What is Digg?Sponsored by Threadless
The Threadless Holiday Sale view!
threadless.com - Share awesomeness with your family this holiday. Grab t-shirts for all Threadless.com!
73 Comments
- CountBrass, on 11/12/2009, -3/+17The marketing blurb masquerading as an article is just so full of lies.
Let's take two in particular. Firstly the marketing claims they legally buy copies of OSX and then resell them. This is not true. You can only buy upgrade copies of OSX, for installing on a machine that already has OSX (which you can only get pre-installed on a Mac).
Second, they claim to have come up with the EFI hack themselves, when in fact they've simply taken the code from a FOSS project, removed the license etc, and then fraudulently claimed it as their own work.
The fraudsters which ever why you look at them and they deserve to crash and burn. It's not just Apple they ripping off but their customers as well. Why buy a Psystar machine and pay them their premium when you can build your own and be in just as morally a dubious position: and you'll be able to support your own machine. Once Psystar go bust you'll be left without support for their machines anyway. - OWCJamie, on 11/12/2009, -0/+11Very interesting read. And, well, they incriminate themselves rather nicely on page 5.
"Psystar pays full price — $29 — for each copy of OS that it installs on its computers. So once they pay for it, the Pedrazas ask, why can't they use it however they like?"
You have to purchase the Mac Box Set to legally install Mac OS X 10.6 on a computer with anything OTHER than 10.5 preexisting on it. And Apple does NOT say anything of course about any computers without a previously installed OS, since any machine Apple ever sold that is capable of running 10.6 would have had at least 10.4 installed on it. So the only non-upgrade license would be through the only "full" version available for sale, the Mac Box Set version. Believe me, I've done the research since 10.5 is no longer available and we had tons and tons of questions from 10.4 owners wanting to know the legality of buying the $29 version...
http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
How to get Mac OS X Snow Leopard.
With every new Mac.
Beginning August 28, every new Mac computer comes with Mac OS X Snow Leopard.
Snow Leopard Up-to-Date Program.
If you purchased a qualifying Mac on or after June 8, 2009, that does not include Mac OS X Snow Leopard, you can upgrade for $9.95.
Learn more
Upgrading from Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard.
If your Intel-based Mac is running Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard, just purchase Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard and follow the simple installation instructions.
Upgrading from Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger.
If your Intel-based Mac is running Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger, purchase the Mac Box Set, which is a single, affordable package that includes Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard; iLife, with the latest versions of iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iWeb, and iDVD; and iWork, Apple’s productivity suite for home and office including Pages, Numbers, and Keynote. - Wuss, on 11/12/2009, -1/+10While I hate the policies Apple imposes on OS X, simultaneously I hope Psystar burns and crashes.
I got dug WAY down for this in a previous Psystar thread (about their new "software"), but now it seems people are actually getting the facts and becoming aware of how crooked these guys are.
Psystar did not "hack" anything. They have built a business on the backs of a lot of well meaning DIY'ers in the osx86 community. They take what they need, rebrand it, and make profit off of other peoples work. If anyone here believes they are 100% solely responsible for the development of OSX on pc's, you are mistaken. AFAIK, their only noted contribution to the osx86 community has been 1 or 2 kexts (drivers), which is nice, but hardly even close to what they claim they contributed.
They're "new" software that allows you to supposedly install OSX on any computer, already has been proven to be a con, and in fact, probably WON'T work 100% out of the box for ALL pcs. Anyone in the osx86 community knows it takes a bit of legwork no matter how compatible your hardware is.
These guys are playing the martyr card in order to gain community support against big bad Apple, but on the flip side, their business practices are ethically 100 times worse then anything out of Apple. - theuniversal, on 11/12/2009, -1/+9FTA: "The company doesn't wield anything close to Apple's resources, but the Pedrazas think they have the law on their side — and several copyright and intellectual property experts say they might be correct."
