So the rumors swirling around would-be Mac clone maker
Psystar are getting pretty wild out there -- we've heard everything from "Apple has shut the company down" to "Psystar is going to challenge Apple's EULA in court" in the vacuum following the company's
site meltdown yesterday. That's a big spread, so we hit up Psystar's president Rudy Pedraza for some answers. Rudy was relatively cagey on the phone, refusing to answer any questions about Apple's EULA or copyrights -- or even confirm if Apple has talked with the company -- but he told us that he's got a "team" of people working on an official response and that the Open Computer (and the new quad-core Open Pro, pictured above) are still for sale. What's more, he told us that "a few" orders placed before yesterday's flood of interest have shipped, which means we're curious to see if any of these early adopters actually surface in the next few days. Rudy also told us that Psystar isn't out to infringe any copyrights or trademarks (really?), and that he has no idea how Information Week got a quote from someone named "Robert" indicating that the company was going to challenge Apple's EULA in court. Sure thing. Rudy promised us a machine either today or tomorrow, we'll see what happens -- honestly, it seems like things are chaos at Psystar's HQ in Miami right now.
P.S. -Remember
MGM v. Grokster? In that case the Supreme Court ruled that a company that based its business around the knowing copyright infringement of customers was still liable, even if it didn't infringe directly. Kinda shoots a hole in the "just don't pre-install Leopard" theory, no?
Read - Psystar Open Pro
Read - Information Week ("Psystar vows to challenge Apple EULA")
Read - DailyTech: ("Apple Kills Psystar's $399 Mac")
posted April 15th 2008 12:53PM
I'd love to visit the dreamworld you are are apparently living in...The backlash from Apple allowing OS X to be installed on non-Apple hardware but NOT SUPPORTING it would be insane. Can you imagine what would happen if MS did this with Windows? Personally, and I'm sure others agree with me, I prefer that Apple makes both the OS and hardware I use on my MBP. Why? Because it works together great. We all saw the clusterfuck that can happen when end users don't understand why features of their chosen OS don't work on hardware it's supposed to support (Vista) and that's WITH official support from the OS manufacturer. If you don't like OS X and macs...don't buy them. If you like OS X and want to use it...support the company that builds it and buy a Mac.
The P182 isn't really black, it's gunmetal. Like a metallic gray. I guess the P180 is pretty much the same thing, so I'd assume it's good, since I have a P182, and I know it's good.
I surprised there haven't been "Attack of the Clones" references yet. Seriously they should just market these as "Fruit Friendly" and call it a day.
The main reason that Apple is concerned about the clones is if they become prevalent then it threatens Apples high margins they get on the hardware that they sell as an official mac. On another point is that if they officially recognize that clones are OK then they loose a lot of control of their OS, hardware, and drivers. It has been argued that the stability of the Mac platform is some what derived from the closed platform they it operates on. All OS X drivers have to be certified and signed by Apple, which makes driver development and wide spread hardware support expensive. However it also makes the drivers a lot more stable.
Over on the windows side of things, the OS complains if a driver isn't signed, but it lets you install it anyway. Then when a crappy driver causes your machine to crash you blame the OS. That is unless you are a knowledgeable user and realize that your computer only started crashing after you installed some new hardware. The larger the hardware base the larger chance of failure. Since Apple limits you to very few select add on pieces they limit these points of failure.
If Apple sells the software without the machine and if Pystar legally purchases legal copies of the OS disc why is it all of a sudden illegal? Should Microsoft sue Apple for making software that allows Apple users to use XP and Vista?
technically they would not be authorized resellers.
I don't think these computers will be running unmodified Apple OS X. The following quotes are taken from the Psystar website.
"What Psystar offers is a customizable machine with hardware components that are fully compatible with the OSX86Project so that the end-user only has to buy their computing devices once and not have the endless headache of searching for compatible hardware and trying to return hardware which doesn't quite work."
