We don't suppose there's any friendlier way to put this: Open Tech Inc. is setting itself up for an Apple lawsuit, without any of the nice "product people will want to buy" stuff to balance out the equation. See, Open Tech thinks you're an idiot, and that you'll buy one of their "open computers" that can run (gasp!) OS X, XP, Vista or Ubuntu -- just like almost every other PC on the market today. We're guessing they figure that as long as they aren't loading OS X onto the computer themselves, they won't have any trouble from Apple, but that's where they go wrong. In addition to the EULA and copyright allegations, Apple's
complaint against Psystar has claims for inducing copyright infringement and infringing on Apple trademarks by advertising non-Apple machines as compatible with OS X which is exactly Open Tech's ploy here. Mix that in with some crappy specs, an August-ish launch timeframe and no pricepoints to speak of, and you have one of the least desirable computers known to man. And hopefully a fun lawsuit for us to enjoy.
posted Jul 22nd 2008 6:04AM
Hey Apple! Let us install your operating system on whatever machine we want. Make more money. Everyone's happy.
The only reason apple doesn't have BSOD is that they control the hardware their os runs on. So if apple opened up to any hardware they would have similar problems because not everything is 100% supported.
Its not rocket science, all it needs is a bit of common sense.
Apple machines run on intel chipsets, apple could easily put out a version of OSX that installs on "open boxes" that only supports a handful of hardware that forms the basis for the real macs, they dont have to write drivers for every bit of hardware in the world.
Then you have a choice, you build your own beige box or you go buy an OEM just like every Windows PC.
Given that 50% of the company's revenue comes from the sale of Mac hardware and only 5% comes from the sale of software, opening up the EULA to allow people to install the Mac OS on non-Apple hardware would be corporate suicide. The argument, of course, is that giving Apple $129 for OS X is more than you would have given them otherwise, but they don't see it that way (i.e. they see it as cannibalizing the sale of a Mac) and I tend to agree. The software, really, is just there to sell the hardware.
Sure, I can understand why everyone would like to buy a cheap box and install fine Leopard on it.
But this is short sighted and nonsense.
People: Stop regarding computers as "spec lists".
The OpenTech computers are a good example: the pure numbers look good and they are "cheaper" than Mac and have the certain appeal of gaming graphics card, so money of you seem to need, but:
It is just a box of standard components stuffed into an UGLY, cheao, case. You will not have the brilliant Service Apple offers, you will not have the quality build, the brilliant design, the reliability of the hardware and you will not have the superb software that is included with every Mac you buy.
Opening up Mac OS to other computers will be BAD for customers, not GOOD! I'm a Mac switcher and I don't want that to happen, because everybody knows the consequences!
Apple still gives you the freedom of choice: you can EASILY, more easy than on ANY OTHER computer from any other company, install another OS. They gone great length with Boot Camp to make it so easy that even my girlfriend can do that.
So, again: if you think the OpenTech is a value buy, please try to understand that computers are more than a list of components.
The iMac is not expensive, for example.
It's brilliantly designed, it's hardware is perfect for anything the target audience would do with it and then don't forget what you get in addition:
A brilliant OS that costs 129$ on the free market, the iLife suite which is also a brilliant piece of software and you get great service.
And who ever had the joy to use a Mac Pro and have to open it up and look inside knows why it is actually CHEAP compared what you get from PC companies as an alternative.
So please stop you "Monopoly" bullshit.
Yes, Apple RIGHTLY has the "Monopoly" on the stuff THEY MAKE!
As I have the copyrights on my work, too.
Holy something of something ... ! ;)
i find it amusing.
on one hand we have the apple supporters who claim that one of the reasons osx is so stable is because apple control the hardware, and that to open up osx to non-apple hardware would make it horribly unstable.
and on the other we have apple supporters who claim windows is crap and unstable purely because it's by microsoft, and microsoft can't write software.
Alas, what they forget is that osx is based on an open platform, that runs quite happily on any number of hardware, without driver or stability issues.
Of course, a good solution has already been found. Open up osx for installation on non-apple branded hardware, but limit it to certain supported components. Or are apple more-afraid that direct comparisons will be drawn between the openess of linux and windows to osx, and potential lawsuits that may come out of it.
Ultimately, i like that OEMs are trying to force the issue legality of apple 'clone' hardware, someone needs to argue about the legality of it all and force apple to play fair.
On one hand we hear that apple hardware is good value for money
You realise that that solution has been tried and failed miserably, don't you? Apple has already licensed clone makers before, and they never made enough profit to justify it. Regardless of whether you think that Apple is greedy for selling computers exclusively, they did not make enough money to justify clones.
@Bradley
Apple wants you to think different. But not THAT different.
"Sure, I can understand why everyone would like to buy a cheap box and install fine Leopard on it.
But this is short sighted and nonsense.
People: Stop regarding computers as "spec lists".
The OpenTech computers are a good example: the pure numbers look good and they are "cheaper" than Mac and have the certain appeal of gaming graphics card, so money of you seem to need, but:
It is just a box of standard components stuffed into an UGLY, cheao, case. You will not have the brilliant Service Apple offers, you will not have the quality build, the brilliant design, the reliability of the hardware and you will not have the superb software that is included with every Mac you buy.
Opening up Mac OS to other computers will be BAD for customers, not GOOD! I'm a Mac switcher and I don't want that to happen, because everybody knows the consequences!"
Rough translation:
We need to protect Apple's bottom line.