Yeah, SEVERAL experts might agree with them, but the vast vast majority of experts do not. I'm against overly restrictive copyright protection, but the question here is - should somebody be able to take software developed by someone else, modify it, install it on a machine of their choosing, and then resell the machine + modified software ALL without permission from the original developer? I think probably no. But regardless of what I think, under the currently law, the answer is a clear and resounding no. This isn't just Apple. MS doesn't let people sell machines with copies of windows pre-installed without a license from MS, let alone modify their software and resell it. - alexkorova, on 11/12/2009, -0/+6"Robert Pedraza hacked into Apple's operating system on a whim"
Eh, yeah right, they copied a free and open source project - skyblaze, on 11/12/2009, -3/+9Limited support, unstable company, cloudy future... It is better to build your own hackintosh than buying from them, and cheaper too.
- captainproton, on 11/12/2009, -0/+6Do you know what the word monopoly means? Here's a hint -- Apple doesn't have a monopoly in either the computer or OS markets. In fact, they're a rather small player in the latter.
They aren't a monopoly in the smartphone market, either. Unless, for example, you think that Toyota has a monopoly on the Toyota market.
They *could* be seen as a monopoly in the portable music player market. But that doesn't seem to be your point.
Just because you don't like their business model doesn't mean it's illegal. - CountBrass, on 11/12/2009, -1/+7They're selling software that they've ripped off from the actual developers who released it as GPL'd software. Psystar has simply removed all reference, as well as the license, and are trying to pass it off as their own work.
Psytar are ripping off their customers and they deserve to burn. - captainproton, on 11/12/2009, -0/+5The analogy you draw is flawed. Hardware is bought, software is licensed.
If you buy an XBox, should Sony be allowed to say you can't play PS games on it? I think that would be a closer analogy than the one you draw.
You own your hardware, and can do anything you want with it (some uses won't be supported or covered by warrantee, but you're not infringing on any license, even if you choose to stick a phone up your ass: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YersIyzsOpc
Want to use unsupported software on that hardware? Go ahead (but don't expect any help from the manufacturer if this causes damage to your hardware).
With software, you're buying the license, not the "actual" product. That license, perhaps unfortunately, can stipulate all kinds of conditions. In this case that it will only be run on certain hardware. - captainproton, on 11/12/2009, -0/+5That neither describes a monopoly, or monopolistic practice. Your opinion on what it *should* mean is beside the point.
It's really simple. Don't buy or use Apple products until they exhibit business practices that you're comfortable with. It's not like there aren't alternatives available. Windows 7, by all accounts, is quite good. There are numerous flavours of Linux freely available, not to mention several flavours of BSD.
OS/X is a good operating system, but it's not the only game in town, and for many it's not the best. - fury420, on 11/12/2009, -0/+5How does Apple's "closed system" have anything to do with Psystar ripping off other people's GPL licensed code, modifying and then selling it in a semi-encrypted form in an attempt to hide the open source innards?
I was fine with Psystar's mac clones, but charging people $50 for Rebel EFI when really it is nothing more than a GUI wrapper for open source & freely available code? pathetic - 0tis, on 11/12/2009, -6/+10Heh, I always thought this had turned out to be a hoax? Anyways, good luck to them. I suspect Apple and the million-dollar lawyers will prevail as usual, but it'd be nice not to have them completely control the Mac market.
- immatellyouwhat, on 11/12/2009, -0/+4I count 1 before you so that would mean......your pants are on fire.
- joebagodonuts, on 11/12/2009, -0/+4That is not monopoly. Heck, that isn't even true. I can buy Mac hardware, and run Windows or Linux on it.
- Matman302, on 11/12/2009, -5/+9I hope they win this, I've always been very frustrated by the mac policy of "closed software, closed hardware." I use mac, and I love the OS, but I know I could make a better machine for cheaper by building it myself, AND I could actually update components without ya know...buying another $1k+ machine. Why can't I install any OS on any partition of my HD that I desire?
- tsmallm, on 11/12/2009, -1/+4great comment. thanks for the details!
- mbonzo531, on 11/12/2009, -9/+12Theodore Roosevelt would be proud of these trustbusters.
