Source (CNET)

Pretty big news for OSx86 perhaps as an outcome of this we will be fully 'legal' and not in violation of Apple's restrictive EULA. Rudy Pedraza is right on the money when he claims that people are open towards using OS 10, but don't want to pay Apple's ridiculous price premiums on normal (and often out of date) hardware. Personally I'm going to have to side with Psystar on this one as I feel that Apple's current EULA for Mac OS 10 is absurd: You pay $125 for software, and then can only install it on certain machines?

How do you guys think?

Pedraza is nothing more than a thief stealing developers' work and selling it for profit.

I find it ridiculous that if I buy Windows Vista, I can't use it on my PowerPC computers!
I find it ridiculous that if I buy electronics in the US, I can't use the same power adapter in the UK!
I find it ridiculous that if I buy a PS3 game, I can't use it on my Wii!

Getting my message yet?

I don't consider Pedraza a thief, I am also on his side too. When Apple is using $1000 of hardware and giving you a $1000 fee for it to be apple-labeled ($2000 computer), it is quite ridiculous. Apple is just looking at profit margins, and nothing else, and realizing that selling OSX alone is not how they make money in the computing industry. Apple doesn't have to do any work, the can still only provide drivers for their hardware. Also, @iSkylla, why wouldn't you consider a company that built computers and sold them with the Linux OS thieves if they are stealing many developers' work?

rtomek, the difference between what Psystar is doing, and some one selling a PC with Linux on it, is simple. Apple created OS X to go with their hardware, and be sold exclusively by them, for profit. The Linux kernel, and everything that goes into a standard freely distributed Linux distro, was created to be given out for free by anyone so long as it included what was required by the GPL (or whatever license the various software packages happen to be written in) and authors.

Even though what you said is true there's a big difference in this and the Apple/Psystar debate.

Windows Vista is NOT supported on the PPC architecture
PS3 Games are NOT supported on the Wii Console

OS X IS supported on the x86 architecture, but apple is only limiting the hardware to what THEY sell.

Honestly Psystar is guilty on the copyright issue. They sold copyrighted software on computers without the owners permission.

However, I would like to see how this whole thing plays out. It would be hilarious if Psystar won and Apple EULA was void.

I actually think both sides might end up winning their respective suits if the case goes to trial. Psystar is clearly violating copyright law with their updates. However, you can rule for apple on copyright, and still find the EULA invalid, as well as anti-trust violations.

I think this is bringing too much unwanted attention to this community. I'd prefer Apple stay in their corner, and I'll stay in mine.

Oh and F*** you Rudy.

-Stell

I find it ridiculous that if I buy Windows Vista, I can't use it on my PowerPC computers!
It is not M$'s problem, it the maker of the MAC PC's... Now you can install it on new MACs because Apple gives a damn since intelmacs out... You would install it on PowerPC if Apple allowed you to Complain to Apple not M$
Getting the message yet?

I find it ridiculous that if I buy electronics in the US, I can't use the same power adapter in the UK!
You can buy a 1-2 $ converter/inverter adapter and still use it... It is a Government Policy and Strategy Complain to Government
Getting the message

I find it ridiculous that if I buy a PS3 game, I can't use it on my Wii!
Now you are talking out of your bums? Comparing Apples and Oranges... You cant complain to mercedes because their engine wont fit to your toyota's chasis... Complain to toyota to make it mercedes convertible chasis... Not Mercedes... They make their own cars... and It is unique to their standard... But both uses standard juices to start and go...

Getting my message yet?

I suppose you are getting it... It is not M$ blocking you from installing whatever you want, it is Apple!

Although I dont like Psystar's initial start up strategy by dumping their dirt on these forums, I m on their side against Apple...

Apple should modify their eula, and allow the osx to be legal on other PCs...

It is a software, where they only do the UI on top of a standard OS... Charging $125 is not important, but fixing it Apple only is! and it is ridicilous... It is not a firmware for a specific hardware... for god's sake... it is a PC, nicely designed, but still using off the self parts anyone can buy and build himself, for almost half the price for most of the hardware devices it is selling...

