What is Digg?309 Comments
- Darkhacker, on 08/31/2008, -10/+96I believe that Apple is under NO obligation to support non-Apple hardware, but I question the fairness of outright banning the use of a legally purchased copy of OS X on generic hardware.
I believe in copyright and I believe companies should have the right to protect their work. However, I think it's unfair for Apple to tell users that they can't use a legally purchased copy of OS X any way they wish. Granted they don't have to support that usage, but to outright ban it seems like an unfair restriction on the end user.
I wouldn't use the word monopoly to describe Apple, but I do think this part of the EULA is a breach of fair use. - boneit, on 08/31/2008, -42/+112Look at all the Apple fanboys crying. If another company wants to make clones, what of it? No one is hacking OS X, they're buying the OS at full retail price. If Psystar make a lousy product they won't be around for long. Apple zealots won't be buying anything from them and won't recommend them, so what are you all afraid of? Don't take it so personally people!
- MaxMWood, on 08/31/2008, -32/+67I hope Psystar wins because, even though they wont, because I agree that Apple is in some violation of competition laws.
- MrSkills, on 08/31/2008, -10/+44Well, obviously you've got a monopoly of your *own* product.
- yardie, on 08/31/2008, -6/+33Psystar lawyers are doing what they are paid to do. It doesn't matter how you personally feel about the case, but lawyers are hired to win these things. Even though this is a really long stretch to make an antitrust case they'll put everything and the kitchen sink when filing these motions.
Personally, I feel Psystar is on shakey ground for distributing copyrighted material (the OS X install CDs can slide due to seller rights, but they are hosting modified System updates on their servers) and that's all Apple is going to need to prove. The other motions are their to put icing on the cake. - elliam, on 08/30/2008, -80/+101Psystar is full of *****.
Microsoft got in trouble because they forced OEMs (i.e. other companies who assembled computers) to bundle their OS exclusively. In essence, you couldn't by a personal computer from anyone (execpt Apple I suppose) unless it had Windows on it.
Apple, on the other hand, assembles their own computers and makes an OS to go with it. Going after them is as stupid as going after HP if HP decided to make an OS and keep it exclusively on their computers.
People are not entitled to use OSX. It is not a human right. It is a software component of an Apple computer. - pprkut, on 08/31/2008, -17/+38Erm...they're hacking it to make it run on their "open" computers. Even the guy who made the hack was pissed with them.
- dagr8tim, on 08/31/2008, -11/+31Talk to the fanboys. I'm sure they'll tell you that the Constitution of the United States promises Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of all things Mac.
I agree the lawsuit is silly and probably won't go very far. But if I was given the chance the legally buy a copy of OSX and throw it on a VM. I'd be more likely to consider a Mac as my next computer. Job's is ***** up the whole deal by keeping the OS exclusive. He could bring alot more sheeple into the fold if they could get their hands on the OS without having to pay a huge 'Apple Tax' for it. - TremorX, on 08/31/2008, -6/+22Apple to Psystar, "You keep using that word! I do not think it means what you think it means."
- IndigoMoss, on 08/31/2008, -2/+18That's really what it comes down to. EULA has been proven time and time again that it's not a legally binding document. They shouldn't outright ban a legal purchased copy of the software in use, but they don't have to support it. Since Pystar isn't using illegally obtained software, I believe fair use will prevail.
On the other hand, Apple is gigantic corporation, so they have a lot more legal muscle than Pystar. If they win this case, maybe one day we'll see those $500 dollar HP laptops with 4GB of ram, 160GB HD, and a 15.4 LCD with OSX installed. - inactive, on 08/31/2008, -11/+26I think apple is right on this one... but, oh boy, I sure wish I could have OSX on any PC out there
- Namelkoom, on 08/31/2008, -1/+14Even if Psystar were to win this countersuit they would open a market that would introduce even more competitors for themselves. So their spending money to make it easier for them to build, but then have to work harder against all the others that would enter the market.
- streak, on 08/31/2008, -1/+13Look to IBM mainframes with IBM proprietary OS for an example that has withstood the test of time. IBM will not license its OSes for use on anything but IBM hardware. Amdahl had to make its own clone of the IBM OS to run on Amdahl mainframes and allow IBM-compatible mainframe apps to run.