- UnaClocker, on 11/12/2009, -0/+3Yes, but in your scenario... If I go to Maserati and buy one of their engines, I can do whatever I want with it. Even install it in a Farm tractor and till my field if I see fit to do that.
- captainproton, on 11/12/2009, -0/+3Wow! At the risk of troll-feeding...
"Let's say that the argument that Psystar is abusing the GPL. How is they any different than Apple?"
In most every way, at least in terms of OS/X. Are you asserting that OS/X is improperly using GPL software? Or violating the terms of any other license open or closed? If so, would you care to be more specific / provide references? Before you start, OS/X *is* based on BSD, a perfectly legitimate use of the software : http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
Moreover, they've given back to the open-source community: Bonjour, WebKit, launchd to name a few.
"What you people are saying is that we should pay 3x the price for limited choice to enable compatibility?"
I not saying you should pay anything for anything. In fact I'd generally recommend Linux or one of the BSD flavours if you want to run a no-windows OS on commodity hardware. But if Apple want to release software exclusively for their hardware, or if an open-source author wants to apply the GPL to prevent *exactly* the kind of infringement being alleged, then they should be able to.
"And even if we are going to bring up the cheap knockoff stuff, so what? That is what industry standards are for."
And your point? We've seen the headaches these "industry-standard cheap knockoffs" caused Microsoft with poorly-written drivers and flaky adherence to "industry-standard". BSOD was more often than not caused by less-than-perfect implementation of said standards. In fact these cheap knockoffs have more to do with Microsoft's reputation for unstable operating systems than Microsoft.
Oh, and standards aren't always written with real interoperability in mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Open_XML
"And it's truly hypocritical when you are trying to say how wrong Psystar is for violating GPL when you are supporting a closed system."
Not hypocritical at all... I think it's reasonable to expect that both the OS/X and GPL licences are honoured. Apparently, Psystar doesn't. The courts? I guess we'll find out. - MacParrot, on 11/12/2009, -0/+3His "question" has been answered several times in other posts since he's brought this up before. He just doesn't seem to like the answer he gets over and over again.
- joebagodonuts, on 11/12/2009, -1/+3http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Modbook
- theuniversal, on 11/12/2009, -0/+2Not sure what your comment means. But a license to USE software can be under pretty much any terms a software maker wants. Perhaps you need to check what license means.
- CountBrass, on 11/12/2009, -6/+8I know! It's an outrage! I want to be able to drive a Ferrari and a Maserati but those bastards in Italy won't sell me one for the price of a cheap Ford!
One of the big, big advantages of OSX over Windows and Linux is that the OSX developers know exactly the hardware it will be running on and can therefore develop and configure it to take advantage of that. They don't have to worry about some self-proclaimed hacker, who knows about as much about hardware as he does women, sticking some cheap chinese knock-off video card and then crying when it doesn't work.
If that stability and reliability isn't worth the trade-off of not being able to run it on any old pile-of-***** built from b-grade stock and the results of some dumpster diving then OSX isn't for you.
Personally I hope Psystar crash and burn and the two shysters running it are made personally bankrupt. Not because they're 'stealing' from Apple, Apple are big boys and can look after them selves, but because Psystar are ripping off both the FOSS developers who actually developed the hack and they're ripping off their customers. - HookmasterCH47, on 11/12/2009, -0/+2It's the same as not being able to put xbox live on my PS3. Apple is a hardware company. You have to have software to use your hardware right... Same principle.
- Humbug, on 11/12/2009, -1/+3If I buy an Intel motherboard on the open market, should they be allowed to require that I only run Microsoft Windows on it? Should I be allowed to package that board with Linux and sell the system despite Intel's restriction?
- fury420, on 11/12/2009, -4/+6the restrictions are not artificial.
Apple machines DO NOT HAVE A BIOS
likewise, +98% of non-Apple x86/x64 consumer machines do not have functional/implemented EFI.
While Apple could have designed their operating system to run on BIOS-based motherboards, instead they chose to go with the more modern & exotic EFI.