"The Open Computer/OpenPro is fully compatible with the OSx86 Project and is 100% operational out of the box."
"Can I run updates on my Open Computer?...No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe."
Their website also mentions that you need to use terminal commands to eject a CD. Wow..."fully compatible"
I have the P180, the 82's higher price was only cause of its color and some minor modifications. The P180 had actually been updated to gain some of the 82's features like water line holes. I really like it.. though ive accidently put two scratches on the right side. :( If theres anything I dislike about it, it would be the power button is behind the door.
http://i31.tinypic.com/2mepc83.jpg
What I think is funny is that Psystar is taking this "revolution" stance against Apple, like they think Apple has a monopoly on Macs.
Really? Apple has a monopoly on their own products? I don't think the folks at Psystar are very bright. Apple makes money on HARDWARE, not software. Licensing OS X to other hardware manufacturers would immediately cut into Apple's profits, and Apple doesn't have the marketshare to support a software-only model. When did Apple become the giant to topple? Last I heard, their marketshare was still at around 12%. Does anybody really think Apple has a monopoly on anything?
So no, Apple is not going to license OS X, at least not now. And while I doubt Apple would stop Psystar from selling OS X independently, they will definitely stop them from pre-installing it on their machines. It specifically violates the user license for OS X. Just the fact that they were originally going to call it "OpenMac" indicates that they really have no idea what they're doing.
And this is all aside from the fact that they're just reselling the work of others, as was pointed out earlier, i.e. the insanelymac people. The idea of getting OS X on generic PC boxes is fine, but Psystar is going about it the wrong way. Sidestepping Apple on this is just begging to get shut down.
I was wondering when somebody would get it; thanks Zak! :D
Like you said, Apple is a hardware company, not software. People who look at Apple's hardware lock-in and then say "But why? Microsoft is selling a hardware-independent OS, why can't you?" miss the point entirely.
Even I -- as someone who thinks Apple's price points are absolute rubbish and the people who pay a premium for brushed aluminum and a white logo are tools of the highest degree, despising their underhanded business practices and the double standard with which they are judged by the tech community -- can see that. Saying that Apple has a 'monopoly' on OS X which must be toppled is like saying that Ford has a monopoly on F-150s.
I think this hardware argument is misleading.
Have you ever bought a Mac, iPod, or iPhone without an operating system on it? Apple makes money on UI, not hardware alone. The integration of their first-party locked-down software and their customized hardware.
And while you are technically right that they are not a monopoly, they use monopolistic practices with regard to their products (think iPod and iTunes). They are, as Molly Wood of CNet says, "The tiniest little would-be monopoly." And she is right - they are so insistent on control over anything that can be construed as (intellectual) property that they C&D and sue people easily and often. Heck, they sued ThinkSecret, one of the biggest fansites, out of existence. (I know that TS shut down as a result of a settlement, but this settlement came about only because of the lawsuit.)
Now I want a computer running Leopard as much as any Apple fanboy, but I also want to be able to control the configuration of my system, and not pay a premium because it has the Apple logo on it. So far, that doesn't exist.
How is the hardware argument misleading? Apple makes their money on hardware. Period. Is that not clear enough?
The OS exists to sell Mac hardware. The iTunes store exists to sell iPods. I don't see how this could be misunderstood or how it's misleading.
And Apple is not a monopoly. Not a little monopoly, not any kind of monopoly. Apple does not prevent you from buying or using music from other sources, Apple does not prevent you from buying a PC, Apple does not prevent you from buying Windows or even from using it on their own hardware. There is zero monopolistic activity here. None, zip, nada.
Saying they have a monopoly on their own products (which is what you are suggesting) is pretty ridiculous. They have a right to do whatever they want with products and services that they own. Is there some misunderstanding about that? Using the above example, you would say Ford uses monopolistic practices with regard to their products - because they don't let other companies build F-150s. Should Ford allow Chevy to build F-150s? Except maybe Chevy would call them"OpenF-150s"? Ford is under no obligation to let anybody else build their trucks. Apple is under no obligation to let anybody else build Macs.
