While suits from
Psystar and Apple are currently attempting to
work things out via
alternative dispute resolution, the former company is doing something the latter company won't: offer OS X-capable machines with built-in Blu-ray and NVIDIA's GeForce 9800GT. Showing no mercy whatsoever in a recent release, Psystar calls Steve Jobs out for his controversial "
bag of hurt" comment and proceeds to inform the general public that it's "
now shipping" OS X-compatible PCs (better known as
Open Computers) with Blu-ray optical drives and the GeForce 9800GT GPU. Based on pricing figures gathered from the company's website, a 6x Blu-ray writer is a $310 upgrade over a dual-layer DVD burner, while the 512MB GeForce 9800GT will set you back $200 more than the 8600GT. Whatcha got to say now, Steve? Huh? Huh?
[Via
MacUser]
posted Oct 28th 2008 4:34PM
Haha! How about that for a bag of hurt :)
I understand why Apple wouldn't want other companies out there to build computers running OSX and sell them.
If that happens and the "open computers" aren't high in quality, it will potentialy threaten the user reliability ratings of OSX.
People who don't realize they are using an open computer, not a mac, won't know the difference when isht starts to FAIL.
let's face it, OSX is shaky outside of its native environment and the last thing that walking stick in beatnik clothes wants is bad PR on any level.
and fail it will if it is anything like the real Apple product
"I understand why Apple wouldn't want other companies out there to build computers running OSX and sell them. "
Ever play the game Monopoly?
er, then again... trying to stop a tiny company from selling 'open' versions of computers running your OS doesn't exactly come off as a forward-thinking move.... steve, back down, this is a lose-lose situaton.
@Flashpoint
And no GENIUS BAR! What would an OSX user do without the geniuses?! Surely die.
Pip:
Should ford be forced to let Chevy put their motors in its cars? Nope. Should Sony be forced to let MS run PS3 games on the 360? Nope. Have the entire market of a single product is no a monopoly. If Windows is a monopoly, then explain to me how Apple can have one too since they're in the same industry?
@ Flashpoint
Nope, the hurt is if you can make a good OSX platform at PC prices with more features than a Mac.
The flipside is the Microsoft crisis, where the software gets blamed for the failings of the hardware.
hahaha rank me low because I make a valid point. Good show chaps... good show
Most people would know OS X belongs on a Mac in the first place therefor they are taking their chances on a custom built machine.
But overall OS X would be like a Linux distribution but better; much more optimized in certain aspects.
Propz to Psystar because I refuse to not get as much computer for the price I'm paying.
@lan: You're comparisons are wrong. I'm not forcing Ford to put their engines in a Chevy. However, what if Ford artificially limited their engines to Ford although the engine would otherwise work fine in a Chevy? There is no reason why OS X couldn't work on any modern PC. In fact, it does. Look up OSX86 and you'll see that plenty of people run OS X on their PCs with no problem.
I'm not asking Apple to go out of their way to make their software work on PCs. All they need to do is to remove the DRM that keeps Apple software from installing on PCs natively. Apple is a monopoly or at least has monopoly characteristics. As their market share grows, a monopoly trial almost certainly awaits them. Why do you think Apple wants to handle the Psystar case out of court? Because they aren't sure they can win.
@lan
Should ford be forced to let Chevy put their motors in its cars? Nope. Should Sony be forced to let MS run PS3 games on the 360? Nope. Have the entire market of a single product is no a monopoly. If Windows is a monopoly, then explain to me how Apple can have one too since they're in the same industry?
Yes. If Chevy finds a way to use ford motors in their car, and they purchase them in a legal way, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with what they've bought, and that includes repackaging and reselling it if they think they can turn a profit. Ford has no say in what is done with their engines after somebody else buys one. None of this would be possible anyway if OSX wasn't already 99% compatible with pc's, and as long as Psystar pays for the licenses of OSX, at retail btw, then they should be allowed to use or package it however they feel like. There's no additional burden being placed on Apple and Apple has no right to tell people how to use their property.
Leen has a point, but Pip needs to look up the definition of monopoly.
@CraigJ: I addressed Apple's market share in my 2nd comment. I realize with it's current market share it's not a true monopoly as defined by the US but that doesn't mean it certainly doesn't act with monopolistic characteristics.
Also, I looked up the definition on Google. The first definition "a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller" fits. Apple is the only seller of Mac products AND it limits the sale and use of Mac products to themselves. The second definition on Google might as well define Apple as well, "exclusive control or possession of something". I think my usage of the word monopoly is valid when referring to Apple.
