"Psystar slaps Apple around, releases Mac clones with Blu-ray / GeForce 9800GT"

[Macmel]

Indeed, all cases go exactly the opposite way, and just recently we had Jacobsen v. Katzer which held that open source licenses are just as enforceable as proprietary software licenses. You cannot have one without the other, and you can't have the Katzer opinion without the basic premise that license agreements are legally binding. It is true that many provisions that commonly appear in such licenses cannot be enacted in an adhesive contract, and that these provisions are commonly stricken. But this does not make the entire document unenforceable.

Well, they way you describe this case, might not apply to this case. For example, in this case you could be dealing with royalties: as nobody really has made this open source software, I take it, pack it and make money out of it. And of course, that's as illegal as it is doing so with commercial software.
But the case here is absolutely different. Psystar did not steal any software. They're giving you Leopard bought from Apple without charging you a single penny more of its price (so they don't make money with other people's work, but Apple is the one making money with it). And you can install Leopard on a PC without touching a single line of its code just using EFI emulation (which affects your PC, but that's yours and you do whatever you want with it). The question here is: if I buy a glass, can the glass-maker tell me what to drink on it?. In other words, if I legally buy Leopard, can really Apple tell me (with any legal value) where to install it?.

And changing subjects: imagine there's no Leopard and Apple is another Windows-based computer producer. How many of you would buy a windows computer for $1300 without firewire, blu-ray, etc., versus a Dell with all of that and even more for $800?. Think again now about overpriced hardware.

 

[djellison]

slapping some cheapo Bluray drive into your machine.

Get over yourself. It's a retail LG drive and it's performed perfectly from day 1. Apple are more guilty of cheapo-drive installation than anyone. It's taken them years longer than ANY other manufacturer to get rid of crap combo drives.

You've clearly been an Apple fan for a long time. You need to wake up. Apple are ripping you off with average hardware with poor features and very very high prices. For the £1700+ they want for an MBP - I can have a genuine workstation class laptop with a workstation class GPU with a high res screen and twin HDD's. Thin and Shiny doesn't make a good laptop.

I applaud Psystar if, for nothing else, highlighting so very very well just how under-specified and over priced Apple hardware has become. The switch to Intel was just about the best thing they could have done - but it's showing them for what they are. A rip off.

Doug

 

[belvdr]

..is what seems to motivate a large chunk of the comments here.

Being offended by the actions of a company that has NO CONNECTION whatsoever with you, apart from the choice you made to BUY their product is about the most egotistical nonsense I can think of.

Apple will do what they do - buy their products or dont - your OPINIONS are MEANINGLESS to Apple.

They didn't offend anyone; it's just that some folks think their stuff doesn't fit the bill anymore. And if the consumer's opinion is useless, then why does Apple change their products? Are you telling me that Apple is not listening to their consumers?

Which is a VERY good thing - not ONE of you could even begin to run a company that can produce the remarkably good things that Apple does.

And you are able to do so, especially with the concept of not listening to your consumers? Right....

Psystar? Who gives a damn - buy their products if you want.

I use Apple computers because they are the very BEST option around.
But I dont fantasise that I am magically on Apple 's board of Directors because I bought a few Macs over the years.

So, if every opinion is useless, why are you stating yours?

If it becomes legal to usurp Apple's EULA, than Apple will simply increase the price of standalone copies of OS X to $500 each.
That should do for PsyStar, I think.

Nope, I'd buy it for $500, because I still end up cheaper in the long haul.

They may lose a few million in upgrade sales, but its a drop in the bucket compared to losing your core business because of the thieves at Psystar.

Anyway, if you want an OSX machine, just build one - its not difficult, and you hardly need Psystar.

Agreed.

All this over the form factor of a computer - what a waste of time.

You guys are really SPECIAL, you know? Like the Princess and the Pea special.

Form factor? No, it's got everything to do with capability, which is lacking in some products, in my opinion.

Oh, and remember, your opinion doesn't matter either, just like the rest of us, so there's no need to tell us how special we are.

 

[dukebound85]

While anyone who would take the legal advice of a person who uses neither apostrophes nor capital letters is obviously foolish, I can't resist. Where has this been "proven"?

