you want, you are buying a software license, they are two different things.
An example of this is that if you buy a book you are not allowed to photocopy the whole thing and then hand out the copies without the consent of the owner. Or if you buy a DVD, you are not allowed to play it in a movie theater without paying additional licensing costs. These are restrictions on what you can do with the content (not necessarily the media) post sale.
You are not buying a license, because the seller gives a copy of the software and the buyer gives money in return. Therefore by defition of the law a you have bought a copy of the software (a cd with content) which you become legal owner of. Note that this is a fundamental concept of a law system based on Roman law: A transaction happens that matches a definition in the law, therefore a legal fact is achieved. In this case, because the transaction matches the definition of “buying a copy”, it is suddenly legal fact that you have bought a copy. It doesn’t matter at all what seller (Apple) thinks it did. It doesn’t matter at all what the EULA says, if it says “licensed not sold” this is nonsense, the very fact that interactions between both parties match the definition of a “sale” means it was “sold, not licensed”.
Being your property you can do with your CD what you want, including putting the CD into a computer and doing the installation. This is not prevented by any law. Copyright law will prevent you making copies, but installing does not violate any copyright. Therefore copyright wise, nothing of interrest happens.
Edited 2009-07-07 23:01 UTC
If I buy OSX and install it on my home-made PC, that is no problem for Apple.
If I help my neighbour install OSX on his home-made PC, that is no problem for Apple.
If someone thinks he can make a living out of helping people with OSX on his idea of better hardware, Apple has a problem.
With BSD as the fundament, (no Apple developement!) it sounds a bit like a wheaning kid, I do want that whaaaaa.
Time for Apple to become a grown-up compagny and sell OSX like a software-product and let the customer decide what to do with it.
They can keep on selling their own hardware with OSX, giving support an being “different” with their design’s that were not altogether their own . . . .
Don’t be petulant. Apple clearly did do development on the BSD foundations they used. Darwin is NOT BSD. They have similarities, no doubt, but they are not they same.
Also please do remember the darwin (bsd bit) is only a small part of what makes OSX
While that is true, IMO they still act like a child. They have decided drop their own architecture and become a PC vendor, competition on the hardware side is the logical result of that.
Apple were heavily involved with PPC but at the end of the day it was IBM and moto (freescale as that part of moto became) who made the chips.
Various arguments about, but they did not compete with intel’s x86 implementation
Apple switched to intel.
You are correct in that they must now compete on a level field hardware wise with Dell, HP and Bob the (PC) Builder.
Where I disagree with your assumption is that Apple now have no right to protect the software work they have carried out and protect the consumer.
You infer (and correct me if I’m wrong) that Apple should endorse others selling their software. While I myself have enjoyed a play with a hackintosh or two, I am under no delusions that its a square peg in a round hole.
A PC manufacturer selling OSX preinstalled implies a level of support and suitability for use in the business sectors. It is not. Although the PCs they sell are a good spec for a lower price than Apple offer, would you entrust your livelihood to it?
I don’t think it is right to sell a product to market under the implication that it is ‘a mac without the mac price tag’ without making clear its shortcomings.
…if PearPC (a very obscure firm for the middle class Joe) or Psystar (some other obscure firm about to be broke) will make ANY impact into the European market. Apple computers are an extremely rara avis here. Is not even like 1 to … 100 ratio (I know, pulled the number out of my ass but I’m sure ratio is even lower). I wouldn’t worry too much if I was Apple. Release the Lava Leopard and make it work on Apple only machines (I bet there’s a way Apple can uniquely identify their machines), make updates for Snow Leopard (hell, even this one can be made to run only on Apple machines) available only for Apple machines and suddenly Pear & Psystar will run into problems.
I give them until the holidays season. After that, I bet they will be either settle (which was probably the reason they stepped in) or they will be out of business due to technical problems.
Let’s make sure we’re on the same page here… PearPC is a PPC emulator – PearC is a company selling X86-based Mac clones.
Please don’t confuse everyone
You sure did pull that number out of your ass. 45% of Apple’s sales come from Europe and Japan, mainly Europe.
And what is the ratio of non-Apple PC’s and the 45% non-US Apples sold overseas?
It is? Check this (another) one picked out from the same southern part of me: what is the (roughly) percentage of the Apple computers sold in the world? Like 1 in 50? Less? I bet is less but for the sake of argument let’s suppose is 1 in 50. You say 45% is sold in Japan&Europe and that Europe gets the bigger cut,say 60%,no, I give you 80%. That will give (very roughly) 1 Apple computer out of 150 other ones. Again,irrelevant to the computer user population in Europe. But as I said, I’m ready to bet the ratio is even lower. And no, I’m not at all biased against Apple. I use Apple machines since 1997. Hell, even today I still have 3.
I would prefer, if companies would not tell us what we can and cannot do with our hard earned money.
Personally if I want to different oil in my car, use different carts in my printer or a different OS on my computer, I shouldn’t have to go to jail or be sued.
This corporate fascist society we have here in the United States is getting to be a pain in the arse, where you can’t own anything, only corporations do.