Steve himself, admited on a talk show, saying they use standard parts, but make unique interface that makes Apple, Apple. For unique interface should u charge double? or should you limit its use?

Court will answer the questions hopefully... It is usa, unique laws

If Psystar wins, won't that legitimize what this community is doing? I think I'm overlooking something.

It would be better if the courts actually rule that EULAs are illegal and unenforceable, once and for all. You also miss the point that osx is already legal on other PCs. Just because it goes against Apple's wishes doesn't mean it's illegal.

(OT: Your use of color to mark up prior posts is annoying.)

The POWER architecture wasn't just used by Apple, it's developed in part by IBM. It is Microsoft's fault for not compiling for PPC.

Psystar wants Apple to support regular PC out of the box. Using their argument, the electronics maker should support my UK socket out of the box. The converter you mention is the same as the JaS/Kalyway/iATKOS DVDs you use. They convert OS X to make it compatible with regular PCs.

Let's imagine OS X is Apple's engine, for Apple cars. You are complaining that Apple's engine isn't working quite right in your {brand here} chasis.

Well, seeing as it is Apple's, they can charge out the ass if they really want to.

I decide to sell lemonade for £50. All I've done is taken things that were there already and put it in a nice glass. I am charging insanely, yes, but that's what I choose to charge. No-one can make me change that.

(Apple has made good modifications to the BSD kernel in the form of Darwin, and some of those changes were taken and integrated into the official BSD kernel. Anyway, MS used some BSD code in early versions of Windows.)

EDIT: Fixed some sentences and whatnot, tired today.

You are choosing your distinctions incorrectly. They don't compare at all. It's more accurate to say that PS3 OS is not supported on the Wii hardware, and OS X is not supported on generic PC hardware by license only. However, the PS3 OS is PowerPC-based and could run on an XBox console which is also PowerPC-based, just as Apple's OS can run on similar PC hardware because both are x86-based. If you could configure an XBox or a Wii or a PS3 hardware yourself you might be able to make them exact even.

Just because you choose to draw the line favorably for Psystar doesn't give them a shot in hell at winning this thing.

No one can dictate me what to do with what I paid for. I am with Psystar on this one even though they are in this for money just like Apple. Hooha! Money is good, money is wise, blah, blah, blah.

Apple should understand this while they are moving to intel, it means they are moving to PC world, what's the difference between Mac and local PC now? there's nothing except Mac is more expensive (that's why I don't like Mac fans) and it has apple logo on it, and even worse its performance wise bad and very slow to evolve, ok its beautiful... but ugly inside.

if they don't want to change their EULA of OS X, just go back to their crappy hardware and processor. I love OS X but I hate Mac, i would buy OS X only if I could upgrade my hardware freely, upgrade it anytime with anything i want with reasonable price.

after moving to intel mac users incresing from 2.5% to 4.3% in three years, eating Linux desktop share (1% today ). I predict after OS X using open hardware it could be 15% or even better eating a lot of windows market share, it would give more competition on O/S world, and customer will have a lot of benefit from that (just forget about linux, their O/Ses are crap)

QFE. Completely agree with you here bud.

Like others have said, OS 10 is runs absolutely fine on normal PCs. While I don't think Apple should develop and sell OS X for the PC as it would be financial suicide for their company, their EULA needs to change.

Well can any one specifi what makes a apple computer an Apple?

If i swap my drives ram cpu hell for that matter my case is it still an apple computer?

Or if i build my hackintosh in to a G3 blue and white tower would it be an apple computer?

I'm curious, just to get the pulse around here. Hypothetically what if Apple and Intel got together and were able to hardwire something that made intel chips only work on Apple mobo. Meaning the only way you could get it in a generic pc would be to pull the mobo and chip from a real mac. How many of you would continue to use OSX and bite the bullet and buy a real mac (those of you that don't have a real one) how many would just go back to windows. Is the OS compelling enough for anyone to make it a must have.