@ deyanimay
My a$$ if Apple doesn't have a BSOD equivalent! I get the GSOD (grey slide of death) all the time! You know? The one where you are working on your web development project and lose a couple lines of code, or lose the graphic(s) you were working on because this grey color slowly slides down your screen from the top and then says "please restart your computer." Oh no, that's not an error! That's just your Mac saying it's just for your good that you should reboot it, my bad!
Just remember what happened to Palm.
Palm Inc. made both hardware and software and where the market leader for a long time, until they decided to license the OS and the rest is history.
I don't remember the last time I got a Kernel Panic...
When I do though... they freak me out... the grey, slowly, slimily dripping down your screen while you slowly realize you didn't save your work... scary...
The only time I get a Kernel Panic is when I accidently put in a PPC install disk into my Intel machine (yeah... not to bright sometimes...)
O and by the way, its not the GSoD... its the GSoPaD (Grey screen of panic and disarray)
@tmm
Yeah, I may not have the brilliant design but I would have 99% of the functionality and more then 50% more money in my pocket spec for spec against an official Mac. Just face the facts a Mac is the same commodity hardware in a fancy box.
OK Apple and all you afficionado's PUT UP or SHUT UP.
You lot are like a bunch of kids on a play date, you won't let the other kids play with you toys !
PUT UP or SHUT UP:
If you are pissed that consumers are 'forced' to accept Vista on their HP/ Dell / whatever machines, then allow PC manufacturers to sell PC's with OSX installed.
Either Apple does this or you lot are going to have to SHUT UP with your whining.
Either Apple does this or I (who has used OSX extensively), and others (who have not), will remain convinced that OSX cannot compete function for function with Vista.
If you aren't going to run in the same race, with the same rules, then you are disqualified from the race. EPIC FAIL.
Pystar is the latest evidence of a company in denial over the weakness of the veil that appears to be just marketing hype concerning its product.
Microsoft XP, Vista = Genuine OS
OSX & Gnome = "Lipstick on the Pig"
Did Apple shares just drop 8.5% TODAY ??????
I think one of the biggest reasons Apple doesn't license their software for use on other machines at this point is that they know that a large percentage of people who are smart enough to actually install an OS will usually get that OS of choice from isoHunt.
But Apple can afford to act this way. They do have a lot of money, but the only reason they have this warchest is because of the iPod. I hypothesize that, if it weren't for the iPod and iTunes, Apple would be in serious trouble financially. Apple's music and phone business is giving them enough cash to keep operating under their 1980s business model of proprietary computing.
One of the biggest things that has hurt Apple is that they've lost schools. When I was growing up, almost every computer at school was an Apple. Now schools are like "Shit, we can get gaming PCs for the kiddies for $350 a pop." So there's a generation that is growing up without Apples in the classroom. Apple thinks this is okay because they are betting that little Timmy loves his 2GB nano so much, that when he gets into high school he'll beg his parents for a Mac, the iPod of computers. Chances are, he'll be told "Okay, you can either have a Mac Mini desktop, or a bitchin PC laptop." I think the choice will be simple at that point.
@kccboy2004
What? Did you just call windows a "real OS," and compare that to OSX and ...GNOME?!?
You sir are the fail here. Anyone here should know that gnome is a GUI for linux. Other common ones include KDE, and X.org.
holy cow, Bradley, you can't actually be that naive....
There is nothing unfair about Apple's practices. Hardware and software are allowed to be tied in. Your cell phone, your TV, your gaming console, etc. they all have software and the manufacturer are not obligated to share them. It's a good sign that there is a huge increase in demand for Apple to open up OSX. It shows that the public wants that OS more than ever. But I personally do not want that to happen for the same reason that tmm has cited. It'd be foolish to expect Apple to offer OSX to all PCs(becoming a software vendor) and not change their practices. Do you really think Apple will be selling OS for $129 and $199 for 5 license pack? It'll be more like $300+ for single license and $1200+ for family pack. They'll be adding senseless DRM and restrictive policies up the yin yang. It'll destroy the OS as we know it. And honestly, the very same people who refuse to pay for premium hardware/software are the very people that Apple refuses to do business with. This may be difficult to accept but this is their business model. Why would Mercedes Benz be interested in selling to people who are in the market for something like the Kia Sportage? It's just that their market.
@Agent42
> What? Did you just call windows a "real OS," and compare that to OSX and ...GNOME?!?
> You sir are the fail here. Anyone here should know that gnome is a GUI for linux. Other common ones include KDE, and X.org.
Well... You, sir, are the other fail here. Anyone here (who tries to point that out) should know that GNOME is a desktop environment for UNIX and X.
Other common desktop environments for UNIX+X include KDE, Xfce, and ROX.
Common UNIX implementations include GNU+Linux, (Free/Net/Open)BSD, and OS X. (And even Windows NT + Cygwin...)
Common X servers include X.org, XFree86, X11.app, and Cygwin/X.
Pentium D? Would that even work? Apple just started using Intel processors when Yonah (aka "Core Duo") came out, so all processors support SSE3 or more! I don't think Pentium D has SSE3?!
Wow, took me 20 whole seconds to google SSE3, click the top link (Wikipedia) and see Pentium D in view on a (non-authoritative) list of processors supporting SSE3.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSE3
Anyone can edit it, so maybe it's wrong. But it's definitely easy...
Is this "news item" an example of what we can expect under the new editor? Because it's BY FAR the biggest load of horseshit flamebait I've ever seen on this site. By a mile.