Flashpoint:
No, Apple doesn't want others selling computers with OSX because they can do better at lower price, and if many consumers know of it and buy from *that* company, then Apple are gonna lose their profit margins.
I do love competition :)
@ Ian
Your automotive analogies don't work, because the automakers can and do share between companies. You can buy a GM with a Honda motor, a Ford with a GM motor (the Land Rover V-8 is a Buick block basically), a Lamborghini with a Dodge motor (the V-10), even a Porsche or a Subaru with a VW motor (the flat-four from the Beetle). Granted, the designs have been modified and updated, but the automotive industry will buy parts and ideas from anyone...
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/24/bmw-to-sell-engines-to-mercedes-others/
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6523987/Vue-drops-Honda-engine-News.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_V8_engine
This doesn't even get into the issues of the hot-rodders who'll shove Chevy crates into anything at all...
From Black's Law Dictionary:
antitrust law. 1. The body of law designed to protect trade and commerce from restraints, monopolies, price-fixing, and price discrimination
monopoly, n. 1. Control or advantage obtained by one supplier or producer over the commercial market within a given region. Cf. OLIGOPOLY. 2. The market condition existing when only one economic entity produces a particular product or provides a particular service. 3. Patents. The exclusive right of a patentee to make, use, sell, offer for sale, or import an invention for a certain period, subject to the rights of the owners of other patents that would be infringed.
---
In the law few decades antitrust law has really fallen before patent law which creates what is often called a "legal monopoly".
@mobius1
lower price??? I don't know where you've been lately, but the price on apple computers is much more than that of a pc with equal specs
@Ian: you were ranked down for stating the not only obvious but already tirelessly stated, and thinking you were clever to do so. and for being a dumbass. :)
cheers.
@Pip, I here you, but using your broad definition, almost all manufacturers are monopolies. Microsoft is a monopoly because only they sell Xbox 360s, for example, likewise Apple has a monopoly in iPods, Boeing has a monopoly on 777s. Monopoly, in the sense we are discussing is not meant to be defined that broadly (or that narrowly, depending on your perspective)
Wow. This string of comments is the biggest load of fanboy horseshit I think I have ever read on Engadget.
Pip,
The definition of "monopolistic behavior" is not "company that does not have a monopoly but engages in practices that Pip doesn't like".
Monopolistic competition does not qualify because the agents in such a market do not have what is considered a monopoly.
As for Psystar, good for them. This action in no way will alter the outcome of the arbitration, so it makes no sense to not keep on with business as usual until told to do otherwise.
@UnixSystemsEngineer: Yeah, because I'm the first person to suggest that Apple has monopolistic characteristics. That's why my comments are voted up while the comments you're defending are voted down... and that Apple logo in your avatar wouldn't suggest that your biased or anything.
You want another Apple monopoly... a "real monopoly" by your definition. How about the #1 music store, iTunes, limiting the use of purchased songs to their MP3 players?
@leen: "Yes. If Chevy finds a way to use ford motors in their car, and they purchase them in a legal way, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with what they've bought, and that includes repackaging and reselling it if they think they can turn a profit."
The problem there is the word "LEGAL". Apple licenses each boxed copy of OS X as an upgrade. It is relatively inexpensive this way. Microsoft has also created upgrade versions of Windows that are less expensive and can be used in the same way.
The difference here is that Microsoft also markets full versions of Windows in a box; Apple does not. But think about it... Microsoft feels that selling boxed version of Windows is profitable for them, but Apple feels that selling boxed copies of OS X would actually reduce its income over the long term by creating overwhelming hardware competition.
Moral of the story: just because you REALLY REALLY want a company to do something doesn't mean they have to do it. Businesses exist to make money. I REALLY REALLY want Microsoft to port Office to Linux and to make a version of Visual Studio for the Mac and for Linux, but those make little financial sense in the eyes of Microsoft. I don't get what I want either.
I'm really not sure why everyone is hating on apple over this psystar issue.
Apple uses hardware sales to subsidise their OS development, the full cost of OS development is not included in the retail-off-the-shelf OSX box. The rest of the development cost is actually in the mac's people buy.
So when psystar takes OSX and puts it on a non-mac, they reap the benefits not from their own work but from customers of apple.
Apple is doing the right thing offering OSX very cheap because they know it is an upgrade, as everyone already paid for this OSX cost when they bought their mac. But if OSX is put on non-mac's, i.e. apple are forced to allow the sale, then apple may be forced to put the price up to recover the development cost. Then who would be whinging? Engadget commenters?
Now, the question is, why SHOULD they be forced to recover the full cost of the OS development by upping the price of the software. What is wrong with using one product's sales to support another's. I'm not sure why people hate apple over this..?
