German Mac cloners: "We know our product won't last long"
By Nilay Patel 
posted Feb 24th 2009 1:24PM
posted Feb 24th 2009 1:24PM
We knew the loophole in German contract law that would-be Mac cloners HyperMegaNet claimed exempted them from the OS X EULA was too good to be true, and it sounds like they do too: in an interview with the New York Times, owner Dirk Bloessl says that although he doesn't "fear Apple," all Cupertino needs to do to shut his PearC machines down is label the Leopard retail box "to be installed only on a Mac" or even just point out that the license is available on the Apple website. Until that happens, Dirk says he'll be selling his hackintoshes to anyone who wants "a fast machine, but does not need a good looking computer," even though he knows "the product does not have a long life time." That's certainly more reasonable than the increasingly wild-eyed defenses mounted by Psystar, but we've got a feeling Apple's German legal team is going to crack down just as hard.
Nie!
its nein.
Actually, "nie" means "never", and was perhaps being used to express shock, just as it would suggest shock in English...
Tarnation: You're an idiot. Apple makes money on HARDWARE. NOT SOFTWARE. I don't know how many more times this has to be explained to you. If Apple sold their OS for use on any computer like MS sells Windows, Apple would go out of business in a matter of weeks. Why? Because Apple makes money on HARDWARE. NOT SOFTWARE.
Furthermore, it's their choice. Your sense of false entitlement is laughable. Apple owes you nothing, so get over it.
... Or enohPi is just a douchebage with no knowledge what what he was actually saying.
Monty Python, perhaps? Or was that "Ni"?
I think it has more to do with Apple's inadequacy issues. They fear if they adopt a Microsoft styled business model what with the selling of the OS and only the OS for license on anything falling in the required hardware specs list they might be forced to compete.
Oh noes adopt a real OS model, but we are so comfortable with Uncle Steve telling us what are computer should run.
yes. it is a different business model. we get it. both microsoft and apple sell their products in different manners. for the love of all tech, why you hatin'? can't we all just get along?
Apple makes teh $$$ from Hardware + Software (MS is Software) and not having to support so many fail machines because they know what hardware teh software is running on.
But anyway Apple is failing of late... If they do not have anything substantial to release this june, then the stock will be downgraded to FAIL.
I told Steve Jobs on the phone last night...i says to steve i says "Yo F****er, your lackey better have some new iPhone ready because that 3G design aint gonna cut it much longer..."
I told them they should have continued to sell the 1st Gen for another year...
Oh... dosed off there for a sec.... I'm awake now.
No, Microsoft has no qualms with running their OS on Apple computers. Is it fair that Apple won't offer the same? Until they do I will loathe and despise Apple. The day they release a version that I can legally install and dual boot from my home built PC either Mac OS or Windows is the day I will respect Macs until that day Macs can all just die in a fire.
Defending shitty anti-consumer EULAs is step one of an Apple addiction.
"Is it fair that Apple won't offer the same?"
Yes, it is completely fair.
What you fail to understand is that Apple has a completely different business model, even thought this was pointed out to you already. Microsoft makes software for generic computers, Apple doesn't. The primary cause of instability in Windows is 3rd party drivers. Apple doesn't have or want to deal with this problem, and as mentioned they make money from selling the entire package. There is no way they are going to jeopardize that by selling OS X for generic PCs.
The sense of entitlement that you and a lot of folks have is just laughable. "I WANT to run OS X on a non-Mac, therefore I should be able to, and it's just not fair that Apple doesn't give me what I want. Blah, blah, blah." Just because you feel entitled to something does not mean someone must provide it or that you are entitled to it.
You want to run OS X on your Dell? Go buy it and knock yourself out, but don't get pissed at apple because they don't have the drivers you need and it doesn't work like you expect; they don't sell that product, and they never will.
Apple sells an expensive product to those that appreciate it and can afford it, much in the same way that Porsche sells expensive cars to those that are willing to pay for them. A Ford will get you from point A to point B just as well as a Porsche, but with less style, speed and handling. So what? Don't be pissed at Apple because they don't provide you the product you want in the way you want it. Just buy Vista and be happy with it. It's your choice after all.