I'm typing this on a Mac Mini so I am not an Apple hater at all. But this shit is hardly what people come to Engadget for.
You'll figure this out or you'll kiss your new editor job goodbye, because you'll destroy the site's popularity. Get a clue or get a spatula. I want extra fries with that, Josh.
@deyanimay
Ive gotten fatal errors on OSX.
Even the most stable operating system, under optimal circumstances, can still crash.
Apple has a BSOD. It's called a Kernel Panic.
apple doesn't play around when it comes to OSX on other machines
once OSX starts going on non-apple machines, the quality will diminish
@Paul,
This really is poor arguments. Here are the facts for me that speak for themselves.:
1. Apple has a HUGE markup on their PC hardware.
2. Apple obscures this obscene markup by insisting that the OS be only installed on Apple hardware.
3. Apple can't really compete with Microsoft on the software front alone, so they try to distinguish themselves on the hardware front.
BUT;
a) Windows, for the general public and the business community is far more suitable.
b) Businesses want the freedom to choose the hardware that they want.
c) Large Businesses need software that has a long life cycle (more than 5 years). It takes around 2 years for a large business to complete software testing. Sometimes it is not worth changing at all. Even security updates and patches need testing before release. There need to be a cost benefit for a change in OS. Miscrosoft provides that long life cycle which businesses are delighted with. XP even through the downgraded VIsa is the "DARLING" of businesses. They love it. It works. On the other hand Apple issues paid changes to OSX every 12-18 months.
I have used OSX and Windows porducts both. I happen to prefer Vista over XP and XP over OSX. (I can enumerate the differences). I don't dislike Apple, and when I have to go to the Genius bar to get my PC fixed my 3.5 years old daughter loves to play games whilst sat on the little stubby italian bean seats.
But I really do not care for the polarised and bigotted attitudes of Apple fanatics who vehemently defend Apple's behaviour as a company.
From my perspective, Apple is trying to thwart the market of technology by trying to control all of the inputs (hardware and software), when in a free technological market these should ride free.
The components in an Apple PC are IDENTICAL to a Windows on Linux PC. The only differentiating factor is the software.
One last point, if Apple did release OSX from its bondage and Dell was free to sell their PC's with it installed, would that satisfy the Appe afficianado's who claim that Vista's sales are inflated because PC's come installed with it by default ?
Do you think that businesses would start to choose OSX as the OS of choice ?
Well.... let's find out. Bring it on Steve.
I think that Apple's poor performance in the market's today, reflecting their failure to meet their targets this year, will to some extent bear this up.
@kccboy2004
Are you suggesting that vertically integrated companies should be illegal?
While I do tend to think you talk a load of rubbish at times, you are quite correct that OS X is not suitable for large companies due to single supplier and fast update times. There's a lot of people in the Apple community that seem to think that Apple is "ready for the enterprise" and that's just nonsense. Allowing other companies to build Macs would address the first problem but I don't see the demand from business to be able to run on Macs to begin with. The Windows platform is so much better for business, and Apple has very little to compete against that. So, even assuming that Apple did allow other companies to bang out cheap Macs, the business community would be unlikely to adopt it because the software/services from Apple lags far behind what Microsoft provides. Credit where it is due, Microsoft does a much better job for business than Apple does.
Anyway, due to this Apple might as well stick with the status quo since they won't make more money doing something differently. The vertical business model works for them and changing that would compromise the entire enterprise.
Businesses want the freedom to choose the hardware they want? Last I checked, not a single person, save the IT department, gives 2 shits about what makes their computer work. As long as it opens Office and Internet Explorer, they're happy.
I agree with you that Windows computers are better for large businesses, but think about what happens when you use a Windows computer at work. You can't download anything and you can't install any programs, simply because people really can't help but to install as many viruses as possible while having internet access. Enterprise Windows networks require a full-time IT staff to constantly update and maintain the servers. Sure, Windows 2000 (XP? Please) is a dream to use when you have a full-time maintenance crew and you're forbidden to do anything other than open Outlook, Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Acrobat Reader, and Internet Explorer, but for small businesses that can't afford servers and IT departments, Macs are the way to go.
@kccboy2004 - As an APPL stock holder, I just thought I'd point out that Apple not only met their targets for the third quarter, they absolutely blew them away. The drop in the stock happening today is generally ascribed to the fact that Apple's guidance for the fourth quarter is about 20 cents per share below many analysts estimates. In fact, sales of Macs are up 41% over Q3 2007. Yet the stock is down sharply at the open, and I'm definitely bummed to see that :(.
Well, the IT department might not care which computers you use but your Finance organisation will because they will have been tasked with getting the best deal. Typically this will involve a bid process based on your company's requirements. Needless to say, such a process is difficult to achieve if only one manufacturer makes computers, which might as well be the case if you are considering a move to Apple. If a company "goes Mac" then they effectively must dance to Apple's beat, and that's not an option for many. If it were easier for a company to migrate from/to Mac to something else (probably Windows), then the single manufacturer problem becomes less of an issue. But currently this is not the case and this is why Apple is not an option for a medium-/large-sized company.
Small companies can do what they like, and I can see the value of Macs there if they are low maintenance. However, even a small company should consider what happens if they get bigger, assuming they have time to think...
@Kelmon,
Wow, again I think that you make some good points. Stunning day today.
I am still left with the same points over and over again. I have held senior positions in the IT industry for many years now, and yes, for my own amusement sometimes I talk a load of crap. Generally, the crap is a knee jerk response to the bull that I read. (Even spell/grammer checks are not considered worthy).