No. There is no question about whether SLAs are enforceable. None. The reason you know this is because no court in any jurisdiction has ever issued an opinion that reads like this: "We see here an attempt to enforce the terms of an EULA. EULAs are not enforceable. Case dismissed."

Indeed, all cases go exactly the opposite way, and just recently we had Jacobsen v. Katzer which held that open source licenses are just as enforceable as proprietary software licenses. You cannot have one without the other, and you can't have the Katzer opinion without the basic premise that license agreements are legally binding. It is true that many provisions that commonly appear in such licenses cannot be enacted in an adhesive contract, and that these provisions are commonly stricken. But this does not make the entire document unenforceable.

Ha.

Hint: the answer is 'no' for all of those. Kids today.

ok first off, forums are not a formal arena so get off your high horse. last i checked, this is not a professional setting and i intentiaonally choose not to write in a professional manner...get it? good thought so

and yes, eulas have been shown to be ineffective in various situations due to the provisons in them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EULA

that article will provide you with specific cases. more specifically

The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard. Some courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found some EULAs to be invalid, characterizing them as contracts of adhesion, unconscionable, and/or unacceptable pursuant to the U.C.C. —see, for instance, Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology (939 F.2d 91), Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd. (at harvard.edu) and Rich, Mass Market Software and the Shrinkwrap License (23 Colo. Law 1321.17). Other courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable: see ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg (at findlaw.com), Microsoft v. Harmony Computers (846 F. Supp. 208, 212, E.D.N.Y. 1994), Novell v. Network Trade Center (at harvard.edu), and Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Association Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. may have some bearing as well. No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.

The 7th Circuit and 8th Circuit subscribe to the "licensed and not sold" argument, while most other circuits do not[citation needed]. In addition, the contracts' enforceability depends on whether the state has passed the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) or Anti-UCITA (UCITA Bomb Shelter) laws. In Anti-UCITA states, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) has been amended to either specifically define software as a good (thus making it fall under the UCC), or to disallow contracts which specify that the terms of contract are subject to the laws of a state that has passed UCITA.

Recently, publishers have begun to encrypt their software packages[citation needed] to make it impossible for a user to install the software without either agreeing to the license agreement or violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and foreign counterparts.

The DMCA specifically provides for reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes, so there was some controversy as to whether software license agreement clauses which restrict this are enforceable. The Eighth Circuit case of Blizzard v. BnetD (at eff.org) determined that such clauses are enforceable, following the Federal Circuit decision of Baystate v. Bowers. [1]

seriously, as i said, some cases have proven its not enforceable. also, im not a child so once again get off your high horse and grow up


also understand this. psystar is selling a computer right. they happen to make it with parts proven to work with osx right? now they sell the osx dvd as well right? where is the theft? if apple does not want people to BUY their software, then they shouldnt sell it in the open at places like best buy. now try to understand this. i buy a dvd ok? if i am not stealing it then why is it anyones buisness that i use it for my benefit? does it hurt apple? no as i bought it through a legal channel like say best buy

so as i have said earlier, what if i have a macbook and a hackintosh. mb is running tiger and i havent put osx on my hackintsh. how is it illegal if i buy leopard and opt to put it on my hackintosh vs my mb? now extend it to a family pack where you have bought 5 licenses. i will install it on what I see fit and for my usage needs ok

you act as if apple is getting "cheated". how in the world are they? there is no background check when you buy leopard to see if you have a mac? and remember you did buy leopard here, not stealing it. what i do in my home is none of apple's buisness or yours for that matter when i decide "gee, ill install osx on my custom pc". it doesnt hurt you or apple.

you may say it most certainly does hurt apple and to that, then apple must change how they distribute leopard so no "joe" can just pick a copy up whethere he has a mac or not

this is just a ridiculous as music labels saying you must pay royalties for each copy of a song you have, whether on your ipod, cd, computer, etc. or as ridiculous as saying im not allowed to backup my own dvds

 

[VaDor]

Why are you tempted? Get OSX86 and throw your own rig together.

Why are people criticizing them when they are still paying for a copy of Leopard? They may be violating EULA, but they aren't stealing the OS from Apple.