Dude, that's the dumbest thing I ever heard. The whole point of creating your own operating system is so that you can compete. No one is stopping HP, Dell or Sony from creating their own OSes and providing better experiences than Windows.
Those computer companies are just too lazy to do so.
I think the fact that most PCs have Windows pre-installed is anti-competitive.
@CraigJ
That isn't an accurate comparison. I can pay just as much money for hardware on a custom build as any Mac which if you read my second comment is what I am talking about. I also don't go wining and complaining to Windows, because the latest ATI/Nvidia drivers suck. Those companies might be inclined to develop drivers for the Mac if it were a viable platform and hey who knows maybe they would be better supported on a Mac OS than Windows.
Basically they are treating the issue by ignoring it or threatening legal action while communities like OSx86 continue to grow with people building their own machines and illegally installing the OS on them.
THINK about this for a minute. What kind of punch in the mouth would it be if Microsoft woke up one morning to see its market share rapidly decreasing because OSX is being sold by other vendors. I think it would be a wake up call for Microsoft to become more innovative and truly fix some of the things that are wrong with Windows.
For what is supposed to be a hip crowd Mac users are very close minded.
@Tarnation: I agree with you there. Sadly, even if that becomes reality, most of the people who hate apple will continue to do so and vice versa. The hate fest is too extreme.
All this talk about them not going after OSx86 community makes sense, until you come to the realization that Psystar and these guys are attempting to make money off of Apple products by reselling them. Under what precedent is the unlicensed resale of of a modified copyrighted work acceptable?
in terms of full disclosure and proper citation. I lifted some of what I said off of a previous post by Nilay. He is a copyright lawyer after all.
Again, I think you fail to understand. Apple isn't ignoring anything. This is their business model. This is a bit like getting Pissed at AC Delco because they don't make radios you can easily install in your Honda or Ford.
Selling OS X by itself would, servery impact the user experience of OS X, would significantly increase Apple's support costs, and would seriously impact the sales of Macs. Overall this would be very bad for Apple for numerous reasons.
It's all moot. They will NEVER do this.
@Tarnation
Wow, you're a fool.
Apple can't use M$'s model because it does NOT work for a hardware manufacturer. Microsoft doesn't make PC's.
M$'s model works for M$ because they ONLY sell software and they license it to hardware manufacturers. Apple already TRIED that crap in the 90's and it cost them dearly. They nearly went bankrupt as a result.
Where do you get off saying that it isn't a *real* distribution method for an OS? Sure it is. Even MICROSOFT does the same thing with the OS on their Xbox 360. Make a clone of that with their 360 OS on it and they'll make sure you feed the fishes.
It's called robust programming- being able to write one program that can handle many different types of situations.
Windows is robust, OSX is less so.
Windows can be bought by any yahoo with a processor, motherboard, and memory and installed any way the consumer wants.
Macs are a nice little package that can be bought (for a premium) so that the person doesn't have to "deal" with the hassle of drivers/ software/ external hardware not working.
1. the law backs up their right to control the hardware used. so get over it
2. it makes a lot of sense given that Apple does their own tech support. if the OS could be used on anything, it would be hella more expensive to train their techs to support all the possibilities. as well as to update the OS to not break under every possible configuration
Nilay... I want your babies!
oh but wait, i'm not an iFan and this isn't an iBlog! So please go find some real news.
You have to love this guys honesty.
Vell, zie machine itself is not sehr gut looking, und it vill not last sehr lange.
Aber, es ist ziemlich schnell...
I hope Apple eventually gets the hint and frees OSX. I'm willing to bet their market share would more than double overnight.
Doesn't Apple already sell OS X off the shelf? Isn't that how these guys managed to make a Mac clone in the first place? So how, in your view, does Apple need to set OS X "free?" It seems pretty free already.
what he means is that they will allow you to legally install OS X on a machine other than an apple computer. you can buy OS X, but it must be installed on an apple machine, not a Dell, HP, Custom, etc.
@facebookfake
That's possibly true but then their market share is already low and the profits they are making would go through the floor unless they licensed the OS for far more than they currently sell it. Right now Apple is one of the most profitable hardware manufacturers, so why would they want to change a winning formula? Market share really isn't important if you are making a good enough profit and that's what shareholders care about.