Methods do exist to emulate EFI, inject info during the boot and "trick" OSX into starting on a BIOS based mobo, but this does not make being designed to boot from EFI rather than a BIOS an artificial restriction. - theuniversal, on 11/12/2009, -0/+23The3Dude3:
"If you've purchased a copy of Windows, you've purchased the license."
What do you mean THE license? There is no THE license. What you have done is agreed to the End User License Agreement. Do you think companies selling Windows machines are doing so under the EULA? Because they're not. - richIsBored, on 11/12/2009, -5/+7So those 2% of non-Apple motherboards that have a functional EFI don't count? The restrictions are artificial.
- mrBitch, on 11/14/2009, -0/+2@ UnaClocker, RE: " .. Apple has a $30 upgrade version, and a $159 or something like that full version. I know with the previous OS, Leopard, there wasn't a cheap upgrade version, it was the full $129 version they were buying and selling with their units.
If Apple wanted to lock their OS down, it'd be a simple case of looking up the unit's serial number upon installation and confirming that it's valid and such. But Apple doesn't do that... "
Good point. - UnaClocker, on 11/12/2009, -0/+2Apple has a $30 upgrade version, and a $159 or something like that full version. I know with the previous OS, Leopard, there wasn't a cheap upgrade version, it was the full $129 version they were buying and selling with their units. If Apple wanted to lock their OS down, it'd be a simple case of looking up the unit's serial number upon installation and confirming that it's valid and such. But Apple doesn't do that...
- portnoy, on 11/12/2009, -0/+2"They *could* be seen as a monopoly in the portable music player market. But that doesn't seem to be your point."
I don't even see that. They have done nothing to prevent anyone from buying any of a countless variety of other portable music players. I have a Creative Zen and an iPod Classic. I use the iPod because I like the way it handles ebooks and podcasts. I have never bought so much as a track from the iTunes store, I rip my own disks, same as I did with my Zen. All these people that want a Mac but don't want to pay for a Mac, go out and steal a Mac. Either break into someones home and steal theirs or rip off Apple and use an upgrade disk as an OS in a Hackintosh. Fact is some people find nothing wrong with theft (as long as they're the ones doing the stealing and not the victims that is). And Psystar is committing theft. - socivitus, on 11/12/2009, -1/+3From the story, these guys don't seem like the types to ask for hand-outs from their fans/customers.
- theuniversal, on 11/12/2009, -0/+2fury420:
Everybody knows OSX has a open source core. But as I said, OSX isn't licensed under the GPL. - zeabu, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1if you install a slipstreamed version of windows, modified bins, and activate it with a valid and legally bought licence-key, ms would care not a little bit.
- jshhmr, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1$1599? YEAH ***** RIGHT!! I can get a bad ass laptop for that price!!
- theuniversal, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1Apple doesn't license their software under the GPL.
- srg13, on 11/12/2009, -1/+2He's referring to Rebel EFI, which is open source code that Pystar is ripping off...
- portnoy, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1Microsoft would not go after them? Maybe that's because M$ doesn't make their money by selling the hardware. Try taking your upgrade copy of Windows and installing it on (copying it to) your own CD's and selling them as full OSs and see how far that gets you.
- smacksaw, on 11/12/2009, -4/+5I have to take some people to task. Let's say that the argument that Psystar is abusing the GPL. How is they any different than Apple?
Also, the entire argument of "well the hardware just works" is a pretty insulting one. What you people are saying is that we should pay 3x the price for limited choice to enable compatibility? And even if we are going to bring up the cheap knockoff stuff, so what? That is what industry standards are for. Instead of spending all of this money on a closed system (that is trumpeting open source morality, LOL?) for compatibility, how about we work instead on making everything work with everything?
Let's say you have an ATM card. You can go to most ATMs and if they are Maestro or STAR or Cirrus or whatever, your card is going to work. Develop a few standards and then have drivers conform to one or more of them. As long as you get a product with the XYZ label you know it is going to work on any OS.
You people shouldn't be bitching about Psystar. You should be bitching about closed-source drivers and lack of standards. And it's truly hypocritical when you are trying to say how wrong Psystar is for violating GPL when you are supporting a closed system. - tsmallm, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1while I think Psystar has no case I can only hope that this might push apple to make OSX available to install on custom builds. although they may have to do with out offering tech support.
