Submitted by Just when you thought you saw it all. So, we all know about Psystar, the two lawsuits between them and Apple, and all the other stuff that’s been regurgitated about ten million times on OSNews alone. Well, that little company has taken its business to the next level – by announcing an OEM licensing program.
The Florida clone maker sent out a press release today, in which it announced its OEM licensing program. Under the program, the Mac clone maker will license its ‘virtualization technology’ (which, as far as I understand it, means an EFI implementation and a bootloader) to other manufacturers. Psystar will certify other companies’ computers, making them Psystar Certified, allowing them to use their technology to run Mac OS X on non-Apple labelled computers.
In an effort to spread the Snow Leopard experience to an ever-expanding number of people, the licensing initiative will allow manufacturers to have their hardware Psystar Certified and have their computers pre loaded with our unique technology including the Darwin Universal Boot Loader (DUBL). Qualifying products must fall in Desktop, Server or Mobile categories. Once a product is certified, consumers can purchase it off the shelf or through standard channels and when labeled Psystar Certified would allow the installation of Snow Leopard simply by inserting the retail OS X DVD.
The Psystar certified machines would receive normal updates through the “Safe Update” technology (that negates the “normal”, right?). The press release curiously emphasises that customers can install Mac OS X Snow Leopard themselves. This is a rather clear indication of the path the company will follow in the future were they to lose the legal cases with Apple. Were they to lose, Psystar will cease installing Mac OS X, and will leave it up to the consumers. I can see them selling machines completely ready to boot and install Mac OS X, which Psystar happens to ship alongside these machines in a box. Apple couldn’t really do anything about that, now, could it?
Stuff like this brings a smile to my face. Sure, I doubt this license program will get anywhere, but at least these guys are not afraid of Apple, nor are they in it for the money (i.e., a big settlement with Apple). You may question their methods, but at least they are trying to accomplish something we should all want: control over the hardware we buy, control over the software we buy.
well if psystar thought they could get in more bullshit: that is piled higher and deeper, this sure is a sure bet!
Unfortunately im sorta torn in this matter, if psystar dev’d their own boot loader, thats cool, if they are making a hack off of the OSX86 Community’s blood sweat and tears then im pissed. Im hoping this doesnt turn into a efix debacle.
should we start placing bets on when apple will come crasing down on them in a hell fire and brimestone laden wrath? or will apple actually make a public press conference about how they are pissed at people building hackintoshes?
Surprisingly apple has not made any sort of public disclosure about hacktosh boxen, and or publicly acknowledged their existance other than in the form of bricked updates.
dr. d
should we start placing bets on when apple will come crasing down on them in a hell fire and brimestone laden wrath?
Even if Apple wanted to do that there is actually very little they can do. They are trying to stop PsyStar as much as they can, but they can’t ever completely shut them down, and OSX86 is completely open-source and doesn’t contain any violating code so there’s even less they can do about that.
I am personally only interested in the legal circumstances about this; what will the court decide about PsyStar’s practices, what are the ramifications of it and so on. I have no personal interest in ever owning a Hackintosh.
apple could add enter your macs serial number to install
How long will it be before serial numbers are cracked? A couple of days? Even going to product activation and product keys, will that work for long? And if they start turning off copies of the OS, how many false positives will there be?
Product activation for Windows is hard enough when all you are trying to do is stop people updating bootleg copies. When you are trying to stop people use hardware bought someplace else, and when your own components are changing all the time. I guess you can put in some kind of chip, like the rom that Apple used to use. How long till that gets cracked? A couple of weeks?
This is basically dead, both technically and legally. It will take a while for everyone involved to accept it, but its over as an issue. The question now is about the market implications as it goes forward.
Apple could make it a hell to be a clone user
Hm.. I’ve a powerPC Apple. Since I won’t get updates too much longer and can’t update to the latest major OS version release.. can I use it’s serial number to legitimize a hackintosh replacement? This, provided they enable a serial number verification and I retain the PowerPC brick of hardware as proof of license?
hm…
your mac is obsolete no new mac os x version for you before you buy a new mac
Won’t happen. All they would do by public pronouncements is incite people to make hackintoshes. And this last move is an act of genius which must have been inspired by the new Psystar legal team.
The problem is, there is no copyright infringement going on, as long as it is either the end user and owner of the retail copy who does the installation, or some one acting with his authorization. See Title 17 S117 for the US law on the subject, and see Softman and recently Vernor vs Autodesk for case law on whether purchased retail copies are owned or licensed.
The only thing which is open to civil suit is thus that the installer is violating the EULA clause that mandates your hardware must be sourced from Apple.
So if Psystar simply certifies that a machine will work with OSX, and the end user then does the installation himself, its the end user who is violating the EULA. It is the end user who clicks through and enters into the secondary contract with Apple, and who breaks one of the terms. It is thus the end user who will have to be sued.
Welcome to the public relations world of the RIAA. Lets see what it does to Apple’s image to be suing hundred, thousands, tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of end users, all of them legitimate customers who have bought retail copies of OSX, but have just bought their hardware someplace else.
This is dead in the water. A brilliant strategem. One looks forward to seeing Apple’s response, but its hard to see what could work against this one.
Ah, but what about the DMCA? It could be argued that Psystar is providing tools to circumvent Apple’s methods of preventing OS X from running on non-Apple hardware. Recent lawsuits have decided that it doesn’t even have to be good protection, just be there. And you’re not allowed to break it.
But this aside, Psystar would simply do what the hackintosh forum is doing. Except they do it for money. Apple’s biggest problem has always been the hardware clones. Apple sells hardware. Their OS is just the added value to make that hardware more attractive. If end users want to tinker with OS X themselves, they’re fine with it. But if a rival company tries to hurt their hardware sales, that’s another thing.
I personally feel that if I device a really nice piece of hardware, and also a nice piece of software to go with it, and make a nice profit out of selling the two, it’s entirely my merit. I don’t see why someone else should be able to sell much cheaper hardware with MY software and undercut my business. They can build their own software and God bless them. So I’m with Apple in spirit on this one.
The DMCA has an out for interoperability and cracking to allow competitive offerings. This is a non-starter. Check out garage door openers and printer cartridge cases.