The Mac is an Apple product. That is not monopolistic or anything even remotely resembling monopolistic. Apple's OS has always existed to sell their hardware, ever since the Mac 128k, that's how they finance all their R&D.
Zak:
I'm not saying you were wrong. I do believe the hardware argument is misleading because it takes away from the fact that Apple is doing sick work on the software front. It's not an insult.
Think about it: what hardware do you find in a Mac? An Intel mobo and CPU, an NVIDIA or ATI graphics card, Samsung memory, etc, etc. I can pull together all the pieces myself, and still not have a Mac. Apple integrates hardware and software as seamlessly as possible that it doesn't feel like they're separate. That's not a bad thing.
To the point of "would-be monopoly", remember why Microsoft was found to be using monopolistic practices - they bundled IE and Windows Media Player in their OS. Apple bundles a whole lot of non-OS software with theirs (Safari, iTunes, iMovie, etc). Right now Apple does not allow non-iPod/iPhones to use iTunes. If they dominated market share, imagine they didn't allow 3rd-party MP3 players to work with Macs at all. I don't think that's hard to fathom, because of Apple's interest in iPod sales. That would be a monopolistic practice, because they would be using one product to enforce purchase of another one of their products. Obviously, it depends on having the market share, but it's a useful mental exercise. If they had dominant market share, you can bet that they would (deservedly, I think) be the recipient of MS-level scrutiny.
Finally, Apple's practices with regards to IP are among the most aggressive. This is okay, I guess. But they consistently run the risk of being seen in the same light as Microsoft - as a bully.
Honestly, from the pro-Apple perspective, my biggest fear is that the company will immediately lose relevance (and market share), in all ways, as soon as Steve Jobs leaves. He is a powerful personality and salesman, who is able to sell products well above cost. Most other companies don't have that, and when he leaves, Apple may not either.
"P.S. -Remember MGM v. Grokster? In that case the Supreme Court ruled that a company that based its business around the knowing copyright infringement of customers was still liable, even if it didn't infringe directly. Kinda shoots a hole in the "just don't pre-install Leopard" theory, no?"
Nilay... The point of Grokster is the word *copyright*. When I buy a licensed copy of OS X and modify it, I'm violating license. It's not surprising that somebody would associate the two, but it is surprising that someone at Engadget would.
Psystar/Open Computing is reselling a full (read: fully-licesned) copy of MacOSX Leopard. They are then preinstalling it onto the system, telling you that they do modifications, and telling you that the copy is no longer under warranty. In addition, the courts have been moving in the direction of saying EULA's are not necessarily contractual, because of the low barrier of people to click "I Accept", weakening any potential Apple case.
To be fair, DMCA is vague on modifying software for personal use, and violating license, but only from the perspective of "taking away revenue". In this case, Apple is getting attributed as creating the software, and sells a retail copy of Leopard every time Psystar/Open Computing sells one to buyers.
Either way, Apple would have a long way to go for this to be considered copyright violation. If I pay a someone to do a personal and legal service using my purchased hardware and my purchased software, what's the problem?
But the DMCA is not too vague when it comes to circumventing copy protection, which I'm sure is the tack Apple will take...
Sure, but the point is that Psystar is providing explicit instructions on how to break the license terms of Apple's copywritten software, which exposes them to both a breach of contract suit and copyright infringement actions. The technicalities of a potential suit aren't really Engadget material, I was just trying to boil it down to something most people had heard of.
Here's a more concrete example: If you start torrenting your copy of some commercial software package you've purchased, you're violating the EULA for sure -- but you can bet that you'll be hit with a copyright infringement lawsuit as well. That's exactly the situation Psystar has put themselves in, and Grokster means that they're liable for inducing their customers to do the same, even if they don't do it themselves.