My points that you 'seem' to agree with are that Apple needs to protect itself from open competition by distinguishing itself on the Hardware front, and making creating an illusion of hardware superiority on this front.
But get this, and this is the real point,
1. there truly is no difference between the Hardware
2. the home consumer is using the same applications. (Firefox etc) (Have you used igoogle docs - fabulous ?)
Therefore the desktop and the navigation to those app's is all that is important. For this Vista Home premium ($99) plus 2GB Single DIMM RAM ($50) is all that is required. (I LOVE my 1.6 GB Atom based pc I built, running Vista 64). As you know already 3 home pc's running Vista 64 - not a single crash or hang since I purchased (over 6 months ago)
I will never buy a personal copy of Office ever again. Microsoft is out of this in the (discerning) home consumer market as far as I am concerned. (iGoogle docs / Lotus Symphony / Open Office ).
As far a business goes, you get the point too and you make the valid point that busines wants choice in its suppliers.
I welcome and encourage Apple to desist with this policy, so that we can see Microsoft challenged on all fronts. This will be good for all consumers and businesses alike.
If Apple wwaits too long then it will lose the business battle to Linux and the like.
**there will never be peace between Apple accifionado's and the rest of the IT community whilst THEY are Shitting in our shoes and WE are pissing in their Bovril." (Billy Connolly).**
Apple doesn't have the "platform" to compete with Windows in the enterprise. If this was to happen then Apple would have to invest significantly in developing the Mac platform so that it can substitute for Windows, and that will take many years because Microsoft has such a huge head start. Given the details known so far about Snow Leopard, it seems more likely that Apple are trying to position the Mac as a "good citizen" in the Windows world. I honestly don't think Apple have any intention of competing in this area.
They've got an apparent winning formula at the moment and they won't change that until growth slows.
I agree with both of you, but I do not fully agree that consumers on Apple are using the same applications, per se. Apple markets its platform on the basis of "lifestyle" applications, like iLife, iTunes, Photobooth, iWork. Apple sells the computer by saying "Look, we know you're drawn in by the mystique and the prettiness of our interface. Now see how we can be a single provider for everything you do." Their goal is to be an end-to-end entertainment company, with productivity ranking an obvious second. Only when it comes to the arts does Apple heavily emphasize how much work you can get done on a Mac. The "I'm a Mac..." commercial with the PC doing spreadsheets and the Mac being like "I'm Fun!" is an interesting portrayal which really does seem accurate. Personally, if I was looking from the outside of the IT world I'd be like "I'll choose the pleasant guy in the suit with the spreadsheet, because he looks like he has a job, a high-paying one at that. The Mac guy looks like an unemployed slacker. Given the fact the Mac costs twice as much, I'll go with the productivity tool instead of the pretty toy."
Mac only markets application compatibility and availability in the context of Bootcamp or virtualization. So, interestingly enough, Apple tacitly admits that there really isn't much third-party software for the Mac.
"Mac only markets application compatibility and availability in the context of Bootcamp or virtualization. So, interestingly enough, Apple tacitly admits that there really isn't much third-party software for the Mac."
Disagree. Boot Camp and virtualisation provide a safety net to those considering a switch. Unless you are prepared to migrate all your applications when you switch (a potentially expensive endeavor, particularly if any of it is custom written), you need a way to maintain existing software until you can complete your migration over time.
With respect to third-party software, how much do you need? As long as there is at least one good application that does what you need then that is enough.
Is it really illegal to advertise that your computer can run OS X? Really?
Monopoly anyone?
It is illegal to sell a PC that runs OSX since OSX is only legal when you purchase it and install it on a Mac hardware,
This is as bad as an Advertising Company that uses After Effects and they don't have a License or they the software is pirated/copy.
I wonder why so many people incorrectly think that legal proceedings can only be brought if something is "illegal"... Check the differences between "unlawful", "illegal", "criminal", and "lawsuit".
Yeah, a monopoly with a 3% world wide market share. Go figure!
It is not illegal to install OSX on a machine other than a mac, go read up what a EULA is, its not legally enforceable, the extent of what Apple could do if someone broke the EULA is refuse to support them.
Getting a little sick of people saying its Illegal when it clearly isnt.
@ArcticFox
I think the court case with Psystar will prove this point once and for all. If it turns out that Apple can't legally enforce the EULA then the floodgate for Mac knock-offs will probably blossom and Apple will be forced to allow it explicitly. Heck, it might even lead to Apple licensing the OS to real hardware manufacturers since Dell in the past have indicated that they'd like to sell systems running the Mac OS.
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't see Apple taking a case to court that they know they can't win unless they are planning to force Psystar into an out-of-court settlement due to the costs of defending the case.
MS does this and they're evil, but it's fine for apple. Run our great OS, it's way better, but you'll have to buy our computers and our spare parts. We'll also make it much easier for you just to buy our phones and MP3 players while you're there.
Of course it's easier to develop an operating system for multiple hardware platforms, but every other vendor seems to manage it. Apple's tie in sale model stinks they are so anti-competitive it isn't true and the only reason it isn't an issue is because they have such a porr market share.
I'm pretty sure Gucci has a low market share compared to the zillions of wal-mart brand clothing items around, but it doesn't mean that they're not 1) successful, 2) well-received, and 3) rolling in an obscene amount of cash.