- Drax0n, on 08/31/2008, -0/+12Did you know McDonalds has a monopoly on Big Macs?! not just any burger can substitute a Big Mac!
Go Sue quick!!! - inactive, on 08/31/2008, -1/+13yeah because psystar were packaging OSX86 and passing it off as something they've came up with when it was compiled by someone else in the osx86 community and making a profit off of something the original makers gave away for free.
like those guys who sell linux cds on ebay - HolyChimp, on 08/31/2008, -5/+16This all depends on how you look at OS X. Is it just a brand of operating system, similar to Coca-Cola and Pepsi being brands of soft drink? If that's the case then Apple can choose to sell it with whatever restrictions they want, there are plenty of other OS out there to take your fancy. Nobody is forcing Coca-Cola to let Pepsi sell Coca-Cola, even though Pepsi tastes like ass.
Or is it different enough that there is no alternative to OS X, meaning Apple have a monopoly.
Personally, I think it's the first one. Apple make a brand of OS, if you don't like their restrictions then buy another OS. You aren't entitled to their software. - boneit, on 08/31/2008, -3/+13You failed to add IBM was hit with antitrust lawsuits for a very long time. Although they weren't convicted like Microsoft, IIRC it was pretty much a case of IBM's legal team having infinite resources dragging everything on forever. The trade rags at the time were pretty much singing the same tune, the prosecutors called it quits and stopped wasting money. This will always be a problem when single companies have annual turnovers exceeding that of reasonable sized countries.
- GothAlice, on 08/31/2008, -11/+21Making changes to fundamental kernel components to remove reasonable restrictions is what I'd call a hack. And why the hell is pprkut getting buried? He's right.
- fLUx1337, on 08/31/2008, -3/+12"Jesus, Ferrari, just sell me the body work of an Enzo and I will hack my own engine and components inside!!"
Aka - yeh its a downer Apple make and match hardware and software which work together perfectly, and charge a premium, but so what, if you dont like it, don't buy a Mac, get a PC; just like you don't buy a Ferrari, you buy a brand/manufacturer you can afford. - xatx3, on 08/31/2008, -36/+45I'm with Psystar all the way on this one. The Apple monopoly is *****
- mrsteveman1, on 08/31/2008, -2/+11The only kernel component that needs to be modified is the extension that decrypts protected binaries, and it is already modular like all OS X drivers. One can simply delete that file and run their own, or simply decrypt the protected binaries beforehand.
It's weak protection.
The EFI hack is about compatibility, it isn't a protection method. - btschul, on 08/31/2008, -3/+12yeah, but that was because they were making it so windows was the only choice when buying a pc. Apple just keeps their os on their hardware, but they allow their customers to install whatever os they want. If I write an os for my computer, am I obligated to make it available for purchase for any computer? So why would Apple be obligated to do that?
- Alphadog7, on 08/31/2008, -2/+11This isn't about software, Psystar makes hardware. They contend that Apple has a "monopoly" of the hardware that runs Mac OS. There are dozens of companies that do similar things, like Digidesign. The question at the core is this; does a company have the right to bundle hardware and software (that they make) together?
- MtheoryX, on 08/31/2008, -4/+13@mrsteveman1:
"In other words you can't buy just a mac, or just a full license for OS X. They won't sell you either one alone..."
Ahem...
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB576Z/A?mco=MTI ...
You were saying? - mrsteveman1, on 08/31/2008, -0/+9Actually they required OEMs to pay for a copy of windows for every box sold even if it didn't ship with Windows, and they charged OEMs more per copy if they sold boxes with other OS preloaded.
- connieLingus, on 08/31/2008, -9/+18come on...a monopoly is when a company owns and controls the only available resource and uses that power to gouge the markets. Apple does not fit that description.
there is an almost unlimited choice of hardware/software solutions out there to fill your computing needs, both pay and free. psystar has every right to create its own OS and hardware platform, and then compete in the free market for customers, but has no right to simple rip off apple's IP, clone the platform, and profit by selling cheaper.
thats no different from all those companies that sell counterfeit Gucci and Rolex crap. - mrsteveman1, on 08/31/2008, -0/+8Apple didn't actually write all of the OS. A lot of the heavy lifting was done at NeXT which they bought, and substantial parts of the kernel and userland are from the FBSD and Mach3 projects.
