Apple files suit against Psystar for copyright infringement, mellow-harshing
By Joshua Topolsky 
posted July 15th 2008 11:54AM
posted July 15th 2008 11:54AM
Read - Confirmed: Apple files suit against Psystar
Read - Apple goes after clone maker Psystar
[Thanks, ginger.al]
The "LOL!" part confused me... are you going to laugh now or later?
Apple will win, but I don't think Apple is going to win quite as big as they hope in their suit with Psystar. In fact Apple is jeopardizing and risking their own EULA. Here's a scenario (and remember this is for the 90% of computer users NOT familiar with Macs, e.g. Windows users):
If I go into an Apple Store, I can buy a retail copy of Leopard. I get home only to find that it won't install. So I've paid $120, call Apple and find out that I can't install it unless I pay another $599 (e.g. Mac-mini) to Apple? Right. Seeing as how over 99% of the hardware is identical to Acer, Dell, etc. and the EFI bootloader is open source and non-infringing, good luck with that lawsuit. The courts have fairly clearly ruled that reverse-engineering in similar situations has been acceptable.
We may be seeing ALOT more Mac clones after this suit, although they won't be available commercially.
@Zak, I could explain. However, I don't really like people that much. So I can't be bothered talking to you about it. LOL!
Why do people still make an argument about Apple's policy about not installing OSX on non-Apple hardware when they make the hardware? Where are the people complaining because you can't install the Xbox360 OS on the PS3 or vice-versa? What about installing The Zune software on the iPod or Blackberry's OS on a non-Blackberry phone? Just because Apple makes computers doesn't mean you can disconnect the software from the system. There are no anti-competition tactics going on at Apple.
No on complains about the non-ability of installing an operating system or firmware from one product on another product.
No one.
There's no vendor lock-in with Apple products. You're paying to use a system, just like game consoles, media players, cell phones or hdtvs. You experience the exact same "lock-in" when you buy a PS3 because you can't play PS3 games on a 360.
Stop making an argument where there isn't one.
b/c those companies are not selling their respective OS's at the store.
Apple is.
"Why do people still make an argument about Apple's policy about not installing OSX on non-Apple hardware when they make the hardware?"
Here's why: You can go into an Apple Store and buy a retail copy of OSX. With the 360, you can't buy the OS. Hope that clears it up for you.
@ someguy
Lets say apple stopped selling OSX in stores and did some online OS update like say ubuntu can do ....
would you then stop being negative about the OS ... cause if apple didnt do the lockin on stuff the OS wouldnt be this good and they also would not make the Hardware Money that drives them to be able to make it.
Meaning there would pry be no more operating system named OSX and then you windows fanboi's that are just now liking the OSX stuff and wanna run it on ... your biege box ... will just complain some more cause OSX is no more
Apple waited this long?
Yikes, my apology if this is a duplicate post. @ Aaron.
Here's the difference. Unlike the 360, you can go into an Apple Store and buy the OS. You can't buy a 360 OS license. Hope that clears it up for you.
that's a difference... but it's irrelevant...
you buys a copy 'under license' and the license specifically states that the software is not SOLD to the end user.
why is that so hard to understand people? you all want something you don't get... it's not how it works!
and you do buy a 360 os license when you buy the 360... did you really think you buy the xbox but not the software license? the license dictates the terms... not the consumer or someone who knows how to post whatever silly idea fell out their head and spilled onto the keyboard and into a post. it's not a free for all.
Here's to hoping Apple makes the distinction between hobbyists and opportunists. Since I began following OSx86, I've purchased a GENUINE Macbook, Time Capsule, and variety of Apple accessories and peripherals.
As long as the community is made up of technically literate tinkerers, I don't think Apple has much to worry about. We're not using our Hackintoshes for work machines anymore than someone uses a Shelby Cobra kit car as the daily driver. A great number of people on those forums own real Macs; I'd say the vast, vast majority own more than one home computer and are familiar with the technical features far beyond what an "average" consumer typically is.
