Psystar alienates the Hackintosh community, too

Looks like psystar Rebel EFI they are charging $50 for, is now being made for free by the boot 132 community, called Empire EFI

http://prasys.co.cc/2009/10/empire-efi/#more-2127

Takes a retail OS X DVD and makes it so you can install Snow Leopard on a PC.

Given the choice to upgrading a PC hardware to win 7, I wonder how many people will buy Snow Leopard at $29 and up a copy from Apple? Thats cheaper then an anti virus license.

I don't have a high opinion of either Psystar or Apple. At least the two are similar in the respect that they are willing to bend the law as much as possible to suit their ends, regardless of who is ultimately disrespected. This is in no way meant to lend any respect to Psystar, but it is true that Apple is trying to misuse their copyright protections in order to act with monopolistic intent by attempting to stipulate the additional covenant in their EULA that a hardware purchase be made. The protection Apple has is for the copyright of its software, which (unlike hardware) is licensed, not sold. Apple, like other companies, are able to stipulate terms that restrict their EULAs insomuch as the EULA applies to the licensed copyrighted work which they enjoy protection for, but section(s) of a EULA whose covenants extend beyond protecting those rights are unenforceable.

interesting article and read...

i think Apple made their mistake by selling their OS... leaving themselves open to this.

If i were in cuppertino, and if i were Steve Jobs, i'd make the OSX FREE for Mac users... ie, you can't buy off the shelf copies of the OS X... it ONLY comes shipped with their systems and is updated (or downloaded) for free whenever Apple decides to upgrade their OS.

besides, i pay too much for a great product, so it only makes sense that my OS comes for free and that i get a FREE upgrade if my hardware is up-to-date.

If others want to get themselves a copy, then they'd have to hack a version off a legitimate Apple hardware.. which i'm sure Apple could make that next to impossible..

feel free to pay me a brand new Mac Pro for this handy piece of advice Steve Jobs!

@Jordan,

You make an interesting comment when you write that Apple could sell their hardware running Windows and "Apple could also still remain in control of the drivers that go with the hardware they put into their computers. This control of the drivers would ensure that they worked, thus leaving people with few problems with their Windows based Apple machine." Interesting, but both factually inaccurate, and demonstrating clearly that you know nothing about programming device drivers, or at least far less than you think you do.

First, a quick sidenote regarding device drivers. In the MS Windows world, due to its clear dominance in market share, when new hardware is introduced, the onus is on the hardware maker to create a Windows device driver that allows Windows to interface with said hardware. If you're a hardware maker and don't do this, you're only screwing yourself.

As Mac OS X makes up a very small portion of the OS market, if hardware makers don't write Mac OS X device drivers, it's not a major impact on their sales (unless their hardware is specifically aimed at the Mac market, of course). Often the only way for Apple to get support into its OS for a particular piece of hardware is for Apple to write the device driver itself.

And here's the key thing: device drivers are extremely OS-specific. Because this is the software that "hooks" an OS to hardware, writing device drivers is a tricky business, and requires in-depth knowledge of the host OS as well as the hardware.

That said, your whole argument is a bit illogical. Apple isn't about to go writing device drivers for an OS that already enjoys having hardware makers create device drivers for that hardware.

More importantly, in your entire argument, you miss a key point to Apple's entire business; namely, their software. Mac OS X, for those who've ever done any programming for it, is a joy to code for vs. most GUI-based OSes. Sure, if all you do is command line scripting, any OS will do. But for event-driven, GUI coding, the whole Xcode/Interface Builder/Cocoa environment is tough to beat, at least from a usefulness point of view. (Mind you, if all you want is to sell software to the largest market possible, you have to suffer whatever toolkits you can to develop for Windows, as that clearly has market share.)

Now as for your last paragraph:

"That is, IF Apple does indeed want profit rather than market share. I tend to believe it's the other way around, Apple just won't admit it because it would be a huge embarassment that after 25 years their market share is still around 6%."