I also don’t believe that Apple’s business model is the way of making the highest returns from the OS. That model is to force people to buy stuff they do not want in order to generate margin from it. However, and we can’t know for sure without seeing the internal accounts, its at least plausible that they would get more margin from selling more copies of the OS at no incremental cost to anyone who wants it, not engaging in lawsuits, and just selling their hardware either with OSX or Windows installed to anyone who wants it. Its arguable in short that their strength is being a designer brand, not in being a supplier who only sells their stuff in bundles.
Apple thinks of itself as being a hardware vendor, but this is really an illusion. Its a hardware reseller, just like Dell, and using the same OEMs. But Apple is deeply conservative, and there are probably lots of total no-go areas when it comes to strategy discussions, and these will stay, at least as long as Jobs is around. But the business model is not necessarily correct, and one day it will probably be changed, when Jobs leaves.
Don’t forget, there are huge costs involved in being a hardware vendor. These are not at all the same level if you are just selling incremental extra copies of an OS. Especially not if you sell it only warranted to run on a restricted range of hardware components, which means no extra costs at all, if these are the ones you are using anyway.
Your point about what Apple wants? Well of course that is what they want, that is what all suppliers want, they want to tie the bits of their product line that people want to other bits that they do not want, and get more of the total market and more margin.
The law, unfortunately, is not about what suppliers want. Its about the rules governing how they compete with each other for customers, and what tactics they may or may not use as they do this. It is not about one supplier stopping another doing something, or stopping another customer doing something, because they dislike it.
Any more than on the baseball field one can stop the pitcher throwing a curveball because one finds it harder to hit. The rules are the rules, if you don’t like them, don’t play. Or play a different game in a different country.
So what Apple likes? Who cares? Not the law, that’s for sure.
Edited 2009-10-06 10:52 UTC
Apple didn’t devise the hardware though. In fact, bar the logic board, it’s just standard PC hardware.
And you can’t even argue that the logic board is what seperates the OS X’s performance / stability from a typical PC World-built (for example) Windows desktop.
Apple aren’t the hardware OEMs, they’re hardware middle men. They’re a software house that pre-loads their products onto off-the-shell hardware.
Competition laws say why other companies SHOULD be allowed to undercut you.
And if Apple don’t want to compete in price, then they should just continue to compete on quality.
After all, if their hardware is so fraking magical (like Jobs like to exclaim), then people will continue to buy their hardware from Apple.
Anyway, this thing sounds me kind of cynical; I think I can compete with MY software developed by MY company using MY developers, etc…
Getting profit using someone else’s investment is simply a shameless activity.
Apple are still getting profit from their development though.
Apple are still selling copies of OS X regardless of whether its installed on hardware inside a white plastic case with a black silhouette of an Apple, or Psystars own PCs.
This is the crux of the matter and why Psystar haven’t already been shutdown: because Apple still selling their software to Psystar, thus Apple are still making money from Psystar – just not as much.
Edited 2009-10-06 14:53 UTC
You can also make an argument that they’re making more profit as a result.
Ha. This is so off the mark it’s basically hallucination.
Apple is a hardware maker. Hardware is their bread and butter. The software (OS X, iTunes, ITS, AppStore) are there to make the hardware more attractive.
Have they not shown any innovation? Haven’t they put any care into their hardware products? If they’re really so mundane, so “off-the-shelf”, why isn’t the world filled with Apple-quality hardware? Why did it take Apple to turn the portable music player and smartphone markets on their heads? Why isn’t everybody doing it?
Ah, could it be that the software is attractive too? Damn right. And I bet lots of companies would like to be able to bundle OS X with their own computers. Guess what: you can’t.
Not if you break other laws in the process. And by bundling OS X you break basic copyright law. Apple made the software and Apple gets to dictate what you can do with it. You can’t do what Psystar is doing. Period.
The Apple vs Psystar suits will show this. And I suggest you think really long and hard about what it would mean if Apple loses, because it would be a blow for copyright itself.
Well, US judges disagree with you. I think I’m opting for their judgement, not your uninformed indoctrinated nonsense.
I think that requires a little clarification Thom.
What judgements are you referring to ?
Is the Apple vs Psystar suit over and I haven’t heard of it? If you meant another suit please link to the decision. Otherwise you’re showing just as uninformed as me.
I won’t mention “indoctrinated” because there’s no need, you’ve long ago proved your bias time and time again. I just wish you’d embrace it and come out with it; say “yes, I like Microsoft and regard Apple and Linux with contempt.” I mean, it would be the minimum of disclosure you could offer, given you’re publishing on a website called “OS News”, not “Windows News”.
And no, I don’t mean you don’t do other good work. It’s just that you’re biased and you’re in the closet about it. I do it, I state “I’m with Apple on this one”, or “I’m a long time Linux user and passionate about it”. It’s not hard, why can’t you?
Bias or not, he’s right though.
And for the record – he’s never came across as that biased to me.
If anything, peole use to complain that he posted too much Linux news. So I don’t get how he’s “anti-linux”
Edited 2009-10-07 07:33 UTC
I am against EULAs, yes, that’s right. It has nothing to do with Apple. I hate Microsoft’s EULAs just as much.
If all you can come up with is the tired old nonsense about me being anti-Apple – even though I probably sent more money their way than you have – then your position is weaker than I already thought it was.
As for cases – we’ve got Softman/Adobe, and the recent Autodesk/Verner. Both cases stated quite clearly that software is purchased, not licensed, and as such, you can resell it, and make the necessary copies for installation, or allow an other to do so. Those are the issues at the very heart of the matter. Esp. in the Autodesk/Verner case, the judge argued his decision by buikding upon A LOT of previous cases strengthening his decision.
However, you seem in agreement with companies like Apple and Autodesk, and don’t mind that companies can bind you to whatever bullshit they want in their EULAs. That’s your prerogative.
No, I’m not. And you’re being childish.
Is it that hard to understand that there are different issues at stake here?
I happen to personally agree with and enjoy the fact that copyright extemption and first sale have been upheld in Verner vs Autodesk. But that has nothing to do with Apple vs Psystar. And no matter how much you and others wish for it to be so, it’s just not the case, sorry!