Psystar legal arguments look extremely weak. Instead of this nonsense about Apple being a "monopoly", they should focus on the "first sale" doctrine, which essentially means that when you buy OS X there is no contract in place, and hence the EULA is a meaningless.



You are misconstruing the issue. Apple prices for Macintosh hardware are quite reasonably and in some cases below Dell, despite being of much higher quality and design.

No, the real issue is that people what more choices for OS X desktop machines than just Mac Mini, iMac and Mac Pro. Moreover, they want to run OS X on the PC's they already own instead of having to buy a real Mac.



Given the extreme n00b factor, I am not at all sure that describing "OS X" as "OS 10" is good idea. Furthemore, as we have removed the "Mac" requirement from OS X, maybe we should just call OS X... um... "OS X" (I know I'm crazy... ).

Well, I personally cannot believe that Psystar is anti-sueing.

In other news, I got a USB Floppy drive today! (Only because Windows XP doesn't have SATA drivers built-in and I can't slipstream for {censored})

That's a good point

There is a great difference to do a competion with yours against mine and to do a competition with mine modified against mine overpriced that's a great difference, sir don't sleep please.
Sir remember that Psytar tried to sell us pre installed osx for 25 dollars more, what do you think about, is that correct?
You don't like to pay to Apple this price but you like that Psystars sells the same 25 dollars more, good very good!!!!!!!

I have a great idea. I'm going to make my own ATM with a card reader that reads your bank cards and their pin numbers, We'll call it a "efiPIN. Then I'm going to use it to access an "unmodified" ATM and access your bank account because it's really the exact same bank account that I have, only with more money, and therefor compatible with my bank account. So I feel I should be able to just access your account and I don't feel there's any legal problem with it, since the ATM hasn't been modified in any way, just tricked. And while trickery is against the current laws, I disagree with the current laws so I circumvent them anyway and BS myself into believing I'll win in court.

Right?

The POWER architecture wasn't just used by Apple, it's developed in part by IBM. It is Microsoft's fault for not compiling for PPC.
Windows can run on PPC and it does run... Only problem is Apple releasing drivers? and consent so that Windows can be used on it... It used to be much more closed, now opening up, and now it can run natively as well... But apple doesnt have ppc anymore all intel based... Making something (compiling in your terms) work does make sense if it will ever make it to those hardware that will be allowed...

Psystar wants Apple to support regular PC out of the box. Using their argument, the electronics maker should support my UK socket out of the box. The converter you mention is the same as the JaS/Kalyway/iATKOS DVDs you use. They convert OS X to make it compatible with regular PCs.
I am not sure what you say here, as I dont get "apple to support regular pc out of box" part... Because mainly, drivers are OEM's problem to be provided, and if they are allowed into one platform, they usually start building drivers... Apple has software and hardware devisions... They are selling Software, so to certain extend, they have to support it, too!!! And your comment is absurd again regarding sockets and dvds... It is a Government Policy to decide and regulate electricks and electronics... Converter/inverter is not same as dvd example... For example, in usa, 110v being used in usa-socket, in uk 220v used in uk-socket... if your device is designed for 110v converter wont be enough... you will need additional stuffs and other may-be-not-possible modifications... like TV signals and etc... Apple's policy is not just socket, it also puts another stuff inside to prevent it from running somewhere/ or /to be converted... You can buy a converter but you still cant run it, where as patching dvd is done by removing that blockage...

Let's imagine OS X is Apple's engine, for Apple cars. You are complaining that Apple's engine isn't working quite right in your {brand here} chasis.
It is not the Apple's engine (hardware) in question, it is the juice it burns... Thats what I ment... That was your comment I compared... Computer is a general purpose machine, where as game consoles are specific, entertainment!

Well, seeing as it is Apple's, they can charge out the ass if they really want to.
I decide to sell lemonade for £50. All I've done is taken things that were there already and put it in a nice glass. I am charging insanely, yes, but that's what I choose to charge. No-one can make me change that.
No doubt about that... That is the debate in question...