It's good to have them around because it forces Apple to offer a comparable product rather than withholding certain releases.

Well that's a point!!

 

[koobcamuk]

Don't bother, here is a link to one:

http://gizmodo.com/384526/exclusive-video-psystar-in-the-wild

A quiet machine it is not.

It looks crap. I would rather save up for a year and buy a Mac Pro. Hell, I would rather have a PowerMac G5 any day...

 

[koobcamuk]

so as i have said earlier, what if i have a macbook and a hackintosh. mb is running tiger and i havent put osx on my hackintsh. how is it illegal if i buy leopard and opt to put it on my hackintosh vs my mb? now extend it to a family pack where you have bought 5 licenses. i will install it on what I see fit and for my usage needs ok

Because in that box, that you tick, that says "agree" it mentions something about only installing on Apple computers I think you will find.

 

[djellison]

It looks crap.

Maybe I'm the only one - but my computer sits under a desk and I never look at it. In general, I tend to look at the monitor.

Doug

 

[editguy]

If it's so easy why isn't there a Linux Flavor with Blu-ray?

Name one professional Non Linear Editor that runs on Linux. If you are producing HD Bluray you want a solution that is complete. I wouldn't want to have to edit and author on one system and switch to another to do the burn. So, I doubt there would be a significant demand on Linux.

 

[editguy]

Maybe I'm the only one - but my computer sits under a desk and I never look at it. In general, I tend to look at the monitor.

Doug

Me too.

 

[nplima]

Name one professional Non Linear Editor that runs on Linux. If you are producing HD Bluray you want a solution that is complete. I wouldn't want to have to edit and author on one system and switch to another to do the burn. So, I doubt there would be a significant demand on Linux.

well, in general it's a good idea to keep a Linux box handy. You never know when someone might decide to make all your Firewire peripherals obsolete.

 

[BenRoethig]

Since when you can tell a company or someone that has created their own products how to sell it.

We call it the free market. Products are usually dictated by customer demand. In the Jobs world, the customers life is dictated by the company.

Apple has chosen at the very beginning that their products both hardware and software to coexist only on their products. Mac OS X was developed for their hardware, PERIOD.

First, since Apple uses off the shelf chipsets instead of their own there is no "their hardware" anymore. The only difference between what Apple makes and what the rest of the industry makes are a case and a logo and neither require drivers.

Second, Apple has also chosen to constrict their products to a very narrow focus based on cramming things in the smallest possible space and aesthetic design. Speed, usability, and innovation have been thrown to the side with massive price increases in some areas. Hell, software development, a staple just a couple years ago has seemed to be almost forgotten.

But then again, Apple has the right to do what they want. If they want a repeat of the 80s where they squander a chance to become the driving force in the computer industry due to narrow thinking, they are allowed to do so. But do know this, the users they're picking up are not near as loyal as the ones that are being thrown out in the street and quite frankly, from the pre-beta reports, Windows 7 is shaping up to be the OS that Vista had the potential to be. I would much rather history not repeat itself.

 

[Voltaic]

..is what seems to motivate a large chunk of the comments here.

Being offended by the actions of a company that has NO CONNECTION whatsoever with you, apart from the choice you made to BUY their product is about the most egotistical nonsense I can think of.

Apple will do what they do - buy their products or dont - your OPINIONS are MEANINGLESS to Apple.

Which is a VERY good thing - not ONE of you could even begin to run a company that can produce the remarkably good things that Apple does.

Psystar? Who gives a damn - buy their products if you want.

I use Apple computers because they are the very BEST option around.
But I dont fantasise that I am magically on Apple 's board of Directors because I bought a few Macs over the years.

If it becomes legal to usurp Apple's EULA, than Apple will simply increase the price of standalone copies of OS X to $500 each.
That should do for PsyStar, I think.

They may lose a few million in upgrade sales, but its a drop in the bucket compared to losing your core business because of the thieves at Psystar.

Anyway, if you want an OSX machine, just build one - its not difficult, and you hardly need Psystar.

All this over the form factor of a computer - what a waste of time.

You guys are really SPECIAL, you know? Like the Princess and the Pea special.