I have to be honest, I really don't understand what you mean. Profit and market share are entirely different things. In business, you pretty much have two choices: niche or volume. For example, Mercedes and BMW are niche. Ford is volume. Ditto for Walmart.

Apple is niche. Microsoft is all about volume. When you choose volume (i.e., market share), it's all about numbers. You sell tons, usually at low profit margins, and make it up in volume. When you go for a niche market, you're differentiating yourself in some way, usually selling to a smaller clientele, but your per unit profits tend to be much higher.

There's nothing wrong with either model, but you need to stick to it. Apple trying to go after volume, such as becoming like any other commodity PC maker, and having them "dump OSx", would be business suicide. Sure, the "box" is prettier and sleeker in design than your basic "beige box" PC, but that's not what they're selling.

Apple sells a whole package. It's not just the design of the hardware. It IS, in fact, the integration of that hardware with their own OS, along with the whole experience. You may not appreciate it (which does beg the question what you're doing on an Apple blog site), but most of us who have used Windows, Mac, and Linux (among others in my case) do. Take your average experience in an Apple Store over any other PC buying experience. It's not tangible in dollars, but you're paying for that experience in the pricing. It's no different for the Mercedes owner who gets picked up and dropped off when their car is serviced.

Not everyone likes/wants/can afford a BMW or Mercedes. And that's fine. But just because someone doesn't want one or is unwilling to pay for one doesn't mean that BMW and Mercedes don't have a sound business model.

Apple doing as you suggest would be irresponsible to their shareholders. And unless you've been living under a rock, you might notice how Apple, in each of the markets it competes in (PCs/laptops, MP3 players, and smartphones) dominates the top 10% of those markets, where the majority of profits lie. Think of it like cream skimmed from milk. If you could choose where you put your ski

This is not news at all. Psystar is a clear enemy for the hackintosh community. It's just that all the Apple haters are so blinded by their hatred that they are blindly supporting an obviously sleazy company like Psystar.

And I'd bet Psystar claims the Holocaust never happened and federal taxes are unconstitutional, too.

The burden of proof is Rudy's. The Hackintosh community was there first, unless there's a way he can prove he was. The osx86 community published all their info as soon as it came out, so their proof is already there.

There isn't. He claims to want to keep the information to himself, but I think it's just a big cover-up for his stealing of all the people's hard work.

So Ef you Psystar. Ef you hard.

Of course I'll take that back when you prove your coding (and "Hacking") is actually yours, but that will not happen, because your profit would be gone.


Now that I think of it, maybe we should let a legal 3rd party look at their source code, and see if it's any different from already existing technique's...

Agreed. The Hackintosh community has been pretty POed at Psystar for ripping off their work without acknowledgment. Fairly ironic, I think, that the hackers got hacked. But nevertheless, Psystar has no more friends in the Hackintosh community than they do in Cupertino.

The Hackintosh never supported Psystar, and never would have. To them, Psystar is nothing but a pain in the ***, commercializing their effort without even asking or mentioning it, and forcing Apple to take legal action against Hackintoshes. OSx86 is something for advanced users, and usually not used for production systems, but just for fun and without any guarantees. They don't want to have about as much to do with Psystar as Linux developers want to have to do with Microsoft.

If Psystar was screwing us, we would react the same way Apple has. Apple also has a duty to itself and its shareholders to protect its Intellectual Property, otherwise we get into a free-for-all situation -- what incentive is there for Apple to develop ANY software?

Further, Apple is a hardware company which designs and develops its own OS and software to provide a user experience second-to-none. Apple provides seamless integration of all its products.

When Adobe created Postscript and Canon the laser printer, Apple brought it all together and created the DTP market. For most of its existence, Apple hasn't really been interested in the "business" market. Apple's target groups are: creatives, education and the (well-to-do) home user (including SOHO).
If the commercial sector are now looking to Apple because of the MS debacle, that doesn't mean Apple is obligated in any way to serve that market.

Bottom line... I'm sure that Apple doesn't want to be the next IBM or MS.

Anyway, Psystar's $50 package of other people's software is out there in the wild -- you just need to know where to look for it.