(Apple has made good modifications to the BSD kernel in the form of Darwin, and some of those changes were taken and integrated into the official BSD kernel. Anyway, MS used some BSD code in early versions of Windows.)

So what is the point here? Because Apple had made modifications, OS X should be limited to APPLE-ONLY hardware? It is a computer software, and can be installed easily if the preventions/blockage by apple is removed... The question here is anti-compatitiveness...

Ask yourself this question.

If, tomorrow, Microsoft decided to make its own PC version, and made a statement, that from now on all future Windows will be installed only on MS PC... Apple is in PC business, for a long time, until intel-macs, how often your options doubled if not quadruppled in a year? Since when Apple started making some good money in its PC-Business, after intel switch? and Generally available hardware... Most of you here probably hate MS, but Thanx to MS that today, there are many hardware manufacturers and variaties of options available... If it was up-to apple from the beginning, you would be seeing updates every 5-10 years... And options? what options? Apple say A/B hardware options that is it... Price?, Apple says $5000, thats it... Apple says so...

Apple is no different than MS if not worse! But MS is slightly better in terms of Technology pushing-forward, and availabiliy of hardware options to end users, not staying in the same point for 3-5 years...

There are amd, intel, via cpus work fine. PPC is usually not designed for general purpose, therefor didnt make it to desktop computing, apart from apple's control-freak strategy... which apple figured the mistake as well...

There are many types of graphics processors with many configurations... How many of them are available to an Apple MAC PC? and which ranges? Mid-to-low? How are they priced? dont even ask...

===========================================
ACER Laptop: $1650
OS 'Windows Vista Ultimate'
CPU Type 'Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 2.5G'
Screen '18.4" WUXGA'
Memory Size '4GB DDR2'
Hard Disk '320GB'
Optical Drive 'Blu-ray Disc / Super Multi'
Graphics Card 'NVIDIA GeForce 9500M GS 512 MB'
===========================================
ASUS Laptop: $1500
OS 'Windows Vista Home'
CPU Type 'Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 2.53G
Screen '17" WUXGA'
Memory Size '4GB DDR2'
Hard Disk '320GB'
Optical Drive 'DVD Super Multi
Graphics Card 'NVIDIA GeForce 9500M GS 512MB'
===========================================
Apple MacbookPro: $3174
OS 'Windows Vista Ultimate'OSX Leopard
CPU Type '2.5GHz Intel Core 2 Duo'
Screen '17" WUXGA'
Memory Size '4GB DDR2'
Hard Disk '300GB'
Optical Drive 'Double-layer SuperDrive'
Graphics Card 'NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT 512MB'
===========================================

People who argue that mac pcs are same if not cheaper than windows pc... These are taken from Newegg.com today... There you go your lemonade! I suppose you have an expensive taste for something that can be done much much affordable... I doubt that majority of people think the same though... What is difference between these three PCs? apart from design? Aluminum case: cost ~ $1400 + $129 OS X? Oh dont forget, OSX you buy cannot be officially installed on another PC you have... Although you can buy it seperately... On the other hand, get the windows disc if seperate, or find one online oem version and use your 100% legit key, and install it on MAC pc... wow... MAC PC can run WINDOWS, well you are paying $1500-1600 more for the same if not for lower specs... I would expect that it should cook breakfast lunch and dinner for me too... Oh i saw a Windows PC for sale the other day, which has a built-in toaster at a very very affordable price, can MAC toast affordably

wonder who will sue Psystar for making money from netkas and others work

My opinion is that no matter how "expensive" macs are, Apple has a right to sell it's software (the Mac OS) however they want to. Everyone knows you agree to a EULA when you install software, they tell you right up front that if you don't agree to the EULA then you're not allowed to install it. Apple's EULA says you have to install on a real mac.