If Apple sold $200 computers to Joe Schmoe at circuit city and had a low market share, yes, that would be bad for them. Instead, they've marketed themselves as a luxury brand, where a low market share actually means that only an "elite" few can purchase their products.
@Adam
It's perhaps worth reiterating that Microsoft Apple, or vice verse. Microsoft licenses their software to run on hardware not made by them, mostly because they don't make their own hardware (well, at least not PCs). Just because Microsoft does this does not mean that Apple has any obligation to do so. I'm not hearing calls for Garmin to allow other GPS manufacturers to let them run the Garmin software on their devices, and this is the same thing. There is nothing anti-competitive going on here - if you want to buy a computer from someone other than Apple then there is no barrier. The only exception here is that the other computer won't be running OS X. As with anything else, any manufacturer has full right to be the exclusive manufacturer of their own products.
The only way that this becomes a legal issue is if Apple achieves close to 100% market share by forcing out the competition (e.g. refusing to supply hardware to a reseller if that reseller sells computers by anyone else). That would be anti-competitive, but then we also know that this scenario will never happen.
The iPod/iTunes thing is something else. We're still waiting on the EU Competition Minister to rule on that and the result should be interesting.
Ah, crap, Engadget's comment system removed the greater-than/less-than characters from my comment. The comment makes more sense with the first sentence replaced with:
"It's perhaps worth reiterating that Microsoft is not Apple, or vice verse."
I think the problem is that when Apple used Freescale chips, they were, in fact, their own luxury brand. The machine was truly unique and designed to only run MacOS. Now the man behind the curtain is visible, and consumers are saying "Heyyy....now they're just using cheap PCs in pretty cases! I could run this same software on my Dell!"
It's hard to be a luxury brand when people know that what you're selling is an artificially locked-in piece of software. Consumers are a lot more educated and no longer look at a computer as a machine that is the sum of its software and hardware, like a cellphone or DVR. A lot of people are just in love with OSX, but do not want to pay a premium for a computer that is a very poor value hardware-wise, just so they can run the software they want.
Apple consistently uses the argument that it's the unified experience of hardware and software that makes the OS so great and so stable. But the fact of the matter is that stability issues are, as far as marketing goes, a thing of the past. XP, with its NT kernel is rock-solid compared to all the versions of windows that came before it, and the BSOD arguments now just seem old.
I don't think OSX is a more stable platform than XP. Vista, who knows? But I highly doubt Apple codes all of their drivers themselves, so they still have binary blobs they have no control over, going into their OS, just like Windows. Apple needs the freedom and flexibility to change hardware configurations at will and that's the dirty little secret that deflates their argument. Is it Broadcom or Atheros? Hitachi or Seagate? GMA 950 or GMA900? You don't care, all you know is that you have a "Macbook." But the reality is, if some minor tweaks were made, like in OSX86, Apple could become just as viable a desktop platform for PCs as Windows. The fact that it's the only version of UNIX that doesn't require command-line configuration at some points says a lot, and is quite an achievement on Apple's part.
I think that Apple could make some serious money licensing clones, or even just selling its OS. But the fact is that a) Steve Jobs is an asshole and runs the company the way he wants, even if he is possibly denying the stockholders higher earnings and B) Apple is probably terrified that their fiercely loyal userbase would suddenly be enraged that their shiny status symbol was instantly devalued when OSX is released for PCs.
For years, Apple was content to cater to the rich and act like the luxury brand people think they are. But they came out with the iPod for super cheap and suddenly, they've got the unwashed masses beating down their door, demanding more Apple experience, at iPod prices.
I used to work for AppleCare, doing Mac tech support. And the vast majority of the people who called were Baby Boomers or retirees. The younger generation simply cannot afford them, or just don't care and want to actually play games on their computer. Oh, and half of them were from New York.
Again, what you propose is corporate suicide. While the profit margins are declining in the business, Apple made about $3.7 billion during the last quarter from the sale of Macs. Do you really think they would make that kind of money by attempting to license the OS to other manufacturers? Apple doesn't have an enterprise solution, so that market won't be interested. What you are left with are home users and small businesses, each of which seem quite happy to buy Apple today. There's absolutely nothing to be gained from switching to a software company model if you don't have a complete software portfolio.
On a side note, I'll just say that dodgy drivers on the Mac are just as bad as those on Windows. Once you let someone else's code play in your kernel you are exposing yourself to problems and OS X is no different. Don't talk to me about Logitech's mouse drivers...
@John
Only Gucci products are higher quality. The analogy might work if the Gucci products were actually made from the identical brand name components as the Wal-Mart special and then slapped with a fancy new logo and an 11tybillion% markup.
Where are these supposedly "crappy specs," anyway? The ones I see at the other end of that read link look pretty good. But it's all right, I understand if you got a bit carried away with the hating.
Why the weird cheerleading for Apple crushing some little company that's not breaking any RATIONAL law at all, by selling a machine I COULD install OSX on, Paul? If the law bans selling something like this, it is an idiotic law which should be changed. And you should just pass on the news about the machine without being so nasty to them...
Well hey, since Microsoft gets crap from Apple users, maybe they should just modify the Windows XP and Vista EULAs to say that Windows XP can be installed on any hardware **except** Apple's to protect Microsoft's hardware. This only makes sense, even if you are a Mac fanboy. It's only the exact opposite of what Apple is doing, so it should be legit, right fanboys?
oh, and apple stop installing things without my permission.
what the hell is that mobile me icon doing in the windows control panel?
i'm not a mobile me subscriber.