Apple vs Psystar is not about the right of the individual buyer to resale. You’re free to resell OS X. You’re free to find certain ways of making OS X run on any hardware you want. Do it and enjoy it.
But you can’t let a company do this for you, at cost. Because Apple made OS X, and they get to say how it can be distributed and modified, and Psystar is in clear violation. The copyright extemption, the one upheld in Verner vs Autodesk, is for the individual buyer. Psystar can’t use it. And you, the original buyer of OS X, can’t grant them this right, because it’s not yours to give. It’s Apple’s, and Apple are not granting it.
Furthermore, Psystar is using methods of circumventing the stuff in OS X that makes it run only on Apple hardware. That’s being regarded as a DMCA violation and has already been upheld in MDY vs Blizzard.
I’m not sure how much clearer I can spell it. Perhaps I should take your example and come up with colourful pictures.
If anything, I’m being the more clear-headed between the two of us, Thom. I don’t let my personal feelings in these matters cloud the fact that the US law is what it is. What would be the point? Regardless of how you or I feel about this, wishing for something won’t make it true.
i didn ‘t say any of that. stop exaggerating what I said to try and win your own point.
The world is filled with “Apple-quality hardware”.
it ‘s also filled with poorer quality hardware too, but you CAN buy “Apple-quality hardware” off the shell.
As I said before, Apple don’t own Intel so why would Intel deny their biggest userbase (Windows) their best processors? To suggest that PC users can’t build solid systems with high-quality components is absoltely insane.
this isn’t about embedded devices, it’s about desktops.
However, if you want to talk about embedded devices, then you should know that:
* the iPhone isn’t the only capacitive nor multi-touch smartphone handset
* the iPhone wasn’t the 1st device to have an app store
* the iPhone wasn’t the 1st smartphone to have a digital compass
* the iPhone wasn’t the 1st smartphone to have GPS, 3G, Edge or an number of other features.
…i could go on, but I’m at work.
So sure, the iPhone shook up the market and combined a number of existing technologies together very well and with a well thought out UI. But it’s not the all singing and all dancing JesusPhone (TM) some make out.
But as I said before, this topic isn’t about embedded devices so lets please stay on topic.
That’s for the courts to decide – not you.
I don’t think you understand copywrite law nor this case.
I’d suggest you read through the [read more] rather than posting “knee-jerk reactions” to the headlines.
This case is a great deal more complex than you’re simplifying and Psystar are within their rights to hack the open source kernel as described by the terms of the kernel’s license.
I would go into more detail about how you’ve misunderstood the complexity of the situation, but I wouldn’t do the case any justice and Thom’s already spent hours reviewing the situation for people to read (or not in your case).
That’s a laugh.
OK, how about we turn over to someone who analysed the premise of this case carefully?
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009081716312060
It even refers to a relevant case. And no, it’s not the one most people around here seem to refer to (Vernor vs Autodesk). Why? Read the article to find out why.
MDY vs Blizzard has everything I keep saying Psystar vs Apple has. It has DMCA. It has copyright law. But noo, what do I know, I’m “ignorant and indoctrinated”, to quote Thom.
Get it through your thick heads: EULAs used to be solely about click-through shrink-wrap contracts, yes. But the companies got smarter. They’ve pulled in copyright and DMCA. Software that is no longer sold but licensed. This changes things. How: we’ll see when Apple vs Psystar is over. In the meantime, MDY vs Blizzard should give you and idea.
WoW is a subscription based purchase rather than a one off payment such as OS X. Thus Blizzard can dictate additional contractual agreements users have to agree to prior to purchase but Apple can’t.
So I don’t see those cases as “identical” as you or the article suggests.
But I will have another – more in depth – read through in case my initial analysis was unfair.
However, the fact still remains that (as far as I’ve seen published) there have been more case studies one in court defending Psystar than there have been defending Apple.
But like a lot of legal Proceedings based on legal grey areas – the only reliable case study will be the outcome of that specific case itself.
The issue between the two cases is this.
In the case of Psystar, what is being argued against is that the owner of a copy, or Psystar as his agent, performed an installation. In doing so they made copies. However, they were granted the right to make those copies under Title 17 S117 because it was essential to make those copies to use the software of which they owned a copy with a machine.
In no way can it be argued that it is necessary to install Glider to use the Warcraft packages with a machine. So the essential difference is that the conduct of a Hackintosher is protected under copyright law, and is thus not a copyright violation.
This means that even if you get sued for installing OSX on the ‘wrong’ kind of machine, you will get sued for breaking a civil contract, not for violation of copyright law. Which is much, much more serious and a criminal not simply civil matter.
Not if you break other laws in the process. And by bundling OS X you break basic copyright law. Apple made the software and Apple gets to dictate what you can do with it. You can’t do what Psystar is doing. Period.
This is a mistake about what US law says. The applicable code is Title 17 Section 117. It provides that the owner of a copy of software may make, or authorize someone else to make, any copies of that software that are essential to using it with a machine.
Then we have the two cases of Vernor vs Autodesk and Softman, in which it has been found that to purchase a retail copy is a purchase transaction, and not a license.
So we start out with the position that for me to make or authorize someone else to make any copies or modifications of my retail copy of OSX is lawful under copyright, as long as those copies or modifications are essential to use with a machine. As long as OSX is not a live CD/DVD, copies made in way of installation on a machine are obviously essential to use with that machine.
Now, the next part of S117 says that I can only sell those copies on as part of the sale of the original retail copy with the permission of the copyright holder. Aha, you cry, Psystar did not have such permission. Die, Psystar, die!
Not so fast Moriarty! The question now turns on whether Psystar was the owner of the retail copy at the time that it did the installation. If it turns out that Psystar had charged the customer’s credit card or in some other way transferred ownership of the retail copy of OSX before it did the installation, it was simply acting as the person authorized by the customer to do the installation, and as far as copyright goes, this is perfectly lawful.
You then go on to say
Apple made the software and Apple gets to dictate what you can do with it.
