As was inevitable, hackintosh vendor Psystar has found itself on Apple's legal to-do list. Apple has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the open hardware manufacturer, which began raising eyebrows by offering a $400 computer capable of running copies of Mac OS X. Psystar Open Computer The legal grievances were …
Apple really should have released a version of OS/X without the Mac lock in. Given Vista's woes, they could potentially have taken a pretty big bite. I imagine it's not that simple though what with all of the different hardware that would require support and whatnot.
I hope Apple loses. I really do. I hope they set one of those precemadents.
This should be fun, especially if Apple lose.
Of course, there is a school of thought that Apple would be the predominant OS by now, if they had sold the OS separately. But of course, they were more interested in shipping zillions (or so they thought) of 'puters. And thus, it came to pass that evil Bill Gates took over the world.
Paris, because even she has a business plan.
Microsoft got fined for having IE preinstalled on their flipping OS
Apple forced Safari to be installed on Windows PCs via their Apple Software Update (Which im sure was purposly done).
They also force you to have Quicktime when installing iTunes (When iTunes seems to run fine without).
And as for forcing users to only run their OS on an Apple built machine, then thats even worse.
One of my reasons why Hackintosh is a god.
If Apple do lose...
...and lets face it, that's a big, and unlikely if - and are forced to allow OS X to run on non-apple hardware - how long before people start slagging OS Xs hardware compatability/reliability/etc as much as [insert your favourite OS here]?
If it did go against Apple, seeing Mac fanboys on the defensive proper for once would be a laugh, and this will make for some interesting reading as it plays out, I suspect.
Tux - because he and his chums have been fighting the hardware compatability/drivers stories for yeeeeears.
Steve, he say 'namaste to Psystar'
Show no mercy and destroy the infidels utterly. And then destroy them some more.
Much love. Peace out.
Nothing happening here, move along please
As Steven Raith says, the reason why Macs just work is that they have less ambition than MS and only target a small range of hardware. If they win, that continues; if they lose, that continues: no-one is going to make them write drivers for other people's hardware, and they'll just say that this is the only supported hardware, use anything else at your own risk. Sane people will continue to use Apple hardware...
Microsoft started shipping the next version of windows, but licenced it only for MS Branded machines with Intel processors, audio and Graphics chipsets.
Leaving all other brands and H/W setup with Vista as the only legal option until such time as they pull the plug.
The lawyers would be on it so fast you would be able to say 'anti-competative?'
Apple does not have a de-facto monopoly. Therefore the usual anti-competition rules that have bitten Microsoft probably don't apply to Apple.
That said, I still hope Apple loses, but it's unlikely they will.
Looking forward to seeing "OS-X Ready" on beige boxen in PC World sometime in 2010.
What would happen then? If Apple OS-X became a hardware independent OS, it would put Apple RIGHT in Microsoft's gunsights. Not a nice place to be.
Not to mention that then you'd have ubiquitous software platform that was being self installed by end lusers on inadequate hardware. This opens MacOs up to the Microsoft virus target / hardware support nightmare. I can't see Apple being able to cope with THAT anytime soon...
@ Mark and AC
I reckon Apple choice of tying their OS to their hardware can be discussed, but it's certainly not anti-competitive and it's the *bloody exact opposite* to what MS is being punished for. They merely did it to avoid having to support diverse hardware imho (avoiding a huge source of technical glitches that would have tarnished their shiny "it just works" mantra). Also, they are elitist twats relying on the delusional sentiment of superiority they give to their typical customer, and this doesn't work as well without the shiny fruity logo on the machine. Namely, MS is grounded for forcing it's crap onto virtually all cheap and shitty system around, whereas Apple tries to look cool by preventing people from installing their droppings on unworthy machines.Given that most people buy "a computer", not an OS, MS behaviour is uncompetitive whereas Apple strategy might at worst be considered as shooting their own shiny elvish feet.
Apple won't lose
As much as Apple suck and prevent any competition in the Apple "market", they will not lose simply because of Microsoft. The EU will not look at Apple shutting any and all other vendors out of the Mac scene because they consider Apple a competitior to Microsoft so figure it shouldn't run by the same rules.
Now if MS were to lock down XP/Vista so it wouldn't run on Apple hardware, the EU would be on them like a ton of bricks.... however, Apples TOS say it only needs to be "Apple labeled" not "Apple hardware".
I still hope Apple loses.
Would be awesome if Apple lost-the end of the EULA for all!!!
Chances are Apple won't lose.
If they did the precedent would be a positive one. It would pretty much invalidate all EULA. Microsoft and Apple and all those software companies with their restrictive EULA would not longer be able to push users around.
I remember some Microsoft EULA stated you couldn't post anything negative about their products or post performance statistics! WHAT?
AutoDesk claims you cannot resell their software.