The real legal question is whether EULAs are forced contracts or not. Pystar's complaint that Apple is being anti-competitive is a joke. Nobody complains when you buy a windows program and then you find you can't install it on a mac computer? Mac OS X is designed to work on macs. Not generic macs, not 3rd party macs, but real apple macs. It says right there on the box what the requirements for installation are. Does Psystar have the right to tell Apple they have to change their hardware requirements for software they wrote? That would be like telling Microsoft they have to re-design Windows so that it can be loaded up on Mac computers, otherwise they're being anti-competitive. Ummm no... software requirements are software requirements.

I guess there is always someone even more stupid than psystar themselves.

yep i guess apple themselves ...

Steve wrong business to hook up osx "just for mac labeled machine" is stupid enough

np_ see my previous comment here - whereas Apple has a strong legal argument, and Psystar has some kind of legal argument, netkas & co have none.

%100 correct , I couldn't agree more!

Btw stell, does that dfi mobo you have sleep/wake?

yes i seen , and you are right
the most psystar can do is make our live hard with them bulshit sue idea
if psystar win ( witch i doubt ) the result mostly will be like apple will get forced to come up with more hard to "fix" for hackingtosh version of osx
other think here is psystar does "fast buck" from whole osx86 community without ever to offer some "new" that we already know or some better that we build at home
all i hope is some non brain damage judge in US will deside to close psystar as company ( if they can be called company) and end of story

I don't think anyone on this thread is saying that Psystar is the good guys for charging $25 more. People hate Psystar for stealing netkas' work. People hate Psystar for drawing unwanted attention to the Hackintosh community. People DON'T hate Psystar for telling Apple to stop being poopooheads with their software licensing.

that's the key ..is "their license" ....none can say nothing about it like it or not

I'm glad Psystar is counter-suing cause personally I think Apple has gotten away with over charging on there hardware for to long!

Lets See .. Apple a Company thats in this to make money as all coorprate america is so i cant blame them for doing this and i dont see antitrust bieng on something that is your product as a whole... meaning the software is thiers ... and before anyone points out open source stuff they used.. not all the OS is open source and they did have thier own openDarwin or darwinBSD or something of that sort at one point and time ... and released other stuff to open source so they have given thier changes back and i thikn thats all the GPL only requires that ... so there for the OS as it is .. is thiers and the hard ware is thier property just like any DELL is a dell trade mark ... they have a right to do that they will with it... and Apple is what made OSX great if thier OS is forced open that will hurt thier sales and stop thier funding doe OSX ... oh but this is what you want for OSX to disapear
if you like OSX support them some how and if they decide to lock it to thier hard ware thats thier right ...... if some one wants to try and tell them different it doesnt matter who in this case they could do the simplest of things and get outta the OS and hardware biz all together and make money some other ways .... cause thats what they are there to do companies make money nto please the masses.
ive not heard enough people complain that Vista is crap and can only install on pc with 3 + gigs of ram ... dont even wanna think of it running on 512mb like it states it requres
oh and you have to take out another loan on your home to buy a copy of it that has as many features as OSX
ive got nothing against OSx86 as a hobby and i dont really think apple could care much about it they dont wanna see it happening... but what developer does
But i own real mac's too and paid for ever copy of OSX semce like 10.2

but why are people whinning about apples biz practice ... when M$ is really so much worse ... ahh i i get it no one want winbloze no more so we get to act like children saying this should be this way just cause i want it now.

what apple couldl do is say we are producing no more OSX distrobutions and we will up date the OS through DRM for a charge and if you want your OWN OS that you can isntall on anything then go make your own...

I love it. Even on a pc. I love it.

Look guys... I'm a VERY long time Apple user; I grew up on an Apple IIgs at home, and a //e at kindergarten! I'm not an Apple "fan-Boy" either! As I type I'm on my main computer which is a Windows-XP system! Anyways the way I see it is apple has been grandfathered into modern computers Remember the Atari ST, or the Amiga? They all had their own OS which could only run on their own system. Apple was there too, along with IBM (IBM-DOS a.k.a. MS-DOS) They were all " Total Solutions Providers" They had the whole package, just go to whom you think would best suite your needs, and bang you've got the whole kit and kaboddle!