What choice do MAC users have for their OS?
Oh yeah, in order to use XP/Vista, they need OSX first.
If there is a company the justice department and the EU should go after, its Apple!
And what choice have Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Wii, DS, PSP users? I mean, legally.
No, they really don't.
All they need is to understand is Boot Camp is a utility to make installing Windows *easier*. It is not what allows it, that is in the firmware.
All macs now come with the ability to boot any x86 operating system, simply insert the disk such as a windows or linux install CD, hold alt at power on (to get the boot menu) and double click on the CD.
That's no different to what you'd do on any other x86 machine, you just selected the boot source in EFI and not BIOS.
@Federico
Legally owners of those gaming machines have every right to install whatever they want on them. And lot of folks do.
It's another thing to sell the machines pre-installed with custom software or use the machines on PSN or XBL.
Aside from the glaring inaccuracy of your comment, what makes you think there is any requirement for a company to enable software from someone else to run on their hardware? I realise that this is becoming increasingly common outside of the PC world, but why would you think that there was something to investigate here? Next we'll be complaining that TomTom software doesn't run on Garmin hardware, or some such nonsense.
Above comment made a glaring mistake..
its not their hardware, its made by other companys, and is available to be built virtually exactly the same at home, apart from the bespek cases, but most pc companys are doing this.
The inflation on the hardware price is rediculous, and that (with allowing OSX only to be installed on these machines) is cause for a case to go to the monopoly board.
This is basically making apple a 'Dell with a OS' and Dell got a rap on the knuckles for doing MS only (Hello Ubuntu).
@kornation
If you can build me a MacBook Pro at home, I'd be very impressed. However, I digress. Clearly you can't build a Mac at home using off-the-shelf components otherwise you could boot directly from an OS X install disk without having to use other means. I don't know if this makes any difference to a court case, but it's worth noting anyway. Regardless, given that many systems can be built using off-the-shelf components, I don't think this gives people the right to say how the product owner's software is used.
Anyway, if Dell did want to produce its own OS then it could do so and provide a product range like Apple with the same restrictions on how its OS is used. You might not like that but, again, there's nothing illegal about that. Still, I must have missed the moment that Dell "got a rap on the knuckles for doing MS only". There's no law that requires a manufacturer to provide multiple OS options (if so then the rest of the industry is in trouble) and Dell only provided Linux due to consumer demand.
The box itself looks kind of cruddy, but if they sold something smaller, like a little fanless book-sized machine which just happened to be able to run OSX in addition to Linux and XP/Vista, I'd pay a small premium for it. It looks to me like that's their business model, except for the big ugly ATX tower part.
Am i the only one that finds the post a little on the 'nasty' side, i wouldn't wish a law suit on anyone, esp a small start up.
Come on Engadget your better than this (?)
Since when?
i agree with you. paul just sounds like a crazy apple fanboy douchebag.
Prices were hard to find, $620 for the OpenTech 1.0 and $1200 for the OpenTech XT. I had to click on Webstore to get all that information.
when Apple pays under the table...this news happen...
Engadget you're getting too biased ....
If they do not install OSX then how can they be in violation of an EULA that they did not agree to? THEY CAN'T! An EULA is like a contract, it has no effect on people who are not party to the contract.
However, I am sure they can be sued for false advertising because they are making it appear as though OSX can be installed on their machines when in fact, OSX out of the box cannot be installed on their machines and it must be hacked to get it to work.
A EULA is not "like" a contract, it is a contract. That's the misunderstanding people have here. It is not the law because Congress has not passed and the President has not signed Apple's EULA into law. Thus Open Computer can sell a computer that has no operating system and can run any operating system.
The only question is whether they can specifically advertise that their computer can run OSX. Well Apple would have a number of issues it would have to overcome to win this point. First they would not be able to sue on breach of contract because Open Computer has no contract with them. Their only plausible suit would be that they cause others to breach their existing contracts with Apple. So Apple would have to prove that someone bought OSX and agreed to it's EULA and then bought an Open Computer and installed OSX on it. Then they would have to prove the damages they suffered because of this, which would likely be the difference between the damages Apple actually suffered against the damages they would have suffered if Open Computer had simply said "our computer can run any operating system."
And on top of that, there's the First Amendment to consider, which protects truthful speech about a their products capabilities. The only reason Apple would sue here is to bully a smaller company into submission.
Gotta agree with deyanimey here, the only reason OS X is as stable as it is is because they control the hardware it runs on. Period. I use vista, xp and osx at home and work, and OS X is simply more stable, no doubt. Sure, it might crash VERY occasionally, but compared to the number of vista/xp errors/bsod's i've seen, it pales in comparison. I for one want OS X to stay Mac only, so that they can get the OS running as fast as possible on their hardware. If you dont like it, you don't have to buy it!
"the only reason OS X is as stable as it is is because they control the hardware it runs on. Period."
Rubbish. the same hardware they use has good results running windows and linux. It's just medium to high-end stuff, hence it's good. If OS X apps are good it's not just because of magically optimized hardware, it's because there is only a very limited software offer that was rebuilt from scratch recently, when Apple decided to drop compatibility with the old stuff and start over.
yehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
so I run a hacked OSX 10.5.2 on my PC and i dont have stability issues.
when I first started (late May) i had two Grey Screens of Death.