Many of us have invested countless thousands of dollars and years in Apple hardware and Mac software, it isn't as simple as "Apple will do what they do - buy their products or dont - your OPINIONS are MEANINGLESS to Apple."

If Apple fails to listen to what customers (that's not fanboys, that's customers) want it will come back to hunt them as it did more than once in the past.

 

[belvdr]

Mac OS X was developed for their hardware, PERIOD.

Where do you get that idea? OS X is based on Darwin, which is based on BSD, and it's open source too! You can install it on anything you wish. Apple did the GUI stuff on top of Darwin, branded it OS X, which they want installed only on their hardware.

But the core of OS X is not just for their hardware by any stretch of the imagination.

It is a surprise for me that someone thinks that Apple doesn't have the right to sell their own products the way they want. It surprised me that you want to enforce a company and pass/smash their rights cause you don't want or like their products the way they deliver them.

Nobody is saying Apple can't do this. You're reading too much stuff into this thread. What we are wanting Apple to do is realize they have people that would use their product (OS X) but with to do so on their own hardware.

 

[corinhorn]

since Apple uses off the shelf chipsets instead of their own there is no "their hardware" anymore.

Apple chooses exactly what hardware to put in their machines. Microsoft cannot choose which hardware goes into the computers that Windows supports, so Windows has to "support" every piece of crap hardware out there. One of the reasons that Mac OS X sings is because it can only be installed on a limited spread of hardware.

Before the second coming of Steve Jobs, Apple was failing and had had a kazaillion hardware choices and dozens of product lines. Steve Jobs came back and cut it off and narrowed the product lines greatly. This is how it has been for nearly 10 years, and for the past 10 years, Apple success has continued to grow. For the last 10 years, it has been an ongoing debate/argument about whether Apple will or should give consumers more choices. Apple has not changed their business model or method of operation in the past 10 years and they are sticking to it.

 

[takao]

But then again, Apple has the right to do what they want. If they want a repeat of the 80s where they squander a chance to become the driving force in the computer industry due to narrow thinking, they are allowed to do so. But do know this, the users they're picking up are not near as loyal as the ones that are being thrown out in the street and quite frankly, from the pre-beta reports, Windows 7 is shaping up to be the OS that Vista had the potential to be. I would much rather history not repeat itself.

exactly ... also the time since window vista launch would have been the perfect opportunity to gain a lot of marketshare and reach around the world (marketshare outside the US still insignificant) to get more customers... and now with Windows 7 on the horizon that window is closing again and apple doesn't seem to care that Microsoft regains strenght because they realized what their core market is

something apple is currently lacking with their "all over the place" strategy

 

[corinhorn]

exactly ... also the time since window vista launch would have been the perfect opportunity to gain a lot of marketshare and reach around the world (marketshare outside the US still insignificant) to get more customers... and now with Windows 7 on the horizon that window is closing again and apple doesn't seem to care that Microsoft regains strenght because they realized what their core market is

something apple is currently lacking with their "all over the place" strategy

Am I the only one who doesn't want Apple to gain more marketshare?

 

[editguy]

Apple chooses exactly what hardware to put in their machines. Microsoft cannot choose which hardware goes into the computers that Windows supports, so Windows has to "support" every piece of crap hardware out there. One of the reasons that Mac OS X sings is because it can only be installed on a limited spread of hardware.

Before the second coming of Steve Jobs, Apple was failing and had had a kazaillion hardware choices and dozens of product lines. Steve Jobs came back and cut it off and narrowed the product lines greatly. This is how it has been for nearly 10 years, and for the past 10 years, Apple success has continued to grow. For the last 10 years, it has been an ongoing debate/argument about whether Apple will or should give consumers more choices. Apple has not changed their business model or method of operation in the past 10 years and they are sticking to it.

If the economy continues to worsen, Apple (and other corporations) may be forced to take a hard look at their business model, especially profit margins. If I was sending a kid off to college in a bad economy, am I going to buy a $1300 MB vs a $399 netbook or $550 Windows notebook? I know what I my choice would be. I won't argue about Apple's success in the past decade, but that was in a growing economy. those days are likely over for the near-term future

 

[editguy]

Am I the only one who doesn't want Apple to gain more marketshare?