Is it just people crying about what they want, expecting to get it and whinging when they don't?
Psystar seems to be taking a big gamble, obviously so are it's investors, I'm just glad i'm not one of them.
why cant Apple protect its OS? Its nuts to FORCE Apple to sell their property to other makers, imagine that Coke brought out New Coke, turns out nobody likes it, and then Pepsi gathers a couple more points in marketshare, nobody would say that Pepsi has to give their recipe to Coke!
Nobody MAKES you use Windows, nobody MAKES you use OSX, nobody MAKES you use Linux. Why should Apple have to give up their OS? Do I have the right to ask you for your wallet?
Coke and Pepsi are the same thing! Wake up, people!!
Apple fail!
In response to many, you can have an antitrust violation without a monopoly. This particular arrangement is what is called a tying arrangement (because Apple "ties" the sale of its hardware to the sale of its OS). Tying arrangements aren't necessarily illegal, but they can be. If the tying arrangement is an unreasonable restraint of trade, then it violates antitrust laws (specifically, Section 1 of the Sherman Act). Whether or not Apple's EULA is an "unreasonable" restraint of trade is a very complicated analysis that we cannot possibly go into here.
The argument that Apple shouldn't be forced to sell its OS for all hardware. If the practice is an antitrust violation, then Apple absolutely can be forced to sell its OS for all hardware.
My favorite argument in favor of Apple's practice is "remember how Apple tried to do this before and almost went out of business." This is actually evidence that it is unreasonable restraint on trade, because it is admitting that without this practice, Apple could not withstand the competition. In other words, the EULA requirement is protecting Apple from competition instead of enhancing competition.
@Flashpoint:
If that's the case, Apple has no business comparing itself to Microsoft.
I have a feeling that it's more of a business model for Apple. They probably make all of their money off of hardware sales, not software licensing. If another company starts selling Mac-capable hardware, they'd have to lower their (hardware) prices and profit margin to sustain growth. The problem is that they'd have to start relying on software to make money...completely changing around their currently successful business model. The only way they'd be able to survive is if they'd be able to match Windows' market share after their monopoly on the Mac platform was destroyed. It's possible but, it'd be a huge risk.
There is no "monopoly" on the Mac platform. It doesn't fit the definition. But there has been considerable argument that Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop market, and that's debatable. You can choose to not use a Mac but there is a great deal more percentage of people who have no choice but to use Windows.
Apple can compare it's operating system, it's desktop to Windows. That's fair. But there is a divide in that Microsoft does not produce computers. You still don't have to choose a Mac. You can choose any other kind or brand of PC or build one yourself with off the shelf components. You can install any number of operating systems on your computer except one. Technically, you can not install OSX unless you own a Mac. Big deal. You don't have to have OSX.
Jobs was referring to the licensing requirements of HDCP for allowing Blu-ray movie playback on OSX. Basically, there is a whole host of DRM/encryption requirements that have to extend deep into the OS for "content protection" for the studios to agree to licensing. This is the same issue that got so much controversy with Windows Vista's DRM.
Pystar is simply offering a Blu-ray drive for data use, just as there are 3rd party Apple vendors selling BD drives for the Mac Pro.
Steve says how are you going to be playback Blu-ray movies? No playback software available for Mac OS X.
iit's not just os-x. it's an 'open' pc that can run OS-X, which is why it can also play blu ray
I'm sure an add-on can be written for something like VLC which supports almost any format already.
Actually, OS X supports Blu-ray, but doesn't have a playback software yet, so kind of useless.
Disregard my comment, i apparently can't read.
Yeah, how's it gonna perform the operation of "playback" without any software? Also, the drivers for the video card would have to allow for HDCP. Does this stuff exist yet?
1. Explore content (sorry, dont know OSX version of this)
2. -->"SOURCE" folder
3. Right click (sorry, don't know OSX version of this) .m2ts file
4. Open with "VLC"
VLC can bypass AACS and BD+? News to me.
@rock99rock
You've successfully done this on a Mac? That doesn't work in Windows because of encryption on the discs. Besides the fact that this technically isn't "playback" of the disc itself, but a work-around that locks out other aspects of "playback." Sometimes you end up with the French audio track with no way of switching to the English.
But on that note, I've unsuccessfully attempted .m2ts playback with VLC on Mac OS from a de-encrypted Blu-ray. Maybe my VLC is too old...but I don't think so.
oh yes right!
because you can only use APPLE designed and written software on a bsd derivative.....
oops.
fail.
i could never play HD DVDs on OSX how'm I gonna play the hurt bags?