This is hallucination or fantasy. The maker of software, whether its Apple, you, me or Microsoft, does not get to tell buyers of retail copies what they can do with it. The maker of CAD/CAM does not get to tell buyers they are not permitted to do boats. The maker of word processing software does not get to tell people they may not write religious tracts, or porn. In general, the maker of graphics software does not get to tell people what graphics cards they may or may not use. No software maker gets to tell people who and under what terms they may resell their copies to. And so on.
Once you have transferred ownership of a retail copy of software, your rights over what the buyer can do with it are only the rights which the EULA contract give you. Those are limited by the law of contract in your jurisdiction, which determine how contracts may be entered into, as well as by the law governing what terms of contracts are enforceable and valid – for instance, consumer protection and anti-trust law. It is highly likely that in most jurisdictions a EULA term which dictates where you buy the hardware you use with a given piece of software will be found unenforceable.
If you think about this, consider the ridiculous situation it would create were it to be possible. Company A tells you you can only use its software by buying your nVidia graphics cards from it. Company B tells you you must buy them from it. You buy them on the open market, install both bits of software, and both sue you. Does this make any kind of sense to you?
Verson vs Autodesk is not relevant to Apple vs Psystar. See here why:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009081716312060
Whoa there. “Modifications?” Verbatim copy is one thing, modification is another. The law says “adaptations”, and if you think that means “modifications” then you have a suprise coming your way.
Yes they can.
You probably read US law, most likely 17 § 106, and thought “here’s what the copyright owner can do”.
You’re wrong. Yeah, that’s a set of rights the software maker automatically gets. But the thing is, you, the buyer, GET NOTHING. You don’t have ANY rights to that piece of software. You can’t do anything at all with it.
The only thing that grants you ANY rights is the copyright license you get from Apple. You don’t have to agree to it. If you don’t, you’re back to square one (no rights at all).
If Apple (or Microsoft, or anybody writing any software) say “you have to stand on your head when you use this piece of software”, they can.
Now, it doesn’t mean it applies. Taking some of your examples, we see that they infringe on fundamental liberties of the individual, so they won’t apply.
But Apple is making provisions that are perfectly sensible and DO apply. Because they have to do with modification and redistribution of the software, and that’s very much the realm of copyright law.
Yes, you can make copies for personal use. Yes, you can perform adaptations of hardware and software so you can run OS X (because the law made an exception saying you can). But a company cannot necessarily make a business out of doing this for you. It’s alright with, say, Linux or Windows, because their licenses allow it. But the OS X license doesn’t.
Edited 2009-10-07 07:45 UTC
As much as I respect PJ, I don’t trust her one bit when it comes to the Psystar case. She is seeing a major consipriacy here, where she thinks Microsoft is behind it all, and that it’s all part of an elaborate attack on the GPL, tied to the SCO case.
I can’t take her assessments seriously anymore. She lost a lost of credibility in my book when she started that black helicopter nonsense.
Don’t change the subject. We’re not talking about PJ’s conspiracy theory (BTW, she was right about the SCO case).
We are talking about what cases are relevant to Apple vs Psystar. PJ quotes extensively from a decision from an US judge, on a case very similar to Apple vs Psystar. And it’s that judge, not PJ, who explains why Verner vs Autodesk doesn’t apply.
As was already pointed out to you, that case is NOT similar. The WoW case concerns a subscription service, and therefore, it is in acompletely different ballpark than Apple/Psystar – as the judge in the Autodesk case ALSO mentioned.
PJ or no PJ, she is off the mark on this one. And I’m sorry, but I can’t shake the feeling that her judgment is clouded by the black helicopter nonsense.
You probably read US law, most likely 17 § 106, and thought “here’s what the copyright owner can do”.
No, I read 17 § 117, and Vernor vs Autodesk, and suggest everyone else does, too.
Trivial solution. stop selling your software without your hardware. If your software only comes pre-installed on your hardware and there is no way for me to buy your software separately, then I cannot (re-)sell it. Problem solved.
Why someone can sell your software without your hardware;
You chose to sell retail copies of your software off the store shelf without your hardware.
In countries where EULA related law is more rational, this means that the purchased retail unit becomes the property of the consumer will all rights provided by copywrite there in. Your EULA which removes rights from copywrite is thus over-ruled by the copyright law and probably laws invalidating post-purchase contracts.
The question of the EULA’s validity remains in the US though that is one key item making this case worth watching closely.
//Won’t happen. All they would do by public pronouncements is incite people to make hackintoshes.//
Er .. yah, incite maybe 200 people to make hackintoshes, in the grand scheme of things.
The number of folks that would go to the trouble of actually doing that is SO LOW compared to the number of folks how would buy a Mac, it’s not even funny.
It’s plainly obvious: Apple could care less about hackintoshes, because they know that the OVERWHELMING majority of computer users would rather buy a Mac than build one.
Edited 2009-10-06 14:04 UTC
Imagine if it happened though.
Apple’s PR guy with a shocked look on his face; “uh.. how many people just publicly claimed love for there hackintosh and how many where new since our press release??”
And all those folk who where inspired to consider a hackintosh after it’s public advertisement through Apple’s press release; “Apple software sales have increased how much since they said that thing about not being allowed to do this??”
Irony in there own decree driving an increase in the item they decry while users rebel against it by bolstering Apple retail unit sales. hehe.. it’s be all kinds of funny if it actually happened.
I gotta say, I like the balls that these guys seem to have. You gotta at least give a nod to a company that’s throwing up a HUGE middle finger to another corporation, even if it’s about a matter of questionable legality. What will be even more amusing will be to see how long they can get away with it. Even though Apple is swimming in cash right now, I believe that they don’t want to spend millions in legal fees fighting something that will gain them nothing in return. How many PCs could Psystar possibly be selling?
You’ve gotta love those guys.
Kinda like the Asgard. (Google “Stargate SG-1” if you don’t know what I’m talking about.)
I don’t need to google to know who they are, but I don’t get the similarity.
Especially when Paystar is more similar to the Replicators.
….. however, at the end, replicators made himself human after all ….
edit:typo
Edited 2009-10-06 10:00 UTC
Actually, you are right.
I didn’t intend to mention the Asgard originally, but than I remembered O’Neill always saying the same thing about them all the time (“Love those guys!”) and I thought it’d be funny.