Pete:
True, as DMCA is interpreted by the corporations. However, circumventing copyright for personal use is allowed in some cases, and case law is ambivalent (at most) about the legality of the general principle.
Nilay:
I think your torrent analogy is faulty. The torrent situation involves breaking of copyright because you are freely distributing software that you purchased *to others*, thus making it illegal, DMCA or not.
Psystar is selling you hardware, selling you a licensed copy of OS X, and selling you the service of putting the legally-owned OS X you just bought on the computer. you just bought The service violates the license (and as Pete says, possibly the DMCA).
I think a better analogy would be Alienware. They sell you computer hardware, sell you a CPU (a licensed product), and sell you the service of overclocking the CPU you bought.
I think you're a little confused. The EULA is a license for the copyrights in the software. If you don't have a copyright, you have nothing to license. Breaking the EULA means you've violated the license, and thus infringed the copyright of the licensor.
There are other causes of action possible for EULA violations, but a EULA itself is inextricably entwined with copyright protections.
Nilay... You're right...ish. EULAs license USE of the copyrights (and the patents within the software), subject to specific terms. The terms are neither copyrighted nor patented. Violating a EULA is violating terms of use, not violating copyright itself. (Just because the baby is in the bath water, doesn't mean the bath water is the baby).
The Leopard EULA has one line referring to the Psystar case: "You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."
Functionally speaking, neither copyrights (nor patents) is clearly being violated to install OS X on the hardware. The license which allows use of the copyrights (and patents) is. The question is: does Psystar violate a copyright or patent itself? Unclear, at best.
The best argument Apple has in a copyright case depends on two things - DMCA and the integrity of the above EULA line being legally-binding. However, considering 1) the ambivalent case law associated with EULA's specifically (the aforementioned low barrier to agreement, as well as lack of scrutiny on them more generally), 2) the ambivalent case law related to DMCAs over-broad definitions, 3) the movement to overturn/re-write the DMCA, and 4) fair use doctrine, I don't think my objection is coming from the wrong place.
Thanks for engaging me in this conversation. Helps me articulate my thoughts better!
Oops... The terms ARE copyrighted. What I meant to say is that the terms are not legally-binding protection of copyright.
Vijay:
OS X is a single copywritten work. When you buy it, you're agreeing to abide by the license terms, which dictate how you are allowed to use the work.
If you violate that license, you are potentially liable for copyright infringement. That's pretty cut and dried, I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding patents and the like. Even if the EULA is found to be unenforceable, Apple's overriding copyright in the work will provide it with many other causes of action. Trust me, I'm a lawyer :).
I love it, but isn't there a 'mac chip' on their mobo's? Wouldn't they have to circumvent it?
-@01 - It's really nice here in my dreamworld. A bit chilly at times but I don't mind.
I don't know how well this relates, but does anyone else find it odd that Apple takes this stance towards Psystar while including Boot Camp as a utility. (At least according to Wikipedia it is an included utility.)
@Beers:
No, that's not strange, and it's not the same thing at all. Boot Camp is a solution to allow Macs to run Windows, and Microsoft signed off on the idea. Had Microsoft refused to permit Apple to move ahead with this particular use of its software, Apple would not have been able to proceed. Now, Mac owners would most likely have been able to work around the absence of Boot Camp by means of some other, community supported kind of virtualisation (not altogether unlike the Hackintosh movement, in spirit); but there would be no commercial solution for it.
Moral of the story? Do business legally. If end users want to violate EULA terms, it's one thing, but when companies do it wholesale, that's another thing entirely, and one of those two are less likely to go unopposed. I'll let you guess which one.
Fair enough. I see your point.
wild home: THANK YOU FOR THIS POST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Moral of the story? Do business legally. If end users want to violate EULA terms, it's one thing, but when companies do it wholesale, that's another thing entirely, and one of those two are less likely to go unopposed. I'll let you guess which one.
-----------------------------------------
I couldn't have said it better myself.