HyperMegaNet? Really?
Guess they already knew the company was going down when they where looking for a name, so they didn't really bother to find a good one..
Are you kidding me? This is arguably the BEST name... As in 'Compuglobalhypermeganet'. It's from The Simpsons.
3M and M&M were taken..
Apple isn't after your respect, they want your money. It's not like you'll go run out and spend $129 for an OS when you can torrent it for free. How in the heck can you see Apple profiting from OS X as a seperate OS. OS X will also suffer the same faults of Windows if it follows that model. I'd rather be one of the selfish few running OS X without worrying about all that BS- that's why I switched in the first place.
Up front Apple products are a little more expensive than other PC manufacturers but I got a computer that will serve me longer then if I custom built something.
I don't get it. Microsoft bundles a browser and a few other utilities, and the EU sues them for billions, saying it stiffles competition.
Why the heck hasn't Apple gotten the crap sued out of them for being FAR FAR more restrictive?
Because Apple only has less than 10% of the PC market.
because Apple doesn't have over 90% market share. get it?
So it's not the crime, but the deepness of the pockets?
10% of the market should be enough to justify a law suit. They also have a much higher share of the video processing market (and a few others).
Microsoft didn't get sued for bundling. Microsoft got sued for threatening to revoke volume licenses from computer companies if they installed Netscape by default on the Windows desktop.
And furthermore, you can't completely delete Internet Explorer from Windows, while Safari can easily be deleted from OS X.
Good point. I find Apple's policy much more anti-competitive than the bundling of IE and Media Player. You can ignore both of those and just not use them. Oh and Apple bundles lets see Safari, Quicktime, and iTunes I don't see them getting sued.
Oh god, the browser wars again.
I thought we got over this?
Removing IE in Windows would BREAK THE OS. THAT is why Microsoft was sued. IE was tied directly into the OS.
Safari is completely standalone and wont break a damn thing if you delete it. You see the difference now? MS was being anticompetitive be disallowing you to run another browser. Apple isn't being anticompetitive at all. Not even a little bit. Try it, install Firefox on a Mac. Did it break the OS? Then it's not being anticompetitive.
Please buy a clue, thx.
"I don't get it. Microsoft bundles a browser and a few other utilities, and the EU sues them for billions, saying it stiffles competition."
Microsoft changed things in their OS to make competing software run poorly or even not run at all. They also did things to discourage the OEM manufacturers from bundling Netscape as well.
"Why the heck hasn't Apple gotten the crap sued out of them for being FAR FAR more restrictive?"
Apple isn't stopping you from buying a different computer or using windows. So you have OPTIONS. Microsoft created a scenario where you have NO options. If you want to use OSX, you gotta get a Mac, but Apple isn't stopping you from using other OSes. If you DON'T buy a Mac, you can always use a Windows or *snicker* Linux PC.
@Pacman
"Microsoft didn't get sued for bundling. Microsoft got sued for threatening to revoke volume licenses from computer companies if they installed Netscape by default on the Windows desktop.
And furthermore, you can't completely delete Internet Explorer from Windows, while Safari can easily be deleted from OS X."
Yeah, you beat me to it.
I think he fact that you can never, EVER, get rid of IE is a nail in the coffin for Microsoft in this case. It's even worse-so because IE is a awful piece of software. I pity anyone who uses it.
Apple should just shut up and update the Mac mini or come out with a Mac midi.
That's impossible! I was under the impression that the Germans always made good stuff.
I see you were taken in by the ShamWow! commercials...
HyperMegaNet, just do some teenage fiddling with Ubuntu themes, people will never know.
Definition of teenage fiddling
1.
verb.
To play with pre-built OS X style themes in the Ubuntu Linux OS
Since Apple intends OS X to only run on a Mac, and all Macs come with Mac OS, all Apple has to do to permanently fix this problem is to label boxed OS X as an upgrade. then it you install it on anything that didn't come from Apple you will be very clearly violationg the liscense.
No, all Apple really needs to do is jack up the price on OS X so that third parties can't make money off it when they resell on non-Mac computers.
Of course, Apple would continue to give actual Mac users discounts which keep the price down near the $129.00 level. They could also keep credit card purchases on file, just in case third party resellers like Psystar try to buy a Mac and then try to buy more than two copies of an OS X licenses.