Apple claims you cannot try to install on non-Apple hardware.
Most claim you cannot reverse engineer or make backup copies.
All things that should fall well within a users right after paying good money for something.
I personally don't find it to be anticompetitive. Apple designed Mac OS. It's THEIR product. If they don't want to sell it to everyone they shouldn't have to, it's called FREE MARKET. However, if in some crazy judgement they do lose (I've long wanted Mac OS on PC), It will be good for the market in providing some alternative to windows that's relatively stable most of the time, and in doing so will only reaffirm why they have never opened it up to all hardware. Want the most stable Mac OS? Buy it on Apple hardware. Want cheap? Buy it on open hardware and pay for it in reliability.
But even then it's still probably more solid than Windows...
Perhaps Bill Gates could fund Psystar's defence...
Surely he could do it just for the malicious fun of seeing St. Steve squirm.
"They also force you to have Quicktime when installing iTunes (When iTunes seems to run fine without)."
Actually, no it won't work fine since quicktime is the playback engine for iTunes.
It would be quite possible to support wider hardware by providing a windows driver compatability support (something like ndiswrapper on Linux). Anything that has a Windows driver would then work on OSX too.
The down side is of course that that Windows drivers are blamed for most of the Windows crashes and this would also be potentially provide a security hole you could drive a bus through.
i totally agree
I totally agree with this company. why do microsoft have to bend over backwards when Apple seem to get all the favours?
Apple chose to convert OSX to run on pretty much standard PC components
(okay, a few particular ones but nothing special from Cupertino!)
I know a few people who are running OSX on other PCs that have the required
hardware... some Dell systems aparently are quite good....
two points @ AC
#1 Quicktime is indeed a dependency for iTunes
Quicktime contains all the video and audio codecs which iTunes requires to decode audio and video files. It's a dependency, like those on Linux where you tick some piece of software you want installed and then it needs oodles of stuff you never knew you wanted, like if you wanted some commandline utility for some sysadmin task, all of a sudden the whole of Gnome with truckloads of graphics stuff and games has to be installed as for some unknown reason they are all a dependency you'd never have thought existed, but your utility uses some weird function from those libraries for some obscure task it could perhaps have been written to do in a different way, not requiring all those libraries, but that's life. Same with iTunes, it requires Quicktime, even though it could perhaps have been written to decode audio and video files using some other library or with embedded codecs, but hey, that's life.
Do you want to make it illegal for software developers to use libraries of their choice? Only libraries on a government approved list are legal and using any other library is not?
#2 Nobody forces Apple users to only run OSX
Apple's license does not say anything about what other OSes an owner of Apple hardware can run. It only says something about what platform OSX is licensed to run on. Thus you have got it upside down. Apple doesn't force anybody to only run OSX on their Macs. They deny you the right to run OSX on something other than an Apple branded machine. Two different things.
Did you actually read the EULA?
On Your Own Head
I can see that if Apple lose, they'll just refuse to provide support to anything that isn't approved hardware, on the basis that they never guaranteed that their software would run on it. They're missing a trick here, I'm sure they could extract licence fees from other hardware manufacturers to have 'certified' hardware.
Can we have a Jobs-with-egg-on-his-face icon?
Minor inaccuracy in the article...
The PsyStar computer isn't "capable of running off-the-shelf copies of Mac OS X." Their Web site is down right now, but last time I checked, it advised buyers not to try to install OS X on their own, because of the complexity of the procedure.
I seem to recall that they'd pirated the firmware they were using in their boxes, as well.
A lot of folks keep saying Apple should release OS X on its own. I suspect these folks have never run a business and never read any computer news over the last few decades. Everyone who has tried to release a commercial, non-open source operating system to compete with Windows--Be, NeXT, *everyone* without exception--has failed.
Psystar states they don't support the installation of Leopard outside their facility, so obviously getting an off-the-shelf copy to run isn't the easiest thing in the world. However, they need to get the OS somewhere — and I doubt Apple is supplying OEM versions here.
But seeing as you can't get a box running Leopard without the OS pre-installed in the first place (and I don't get paid by the word), I'll strike the off-the-shelf reference from the story.
If Psystar Wins, the Homebrew Cloners Lose
If people think a Psystar win will force Apple to license MacOS X for beige boxes, think again.
Apple will simply stop selling MacOS X starting with Snow Leopard. You get a box, the OS will be preloaded. System updates will work as usual. Want a new release? Take your machine into an Apple Store (or via mail) and for a nominal service charge (around $130, natch) they'll upgrade your machine. They'll probably make you sign a contract, too; no EULA problems there since you actively agreed. Obviously, they have the right to refuse to service a competitor's machine.