However, with the advent of EFiX, Psystar, and these other projects designed to bring OS X to consumer who *would* be desiring a cheap Apple machine as their daily workhorse (not interested in hacking but haggling), Apple will be threatened where it always matters (their wallets) and almost be forced (by virtue of being a publicly traded corporation) to address these issues through system-breaking updates.
The community has been (and should continue to be) up in arms over any of these high-profile, zero-configuration OS X installation devices. The zeitgeist of OSx86 up until now was that of nerds who were interested in how it *worked,* how to install, configure, and optimize OSx86 on a machine because we wanted a few more Xbench points. Now, as the ****s as Psystar have found out, Apple won't (and really shouldn't have to) put up with people exploiting the work of Apple *and* the OSx86 community to try and take a buck out of both of our pockets. If the OSx86 community had the resources, they probably would have sued Psystar first!
The best possible outcome here will be for Apple to get a judgment in their favor which will block profiteering of this kind in the future. And, with this assurance in place, Apple will go back to turning a blind eye to the true hobbyists in the OSx86 community who have no desire to make a profit from their efforts. If this happens, I'll be more than happy to continue buying Apple products as well as contributing resources (code, posts, donations) to the OSx86 project.
I care so much I can't even be bothered to
I agree with Gavin.
And I seem to think also that I may be wrong about zak being clak, unless he has fooled me once again.... clak would not argue these points to oblivion.
clak was smarter than zak. he was more entertaining and a little cleverer. more insulting yes, but with tongue in cheek humour.
Hmm...
While I appreciate the anti-competitive points raised, here's a couple of things to think about:
1) When Compaq cloned the original IBM PC to do so legally they had to reverse engineer the ROM BIOS chip. They figured out what inputs resulted in what outputs and made a chip that did the same. They did not (and could not legally) copy the IBM chip and make a few amendments to it. It's intellectual property and no you can't just change it and sell it on.
2) I cannot rip the code out of a Nokia phone or Sony PS3 and build and sell my own based on that code and buying similar parts and modifying the code to work with the parts I couldn't quite get.
3) Microsoft have a dominant market share. With 90%+ of computers running Windows if they choose to pre-install their free internet browser to kill off another, it's going to work. Especially if you can't uninstall it. History has shown that such tactics work. With the minority market share Apple hold in the computer business I don't think you can get them on a monopoly situation. Yes they hold the monopoly to that platform, but so do Sony for the PS3 platform.
Now, the iTunes/iPod DRM situation is different. There Apple has the monopoly but of course with the studios being the driving force behind DRM they can side step that problem by saying "hey, we'd put non DRM'd stuff in our store which can play in anything if they'd only let us".
Does the DRM benefit them? Of course it does, but they have a scapegoat in the form of the recording industry whose content it is and which loves DRM.
Thing is, Apple used to licence their OS to clone makers, but of course that almost killed off their hardware business, which is where their profits come from. The hardware business subsidises the OS business. There is *no way* that OSX would cost you £90 or so in a retail box if it could be installed on anything. It would be £299, like the copy of Vista Home Premium that I bought as Microsoft has no hardware business to subsidise it.
@Zak: I agree, Apple does own the right to whatever they want with their software. However, by that logic Microsoft should also be able to do whatever it wants with Windows. If they want to put IE in there, why shouldn't they. Its theirs.
Also, with the whole IE thing, how can there be competition and monopolies over free products. At the end of the day, IE and Netscape were free, so how can you have a monopoly on a free product. There's no price gouging/hiking or consumers being ripped off, because they didnt pay anything. So I do beleive that the whole IE thing back in the day was BS.
Also, how can Apple "own" the hardware too? Doesn't, say, Intel make their processors? And I'm too lazy to research other components, but I'm sure others make them. So if for example, I were to build a PC literally using the exact same components that a MAC uses, for like $500 less (and I literally mean identical), don't you think its unfair to consumers to charge that big a premium? Granted, as you said, I don't have to buy their products, but if they're seeking to expand their market share, doesn't it make sense to offer the best prices to consumers.
