Psystar sues over Snow Leopard, abandons reality

I understand why Apple wants to tie its OS to their hardware - I've read that Apple wants to stay in the business of selling hardware, and selling hardware is where the majority of their revenue comes from.

However, I also agree with Psystar in that it would be nice to be able to install OS X on whatever computer you choose. Apple only makes a small number of computers in limited configurations. My ideal Mac would be something similar to the Mac Pro but with less expensive hardware, such as an Intel Core Duo rather than a Xeon CPU. I don't need a Xeon (it's a server-class CPU), but I like to be able to open my computer to upgrade it. As much as the Mac Pro costs, it seems hard to justify buying one. What it comes down to is that I like OS X, but Apple doesn't make a machine that I really like at a decent price. I actually have a Mac Mini, and I like it, but the only things you can really upgrade easily in it are the hard drive and RAM.

I also think that opening up OS X to be sold on any PC could provide more competition in the marketplace, which might be a good thing. It has been argued that Microsoft is a monopoly (or near monopoly) with their Windows OS, and having another major player such as OS X in the marketplace could help keep Microsoft in check.

No, they can't sell them without the OS because without their "special packages" that they use to make OS X work on their hardware platforms, the machines would be useless. I can't think of one system they sell where I can take a copy of OS X and load onto it without a problem. Read their disclaimers about customers not being able to load the OS themselves. What other computer manufacturer tells you that you can't reload your OS at will? Apparently they're not as "compatible" as they claim.

Couldn't Psystar simply sell their machines as "OS X Compatible" and not incude an OS?

Then sell OS X to customers, who install it themselves?


Though I'm thinking this method would merely shift the legal issues from Psystar to the customer.

I wish some rabid, hungry, take-no-prisoners journo type out there would really dig into Psystar and find out who's backing them... I bet you'd come up with some real interesting names coz there's no way any company is seriously doing this in support of a legit business model.

This stinks of SCO-esque shenanigans

Apple could fix this problem in one day, if they wanted to and legally put pystar out of business. It wouldn't even entail much risk for them. Here is all they would have to do:

* Write a EULA for OEMs granting them the permission to use any version of "OS X" released by Apple "AS IS AND WITHOUT SUPPORT, WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE OF FUTURE COMPATIBILITY" for $2000 per installed instance.

That's it.

Apple simply ammends their Eula, puts the OEM version on their price sheet and then sits back and waits while Pystar squirms. They then sue them into oblivion for attempting to use the $100 version of "OS X" that Apple sells as upgrades to Apple products instead of the $2000 version meant for OEMs.

part of me dislikes what psystar is doing (mostly because their computers are ugly and loud)
however most of me dislikes what Apple is doing. I think its fair to say that Apple is being a big bully.

But its more than that. Apple is highlighting the state they're in. They're no longer the fun loving company they were in 1998. A day when they begged developers to please make applications for our computer. They're not the underdogs with the creative and fun products. They're not the company with the goofy stop light buttons on their windows, with the overly animated and bubbly operating system with the goofy furry X as an icon.

Apple now has developers begging to make apps for them and they say no to far too many of them. Their products today have turned anodized aluminum into the new beige. Their operating system has dropped the fuzzy X and been replaced with a surgical black X and styling that is hard and logical.

Thats not to say that I don't love the new macs and love Snow Leopard. But the Apple today feels a lot more like Microsoft of 1998 than the company that calls the new Mac "Insanely Great"

It is disturbing when Apple tries to shut down such plucky competition. Especially when psystar is just trying to push apple's buttons, not cut in on the core of their business.

But as the person that jailbreaks and unlocks his iphone, runs leopard on his dell mini 9, and has 4 other real macs (of varying vintage), and 2 historic NeXT's, I want psystar to win. Apple locking down systems is no good for anyone. The iPhone would be a far superior product without the App Store. Yes, there may be viruses and exploits for the phone. I don't care. Ruining something good to protect stupid people is not the way to go. Imagine how much better Mac hardware would be and cheaper if Apple had hardware competition? Why do mac people want things locked down? I think its fair to say that I don't want my technology to be controlled by someone else. I don't want someone controlling my music just as much as I don't want them controlling my mac or my iphone.

Stop being pissed about whether Apple is right to sue psystar or vice versa. Start being pissed about how your favorite products are being held back by the company that doesn't want them to progress.

Clayton Act 3 §, 15 U.S.C. § 14
“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.”