Apple has been working on it all this time and has substantially upgraded things and kept it a nice environment to use, but your billions figure is *****. - MrSkills, on 08/31/2008, -4/+12Microsoft was charging OEMs depending on how many computers they sold in total, rather than per copy of Windows. So if, say, Dell wanted to sell you a computer with Linux on it, they could. But they would have to pay for a copy of Windows anyway.
- JorgeGT, on 08/31/2008, -9/+17Monopoly? In what, Operative Systems? That's stupid, the true problem is that if you legally purchased Apple Mac OS X, in many countries Apple cannot force you to buy other product from them to use it. Think printers and ink, they cannot force you to use brand ink instead of 3rd party generic ink, it has been ruled even in the US.
This practice is called tying, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
Also, rememeber that any part of any EULA or TOS is autotically void if it's against the "applicable law" as they say. Please, learn! Not just think the corporations can do whatever they want! - Diggnabbit, on 08/31/2008, -0/+8Gee, it's almost like Digg reflects the contradictions of people on the internet!
- GothAlice, on 08/31/2008, -7/+15Not to mention you can freely and without issue install Linux or Windows on your Macintosh hardware. Kind-of a backwards definition of 'monopoly', don't you think? Microsoft has a monopoly on selling Windows Vista; just because it won't run on, say, my 386 with 4MB of RAM and a 200MB HDD doesn't mean I'll get pissy about it and sue them. It's their engineering choice, not yours.
I, for one, wouldn't want to run the X-Box OS on my PS3. Or Apple TV's OS (which is just a stripped-down Mac oS X Tiger, anyway). I'm perfectly content running Mac OS X on the hardware it was intended for.
(Did manage to get Windows 98SE working on that hardware, though. Took forever, and by forever I mean days, to do anything.) - sirflibble, on 08/31/2008, -7/+15Interesting legal argument.
Basically they're saying that under antitrust law, the market Apple has a monopoly of is the Mac OS market.
I'm not sure that this will be successful, but it is cetainly an interesting strategy to this lawyer. - jwdav, on 08/31/2008, -0/+7Apple looked the other way when it came to Hackintosh - if some private individual wanted to buy/download Mac OS X and hack the install onto their machine, they did not block that with serial numbers, DRM or activation. Mostly, Apple has ignored hacking of their OS when privately done.
It's a whole different thing when some *company* like Pystar starts redistributing OS X and modified Apple software updates for profit.
At a minimum, Apple would be concerned about the reputation of OS X being in the hands of another company (OS X sucks cause my Pystar crashes), at the maximum, something like this could lead to serial number/activations/DRM showing up in OS X.
Nobody who buys Apple machines or builds a Hackintosh should want to see Windows style activations/lockdowns show up in OS X. Pystar needs to be taken out early and hard before everybody else who wants to use OS X has to carry the DRM lockdown burden triggered by Pystar. - santaliqueur, on 08/31/2008, -1/+8How can Apple have a "monopoly" on THEIR OWN PRODUCTS? I think it has more to do with you not having a clue what monopoly means.
- inactive, on 08/31/2008, -4/+11"In essence, you couldn't by a personal computer from anyone (execpt Apple I suppose) unless it had Windows on it."
When the hell did that happen exactly?
I've been buying PCs since the early 90's and never heard of such a thing. - exec0extreme, on 08/31/2008, -4/+11Can you be a monopoly of your own product? What?
- mrsteveman1, on 08/31/2008, -3/+10Apple has benefited substantially from open source software, it's not like they had to shoulder the development cost on the entire thing.
- Jyaif, on 08/31/2008, -2/+9and you can.
- silverfox08, on 08/31/2008, -2/+8I think the only problem here is that Apple sells OSX independently from their hardware. So, in order to buy the software, you have to buy their hardware. Psystar wouldn't have a case if the only way to get OSX was to buy an apple machine with it pre-installed. I don't think Psystar has a chance of winning this, but it is an interesting argument.