- fury420, on 11/12/2009, -1/+2Apple's open source code is released under APSL
http://www.opensource.apple.com/license/apsl/
Psystar's Rebel EFI includes both Apple's APSL code & non-Apple GPL licensed code - zeabu, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1They prepare the path. If they win, they will one of the many computer-sellers, and you will see Dell's and so with OS X.
They won't get rich by doing this, they will be guilty and this product vanishes, or the win, and everyone is allowed to sell hackintoshes.
I do think, though, they are a fighting a proxy-fight. I do think they get money from people wanting them to win, but don't want to burn their hands. - mrBitch, on 11/14/2009, -0/+1@ zeabu, RE: " .. if you install a slipstreamed version of windows, modified bins, and activate it with a valid and legally bought licence-key, ms would care not a little bit."
I did the same for a copy of OSX I have, and Apple also don't care.
Where Apple DO CARE (as well as Microsoft), is when you are then SELLING those slipstreamed copies of the OS.
Go ahead, try and start a business selling copies of your slipstreamed Windows CD / DVD ... I dare you. - orbz, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1"They're prepared to take on everything Apple's millionaire lawyers throw at them, because they believe they're right, because they think the courts will eventually agree with them, and maybe most of all, because they don't like a bully telling them what to do." And it goes on for six pages of this? Buried.
- theuniversal, on 11/12/2009, -0/+13The3Dude3:
"I'm not contesting that people are violating the Apple EULA. I believe the EULA, itself, would be ruled as "*****" if dragged through a Microsoft-style antitrust lawsuit as it grants Apple a monopoly over it's hardware, in which it has no IP. "
If I design 10 machines of my own, and install my own OS on them, and only sell them as units and never sell the OS separately, do I have "a monopoly over my hardware"? I suppose in some legally meaningless sense I do, but having a monopoly in the legal sense means you have power to shut competing products out of the market, and my 10 machines wouldn't give me that. Macs have less than 10% of the market in personal computers. The other 90% is made of of different makers and difference OSs. People who say Apple has a monopoly don't understand what monopoly means. Do they have complete control over the licensing of their software? Yes, as EVERY software maker does. But Apple does not have the market leverage to, for example, force retailers or sellers through contract terms to stop carrying competitors products. - kashk5, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1When I clicked on it there were no comments. Regardless, just one comment and front page is still very weird
- 3The3Dude3, on 11/12/2009, -1/+2Downloading bootleg versions of Windows and activating them with hacked product keys is not equal to buying an OS from Apple and violating the EULA.
I'm not contesting that people are violating the Apple EULA. I believe the EULA, itself, would be ruled as "*****" if dragged through a Microsoft-style antitrust lawsuit as it grants Apple a monopoly over it's hardware, in which it has no IP.
A similar scenario is auto-warranties and aftermarket parts and services that meet OEM specs. Yeah, if you modify a vehicle with parts that aren't linear with a vehicle's engineering, the manufacturer has a legitimate beef in voiding the warranty. But if your replacing with third-party, but OEM spec compliant, they do not. - captainproton, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1@portnoy
"I don't even see that. They have done nothing to prevent anyone from buying any of a countless variety of other portable music players"
Actually, I agree with you on this point. But they are the big elephant in the room, and they could leverage their position in anti-competitive ways (not sure whether they did or didn't yet).
I was just trying to draw a contrast between the music player market (where they are a big player) and the OS market where, although influential, they are quite small. - zeabu, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1Your reaction is shows the mentality why open-source has so much problems to survive.
Sell stuff to enterprises, let normal people donate. Make it obligatory that any enhancements, patches made, are release again, open-source. You CAN make money that way. Earning money is not the enemy of open-source, you know?
They should however be honest whether or not they used the work of others. Then again, if everything was open-source it wouldn't be such a problem to check. - T8erT0T, on 11/12/2009, -0/+1I mean, if you swap the word software with car, it's acceptable, so maybe why not?
-
Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is