@shawnmos
Oh im sorry. I borrow my copies. Its just so easy to play i didnt think it would be more difficult than that.
@looseinthedeuce
I have not tried on a Mac, i'll switch over to the other partition and try it tonight with a followup.
@looseinthedeuce
I can play the mt2s files, but like you said, audio issues\no audio. It was odd though, i had to move my mouse off of the video in order for it to play the video without pixelation.
thats badass...
It's not bad ass. It's stupid. Psystar is playing with fire. All Apple has to do is stop selling upgrades to OS X to people unless customers provide a proper serial number from their Macs. I've already heard rumbling on other forums that Apple is planning to roll out such a scenario using their Mac sell database. It looks like it going to be rolled out at the next Mac World. According to the rumor, Apple is going to limit the number of purchases for current Mac users to two copies, a lot like they did with the iPhone.
So Psystar is going to be in a lot of trouble if they can't buy OS X off the shelves any more. If that happens, Psystar will only be able to sell OS X using clones downloaded from P2P networks, which will make it much easier for Apple to sue them. The biggest argument that Psystar has in their favor is that Apple sells OS X on the open market. Remove that and Apple can argue that like the PS3 and Xbox, only current users of their computers have the right to buy upgrades.
And even more scary, there is no law that says that a company can't do this.
I'm a PC user, but Vista has disappointed me to the point where I've been searching for alternatives, one of which might be a Mac, especially if Windows 7 turns out to be a turd. Psystar is either going to kill Apple's model of business completely, which will mean Apple will drop the Mac in favor of making iPhones and iPods exclusively or Apple will be much more strict with OS X, to the point where it will rival Windows for annoying DRM like WGA. I'm praying this doesn't happen. I like having at least 2 choices between major operating systems. For one thing, it keeps Microsoft on their feet. For another, it makes computing much more interesting.
Psystar is just piggybacking on another company's success and hard work. If they were real men, they would make their own operating system and stop ripping Apple off. I know I'm going to get some flack from the Steve Ballmer clones, but that's the way it is.
Apple would be inviting DRMish style hatred from users if it required looking at a hardware serial number on the back of a computer to get upgrades.
@Paul C
Great going, spending half a day on your fanboi post, just to get it faded. Hell, you even included the far too cliché "i'm a PC user, but looking for alternatives". Give us a break and return to gizmodo...
Actually, you can get the serial number off your Mac under Preferences or something. My best friend has a Mac and showed me once, but I forget exactly where it is. His cousin works at Apple and hinted to him that they were "dealing" with Psystar at MacWorld 2009. Of course, the guy can't tell him outright, but he told my friend to look toward the iPhone "unlocking" as an example, which my friend took to mean the limiting of OS X licenses through credit card transactions or Mac serial numbers.
Anyway, my friend started a discussion about it on the Apple forums and a bunch of people heard similar things and nailed down the Mac serial rumor, but the thread got deleted a few days ago. That tells me the rumor is bang on.
Psystar is finished.
Okay, I did a quick search at Apple.com and it says you can find the serial number under "About This Mac," with these versions of OS X listed: Mac OS X 10.4, Mac OS X 10.3, Mac OS X 10.2, Mac OS X 10.1, Mac OS X 10.5.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1529?viewlocale=en_US
I guess "About This Mac" is the OS X equivalent of Windows Device Manager.
@Paul
LOL, real Macfanboy are you? The funniest rant Ive read for a long time.. You just don't realize that its Apple that is the bad guy trying to have monopoly on the hardware so they can overprice their products.
And about Apple quitting computer business if they could only profit on the OS, just looking at Microsoft Windows it would seem that the OS market is pretty lucrative.
"Paul Chapel @ Oct 28th 2008 5:54PM
Actually, you can get the serial number off your Mac under Preferences or something."
Not Preferences. It's found in the System Profiler.
~/Applications/Utilities/System Profiler
Yeah, right, except for the fact that XEROX came up with the a GUI and the basic look that Apple stole that Windows stole.Oh, and I am so happy to hear that Apple invented Unix, the base for OS X, except they didn't. In short, stfu, you=fail.
@PC fanboys
You know, I was on a political site the other day and this Ashley Todd "B" girl story came out and I told everyone on the forum that she was full of crap and her story didn't make sense and everyone either accused me of being a woman hater or a rabid Obama fanboy and suggested that I take a long dive off a tall bridge without a parachute. I just ignored their posts and the next day, it came out that I was right and she was lying. I didn't believe that those frat boys at Duke raped that stripper either. So I'm pretty good about these things.