- dn11, on 08/31/2008, -1/+7Pro Tip: Apple's extensive corporate legal team will crush Psystar. I'm a big supporter of Hackintosh computers - but Psystar is trying to profit off of the work and knowledge of the Hackintosh community which has been operating for free - offering a subpar commercial product. I hope they get obliterated.
- mrsteveman1, on 08/31/2008, -0/+6Yes, i was saying. Read the EULA, it is referred to in a few places as an upgrade, and Apple will likely argue in court that the pricing reflects that.
Where the slipped though was in assuming that they didn't need to explicitly state that a prior full license to osx is required to buy those retail boxes and use them. Microsoft explicitly spells it out in their license, while Apple is relying on the fact that owning a mac implies you have the license, and they tie the retail box to mac hardware with the "apple labeled computer" talk. Not sure a court will agree with them though. - DesdinovaEL, on 08/31/2008, -1/+7It really irritates me when people use the term 'agenda' to describe the views of people who disagree with them. No one is out to get you. Calm down.
- MtheoryX, on 08/31/2008, -3/+9No, Apple sells boxed, retail, complete full versions of their OS. Take a look:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MB576Z/A?mco=MTI ...
So, you were saying? - sirflibble, on 08/31/2008, -1/+6It's to stop big business from using their power in one market to force a marketshare in another.
Imagine Microsoft entering into the ISP market and making their OS ONLY work with their ISP.
Now say they charge double the most expensive competitor in monthly fees.
Would you still be complaining about the antitrust laws because this is exactly what it is designed to stop. - cthellis, on 08/31/2008, -1/+6To be fair, NeXT _was_ jam-packed with Apple engineers, and arguably had the "Apple philosophy" down better than Apple themselves did during those years. ;-) Plus, it's not like buying a company and using their tech has ever stopped anyone before.
Frankly, considering who moved back into making command decisions for the company and whose projects and software pulled Apple out of their 90's mire, you could almost more properly say that NeXT acquired APPLE... for negative $400 million. - pixeldust, on 08/31/2008, -1/+6@ MtheoryX
You are not buying a full license of OS X when you buy it in the store. It is assuming since it is to be installed on Apple computers you are upgrading from whatever operating system originally came on the computer which is factored into the original purchasing price. Every copy of OS X you can buy is in essence an upgrade. What if a company decided to use the upgrade version of Windows, which includes the entire OS, to sell computers? - SeanBowe16, on 08/31/2008, -2/+7Some people here need to honestly review the situation.
Psystar, the company reselling hacked copies of Mac OS X with cloned Apple hardware is COUNTER-SUING Apple Inc. for having a "monopoly" on their own software.
Both Psystar and the idiots agreeing with their argument for any reason are either really stupid or really high. - aristotle0dude, on 08/31/2008, -0/+5Sorry pal but the boxed versions are "upgrade" versions and OS X development is subsidized by Apple hardware sales. Maybe you are too young to remember when NeXT (company started by Jobs and bought by Apple) tried selling NeXTStep (precursor to OS X) to OEMs and sold boxed versions. Unfortunately, MSFT blocked OEMs from shipping NeXTStep without paying for an OEM license of windows and the boxed full versions cost 500.00 per copy.
If Apple decided to sell OS X for PC's you would have to pay a big "tax" for it as they would have to sell it at around 400 dollar to cover development and support costs and to recoup some of the lost revenue from hardware sales. Even then, they would be seriously cutting into their margins.
You sir, are a cheapskate. - redwallhp, on 08/31/2008, -1/+6Mac OSX is an operating system, it's not the *only* operating system, thus no monopoly. It's like saying Adobe has a monopoly on Photoshop. Photoshop is Adobe's product, not a class of products, e.g. operating systems or image editing software. There are other image editors out there, as there are other operating systems.
- CountBrass, on 08/31/2008, -0/+5Psystar will declare bankruptcy shortly, assuming the kids running it were smart enough to set up a limited liability company, if not then they will be declaring personal bankruptcy and paying Apple part of their McDonald's wages for the next 7 years.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 310 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is