I haven't restarted since then.
yehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
so I run Windows XP on all my other PCs and i dont have stability issues.
forced updates force my PCs to restart.
everytime i do a mac software update on this piece of shit mac i hate using, it forces me to reset as well. Take 1 minute out of your life and do the damn reset.
John stop telling lies! The computer does not require you to restart EVERY time you install an update. It requires you to restart every time you install an update that modifies the system in some way. I have done MANY updates that do not require a restart.
> "the only reason OS X is as stable as it is is because they control the hardware it runs on. Period."
You make it sound like Windows PCs crash all the time because of hardware problems.
If you install a new graphics card, download the drivers, and get it working... why would it stop working in the future? When I build a PC, after I'm done, I don't mess with it again.
Apple may control all of their hardware. But, when I build a computer, and get it working, I feel it's just as complete as a shiny new Mac rolling off the line.
@Michael Scrip
Difference between you and 99.9% of the rest of the world: you probably know what you're doing. If most people tried this they'd be "why doesn't my (network|bluetooth|graphics card|etc) work?"
Some of us are smart enough not to blame the OS when it doesn't come pre-installed with a specific driver. Most would not read the specs and try to install it on a nine year old, second hand Dell laptop and complain that it was slow and that OS X looks clunky (on a 640x480 display).
Side note: I've found that all of my computers (Apple, IBM/Lenovo, etc) run faster and are more stable after I install Linux.
Call me paranoid but when two companies pop-up advertising OSX compatibility and pretty much asking for the same lawsuit, it makes me think that this is bigger than we think.
...maybe i just need some sleep...
Woo hoo! Viral ARG marketing for Apple's new Open OSX!
Am I the only one who notices the free .tk 'domain' with a frame pointing at Freewebs? Yeah, real professional.
I noticed that, and promptly lol'd. :)
My guess is, this isn't a serious thing, just some sort of parody.
When did Apple become Judge Dredd?
When they decided they wanted to protect their brand. Do you seriously have a problem with a company protecting its brand?
This is well beyond "protecting its brand." Unlike with Psystar, Apple has no serious trademark claim here. Open Tech is perfectly free to describe its computer's capabilities, even if that means using the terms "OS X." Apple doesn't own this word, and it doesn't control the use of this word. Apple can only prevent others from selling products under that brand. Open Tech isn't doing that here (it is very clear from the webpage that their brand is "Open Tech").
Mikey. I don't know why I have to explain this to you, seeing as how you're the hotshot lawyer, but Open Tech clearly states that their machines are OS X compatible. On their web site it says " The Open Tech XT is capable of running OS X Leopard™". They even have a picture of the Leopard box up there.
That's brand dilution, and Apple has every right to go after them for that.
Zak,
I know why I have to keep explaining this to you, but that is in no way, shape, or form grounds for a trademark dilution claim. Trademark dilution occurs when someone uses a mark for a completely different type of product, and that other use weakens the mark. The vast majority of dilution cases involve seemly or unsavory products (for example, a porn website called "iPod Girls," or "Mac Malt Liquor"). This use of "OS X Leopard" does not weaken Apple's mark. If anything it strengthens it, because more consumers will have access to OS X.
But, more importantly, Open Tech is not using Mac or OS X as a trademark, and therefore there is no trademark claim, period. They are using it to describe their product, which is perfectly legal. An example of this happens every day in video game advertisements when a cross-platform game lists all the consoles it is compatable with. They don't need a trademark license to do that, and I have yet to hear about Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo coming after the developers for trademark infringement or dillution. In fact, as someone else pointed out on this board, any limitation on Open Tech's ability to describe its product using trademark law would raise First Amendment issues.
I respect your enthusiasm, Zak. But you just look like a fool trying to explain trademark law (or any kind of law, for that matter) . . . particularly when you are usually dead wrong.
"...almost every other PC on the market today" can run OSX? How long has this been the case?
Since OS X for Intel was released.
Not legally, of course, nor easily. just "technically".
almost every other computer on the market can run OS X just as well as this computer can is what it means. Every computer can run OS X, it's just that it's not supported by apple, and apple doesn't give out an installation disk, so it's hard to do, but yes, very possible. Macs aren't any different than any other computer.
I honestly don't see Apple suing this company, at least not immediately. For starters, I don't see a viable business. Very few people are going to take the risk of buying a "Mac" that is not made by Apple, and those that are happy with a Hackintosh will likely build their own. The product supplied does not sound in the slightest bit "user-friendly" and this is going to push it away from those people who would want to buy a Mac.
Secondly, since they aren't installing the OS, suing them would be much more difficult unless the "incitement to break the EULA" point of the Psystar case is proven and accepted in the court's judgement.
When all is said and done here, I suspect this to be a publicity stunt more than anything else.
@Kelmon,
extracts of your comments:
"I honestly don't see Apple suing this company, ....When all is said and done here, I suspect this to be a publicity stunt more than anything else.
agreed "
Reply: I tend to agree with you (again -sigh!):
I suspect that there will be more and more of these companies mounting challenges to Apple. They can tie up Apple for long periods of time in the legal system. Each challenge makes Apple look more and more litiguous, their image of a Litigious Bully-boy mounts and mounts.
Despite their perceived freedom to contract however they so wish, Apple are going to find this more and more difficult to defend I think that we will see a change of direction of policy, soon.
Final comment: as the price of alternative hardware continues to fall and the quality (material and aesthetic) of competitive products (e.g Voodoo Envy 133 - ahhh!!) continues to rise, Apples' hardware product differentiation and pricing policy becomes more and more difficult to defend.