That's the way Apple always has been, and that's the way Apple will be. It's THEIR hardware it's THEIR right! If you don't like it, don't do business with them!

Who cares what's under the hood of an Apple? Does it really matter? It's the total system solution that you get from apple that matters!

Also Apple goes through extensive testing, research, and design for their hardware, to ensure longevity and reliability, so their specs may not be as impressive as you're top-notch gaming rig, sooooooooooo? That's the way apple has always been!

What we're doing with our hackintoshs is illegal! We justify in different ways! I own a G4 PowerMac, and I only use my hackintosh when I'm not using the G4… Not the best justification, but we all have our own…

If someone made an iPhone-clone, and ran the Apple iPhone software on it that would be illegal. Why? Because apple is a total systems provider, there is ZERO room for openness, and as such, they can do whatever the hell they want.

With OS like Windows, Linux, BeOS, and others you have your computer and it's your choice. If one of the software companies made it so you didn't have a choice, and forced you to use theirs (Microsoft) then you have a problem. With MacOS-X you have Apple's computer, running Apple's hardware. Don't like it? Don't buy a Mac! They aren't preventing you from having a computer, they aren't preventing you from choosing what OS to put on your computer, and they aren't preventing you from owning a Mac! They are preventing you from using their software on your hardware. And rightly they should be allowed to do that.

The worst case scenario is that Apple and Intel will get together and go bowling! They will make proprietary hardware, and close the system up again. It's their right!

Do you guys remember PowerComputing? Apple has the right to choose what markets to sell its software, Remember free market? Apple will not respond with kindness. They will devise (or maybe there is an underlying system already in place) to close the whole thing up tighter than a new inmate's behind on his first night in prison!

Either way I've got 10.5.4 on my G4, and if all goes south, I've still got leo running legit.



Love it or leave it!

That's 100% what I think. One's not just buying a piece of hardware of Apple, one's buying a complete solution which is working out of the box.

Further you can stretch that whole topic from cable TV receivers over mobile phones right to your favorite mp3 player, because each of these things has its own closed OS on it and nobody complains about that.

Because the OS isn't sold separately. I love 12 year-olds and their legal theories. Hard to beat for entertainment value.

Once you sell something to me you have no say over how I use it. If I buy a Ford and decide I want to put a Toyota motor in it, neither Ford nor Toyota has the right to dictate otherwise. If Psystar wants to buy a Ford and then re-sell it to somebody else, Ford has no right to tell them they can't do that.

There are centuries of legal doctrines about commerce that you fanboys can't magically change by waving around a eula. Eula = toilet paper.

And vidgameking... you are a fanboy whether you realize it or not. All your nonsensical arguments are exactly what fanboys think.

Just to ad my 50 cents, why don't we also sue nokia for not allowing us to run another os on their phones?

The problem here is that apple is limiting other companies from creating hardware for the mac by not releasing the information required to get the OS and the hardware to work together.

The operating system supports only the hardware which apple allows. Moreover, Apple even specifies how the hardware should be used. An example in this case is the ATI x1300 videocard which will only support resolution changes and QE/CE on an external monitor. This is because Apple only used this videocard in their servers which did not use an internal display.

The renowned problem that Windows XP had in it's early days was the lack of proper drivers for hardware. Where Microsoft pointed towards hardware manufacturers when customer came asking for support they also expected these manufacturors to pay a hefty price in order to make their hardware function correctly on windows. Microsoft was taken to court and lost this almost famous case, miserably I might add.

I believe the monopoly Apple is being sued for is very real. Yes, if you choose to sell lemonade for 50 bucks per glass it's your choice. But if you are the only one selling the lemonade by not alowing others to grow a lemon tree, cause hey, your god and you magically made the lemon tree. That's not correct.

People want to buy macs. Apple is popular. Think about apple like that popular guy in your class. If you where his friend you got to go to the parties, you got to talk to the girls (or guys, whichever you prefer) And you got to be popular too.