So you guys can go on and on with this hyper paranoid fanboy nonsense, but I'm just bored at work passing the time. It's not like my social life depends on whether some low self esteem PC users believe my story. We'll all find out at MacWorld, won't we? And I'm sure Engadget will cover it in some detail, unless of course, Apple and Psystar come to some agreement behind closed doors.
Paul that is great and all, but that wouldn't change the legal scene. You can't change legal precedent by changing your product. It is the way in which you market and sell your product that is affected by the decision. People could still buy an upgrade for themselves and then the other copy. Apple wouldn't be able to do anything about that. Even worse would be if the court decides that Apple is in fact tying. You're talking about complete separation of OS X and Apple hardware is possible. In which case, they would no longer be able to prevent Pystar from buying OS X.
Also, what you're talking about sounds a lot like WGA. That didn't go over too well, and Apple was one of the first companies to accuse Windows of being overbearing.
"Okay, I did a quick search at Apple.com and it says you can find the serial number under "About This Mac," with these versions of OS X listed: Mac OS X 10.4, Mac OS X 10.3, Mac OS X 10.2, Mac OS X 10.1, Mac OS X 10.5."
Click Apple Logo->About This Mac
Then where it shows the version number, click twice and it will switch to build number and then to serial number. I guess they should make it more intuitive somehow or just show all the info on three lines since people don't usually click on random text in about boxes.
The problem with your scenario is that you assume that Psystar's court case will be settled in the next two months. If the case goes to trial, it won't be settled for a couple of years at the least. The United States v. Microsoft took two years. If Apple cuts off the blood supply to Psystar in January, who is going to fund their lengthy legal fight with Apple?
And Psystar has a lot of legal precedent against them. Apple won their lawsuit against Franklin Computers, another company that tried to clone an Apple computer, that is, the Apple II. I've said this before and I'll say it again, if Psystar was to win that means any company that makes their own operating system, will be subject to the same terms. That includes cell phones, digital cameras, servers, digital clocks, computers, everything. It would kill innovation in the market place.
Imagine HP creating an operating system and then Dell dropping in the next day and saying, "Hey, buddy, thanks for doing all that rough R&D work for us, but according to this Psystar law, you have to license to us now, see. Thanks a bunch. We were about to create our own OS to compete with you, but then we thought, why go through the trouble if we can just rip off your stuff? Isn't that just swell?"
Or how about Canon and Nikon?
"Hey, buddy, your new Nikon camera has a superior OS which captures light like butter. This here Psystar law says you have to give it to us, friend. Thanks a bunch."
Uh, no court in this country is going to allow that to happen. You know, it's fun to talk about "sticking it to the man," but in practicality, in a free market, that attitude just doesn't work.
That doesn't really work in your example because if HP created an OS that Dell wanted to use, HP could say sure, buy all the licenses you want, at $2000 a pop (or whatever). Apple set their prices such that Psystar can make a reasonable profit. If anything, blame Apple for making their OSX so inexpensive
Paul, you're right, if Apple bleeds Pystar dry, then they win. Just as likely is Pystar settling with Apple for a lump sum of money, after all that's why they are running a business, to make money. That being said, if their lawyers believe they have a good case, they would probably press on anyways under the presumption that they would get a cut of the likely money awarded.
The Franklin computers precedent actually doesn't work here. That case set precedent on copyright infringement. In essence, Apple did have a closed system. They weren't selling their ROM code. This case is different. Apple sells their operating system as a seperate product, and that is the basis for Pystar's case. They are arguing that Apple's tying of two seperate products is illegal, which has precedent both in the Microsoft case. Tying is something that falls under monopoly law and thus has much bigger ramifications for Apple if they are indeed found guilty.
That being said, this would not open up proprietary OSes. You're examples are invalid, because they differ in the fundamental basis for the case. As long as those manufacturers don't sell the OS as a separate product, no sane person would bring up a case of Tying against them. They are all closed systems sold as 1 package and not independently.
Also, you have to understand that Apple can not easily remove OS X from the retail space now. Because, assuming Pystar is able to continue the case and they get their verdict, that move would be considered to be another Anti-Trust Violation. Considering such violations were a huge basis for Europe's Case against MS, you would likely see similar problems there as well.
b-b-but i was told i could make a reasonable profit from 9 to 11
@Ryan O
Great point and as you can see either way, Apple is going to kill Psystar. If they limit OS X purchases to 2 per customer, Psystar is not going to be able to get a significant number of legit licenses to resell. If Apple loses their court case, they will raise the price on OS X so that they still get their premium. And no one is going to buy Psystar when they could just get a legit Mac which runs without any trouble.