But if you think of Apple as the Goa’uld, comparing Psystar to the Asgard makes more sense – provided that they win in the end.
Comment deleted by the author.
Edited 2009-10-06 07:29 UTC
They’d be more like the Tok’Ra, wouldn’t they, since they’re fighting Apple while being the same thing?
Although I like PsyStar, I don’t see how PsyStar is similar to the Asgard? The Asgard built their own technology that was handed in to the SG-1 team at the very end but it came with a prize (the Ori could track them down).
You’re giving it too much thought, guys. Certainly more than I did. OK. It was an unfortunate comparison…
You know, I have been a long time Mac supporter (bought my first 15 years ago) but much of what I always liked about Apple Macintosh computers no longer exists today anyway. They were for most of their history a unique computer experience. They offered unique styling, hardware, and software. Now they are just a unique OS running on commodity hardware in a nice case. So as far as I’m concerned, I welcome the ability to have that nice Mac OS experience on discounted hardware.
Im not sure if i can say that OSX is entirely unique, its back bone is based on BSD, and is modeled after it internally. The kernel, xnu is just to crazy to explain. the difference in mac os x vs any other unix like is IOkit, aqua, and all the apple APIs.
i guess we all want pretty APIs and a stable os on cheap hardware.
dr. d
Pick two, but you can’t have all three. That is the reality of the OS world. Oh how I wish that a large OEM would embrace *BSD, create a complete software stack and sell it with their own hardware – but it won’t happen. The current bloated management in Dell and HP would sooner keep the status quo than do anything adventurous.
Yes, I am the last remaining person who believe sin the vertically integrated model – even with every idiotic half-wit analyst from the ‘financial market’ claiming that the horizontal model is superior. The day when a use Windows without recoiling away from it with disgust is the when I can see merit in the horizontal model.
You would not like the vertical model if you lived and worked in it. I am one of the few still reading about tech who can remember it. Back in those days, everything was vendor specific. The young today cannot really imagine it.
You bought from IBM and the Bunch, DEC or Control Data or similar companies, and nothing, nothing worked except what you got from your vendor. Well, dumb terminals could be obtained from third parties, and there was a good if smallish business in 3270 cluster controllers and emulators.
The result was not simply hardware restriction. You were also dramatically restricted in applications. Companies spent forever developing their own in house applications. I know it sounds insane, but you did not just buy an accounting package off the shelf back then. And then, once you had got the thing working, of course the last thing you were going to do was try to move it to a different vendor.
There is no way that world would ever have permitted what we have now (apart from Apple): a world in which you buy your hardware, which is cost and technology improved by constant competition and innovation, and a plethora of software for every purpose. That world vanished because as a whole, it could not compete with the model of independent OS, apps and hardware.
I would add that people who talk about Apple having some special quality because it ‘makes’ the hardware and the OS are talking through their hats.
OSX relates to hardware just like Windows and Linux do: through the use of DRIVERS. Apple does not make components – graphics cards, printes, sound cards, disk drives, motherboards. All it does it the same thing Dell does, it gets some Far Eastern OEM to assemble standard stuff into boxes. Once in those boxes, OSX relates to them no better and no worse and no differently than Linux or Windows. It just uses the drivers. Some of which may be written by Apple, just as some are written by MS, and some of which may be written by the vendors. There is no difference in terms of integration.
The only difference is the number of drivers available, which is rather larger in the case of Linux and Windows.
The other aspect is applications. And here we have exactly the same thing in OSX, Windows or Linux. The applications are running on the OS in exactly the same way, they are mostly written in the same languages. No one system is any better worse or different. Its a matter of using the right compiler and IDE.
The vertical model is dead. The vertical model was an early stage thing, where hardware was so specific and determining that it was the only way to get things working, and where the OS was so individual that apps were highly OS specific.
Right now however, the world of the vertical model has gone, even for Apple. What we have now is one vendor attempting to restrict where you buy your hardware by legal means. That, folks, is not the vertical model. The vertical model was the result of real differences in hardware. It was not just IBM or Burroughs saying, I know my OS will run on any old box, but I am insisting you buy that any old box from me. It was the result of the OS simply not running on other boxes, because they were technically different.
Do not mistake what we have now in Apple for a vertical model. The Apple business model is not that. Contrary to the party line, it is simply a matter of business practice, marketing and contract. It is only to do with where you buy your standard components. It has nothing to do with the technology and everything to do with Apple’s desire to get margin on everything you do with your machine.
Which is fine, but its not a vertical model in any sense in which Dell does not have a vertical model.
I guess you didn’t pick up that I don’t mean a completely vertically integrated model – what you’re talking about is the idea of every facet of the computer kept in house. Even companies like Sun and Apple aren’t pure vertically integrated companies; in fact, there haven’t been pure vertically integrated companies for well over 30 years. Apple even in the PowerPC era, the hard disks were from one vendor, the USB controllers from another, the audio DSP from another, video card from another.
When I am talking about vertically integrated business I am talking about the operating system and computer design being under one roof – the implementation of the hardware by way of third party component construction or computer assembly isn’t important. We’ve seen with Microsoft the folly of the horizontal model where their operating system is below par when it comes to quality, the drivers are of poor quality and always someone else’s fault when problems unfold – the race to the bottom even if it means the result is less than stella. I’m still waiting for Microsoft to completely throw out all the crap from Windows and take advantage of the new API’s which they include. Why isn’t explorer.exe using DirectWrite/Direct2D? why are widgets still using GDI instead of porting them all to using DirectWrite/Direct2D?
Here we are in 2009 and Windows is still a walking disaster area – there is no incentive to Microsoft, there is no incentive for the individual hardware – mediocrity rules the roost in the Wintel vertical market world. Everyone is responsible and in turn no one is responsible – thus all responsibility is absolved by spreading the blame around as wide as possible.
The saving grace; the closer I follow Linux, I see improvements each day – its not going to happen by the end of this year, or the middle of next year but there is direction and focus. You will eventually see a grass roots movement just as there was a grass roots movement of people moving to Mac even before the marketing hit the screen. Heck, New Zealand we have no Mac marketing on television and yet talk to any retailers and they’ll tell you that the hardware is moving faster than it ever has – even with the economic downturn.