No, I tend to agree with you. I can trace the beginnings of my discontent to Apple's boom in popularity. I think one can also argue that it has led to a corresponding decline in quality control. And, it has also led to a shift in focus from computers to consumer electronics.

 

[corinhorn]

No, I tend to agree with you. I can trace the beginnings of my discontent to Apple's boom in popularity. I think one can also argue that it has led to a corresponding decline in quality control. And, it has also led to a shift in focus from computers to consumer electronics.

I feel the same way. Mac and Mac OS X have been put on the back burner so many times since the intro of the iPhone and to a lesser extent, the intro of the iPod. I really don't want apple to start another product line.

 

[plokoonpma]

Where do you get that idea? OS X is based on Darwin, which is based on BSD, and it's open source too! You can install it on anything you wish. Apple did the GUI stuff on top of Darwin, branded it OS X, which they want installed only on their hardware.

But the core of OS X is not just for their hardware by any stretch of the imagination.



Nobody is saying Apple can't do this. You're reading too much stuff into this thread. What we are wanting Apple to do is realize they have people that would use their product (OS X) but with to do so on their own hardware.

Oh snap, If you where right there would be at least 100 OS looking the same as OSX, dam they should work even better than OSX.
Apple is a successful company more than 25 years old, what makes you think they don't know people will love to run OS X on generic PC's.
They just don't want to do it cause it makes no sense to their business.

Let me remind you that OS X wasn't intended to run on X86, that came later, way later. IT WAS FREAKING DESIGNED TO RUN IN THEIR OWN HARDWARE WITH MOTOROLA PPC INSIDE.
The work Apple did was to make it compatible with Intel processors that they intended and finally used/use, NOT to make it open to the public.

 

[corinhorn]

Let me remind you that OS X wasn't intended to run on X86, that came later, way later.

Actually, unless I misunderstood Steve Jobs keynote back in 2005, each Mac OS X version had a secret x86 version developed as well "just in case."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghdTqnYnFyg

About 4:45 into the video

 

[BaldiMac]

If Apple was just reducing a bit their huge appetite for large profits and sell just a wee bit cheaper machines then companies like psystar wouldnt have a good reason to exist.

I never expected from Apple to sell its products the same price with Dell or Hp. i can understand that they can be 5 or even 15% more expensive than major pc makers cos they are a software company too and they need extra money to develop OS X and applications. But, ok, i am not keen at all in paying 50%-90% more just because Apple has an «army» of blind die-hard supporters who temporarily are feeding Cupertino by giving them their $s or €s or £s or whatever so lightheartedly.

What do you consider an acceptable profit margin? Apple's gross margins are usually around 32%. Their net profit margin is usually around 12%. Two or three percent more than the industry average. (Of course, Microsoft makes significantly more than double those margins.)

http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/invsub/results/compare.asp?Page=ProfitMargins&symbol=aapl

Doesn't really seem like the numbers that you made up make much sense.

 

[takao]

Let me remind you that OS X wasn't intended to run on X86, that came later, way later. IT WAS FREAKING DESIGNED TO RUN IN THEIR OWN HARDWARE WITH MOTOROLA PPC INSIDE.
The work Apple did was to make it compatible with Intel processors that they intended and finally used/use, NOT to make it open to the public.

if it ever was (which i doubt) only developed/tailored for ppc then Apple is more stupid than i currently think they are

that would be a "FAIL" of epics proportions for a OS developing company

 

[Eric S.]

No, I tend to agree with you. I can trace the beginnings of my discontent to Apple's boom in popularity. I think one can also argue that it has led to a corresponding decline in quality control. And, it has also led to a shift in focus from computers to consumer electronics.

I think the shift in focus to consumer electronics is what led to the boom in popularity. And, because of that, Apple has come to believe (and has fostered a customer base that believes) that all of its products, even its computer products, should be consumer electronics. There is no doubt that along the line Apple stopped listening to the concerns of its previous core group of customers. It now looks to enhance its bottom line within a customer base that has been conditioned to view an extremely limited product choice as a positive thing.