It's been a while since the initial review, but didn't Engadget have problems connecting to the internet on the Psystar computer? Didn't they have to renew the DHCP license every few minutes? That kind of stuff is not going to be tolerated by the unwashed masses.
OS X, the way I understand, is cheap because Apple makes all their money on hardware. Microsoft, on the other hand, can price Windows pretty low to OEMs, because their markup is already ridiculous anyway. I mean, it costs almost nothing to press a CD with Windows and they have a monopoly, so they can make a boatload of money selling Windows in bulk. Apple can't do that.
@Shyam D
Well, we're speculating a bit too much here, but my sense is that Apple doesn't want to rock the boat too much until the holiday season is over. If they institute this policy during MacWorld, there will definitely be backlash, but the backlash will occur during the slowest retail quarter of the year, which is January through March. People will eventually come to accept Apple's new policy and get used to it, like they got used to iMacs not having floppy drives.
And once Psystar dies, more than likely they will do away with the policy. I don't think Psystar would last more than a couple of months. Plus you have to take in account that they would have to change their whole Point-of-Sale system in all the Apple stores and no one is going to do that right before the Christmas holidays. Yet again, better to wait until MacWorld. The news will be buried in the hype of whatever new toy they plan to release then.
And just a couple of points about this "tying" nonsense. First of all, it's not illegal to tie software to hardware. Microsoft got in trouble for "tying" because they told OEMs that they would raise volume prices on Windows if they put pre-installed versions of Netscape on the Windows desktop. That act opened them up for Anti-Trust inspection. Anti-Trust law governs BEHAVIOR, not monopolies. Monopolies in themselves are not illegal. Strong-arming companies that depend on your monopoly is against the law.
Apple doesn't have a monopoly on anything. There would have to a Mac market for Apple to be a monopoly. Apple has argued that they compete in the PC market and that OS X is the one thing that makes their brand more attractive. It's a legit way to compete with other PC makers. OS X is included with every Mac and sold as an "upgrade" in their stores. And the upgrades are subsidized by the hardware that Apple sells you. If you haven't bought a Mac, you aren't entitled to the subsidy. It's as simple as that.
@ Paul
"Tying nonsense"? This is basic business law. It is illegal and once again your comparisons aren't accurate. It is not illegal tying for motorola to, for example, bundle their software with their hardware and only allow the two to work together. Motorola doesn't sell their OS seperately so the OS is just part of their phone product. What's illegal is taking two separate products that are both sold on the open market and set it up such that neither works without the other. Now for minor things this is not enforced. Whether or not a situation amounts to illegal tying is really subjective and the law is enforced more or less depending on the impact that it really has on consumers and competition in the market. Look it up.
The reason apple hasn't been busted for this is because an apple computer isn't "technically" required to use OSX. Apple has made it very very difficult to use it on anything else but if you were to do things correctly (as pystar has) then you could install it somewhere else. But this law is what prevents apple from just suing Pystar. Just from the precedent that I'm aware of Pystar has a really solid foundation for their defense. And they must or else Apple wouldn't have agreed to arbitration. If apple were to limit purchases of its software to only those who currently own their hardware as you suggest they would probably need to make their OS and updates free, or else it would be in direct violation of these laws limiting tying.
And while I'm at it, your ideas about pystar destroying innovation is also misguided. Your example has Dell essentially stealing an operating system from HP after they did all the R&D. But Pystar is stealing nothing. Apple still gets the profits from all the extra copies of OSX being sold along with Pystar computers. This has no effect on innovation, just apple's profit margins on their hardware.
This thread is hilarious.
A couple things to clear up.
As Zoroaster said, it's not nonsense. There is nothing illegal about tying software to hardware. It is illegal to Tie two separate products though. Pystar is going to have to make the case that OS X is a separate product and Apple is going to have to make the case that it is not. As Zoroaster said, this is the reason Apple did not sue on copyright because Pystar is in fact going against the EULA, but having your EULA tested in court is not a fun thing, especially in this case.
As per Microsoft's case. That was never brought up. The whole argument was that IE was bundled with Windows. While other Web Browsers had to be downloaded, which in that era of dial-up internet, was cumbersome and detrimental to the progress of IE's competitors. Hence, Microsoft was effectively Tying IE to Windows, even though no one was even paying for IE. Hence the rulings.
You have to keep in mind, Microsoft's strong-arming was never actually brought up. BeOS's CEO even brought up that fact, but Microsoft was strong-arming competitors in the OS arena through rebates for OEMs. It is much harder legally to prove that this is anti-competitive and monopolistic. Tying on the other hand is very clearly defined as per the Sherman and Clayton Anti-trust acts.