…to certify my hardware? Surely if I just buy the EFI and bootloader from Pystar I can load it on whatever hardware I like and sell it and advertise the fact that it uses Pystar’s technology.
And why should it have to be in the Server, Desktop or Mobile market? If I want to build an embedded device that uses it why should they be able to tell me what I can and can’t use it on?
I am buying it after all aren’t I?
If it’s good for the goose…
That seems to be the point.
Psystar sells a license for the proprietary boot loader and provides a list of hardware known to work with osX.
You buy the boot loader license and if your hardware is on the list of known good hardware then you get to say “Psystar Certified”.
Psystar buys osX and installs it on hardware which apple will not stamp as “Apple certified”. You can go right on ahead and buy Psystar’s software and your own osX to install on hardware which Apple will not stamp “Apple certified” and Psystar may not stamp “Psystar certified” on. No problem.. No gander complaining about being held to the same standards demanded fo the goose.
(of course, you could get anything from an EFI dongle to the FOSS boot loader without Psystar’s help)
I am quite impressed with the characters running Psystar. You really have to acknowledge that these chaps don’t quit easily – this new idea of getting the users to install the OS by themselves is absolutely brilliant.
I think it is perfectly reasonable that a person would opt to install a software they purchased on a machine of their own choice.
… but never tried yet,is to put on my main computer (pretty powerful I must say) OS X. Just to see how it feels compared with my Mac(s). I really fancy the idea of using some 1400$ computer instead of a 3000$ MacPro.
More on to the subject:how does Psystar prove they have bought each and every copy of OS X they deliver with their systems? If Psystar will make Apple put some serial/licensig scheme for their Macs,then f–k you Psystar!
Apple’s problem is, Macs are simply PCs. There is no difference in hardware terms except that Apple has chosen to use EFI. The only difference between a Mac so called and a PC is where you bought it. A Mac is just a generic PC, but bought from Apple. Mostly they are a weird selection of standard components – a mixture usually of an insanely expensive processor coupled with mid range disk, memory and graphics cards. Well, the graphics cards are sometimes decidedly bargain basement.
Whatever, they may be configurations no sensible person would assemble if they had a choice, but they are configurations of standard PC parts, so they are just standard, if somewhat weird, PCs.
So their problem is that they have to find some way of marking the fact that the hardware has been bought from Apple, if they want to keep on with the prohibition. This is not down to Psystar, it is down to the way Apple chooses to conduct its business, and the evolution of the industry. Apple would have the exact same problem with or without Psystar. It is like blaming a particular mountain for a landslide, when the problem is, the villages are in an earthquake zone.
Apple is trying to implement its model by legal restraints, which seem likely to fail. Then it will have to fall back on technical ones. EFI worked for a while, but has now fallen, as it always was going to, being an open standard. What else is left? Product activation? Special codes? All of the above. But using them to restrict where a guy buys his PC is going to get real interesting. Its much easier to use this stuff to stop illegal copying. Using it to control the source of parts is a real challenge. In the end, the only thing you could hope to control is the main board. Are they really going to put a special chip on the otherwise standard main boards? And somehow stop that being defeated in about a week? It will any way turn into a public relations disaster. At some point the story stops being ‘integration’ and starts being ‘Apple willfully crippling hardware’.
I think they will try, but basically, its over. It was over when they went to x86, not that there was any real choice in the matter. Its surprising that it has taken so long.
It’s not over by a long-shot.
How many people are willing to build their own machine? A very slim percentage, no matter how nice OS X is. And that’s assuming that OS X was built to run on any hardware, which I seriously doubt. It may run, but it won’t be the same experience as on the hardware it was meant for.
And since we’re talking about it, I see many people saying “Macs are just like PCs, built from standard components”. Good, then what’s stopping other manufacturers from producing stuff that’s just as good? And if they are, then why can’t you use that stuff and covet a Mac at all?
Same goes for the software. People say “oh, Apple ‘just took’ *BSD and added some stuff”. So anybody could just replicate what they did, can they? Then why don’t they? And if they did, and Linux or *BSD are really that nice, why not use that?
Basically, people are deluding themselves big time. Apple created a very nice hardware combination and a very nice OS, but asks for too much money for it. So people are under the illusion that if they just take the OS and put it on hardware they built themselves they’ll get the same experience for cheaper.
Yeah, good luck with that. Doing it in your shed as a hobby will stop being fun really fast. I build my own hardware and software (generic PC parts and Linux) and it takes a lot of passion and dedication (and side-benefits for my line of work) to stick to it. It’s no picnik.
As for hoping that a big OEM will swoop in and deliver OS X to you on cheap hardware (a la Psystar) that really really unfair to Apple. What’s stopping Psystar, or any OEM, from putting together an equally nice machine and building an equally nice OS? And why is it fair for them to destroy Apple’s business by taking the OS that they made and undercutting them?
Are you people so closed minded that you’d welcome a scenario which would ultimately destroy the very thing you want? If OS X was “liberated” from Apple and mass-sold, Apple would go down, or stop developing OS X, or crippling it. OS X as we know it would be gone.
It comes down to this: Apple built something nice and it’s entirely their merit. They are entitled to ask whatever they want for it. They are in no way a monopoly. You don’t HAVE to use Macs or OS X. If you decide to do, you pay what they ask. If you don’t, feel free to go somewhere else, there are many alternatives. Live with it.
”
How many people are willing to build their own machine? A very slim percentage, no matter how nice OS X is.
”
I think the concern is people gaining the choice of buying osX from other retailers who are willing to build their own machine with osX on it.
”
And since we’re talking about it, I see many people saying “Macs are just like PCs, built from standard components”. Good, then what’s stopping other manufacturers from producing stuff that’s just as good? And if they are, then why can’t you use that stuff and covet a Mac at all?
”
It’s not about coveting Apple’s hardware. It’s about installing Apple’s coveted software on better and/or more affordable hardware than they choose to sell it on. Other manufacturers are producing equal if not better hardware and consumers are asking for osX installed on that hardware instead of Apple’s.
On the software side, many do choose BSD or other user liberating platforms but some people want osX and it really should be about consumer choice not company dictation.