And this is more of a personal opinion rant: if it weren't for Microsoft, computer prices would be exhorbitantly high right now. We would all be forced to buy the same uniform computers as everyone else. There would be only one RAM supplier of Apple's choosing; there would only be one CPU make of Apple's choosing, etc. Competition would have been hindered, and possbily technological advancements would have been delayed, if not altogether non-existent (maybe some). I think Microsoft has done more for competition and a free market than Apple would have had it succeeded back in the day.
End rant.
Please note: I have merely stated my opinions. I have not insulted you in this post, and I would hope for the same courtesy.
I completely agree with you on everything. The way Apple gets away with everything because they're view as "cool" is sickening. Also, why is Apple allowed to bundle Safari, Quicktime, and iTunes with OSX when MS gets fined for supplying IE?
@ Seltzer
"owning the hardware" meaning... the intellectual property of the engineering, including all patents, trademarks, and copyrights... and no i don't think it's unfair to charge what they charge... it's the free market... they can charge whatever they feel like charging; you as the consumer are are likewise allowed to decide whether the price is worth it. Apple says it's worth it... consumers choose to buy or not. and no, not always does it make sense to drop price so more people buy... it's a marketing strategy to sell high to differentiate as a perceived higher-quality product which most consumers believe it is.
@ Shadow08
Apple bundles software on it's computers like Safari, QT and iTunes just like Microsoft 'bundles' IE and Windows Media Player. So hows does your point make any sense when compared to Microsoft?
MS got fined because their practices (more than just IE) were anti-competitive, IE was integrated as part of the OS and was not uninstallable... you can delete safari. Apple also doesn't hold a majority or a significant percentage of market share to have it's practices deemed anti-competitive.
if you hold a majority, being anti-competitive means you shut out competition... if you hold a mere fraction of the market share that the biggest competitor has... anti-competitive merely means... you don't really like to put up a good fight.
finally, howcome no one puts anything into context properly anymore?
Processor: Intel
HDD: Hitachi
Audio processor: Intel
Graphics processor: Intel
Firewire Bus: Unknown
Bluetooth: Cambridge Silicon Radio
Memory: 0xAD00000000000000
IR Receiver: Apple, Inc.
Bluetooth USB Host Controller: Apple, Inc.
That's what System Profiler seems to think, anyway.
Fozzy, I understand what you are saying and you made some very good points but there are tons of other practices Apple performs that they shouldn't be allowed to. Locking the iPod, which is a majority of the mp3 player market like MS is to the OS market, to iTunes, locking OSX to their overpriced hardware, and not licensing FairPlay DRM (before DRM-free choices) thus preventing other music services from being iPod compatible are a few more examples.
zak = deranged. surely, what a nut case.
Well well..
1. Apple computers use same parts as all other computers and they charge premium for it !
2. Ask anyone who had their warranty run out of their Apple computer how much it cost to get a replacement let say Superdrive ?
I'll tell you iMac replacement Superdrive about $300 US...Yup you heard that right! (Dont argue with me coz i work there)
3. Mac OS is good.
4. Whats with the iThis and iTHat branding..is so gay.
5. Ohh before you touch that iMac screen you need a apple-part special glove LOL..not entirely true but very close.
6. They seem to abuse*/smart_comments Windows & Microsoft very often inc. Jobs himself. Never heard anyone from the other block do the same.
7. You cant play games on a Mac .End of story. So.. no Apple for me.
8. Economy going down rapidly..no thanks i can do my job/fun with half price for same config on PC..and play my game on top of it.
9. Who cares really.
When Apple was stuck on PPC architecture, I was one of the few screaming for X86. Apple fanboys called me every name in the book. Now most - if not all - love the X86 architecture.
I've wanted the option to run OS X on non-apple hardware from day one. So I'm rooting for Psystar, but think they have no chance of winning.
Hopefully they'll publish a how to, because then I could finally build my home brew osx server for my home.
There are severel how-tos and Wikis for OSX86 all over the internet. I imagine the founders of Pystar read how-tos for OSX86.