1. Methinks, Apple signed the *Bootcamp* deal to satisfy ALL THOSE PC FANS who wanted the best of both worlds, but did not want to buy an Apple Box, yet wanted to be able to run WINDOWS-BASED SOFTWARE AS WELL.
2. But for some people, that's JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
3. They want to NOT ONLY run OSX on their favorite box... but now they MUST UNDERCUT APPLE by selling the public their OWN VERSION of an APPLE HACKINTOSH... TO MAKE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES. (sigh) as a *Thank You* to Steve Jobs for even negotiating with M$ on their behalf, in the first place.
4. WHY? Because those same WINDOWS PC FANS ARE STILL WAITING ON M$ to reciprocate a similar *Bootcamp*-type deal... in a manner that is beneficial to BOTH PARTIES... NOT JUST M$ ALONE.
5. WHILE They are also STILL WAITING for M$ to make a better OS.
6. "Wanna make YOUR OWN? That's great. More power to you. Have at it. But to sit and argue about ways to CIRCUMVENT any EULAs, DMCAs, Copyrights, etc, in order to PROFIT off *the other guy*....
is TRULY a reflection of the mentality of ... EVERYTHING MICROSOFT. (sigh)
- Use *Distraction* as a business-model. (i.e. Blame *the other guy* for monopolizing their OWN products... while IGNORING their own monopolistic actions)
- Keep competition low / zero.... AT ALL COSTS.
- When all else fails.... JUST STEAL.
Greed.
Coming soon... to a desktop near you.
(Available in 2 colors.)
Emotional.
it looks like crap i'd avoid getting it just so i dont have to explain my friends what it is
I have considered buying a MAC no less than three dozen times and have always changed my mind based on two things. The prices are always too high for the system configuration and I can't stand the elitist protectionism.
Why can't I run the OS on my own hardware? There are literally millions of people that would like to do the same thing and are fully prepared to buy the OS and load it themselves!
Sure the Apple machines are beautiful but they are also OVERPRICED! The fact that Apple refuses to license their software is downright un-American. If Apple cared about their customers they would STOP RIPPING THEM OFF!!!
Cheers to Psystar for trying to meet the demand. As John Dvorak said (paraphrased): If Steve Jobs would look at his bank account and Bill Gate's maybe he could figure out that maybe it's OK to give the people what they want. Apple PLEASE see the light and stop forcing your exorbitantly priced hardware on your customers. The ever elusive market share you seek will surely follow.
"If Steve Jobs would look at his bank account and Bill Gate's maybe he could figure out that maybe it's OK to give the people what they want. "
Steve takes $1 salary + stock options. I don't think Bill did that. Second, Watch what happens over the next 10-15 years. Bill has lost half of his money because his company floundered for a bit.
"Apple PLEASE see the light and stop forcing your exorbitantly priced hardware on your customers."
I disagree with you. By that same logic i could state. BMW stop selling cars for so much, I can get a Hyundai for cheaper. Or how about Microsoft, you OS is overpriced, apple's is only 129 and you are asking 400. They aren't forcing anyone to buy anything. People buy it because they like it and it works for them and it is a tool. DeWalt why are you charging $600 for a compound Miter Saw when ryobi does it for $100?
"The ever elusive market share you seek will surely follow."
Might want to make a broken line graph over the past 5 years and see what you can.
I'm 100% sure that taking $1 for your salary is only to help out the company, since you are taxed considerably less (a looooot less). So Steve isn't as saintly as you apple fanboys think, just wise, although most monkeys could have figured that out (so you are dumber than a monkey).
Actually, you're wrong, it's for the health thingy or whatever you guys have over there in America.
100% doesn't look so full now does it?
--Refuting the OVERPRICED argument--
I bought a G4 2x 1.25 MDD for $1400
I used it for 2 years and sold it on Ebay for $1400 (100% return)
I used that money to buy a powerbook g4 1.67 for $1699
I used it for 2 years and sold it on ebay for $900 (>50% return)
I used that money to buy a MBP 2.4GHZ SR for $1649
and here I am today.