”
people are under the illusion that if they just take the OS and put it on hardware they built themselves they’ll get the same experience for cheaper.
”
No body is “just take[ing] the OS”, it’s sold on retail shelves, Apple still gets the profit margin it is sold at. No theft is taking place. Also, people are not under the illusion that they will get the same or better experience; they actually *are* getting the same or better experience by putting osX on hardware better than what Apple provides.
”
What’s stopping Psystar, or any OEM, from putting together an equally nice machine and building an equally nice OS?
”
That’s probably the reall interesting question right there. I’d personally like to see hardware companies focus on preinstalls of other OS outside of Windows and osX. I mean seriously make an effort not EeepC + Xandros kind of half-try. I’m biased though as I’d benefit from the hopefully resulting hardware vendor awareness leading to better hardware support for my own platform choices. Imagine the consumer benefits of a truly consumer driven healthy capitalist computer market. No more “oh, but our newest hardware only works with XYZ because we choose to ignore your second-class citizen platform.”
Psystar devoting budget to sweet hardware packages and working with Connonical for solid *buntu installs would be a welcome site for many I suspect. I’d be happy with the hardware driver support being passed back to Debian as a side-benefit.
And I absolutely agree with the fact that there’s basically no Apple “machinery” . All of these are made by the same (if not cheaper) Chinese/Taiwanese/Malaysian manufacturers. The fact that Apple is selling the end product with a higher price is another story. It’s the same thing as comparing a BMW 318 with Seat Leon. Both of them are outstanding cars only the Seat priced less than the Beemer.The way I see it for Apple is either :
– diversify their offer (including some really cheap setups)
– stop selling boxed OSX
Simple question for you – do Pystar machines – or any Hackintosh (or generic PC) for that matter – support Target Disk Mode? (Anyone who doesn’t understand the value of this feature alone has no clue about IT support)
Ok, make it two questions. Can a Pystar box (or generic PC) dynamically detect bootable devices connected to Firewire or USB ports or present in an optical drive, at startup, with a single keypress?
Alright, three. Point me at a supplier of standard components from which I can build a Mac Mini form factor system.
Standard components thrown together in a box < standard components in a system engineered for integration, style and ease of use…
Eaxctly. You can build a Mac, but you can’t build an Apple Mac.
Apple’s case designs and form-factors are simply better than the rest of the industry.
Those, my friend, are SOFTWARE features, provided by OpenFirmware (PowerPC) or EFI (Intel). OF and EFI are both not Apple technologies, and are in fact used by other companies too; OF, for instance, is on my Ultra 5, and provides the same features.
It has nothing to do with the hardware or integration. It’s a simple case of using something else than a BIOS. The features you mention are part of the firmware, not the hardware.
EDIT: except the case tyhing, obviously.
Edited 2009-10-06 13:07 UTC
I’ll give you that one. Firewire target disk mode is incredibly useful. As more PC’s go EFI, you’ll see something similar eventually as an EFI module that can be easily installed.
Actually I know of quite a few PC’s that can do this and while not as pretty, most will offer a menu of boot devices with a single keypress.
Ever heard of Mini-ITX? Been living under a rock? They have mini-ITX boards with just about any combination of goodies you can imagine with lots of CPU possibilities. VIA C3/C7, Intel Atom, Intel Core, Intel P4, etc.
Don’t get me wrong, I like my 2009 Macbook White, it has VERY well balanced hardware and is a great machine but I’m not delusional. It’s a PC. It’s a very nice PC w/ a mac keyboard and EFI but it’s still a PC.
My Macbook WAS CHEAPER and PERFORMED BETTER than any other decent 13″ PC laptop available at the time contrary to the belief that macs are expensive. In OSX and Windows at that.
There’s nothing special about the HARDWARE that makes it magically easier to use, there’s no magic Jobs pixie dust that makes the components integrate better. “Stylish” I’ll give you but that’s relative. In the end, my Macbook might be shiny but it scratches if I look at it crosseyed. A nice Lenovo wouldn’t.
There’s really only one special ingredient. MacOS X. That’s it. They target it for their handful of hardware which cuts development costs and eases debugging compared to releasing it for use by the unwashed PC masses which makes for a pretty darn stable platform.
Other PCs using EFI? When’s that going to happen while Windows is still the dominant PC os? Legacy BIOS will continue rather than the much better EFI until either Windows loses its dependance on the BIOS or Windows is no longer dominant. Even if EFI were being used, a BIOS support module would still be required, so for most OEMs it’s not worth the expense to bother. Can I buy a PC motherboard with EFI yet? I’d sure like to, but they seem rather hard to find.
Windows has support for EFI on x86-64 since Windows Vista SP1. The Itanium versions of Windows supported it even earlier (2002).
Correction: It has some support for EFI on x86-64. As for Itanium, how many PCs have that? Even intel themselves have basically dropped it.
Eh? It supports EFI. Period. Windows Vista SP1 64bit and up all have EFI support.
compared to releasing it for use by the unwashed PC masses
The problem with these guys, you are quite right, they smell, and they shop in Walmart, and they mostly drive Chevy’s. And they live in the wrong neighborhoods, and they don’t drink lattes. Most of them probably don’t even know what a latte is. I bet they are still wearing Y-fronts…. God, the idea of those people being able to just buy OSX in Walmart. It makes a fellow feel like throwing up!
I hate to break it to you, but a Macintosh is a standard EFI-based Intel machine.
Isn’t this sweet? A larged corporation like Apple being owned by small firma like Psystar? After being owned previously by Os X86 comunnity?
Apple can’t stand a chance. Their only option is to sell the Os to everybody willing to buy and selling the hardware separately to clueless people who thinks that they are cool because they have bought a Mac, or a Ishit, or an Itoilet Ipaper.
Please explain me how losing court ruling after court ruling constitutes “owning”
It is like claiming you “owned” the guy who just kicked your ass last night because you hit his fist with your head repeatedly.
Did I miss something? Which ruling? The case hasn’t even started yet!
Their coutersuit was dismissed, they went into Chapter 11 and the judge told them they could not use bankruptcy to stall Apple’s original suit, which is still pending. And another judge ordered psystar to pay Apple’s legal fees.