Yet, the private citizen pays the majority of the taxes.
If it wasn’t for the fact the political system in the USA is so bought off, I would start a political movement.
It just won’t make a difference.
-Hack
You somehow think paying $129 for an operating system means you own it?
You bought a license to use it on your systems for however long those systems run.
You can always hire a team to write you an operating system.
That oughta be cheap.
Are you one of the people that thinks “owning” software is about owning the intellectual property rights?
This is about owning copies of the software. I.e. a shop has a copy of the software in property, sells this to customer, result is the copy of the software becomes the customer’s property.
As everyone can do with his property as he sees fit, the seller looses all power to control how the software is being used. As long as the customer does not violate Apple’s copyrights, Apple has no right at all to enforce what people do with their property.
Regarding licenses, it is important to distinguish copyright licenses from EULAs. A copyright license gives someone permission do things copyright law normally forbit. The GNU GPL is an example of a copyright license.
On the other hand an EULA tries to control what a user tries to do with the software. They directly conflict with the principles of selling and the sales agreement, which is a very important principle in laws of European countries. The invoice often being used as the proof of the sales agreement. After both parties have fullfilled their requirements of the sales agreement (seller: give the software, buyer: pay), it is considered closed and the software has changed property.
There can be away to legally do EULAs: Make them part of the sales agreement, if there is a way the consumer can read the EULA before the sale, a reference on the invoice is then enough. However, even in this case, the seller transfers his property rights to the buyer, loosing a lot of control.
Summary: You can own software after having paid $129 and the EULA is most of the times illegal (but not always), not because it is forbidden, but it is simply incompatible with the law principles in many European countries.
Edited 2009-07-05 07:06 UTC
I think paying €100 for a COPY of an OS makes me the rightful owner of this particular copy. I am bound by copyright laws, but otherwise I can do what I please with it.
I bought a copy of an OS, and am given the right to fair use it. I am allowed by copyright to make a backup copy of it, and install it onto one computer to put it to the use advertised by the copyright owner.
ANY terms and conditions made known to me AFTER the sales contract was signed and which want to take away some rights I assumed of having when buying the CD are simply invalid.
And quite frankly, I do not understand what Apple is whining about, they are paid handsomely for their OS.
has always been a sure sign for a lucrative business.
I guess everyone should avoid Apple products then, since they had significantly more resources – yet almost managed to run themselves into the ground 10 years ago.
Actually, *coming out* of chapter 11, despite fighting an expensive court battle waged by an 800lb gorilla is pretty impressive. That takes some revenue. Especially since attorneys don’t let themselves get into a position of losing money to a client that files chapter 11. They make sure they get paid.
So that facet of this drama *does* suggest that the market could be quite lucrative.
The fact that Apple feels so strongly about preventing hardware competition in their market suggests that they *know* it would be a very lucrative business. And they want to keep all of the lucre for themselves, consumer be damned.
Edited 2009-07-05 23:01 UTC
You don’t get it, hey?
It s not the case of re-selling your PC or your iPhone!!!!
It is not the case of re-selling your copy of OSX!!!!
It is not the case of installing your OSX on your privately used PC!!!
You can it and shout it out to the world what a technically savvy bloke you are.
Ask DELL or HP which OS they’d rather pre-install on their PCs. OSX of course.
Why don’t they? BECAUSE APPLE REFUSES TO SELL THEM LICENSES
Why don’t Psystar and Pear PC sell their PCs with Windows or Linux pre-installed?
That’s okay. Nothing forces Apple to sell copies (!) to HP or Dell. But apparently, Psistar and PearC are still able to buy copies. But there is also really no law that forbids them to install PC’s with those copies.
That is fine, however:
…and yet it is in the courts as we speak.
The PearC is not in courts and the legality of its business has until now not been disputed by Apple.
This is indeed unlike the Psystar case, but nobody has denied that the U.S. situation is different, the law system is totally different there.
It is very likely that Dell and HP are only willing to pay $15-25 per licence. They wouldn’t even consider paying full retail prices. That is why Apple won’t sell OSX to them.
They’ve never been offered and never will.
Steve Jobs will be dead or out of Apple in the near future. Then a lot will change.
Apple refuses to sell them bulk wholesale licensing. But legally (IMO) there’s nothing stopping Dell or HP from buying OSX at full retail just like Pystar.
Not sure about Pear C, but Pystar does sell computers will Windows and Linux installed. Choose the computer model, choose the OS, and Pystar builds to your specs. From a consumer’s standpoint, what could be better?
————–
Here I did it again – confusing or mis-typing PearPC and Pear C. Now there’s a cause for a copyright lawsuit…
Edited 2009-07-05 16:58 UTC
Psystar does actually, along the side of the osx pcs
Your ignoring Jurisdiction. Psystar is within US law and, being in court for more than an hour, seems to be in a legal grey area currently being clarified.
PearC is within EU law which clearly allows for the business model unless next week’s news involves another court case.
Stop trying to impose US law on jurisdictions outside of US borders. (meant generally for everyone who keeps arguing that it’s illegal while conveniently ignoring the local law)