The soap opera of would-be Mac cloner Psystar was already full of shady twists and turns, but there's a possibility Apple's legal team thinks there's some truth to a few of the wilder conspiracy theories out there -- a paragraph tacked on to an amended version of the complaint filed in California says that Apple believes people or corporations "other than Psystar are involved in Psystar's unlawful and improper activities." That could mean just about anything, of course -- we've always thought Psystar was being a little
too cocky, and no one's ever figured out how a fledging company that couldn't even
hold on to a credit card processor could retain such a
hotshot law firm -- but chances are Apple's just covering its ass in case it wants to sue the major investors of Psystar individually or even the OSx86 hackers that
unwillingly enabled the company's dubious business. Either way, with all of Psystar's
antitrust counterclaims dismissed and Apple adding new DMCA claims to its lawsuit, we've got a feeling things are about to go boom in Florida pretty soon -- if machines really are
still shipping, this is probably your last chance to grab a piece of (
semi-functional) history.
[Via
Daring Fireball]
posted December 3rd 2008 11:42AM
You have to read Zak's post above. He does make a good point as to why Apple can't let their OS be licensed to other Hardware Manufacturers.
because apple sells computes, not just the OS.
#1. OS X on generic hardware would likely end up with the sames sorts of issues as Windows does with driver issues. Mac is a closed system. The downside is that you can't just run anything you want. The upside is that it is more stable because the OS is tailored to the hardware. If Apple opened up OS X to generic hardware, the user experience would not be that good.
#2. Apple makes about 20% profit on a lot of it's Mac line. Selling OS X separately would cannibalize Mac sales.
Apple will never sell OS X for generic hardware, at least not while Steve jobs draws breath.
Actually no. I want stability and don't mind a limited system. You see' you can't have everything. You might buy more expensive hardware but you can get cheap software and I would like to keep it that way. I am typing on a 5 year old iBook G4 with 1 Mghz processor and 758MB RAM on which I run CS4 everyday and I never had to update shit and never had any problems whatsoever (it's even the same HD). Hell yeah, it was worth $1200!!! You don't like to pay for a Mercedes, get a Ford, it's that easy.
And yes, there is someone else behind Psystar than just the owner who will suddenly go back to South America when shit hits the wall!
Maybe you'd understand if you read one of the other of billions of posts on the matter in the past 8 years, rather than just regurgitating the same ill-considered questions.
Here's a quick summary of the answer:
As consumers, we'd all love to have more choice in operating systems, so it's a no-brainer to advocate OSx86 available for all hardware.
As a business, Apple could never afford to do this due to the massive barriers to entry in generic x86 OS market. The economies of scale for supporting that hardware simply don't exist unless you own a massive percentage of the market.
Come on now people the last thing on microsoft's mind is Apple, and no there not enemies, but Apple does have a lot of enemies out there and if someone at Psystar goes to jail which is pretty possible, we will soon find out who's behind it all
Well, if you want to accuse Microsoft, at least there's a precedent -- Their funding of Baystar who funded SCO in the suits against Novell, etc. It's pretty much cut-and-dried that Microsoft funded that FUD campaign, and it seems like a legitimate tactic for them to try to use again.
The problem with that argument is that Microsoft really needs Apple to provide legitimate competition so that they can argue that they're not a monopolist.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone was behind the whole Psystar thing, but I doubt it's MS.
Give it few years if Apple's market share keeps rising then this problem is going to keep resurfacing.
Violating an EULA is not illegal, it's breaking a contract, if you break a contract with a company they can sue you for damages at which point the court must decide if the contract is valid or not then decide on suitable damages.
Apple can chase people like PsyStar who do this on retail systems, especially since Psystar still have to buy loads of copies of OSX from somewhere but home builders are safe to try and do whatever they want (As long as you actually bought Leopard and didn't torrent for it as that is violating the law).
And by the way if you rant about Apple's profit margin then you are a fanboy, YOU'RE A CUSTOMER praising Apple's ability to make a profit out of YOU is just sad.
To rant is to complain. I think you mean "raving about Apple's profit margin", which makes sense if you're a shareholder, in which case a large profit margin is in your personal interest.
Personally, I want Apple to make *some* profit because I want them to keep developing products that are pleasant to use so that I am not stuck with the MS nightmare. Beyond that, I have no interest in them making large profits, because I sold my stock awhile ago...
Apple, I want to love you but you're not making it easy. Just because you date all the other designers doesn't mean I'm willing to pay for your high maintenance ways. I know you say you're clean, but that girl next door, the PC, has some charm as long as she's had her shots.
I'm sorry, but it's just not working out.
I was always under the belief that EULA meant nothing when it is put under the legal microscope?
In the post about people buying used copies of XP to install them on new PC's people had no problem violating the EULA. They claimed that it had no legal legs to stand on and there's no way you'd ever get in trouble for it.
Why is Apple's EULA legally bulletproof as everyone so far seems to think?
and yes, I like my idioms
My understanding is that EULAs are generally held up by US contract law.
The more controversial practice of including a EULA that can't be read until AFTER the product is opened (shrinkwrap EULA) seems to be only legal if you're allowed to return the item after opening it (frequently within 30 days) to indicate your disagreement with the contract.
Moshe!
GO Psystar!!!
Charge!
AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
Can't they postpone the lawsuit? They don't even have laptops out yet!
It's been pointed out in various ways and means but it's not complex. It's very simple:
1.) Apple has been down the Mac clone road before. Eliminating the Mac clone market made sense, as the clone makers ate into Apple profits. Hence, Apple creates the OS for specific hardware and you get a consistent user experience with few surprises and problems. Yes, it limits the hardware that the OS runs on and the price for Macs is higher than most of us would like but guess what? You don't have to buy the newest or latest Mac right now. You can buy a used Mac from macofalltrades.com and save money. Price isn't a barrier to owning a Mac any more.
2.) Psystar isn't going to win because Apple's EULA forbids running the OS on any hardware that isn't Apple and clearly, Psystar hardware isn't Apple. Simple as that. Psystar loss imminent.
3.) Obviously this small company isn't paying their own legal bill. Someone bigger than them is behind them. Psystar had to know going in that Apple would sue them, and their legal team obviously knows they will lose. The lawyers are in it to get paid. Nothing more. Whoever is paying the legal fees likely wants Apple to get bad press. Why? What company do you think would benefit from any bad publicity linked to Apple's OS? Same company who invested in SCO to help them kill off Linux (which by the way, didn't work).
What's Linux?
And on today's episode of "As the Apple Turns"......
It's obvious who's behind the shyster...er...Psystar clone-maker.
SCO!
:-D
I wouldn't be surprised if it was that nut Richard Stallman. Seems like he wouldn't mind people stealing the work of others just because its software and therefore should be "free".
For those of you who don't know who Stallman is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
I hope i dont sound stupid or anything,
I've been folowing this problem from the begening. My question is this.
Isnt spystar sorta but not really using mac components? i mean, an intel processor is the same that a pc and a mac uses am i wrong? like i get the EULA is that OS X cant be install on a machine that doesnt have a pretty apple on it, but arent all the component sorta similar?
please go easy on me...lol im just expresing my though..
Halla :-)
What about "Michael Dell". First Jobs goes to him when apple was hurting, then Dell goes to Jobs when the Intel switch happens.
Both deny each other creating a feud. Dell is open to other OS'S besides Winblows. Like Ubuntu or possibly Mac OS X?