Apple tells it's "buddy" AMD. Sorry mate, you can't talk to the girls. This is limiting AMD's growth into 6.6% of the PC vendor market, (as per 1Q FY08).

"So, AMD should make better processors" I hear you think. Well, even though that might be true, it is and always will be an opinion. So the courts ruled, back in that famous miscrosoft case, that the opinion and the choice should be that of the consumer.

What I find strange is that this sort of thing only sees the daylight when a huge amount of money is involved. There are so many smaller, privately owned companies like coffee houses, fast food chains, funeral homes, etc dissapearing under the weight of giant corporations these days.

My hope: Apple loses, OSX is supported on all hardware, HW manufacturers are responsible for creating the kexts.

Let's be realistic. Now we have our own hackintosh which runs perfectly 10.5.4 at this time. But let's face the next round of Apple's update releases with 10.5.5 and all the following threads here on this site about ruined installations, non-functional hardware, lost QE/CI and what ever.

Do we really believe that Apple would support all these with upcoming updates even if they lose this case? That's why a XP SP3 takes more than a year to release where we have the fifth minor OSX update in one year upcoming these days.

I like my hacks very much, but they are and always will be hacks, not real Macs. And if Apple ever sells an update which will not be compatible to my hardware anymore, I am considering of buying Mac minis instead.

Note: This "making Apple's incompatible to normal PC's" is not so easy as it looks like. As Apple has sold millions of Intel MacBook&Co with compatible hardware, they have to support them in the future - even with Snow Leopard. Of course they can use dongle chips - but this would only affect new hardware. Their usual politics was to support older hardware a minimum of 3 years (current example are older PPCs). So we don't have to think about an early end of OSX86.

Another Note: Here in Germany most EULA's are effectless becausy you can't read them before buying the software. Seems our hacks are completely legal here...

JL

just in THIS case (and not for stealing netkas/others work) - pedraza for f*ckin president - apple´s licensing sucks and its all about the deal with bill.

Hello Everybody!

Yes I am one that would like to have Apple but I find them expensive too!
But we can't blaim Apple or support Psystar for that reason.

OSX is the result of the whole Apple strategy. ipod, iphone, everything...
If you like it, you have to pay the price.
If you don't, then find whatever excuse you want for you to install it.

Personally I believe that Apple will definitely win.
What monopoly??? everybody can set up a company, build hardware and OS for it and sell it.
And everybody can create apps for OSX!
If he makes it stable, easy, handy, shiny like Apple, then congrats, you are millionaire!

Just feel happy that there are many guys out there that made OSX available to PC users, but don't try to make it look legal because it is not!

Additionally, most possibly it was Microsoft's decision to support wide variety of hardware. We cannot expect every company to follow the same strategy as Microsoft did. Microsoft wanted to sell more software, they didn't care about the hardware; they support almost every hardware because they just want to sell software! and this is the reason why windows has never been that stable as other OSes. Apple wants to provide to the clients something that works flawlessly.

And finally, yes I believe that all this will make the life of Hackintosh community much more difficult. Apple will try to protect more its software and bind it more to specific hardware.

Cheers,
tsoukkis

p.s. I bought a new PC just to install and use OSX! I must be crazy!!!

The one thing you are forgetting is the fact that when you buy a Ford or Toyota you actually own the vehicle to do so as you wish. When you buy OSX at a store you don't own the software. You own the right to use the software. Psystar's counter lawsuit is ridiculous and stands absolutely no chance of even heading to trial. The eula=toilet paper comment was pretty funny though... not very accurate but definitely funny, :-)

But you can read the EULA before installing the software.

This is the case in most of Europe, additionally some countries have legislation that allows reverse-engineering for increased interoperability (see the cases regarding deCSS & iTunes)

The point is not whether you have *read* the EULA before purchase, but whether you have *agreed to* it. In these countries, once the sale has taken place, no further conditions can be added to the contract. The sale is considered to have taken place when payment and product have changed hands, and software is considered to be sold, not licenced, with laws of "reasonable use" protecting the vendor from piracy by saying that a single copy is for a single use unless otherwise specified, allowing also for a further copy to be made for backup purposes only. So *in theory* hacks are legal in these places.. But who'd want to be the one to test it?