Secondly, you're comment on Apple not having a monopoly is moot, since one paragraph before, you said that monopolies are not illegal, but strong-arming companies that depend on your monopoly is. Isn't Apple strong-arming Pystar, since their uniqueness depends on Apple's SEPERATE product of OS X. I don't think you're realizing the level of legal significance that has. As long as Apple sells OS X separately, Pystar has a case. It doesn't matter if Apple changes that in the near future, because if Pystar can make the legal argument that by doing so Apple is continuing it's Anti-competitive BEHAVIOR , they can seek damages. In essence, it is not wise for Apple to pull OS X as a separate product for now. If Apple can successfully argue that their Retail OS X is indeed an upgrade, under legal grounds, then they can definitely win. Whether they can do that considering the way in which their retail products work is yet to be seen.
Also, Apple and Pystar never agreed to Arbitration. Arbitration is generally the first step in cases like this, and Judges prefer to force it just in case. If Pystar is merely out for money, It will likely end here. If they really do want Apple to open up OS X, then we will likely see the case move on.
You guys are just making stuff up and bringing the "but it's not RIGHT!!!" mode of argument to this discussion. Show me the law that specifically states that it is illegal to tie software to hardware. There isn't any. If there were such a law then the PS3, Wii, Xbox, RIM's black berries, Nokia's cell phones, IBM's servers, Panasonic's video cameras and a long line of other products would all breaking the law. In fact if there was such a law, Microsoft would still be violating it, don't you think?
Microsoft has been bundling software with Windows since the first version of the OS. They came in violation of the law, not by tying Internet Explorer, but because they were using their monopoly power to prevent Netscape from being installed on the computers of OEMs.
Apple provides OS X to users in Apple stores because it is convenient for their users to upgrade their Macs in this way. But again, they are classified as UPGRADES. They are subsidized by Apple's hardware. If Apple priced out OS X according to what it actually costs them to make it, it would be in the range of retail Windows. It probably be between $300 and $500 a CD.
And don't give me the argument about OS X being a separate product. If it were a completely separate product, it would be able to run on any and all hardware, wouldn't it? Sure, people can hack it to run on other hardware, but it's not perfectly compatible right out of the box.
The next thing you know, you guys are going to be advocating Apple to commit suicide by allowing the iPhone software on a competitor's phone. It's possible, you know. You can already download the firmware from iTunes.
It would be easier for you guys to look at this whole issue without the fanboy filter. You know, that feeling that tells you to hate Apple because of some perceived slight from their users or commercials or whatever it may be. I find this whole PC/Mac rivalry to be kind of silly myself and will use any computer that fills my needs at any particular time. The next time I'm ready to buy a computer, Macs are very high on my list. I hope that Psystar doesn't screw it for everybody.
Alright, you didn't read a damn thing I wrote. It doesn't matter what we the consumer or industry define as a separate product. All the matters is how the Law, defines a seperate product and the way it is interpreted by the judge as per the arguments from the Lawyers of Pystar and Apple. If Apple can make the case that it is not a seperate product, then yes, you win. Otherwise, Pystar has a huge advantage, and past precedent namely the Microsoft case is in their favor.
Honestly, you have the fanboy filter. I've been talking here from the legal standpoint. You're talking from the Apple stand point.
No, such a law does not making Tying Hardware to Software illegal. None of those companies sell their OS. It is not a separate product but a part of one product and thus can not be separated. Legal cases such as these are always nitpick cases about little details that can completely change game in this way. Get used to it. Microsoft had to deal with it. Apple will likely too.
So like i said to Zak, quit spreading Legal FUD. Btw, go read up on the Microsoft case. You're making stuff up as you go. Hell, at least read the Wikipedia summary of it.
@ Shyam D. You rock (and are better at explaining this then I have been in my multiple battles with Zak over the past few months). I didn't know a lot about tying arrangements until recently, but I've had to read literally dozens of cases on it for work, and I'm thinking Psystar's case is looking better and better the more cases I read (although far from a slam dunk... the rule of reason analysis they will probably have to go through is a bitch).
@ Paul. Practically speaking, you are right, Apple's strategy is probably just to bleed Psystar dry, but from a legal standpoint your arguments are faulty, and you don't have counterarguments when Shyam points them out. If you aren't a Mac phan-boi you sure sound like one.