It is not overpriced when you get great return on your money. I have several other examples from selling my work machines or my wives computers. Never have i ever sold them for
--Refuting the OVERPRICED argument--
I bought a G4 2x 1.25 MDD for $1400
I used it for 2 years and sold it on Ebay for $1400 (100% return)
I used that money to buy a powerbook g4 1.67 for $1699
I used it for 2 years and sold it on ebay for $900 (Greater than 50% return)
I used that money to buy a MBP 2.4GHZ SR for $1649
and here I am today.
It is not overpriced when you get great return on your money. I have several other examples from selling my work machines or my wives computers. Never have i ever sold them for LessThan50% what I paid after 2-4 years. G5 2x2.0 paid $1999 sold it for $1250 2 years later. Sure the first buy in is hard, but after that, it is easy.
--Why does apple charge so much and keep the lock down?--
My guess is that they spend a lot on R&D; on both hardware, software as well as countless patents and such. Apple really goes outside of the box. The packaging is top notch and really speaks to quality. I think some of the stuff is assembled in CA or something to that extent was written on some of my previous merch. None of that is cheap, but mac owners aren't cheap either. It is the people who want to be mac owners, but aren't, who are cheap. Apple needs to recoup costs for making great products and keeping it cutting edge. their 10+ service packs per OS are delivered for free. Tons of hours of coding represented there and they are charging 129 for their OS? Apple discovers great software by 3rd party companies and then buys them out and puts it in their products. E.G. Coverflow. No one had to pay to get coverflow added to their itunes, apple didn't have to do it, but they did.
Then they added it to their OS because...hey, why not? Further, Apple wants to keep the os running quick and by limiting the hardware, they limit the amount of support and drivers and conflicts.
No one if forcing you to buy a mac, if you dont like the prices, use ubuntu. You dont go to a BMW dealership and whine about the prices and then try to figure out how to retrofit beamer parts on your hyundai, so why would you do that with your computer?
Finally -- some closing thoughts.
Are you a creative professional and need the machine? Cost is easily justified by time saved and creative freedom.
Are you a consumer who just wants to do basic stuff photos, movies, email, internet? Then your cost is justified by time saved and ease of use.
If you are whining about the cost, then your time must be worthless.
$10 says its a hoax. Read the article below:
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/04/fake-mac-maker.html
-Remember MGM v. Grokster?
Doesn't apply here. PsyStar provides legal copies of OSX. There is no copyright violation. Read the case.
Nilay Patel Wrote:
...If you violate that license, you are potentially liable for copyright infringement. That's pretty cut and dried,....Even if the EULA is found to be unenforceable, Apple's overriding copyright in the work will provide it with many other causes of action. Trust me, I'm a lawyer :).
Nilay, what law school did you go to? It is far from cut and dried. You should know that EULA disputes are a civil matter with no criminal component. As long as PsyStar purchases legitimate OSX copies from Apple or its dealers, no issue of copyright violation can be raised.
In order to have a breach of contract, a court will have to rule the PsyStar is subject to the EULA and that loading Apple’s OSX on to a non-Apple computer is a material breach. PsyStar is not the END USER. They are a system integrator.
What are Apple’s damages?
What relief can Apple get?
No one knows if these machines exist. All we have are internet ramblings. For all we know PsyStar has sold six of these computers and the buyers decided to load OSX themselves. Until Apple gets their hands on one of these computers to verify that OSX is loaded they won’t do anything.
You've got a number of problems here, not least of which is your reliance on wikipedia, but ask yourself what happens if the EULA is found to be unenforceable. Under what precedent is the unlicensed resale of of a modified copyrighted work acceptable?
And since when is it black letter that the consequences of breach be set out in the contract? If I write a contract to sell you 1000 widgets for $1000 and don't deliver, are you really left without remedy if we didn't have a breach provision?