Psystar is clearly retarded, but that doesn't leave Apple in the clear. The OS X EULA states that you must use OS X only on “Apple labeled” computers. Last I checked, Apple buys parts from other manufacturers and “brands” them for use in its own computers. Apple does not own those manufacturers and has no right to dictate what can be run on the same equipment when sold otherwise. It was Apple's choice to offer a retail disk for OS X. If Apple wanted to keep OS X from being used in “unapproved configurations”, it should have refrained from releasing OS X commercially.

This post expresses David Caolo's annoyance over Psystar's perseverance in attempting to convince the judicial system that it has a right to manufacture and market electronics that run legally acquired versions of Apple's Mac OS X. Apple imposes limitations, legal and technical, to anyone who attempts such a feat. Generally, Apple's properly engineered software is locked down to specific platforms, as an afterthought--the limitations are not inherent to their engineering practices, but they are, most probably, used as a marketing ploy.

It is regrettable that any blogger would be annoyed by Psystar's perseverance in changing the monopolistic Applescape.

Should people who fought fights to advance the world care about the status quo (masquerading as "reality"), perceptions of "lost cause[s]", or anyone's annoyance at them? If one is willing to stand by that, one is willing to claim that nobody should have attempted to elect an African American President only a few decades after Martin Luther King's assassination. Back in the 1900s, women's suffrage in the United States was "unrealistic" and a "lost cause" by some. Should anyone believe that "lost causes" are not to be fought, one is claiming that their mother should be unable to vote.

Make no mistake--although this fight might seem minute compared to women's rights and the election of the first African American President, the underlying cause is much more significant and similar: it is time to tell Apple, Microsoft, and any other big-pharma-like technology corporation that their monopolistic anti-competition practices are no longer welcome.

It is time that we realize that it is unacceptable for corporations to decide that an application must stay out of the market for any reason, or that the most popular word processing software must use proprietary methods, hijacking open and free standards, to exchange documents in the free world, or that increasingly popular music library software must be, as an afterthought, locked down to prevent syncing with third-party music players, or that operating systems must run on hardware supplied by a sole corporation.

Modern technology has the incredible ability to help humanity in innovative and efficient ways. We must understand that access to technology is as important as the right to vote. President Obama during his 2009 Presidential Campaign recognized that technology is key to the free exchange of information. Civil rights are important because they ensure citizenry's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. Nowadays, such participation happens through technology--that's why it is important to safeguard open technology and promote innovation. Restrictions regarding innovative software are as bad as restrictions on information exchange--they both restrict people's ability to to advance the species.

Published at http://thatha.org/blog/apples-monopoly/.

There is something called a shared monopoly.

Apple is forcing people to buy Windows, basically (in a sense, based on the fact that it's the only _other_ OS that "works" for most people).

OK, Linux works, and it works very well, but most consumers don't really have the technical capability and/or the time to make it work in a way that gets other work done. And specifically, that's not Linux, but GNU. I've never had a Linux kernel NOT compile. Ever. It's beautiful watching it do so, as a matter of fact. GNU, on the other hand -- yikes.

There's two OS's. Windows and Mac. GNU doesn't really count because shared libraries do not a consumer OS make (in the real world, anyway, and Linux is just a kernel).

It's about the consumer. Think AG of NY State. What's good for the consumer? The marketplace is not the wild wild west. We don't want lead in toys. We don't want cars that kill people due to design flaws. We don't want bridges falling down or levees failing (although that's not really a marketplace in the same sense). Anyway -- it's "better" for the consumer if OS X can be installed by themselves, or offered by a larger number of OEMs at a wider variety of price points.

Apple has 90+% of the over $1000 market. Windows + OS X are really the only two OS's out there that work as a general consumer OS (your software _can_ come from the manufacturer, not a repository, and that "works".)

In terms of what's good for Apple, it's not surprising that it's the exact opposite of what good for the Consumer.

C'mon -- think about it -- pay Dell $500 for a "PC" that runs OS X? You don't think people would go for that? What planet have you been living on?

Not everyone has money growing on trees, you know, and the marketplace that recognizes that is the type of marketplace authority figures _ought_ to be in the business of fostering.

Psystar existing soley to "annoy" Apple and cause them to spend money. Period. Does anyone at all actually believe that they're in the computer resale business? I believe it has all but been proven that the company is financed by PC-makers and stock holders with the intention of messing with Apple in an attempt to slow down their progress.

I hope Apple doesn't buy them out. I hope they allow Psystar to continue these games. Ultimately, Apple will win this battle, but it would be great if they could cost Psystar and their financial backers a great deal of money in their futile attempt.