> "No, all Apple really needs to do is jack up the price on OS X so that third parties can't make money off it when they resell on non-Mac computers."
Exactly. If Apple made OS X $699, this would all be over. Current Mac users would have to provide their serial number when they need an upgrade for $129. Or just not offer shrink wrapped OS X at all.
But I never thought any of this was about other companies making money. Psystar is just doing it to prove a point... and this German company actually said it won't last long. They know they aren't playing by the rules..
Yes and Craig you are defending a corporations right to tell you what to do with a product you purchased from them you didn't rent it you own it, If i want to install it on a different machine and modify it so what ? I bought it, I'm not reselling it or profiting from it, it's a complete joke Microsoft can't tell me what I'm allowed to install the products I buy from them on, no other company in the world acts like that and little iDiots like you actually defend it so you feel a bit better about £1200 you spent on an iMac when i can get better performance out of a home build PC for £300.
Bring on the day when OS X is open to the masses, it will happen eventually just like when Compaq worked out how to re-engineer IBM PC BIOS without stepping on their patents and open up PCs for everyone.
The thing I never understand is why do iDiots feel so threatened by PCs running OS X, is because their smug superiority complex will be lost forever against people who actually know what their hardware can actually do ?
@Major4Play
We don't want Apple to license OS X because then it would become a crapfest of driver support and be unstable just like Windows. Furthermore, remove Apple's hardware margin incentive and they stop making money and you know what happens then? Apple stops making Macs and you know what happens when Microsoft gets 99 percent of the market? Microsoft stops innovating and maybe updates Windows once every fifteen years, exactly like they did with Internet Explorer.
When Netscape was kicking around, Micrososft had a 100 people on their Internet Explorer team. When Netscape died (or got killed) Microsoft reduced that team to 2 people. And we all know what happened then. Microsoft didn't start innovating with Internet Explorer until Firefox appeared on the scene, so these Apple clones aren't good for Windows users either.
Apple could drop Macs altogether and just make iPods and iPhones. Who wants the headache of supporting a bazillion different drivers without the proper profit incentive. The only reason Microsoft makes money off their OS is because they have a monopoly.
@ major4Play
no one is debating whether of not you can put your own copy of osx on another pc. you would, of course need to buy a multi-license unless you were just going to install it on that one pc. but it would be illegal to resell it at any price.
you can tinker with it all you want.
but you can't do what zie weimar are doing in this case
"I'm not reselling it or profiting from it,"
These guys are. See the difference?
" it's a complete joke Microsoft can't tell me what I'm allowed to install the products I buy from them on"
Hardware verification. Ever heard of that?
M$ has a EULA too. Look it up.
"no other company in the world acts like that"
Microsoft (Xbox and Xbox 360), Sony (PS1, 2 and 3), Nintendo (geez, pick a system), Palm (Palm OS), SGI (At least until they opened their platform up, now they are no longer around), SUN (until they opened their platform up, now what condition are they in again?) IBM (They fought clone manufacturers in court), RIM...
The list goes on and on and on...
"Bring on the day when OS X is open to the masses, it will happen eventually just like when Compaq worked out how to re-engineer IBM PC BIOS without stepping on their patents and open up PCs for everyone."
How was that good for IBM?
It wasn't. The ONLY reason that flew was due to the fact that Microsoft didn't care as long as they were selling more copies of windows. In Apple's case, they would be STRONGLY opposed.
In fact, I believe that all Intel Macs have a TPM chip in place, a chip that, at present, isn't being used. Apple could easily make all future versions of OSX require hardware and TPM verification in order to be installed.
That means VALID serial numbers that are in their database, would be required.
See, Apple keeps track of every single Mac made and sold.
I just bought a Macbook a few weeks ago. I can call Apple RIGHT NOW and they would be able to tell me when I bought it, WHERE I bought it and even WHAT upgrades I got with it.
So, there you have it, TPM and Hardware verification. Call in with a incorrect serial and you don't get the passcode. Don't have an authentic TPM in your machine, no install. Remove or alter those components and maybe other components rewrite them or OSX phones home every time you boot. They can lock it down.