HOWEVER....

This case is taking place in the USA, where EULA's have been upheld as valid in the courts before now....

This does not count in German Law. You must be able to read a contract before buying the software. In this case Apple would have to print the EULA on the outside of the package.

JL

Edit: In the meantime Hagar explained it much better than me. Thank you :-)

Before I start I'd like to say I am not revolted, sad, pro apple, pro psystar or anything else...



Apple changes their operating system with every update to counteract us. When we change something vital in their operating system like enabling speed step with a hacked kernel, or enabling audio by patching a kext, a new revision of this kext would break our system.

In this utopia situation though, where Apple's OS is legally installable and a third party hardware developer like AMD is able to create and maintain drivers for there hardware. Apple's updates would not overwrite or change these. They would exist separately from the operating system. Apple takes care of the hardware they put in their systems like they always have. The manufacturer of your complete hackintosh (Psystar), or of the individual components if you build the system yourself, would keep their drivers up to date.

Windows XP service pack 3, Vista service pack 1, or even Vista itself took a long time to make not due to hardware incompatibility. Why would there be such a huge list of incompatible hardware after the initial release? Many people found their older printer, scanner or camera's didn't work after updating. But Microsoft, or in the case I'm proposing Apple would not be responsible for this. Third party manufacturers are running to keep up with the changes Microsoft makes to the operating system so that their hardware stays compatible.

To answer the question you ask. No I really don't believe Apple will support their operating system on any other hardware then their own. They don't have to. This is something easily defined in a support contract. But this only refers to hardware. If someone buys Leopard and then has a problem with iCal. A problem which is not hardware related, then yes, Apple should support this as it is their problem. Within the boundaries of the support contract off course.

I think it's important to raise more awareness of how big companies work together:

If I have a problem with Office 2008. I call Microsoft. When the problem turns out to be related to my Epson scanner, they send me to Epson. When Epson finds out the problem lies within the Apple operating system, they get to escalate the problem to Apple through the Business Software Alliance. The business software alliance is, as they put it themselves: The voice of the world's leading software developers before governments and with consumers in the international marketplace.

They follow strict rules and guidelines to determine where the issue lays, and whom is to solve the issue. If cooperation between companies is required this is also possible. But an individual company determines their area of support. Acer, being a hardware manufacturer, supports their hardware. Microsoft, a software manufacturer, supports their operating system. Acer can ask Microsoft for help with their OEM versions. But they have agreements on how the OS can be sold so cheap (compare retail to OEM prices and you'll see) by placing the support with the hardware manufacturer, or removing it completely.

Now lets look at this example but replace Acer with Psystar, and Microsoft with Apple.

Psystar doesn't deliver an OEM version. (Hell, there is no OEM version of Leopard ) They deliver retail Leopard on the system. In this situation Apple has to support the software. Not doing so as is stated in their EULA is illegal and I think Psystar makes a good chance if they pursue that. However, Apple does not have to provide support on the hardware, not to the consumer, or to psystar if they don't want to.

One point I would like to point out is that if Apple has to sell their OS, retail, to anyone for use on any compatible system. You will see a huge microsoftian (ghehe, had to use that srry) price increase to cover the support expenses Apple will make.

Sorry for the long post. I hope I made some things clear.

Hi,

I agree with you if it is really possible to seperate third-party hardware from the one Apple installs. In my previous understanding this seemed to be a mixture - e.g. in 10.5.2 Apple replaced the GMA950 driver which led to a "1024by768only" and an older version with artefacts. If we can seperate these as you describe this means I would have installed a hardware-specific verson of that GMA950 driver and would never have used the Apple one. That might work. We know that from Windows where you only get a generic driver from the XP instalation disk. But on the other hand it means that Apple must deliver at least a basic system so that one can install the third-party drivers. Even this does not work currently - we have to patch different MoBo-BIOSes.

JL