Since their countersuit and Chapter 11 were their only resources to fight apple. They are pretty much SOL. How that could be construed by the original poster as psystar kicking Apple’s ass is beyond me.
I think that is the time that European Commissioner for Competition take act against Apple tying the OS to their hardware.
That is Apple blocking its hardware competitors out of the market through anti-competitive practices.
If MS and Intel were fined for anti-competitive practices, why can’t be Apple?
Because MS and Intel were artificially limiting the choice of customers or businesses of buying competing products. Apple is doing nothing of the sort. They are offering hardware and software and tying them together, yes. But they’re not twisting anybody’s arm to get their stuff instead of other stuff, like Microsoft and Intel are doing.
The tying itself is not illegal. Limiting customer choice is.
Sorry, but that is just what they are doing. If you want OS X, then you must also buy their crappy computer. This limits the choice of the people that do not have an Apple built PC.
It is not really fair, that you can install Windows on their hardware, but at the same time it is not legal to install their operating system to a PC, that is manufactured by someone else.
And if the Apple built computers are of so high quality, then why all the Apple forums are full of people with some kind of trouble.
Yes. But it’s not against the law. Not if they don’t force you to get Apple computers, not as long as you can get other computers and other operating systems.
One particular combination of tied-together OS + hardware is not illegal, as long as you can get other OS and other hardware.
That’s because Microsoft allows you to run Windows on whatever you can. They’re not a PC hardware company themselves so they don’t care. But Apple is, and they have to consider competition.
That might change in the future, by the way. If Microsoft ever decides to build its own computers, it will suddenly find itself in direct competition with existing PC manufacturers. Don’t be so surprised if Windows 8 (or whatever they’ll call it) will say it can only be installed on Microsoft PCs. They are building their own brick-and-mortar stores already, do they not? I doubt it’s just for Zune and Xbox and keyboards and mice. They must have more in mind. Smartphones and PCs might be next.
Look, I’m with you on this one. I feel the unfairness myself. I use Linux. If I want to buy music from the iTunes Store I need iTunes. It doesn’t run on Linux. So I need to buy Windows or OS X, which is already crazy since I’m paying for the music itself. Only I can’t use OS X unless I also buy a Mac. And so on and so forth.
Apple has built a bubble of tightly interwoven products and services. To buy into one of them means you have to buy into all. And as much as I hate that, as long as there are alternatives to everything they offer, I can’t complain.
I’m not sure that (title) would be the correct term in English, but I’d like to add one small thing to the discussion:
Here in Brazil, according to the law[1] it is illegal to tie the sale of a good or offer of a service tied to the acquisition of another good or use of another service.
I am not a lawyer but, from reading the contents of the law I pretty much believe that is what Apple is doing in the case: if they’re selling the installable discs for Mac OS X, then any EULA, Contract or whatever saying that I can only use it in Apple hardware it is a clause that violates previous law, and automatically rendered void.
So: Hey, Psystar! Come here to Brazil if all goes wrong anyways
[1] http://www.planalto.gov.br/CCIVIL/leis/L8137.htm
Unfortunately, in Portuguese as I can’t attempt to translate the legalese into English (not that skilled). But, for those interested it’s in 5th Art. (Art. 5º) II & III
Edited 2009-10-06 16:16 UTC
Yes, there are several countries with such laws and I thought about it. But I don’t see that it applies.
* If you get a Mac you get OS X for free.
* You can get OS X separately and you don’t have to get a Mac.
Yes, you can’t do anything with that copy of OS X unless you have a Mac to use it with. But this particular law doesn’t care about that.
You seem to be right, unfortunately. I’ve been talking to a lawyer and he seems to have an opinion quite similar to yours.
I’m in a hurry now, but when I have the time I’ll try to post the transcript of those conversations here.
The relevant clause says that you may only install OSX on a machine you have bought from Apple. Other machines, whether they are technically suitable or not, are not permitted. There are a couple of reasons why this clause may be unenforceable.
One, it is linking the use of one product to the purchase of another. Yes, they sell OSX by itself, but the clause forbids use of it in anything but another product. It is similar to the auto aftermarket, if a car company forbade the use of third party parts. Or take another case, could Sony forbid you to play your CD on anything except a Sony CD player? No.
Two, it is imposing post sale restraints on use, which at least in the EC are problematic.
Three, it has problems with how the contract is entered into. Its what is called in the US a contract of adhesion – that is, you are presented with it with no choice in order to use the software you’ve bought. These are much easier to challenge than contracts entered into by negotiation.
Four, it is a secondary contract entered into without consideration.
Five, it appears to seek to modify the terms of a previous and completed transaction, the purchase transaction.
Six, the terms and conditions of the EULA are not presented for informed consent at the time of the sale, so cannot be argued to be terms and conditions on sale, if so they would violate most consumer protection laws.
What is really important about the case in question is that it positively affirms that the buyer of a retail copy, even one who buys a retail copy second hand, is covered by the protections of Title 17 S117. This blows up the argument that to install in violation of EULA is contrary to copyright law.
It still may be that the EULA is enforceable, we will see, but if so it will be as a matter of civil contract between Apple and the buyer, not as a matter of copyright law.
I’m finding the gall of these people amusing – to set up an OEM cetification and licensing program for their software while at the same time they are completely disregarding the fact that Apple has not agreed to license its operating system to them for OEM resale.
Pystar has no need to “license” anything from Apple, since Psystar buys OSX copies outright. ANYONE can buy OSX – no license required.
Regarding the “Certified” label, Psystar has never claimed their products were Apple-Certified, Apple-Authorized, Apple-Approved, or anything remotely similar; that would be a violation of copyright and/or other laws.
Edited 2009-10-06 19:30 UTC
They are “licensing” to 3rd parties something on which they have no license.
Which is different that simple “reselling”
Do you think Pystar is licensing OSX to third parties?!? They aren’t.
I am not saying they are right or wrong. However, your statement is misleading, as they are not selling OS X as OEM, but rather the software they use to boot and install OS X. They are selling OS X at retail from my understanding, so not as an OEM product, nor at OEM pricing.
Those Psystar guys are f*cking crazy.