@ Paul Chapel
“First of all, it's not illegal to tie software to hardware.” (Oct 28th 2008 8:59PM Comment)
“Show me the law that specifically states that it is illegal to tie software to hardware. There isn't any.” (Oct 29th 2008 12:35AM Comment)
Both statements are incredibly conclusory and, as it turns out, wrong, both factually and legally. First, Apple's EULA doesn't tie software to hardware... it does the exact opposite. It ties hardware to software (it is Apple's hardware that is required to be used with Apple's OS by the EULA). This can make a difference.
Second, there is law on point (and in the 9th Circuit, where Apple and Psystar's case is pending), that tying hardware to an OS is illegal. See Digidyne Corp. v. Data General Corp, 734 F.2d 1336, 1341-47 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that the defendant's conditioning the sale of its OS on the purchase of its CPU constitutes an illegal tying violation).
I'm sure you will now apologize for your errors and concede that you are wrong /sarcasm
This is bad news............for Apple
/farker
Why? Find me more than about 10 people who will actually buy one of these systems.
It's not bad from a competition standpoint, it's bad if Psystar is able to invalidate Apple's EULA, which would open the door for Apple clones and would essentially kill Apple because it can't compete effectively in an actual competitive hardware market. Personally, I think Psystar has a decent case, and it could win IF it had the resources to make it to a final verdict... which it won't because Apple will probably bleed them dry
Sweet! Fight! Fight! Fight! Fight!
I'll even give Psystar my knuckle dusters!
lulz
A PC maker is creating better Macs than Apple. Jobsie needs to let go of whatever weird hangup he has about midtowers and throw one out there. Let Apple kids experience the joy of a real PC for once (without having to spend $2,500 on one of those massive towers).
Do you know why Macs are so much more stable than Windows machines? It's because they don't have to support every single bit of hardware out there, they are designed with specific hardware in mind, and that provides stability. I'd let your comment go if Apple hadn't already tried a strategy with non-apple branded computers, but, they did, and it almost cost them the whole company.
"I'd let your comment go if Apple hadn't already tried a strategy with non-apple branded computers, but, they did, and it almost cost them the whole company."
UH, I said Steve Jobs needs to put out a midtower. Not let everyone make them. How is what you are saying relevant to that at all?
@ Beanie. Who says Apple has to support other computers running OS X? Exactly, nobody says that. Not even Psystar.
@Beanie
I am letting his comment go. Because Apple can make a Midtower, and there are no special "specific" hardware limitations for that form factor, and
if you use the same hardware, over and over, the cost of manufacturing is cheaper for that "specific" hardware.
Again, the only reason this does not happen is the profit margin would not be not half of what it is now. It would be more support for less margin. That should be your reasoning.
And for that reason alone, Apple is the devil. Thats what Bobby Boucher's mom would say anyway.
I don't know -- I remember the non-apple-branded Macs of the 90's as being great computers. Kept me interested in Macs back during a time when a "real" Macintosh was too damn expensive.
"ripped off the work of the OSX86 teams"
No they didn't... they are buying legitimate copies of that software to install on their computers.
I didn't say you could. But they aren't stealing money from the OSX team. They are purchasing their product, not pirating it.
Creating better Macs? Obviously you haven't read the other Engadget articles detailing how shabby those Psystar computers are.
Not OSX team Atropos, OSX86. Pystar is using the software created by the OSX86 community which has been making OSX work on PCs for some time now. They're using software such as netkas's EFI simulated boot loader code and making a profit off that. Netkas has even come out and said that he doesn't like that. While I agree with what they are doing against Apple, I don't like the fact that they are blatantly ripping off a community that has done the real hard work in making this work, and providing little to no credit to them. On top of this they continue to do so even after being asked to stop by the OSX86 community.
are you guys saying Apple likes profit?
@Shyam D
OH OH! I totally misread that the first couple of times... my bad. Yes, they most certainly ARE ripping that off very badly. Haha.
BAM! talk about a swift kick in the nuts.
zOMG to Apple clone warz??!
Aren't clones generally not as good as the original? Like a photocopy? But this Psystar is like waaaaaaaaaay better than an iMac
Apple is more like a dying race with thousands of years of knowledge and history and ego, fighting against the inevitable victory of a growing group of genetically mutated beings that are in fact the next step in their own evolution...
He's got nothing to say. He will however, sacrifice a goat.
I wonder what would happen if dell/hp join the fun of creating 'mac' compatible PCs...
Actually, Dell did say they would support Mac OS X if Apple was willing to license it to them. Not sure about HP though.
all pew pew no qq
Win
awesome. just curious, where did you pick up QQ?
Row Row Row, fight the powah!
Pow! Right in the kisser!