I suspect that once the Psystar case has run its course then the precedent will have been set, one way or the other, and future cases will go the same way.
But, yes, I tend to agree that as competitors make computers that incorporate the same degree of design as a Mac it will become more difficult for them to differentiate. That Voodoo Envy is certainly a damned good looking system and would be real competition to the likes of the Air.
I fart alot.
gotta love how we can't edit comments..
"On one hand we hear that apple hardware is good value for money"
as i was saying, but on the other hand we hear that apple hardware IS expensive and that's why apple make the most money from it. Personally, what with apple care, and paying for incremental updates for osx i find it hard to believe that apple makes so little money from the OS. I think they're sitting on a goldmine by not supporting open hardware.
Here's the thing. In Q3 2008, Apple sold just under 2.5 million Macs which equated to about 50% of their $7.46 billion revenue, i.e. about $3.7 billion or roughly 28 million licenses of OS X. Do you really think that by sacrificing hardware sales for software sales that the company would generate that kind of revenue and profit? Unless Apple demanded very high license fees from licensed hardware manufacturers, enabling OS X to run on non-Apple hardware would never compensate for the lost hardware revenue, assuming that the non-Apple hardware substantially undercuts Apple's Mac prices. You'd have to be selling OS X licenses at volumes like Microsoft in order to compensate for the loss in hardware revenue and the world is not about to switch from Windows to, frankly, anything else.
Basically, there's no gold mine here, but potential financial ruin. If there was a gold mine here then I'm quite sure that Apple would have exploited it already. The chances that you and I know better is pretty slim.
@Kelmon,
You make a good point. So these are genuine spoiling tactics by Apple resulting from their inability to compete with Vista.
Again, they have a choice;
- enter the race and compete on 'open hardware' with Vista and other UNIX based systems
or
- continue the policy that they employ right now.
Both are fine with me. Really. But the afficionado's have to SHUT UP if Apple chooses the latter.
@kccboy2004
"So these are genuine spoiling tactics by Apple resulting from their inability to compete with Vista."
wrong. this is their entire business model. the idea that the OS should sell on its own for random 3rd party hardware is a very windows-centric world view. ...and it's simultaneously Window's greatest strength and greatest weakness.
Apple, on the other hand, sells not just an OS, but an entire platform. That's hardware, OS, software, services, etc. It almost appears as if Apple writes software for the Mac simply to sell more mac HARDWARE. They're in the hardware business, period, and just about everything else is there to SUPPORT that hardware platform. (Show me a suite of integrated apps like iLife, or iWork, that sells for as little as those do. Apple isn't trying to make all their money from software, they're making software that makes their platform more appealing. Why do you think iLife comes free on all new macs? Why is there no "Genuine Activation" garbage on their OS, let alone even a serial number? ...because their revenue has almost NOTHING to do with software licenses; it's all hardware.
Is the iPod OS unable to compete with all the other PMP OS's out there, and that's why you can only get it on an Apple iPod?
Is the iPhone OS unable to compete with... i don't know, Palm's OS, and that's why you can only buy the iPhone OS on an actual iPhone?
don't be so obtuse.
not having a great deal of luck with engadet comment system today. comments going awol.
basically, 2007 fiscal year, there were around 302million PC sales. (source - http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/03/14/pc-shipments-rise-320m), and is expected to boost to 426million units by 2012, and increase of around 25million year on year. You're saying apple shipped 2.5million.. it's miniscule.
Now, imagine if apple were able to carve out a larger portion of this mammouth pie, and then factor in bi-yearly incremental updates and it's very easy to see apple benefitting three fold.
1) increasing the market share of their desktop operating system massively
2) making more money on a new venture
3) still selling the apple hardware, and furthering it's use.
@jrb
First of all, that's a 12.8 percent growth in the PC industry. the Mac's sales were up 60%
Second of all, how many of those PCs were in markets that Apple doesn't even want to compete in? (bottom-of-the-barrel walmart PCs, POS systems, dummy terminals) ...and how many were sold to markets that will NEVER make a major OS switch? (Banks, government systems, IT departments for large companies, etc)
Apple just posted profits of 1.07 billion dollars (that's PROFITS) for this last quarter.
I think they're doing fine, without jumping into a market filled with razor-sharp margins, failing business models, and smaller growth than the market they're already in.
anyway, just look at the history: they allowed cloning once and it was an unmitigated disaster. why the hell would they want to do that again, during their most profitable quarters in history, during an economic "downturn" etc?
...oh, that's right, so a couple of nerds can be happy running OSX on their beige-box PC. THAT makes sense.
Does anybody remember Mac clones?
Remember how they almost killed Apple?
It would be stupid if they let it happen again.
Well, so what?
When did this become an issue of protecting Apple's profits rather than giving consumers freedom of choice.
Constantly we are bombarded with how MS is allegedly locking down this or that for whatever reason. And you will hear no end to the screeching from the same people that are paranoid that giving people a little freedom will make it harder for Apple's stock price.
Which oddly enough many of the people that are the most forcefully against this posses.
@fred
Microsoft got caught stifling competition on their own platform by preventing other software vendors to compete fairly with Microsoft's own applications/services. In this respect this is something completely different to what Apple is being accused of here.
"Microsoft got caught stifling competition on their own platform by preventing other software vendors to compete fairly with Microsoft's own applications/services. In this respect this is something completely different to what Apple is being accused of here."
And Apple is using the court system to prevent other hardware vendors from competing with their own.