That won't stop people from making and distributing images of a clean MacOS X drive, but since those will be patently illegal copies Apple won't care; they'll just sic the BSA on the distributors. Psystar will have no options open: Leopard will no longer be available via retail, and Snow Leopard won't be available period.
Expect new machines to come with the TPM fully activated to limit the cloning. Also expect the MacMacs to vigorously defend the practice even though it sucks for everyone else, and the Freetards to claim "Well, now I'm switching to Linux!" even though Apple couldn't care less about them (which causes them to hate Apple more). Finally, with the death of the EULA, expect to be forced to sign a contract for ANY software since companies won't be able to enforce their terms any other way.
Apple isn't going to slit their own throat to make the customer's life easier; nor should they. Most of their customers wouldn't upgrade anyway: the average consumer is content with the OS that comes with the machine.
Dude, you're getting a Dell
Yeah, I'd love to be able to run OS X on a cheap and nasty plastic PC with PS/2 connectors, leaky capacitors and a power supply that self-destructs after 3 months.
Oh, wait a minute....
Windows driver compatibility - HAHAHA
"It would be quite possible to support wider hardware by providing a windows driver compatability support (something like ndiswrapper on Linux). Anything that has a Windows driver would then work on OSX too."
You obviously have not idea what you are talking about. The kernel architecture of Darwin is entirely different from that of Windows and Linux. The kernel API is solely based on embedded C++. You can't just write a wrapper around drivers for other OS kernels and expect it to work. Many hardware vendors have tried to just massage their existing drivers into becoming an OSX version and they learned the hard way that it doesn't work that way. You have to write a driver specifically for the OSX kernel API (called IOKit) and follow the rules of embedded C++ (a restrictive cut down version of C++ specifically for embedded devices, thus suitable for use in OS kernels). Yes, it has its downsides when it comes to porting drivers to OSX because you really have to rewrite your code from scratch, but it also does have upsides, I promise, once you've worked with IOKit, you'll find it rather painstaking to code drivers in the old fashioned way.
OSX on generic PC hardware
Yeah in an ideal world it would be great if they would allow OSX to run on an ordinary PC but they wont for 3 reasons..
1. Apple hardware is more expensive the same way a BMW is. It doesn't make it better, its just a status thing.
2. With a limited number of motherboards, graphics cards, memory, CPUs etc its possible to test much more extensively for bugs. It would be impossible to test windows for every combination of hardware that might end up in a PC.
3. It enforces their DRM /itunes lockdown and helps them get deals with itunes. Apple is fighting MS & Sony to become the main outlet for online media. All 3 are trying to become the standard for streamed media and whoever has the most secure system will win the most licences from the RIAA/MPAA.
I do hope that Apple fails and Psystar are allowed to sell OSX on their hardware if for no other reason than EULAs are evil and illegally strip us of our rights to use what we bought in the way we want.
Apple get kicked in the nads on this one. Ok it aint gonna happen but are they then going to go after all the devs/admins etc. who are running OSX on VM's ? Or people like me who run OSX on a triple boot system ?
Lost any sympathy for the fruity loops many years ago when they sued DR over GEM and crippled the one serious contender to Windows.
On the other hand maybe they will lose and in turn all the other ridiculous EULAS will come under the microsope.
Nah, TANJ !
If Apple is going to reach a serious piece of market share in the personal computer markets of Europe or North America, THEN AND ONLY THEN is it likely that they will be forced to sell their OS for use on non-Apple hardware. For as long as they stay well below the kind of market share that could be construed as market dominating, this won't happen.
And should that ever happen, they still won't have to license their OS to run on every other hardware. They would be required to make a few deals with other hardware vendors and license their OS to those vendors. In other words, there would be one or more OEM versions of OSX and you'd still not be licensed to run such an OEM copy of OSX on any other hardware than that which it is licensed for.
Also, Apple would either make it the responsibility of those vendors to sort out all the compatibility issues with drivers, even the development of drivers etc, or more likely, they'd charge the OEM partner for R&D and testing on that hardware. At the end of the day, this would probably increase the cost of the OEM version of OSX cause at the end of the day, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
The economics of such an OEM deal would probably make it unviable for the likes of HP or DELL to license OSX. They would not want to have to incur the cost of compatibility R&D and QA for their entire portfolio of PCs but if they only license OSX for one or two models, then they'd face very serious penalties from Microsoft and lose discounts on their OEM versions of Windows.
Instead, there would likely be a small number of hardware vendors who do not sell any Windows based hardware at all. In other words, companies which Microsoft cannot penalise on Windows OEM licensing. Only if Microsoft's dominating position is so significantly weakened by then that Microsoft lose their teeth and vendors no longer fear any reprisals, only then would the likes of HP and DELL license OSX on some of their lineup.
On the other hand, if HP and DELL were to be in a situation where they'd have to choose either Microsoft or Apple as the supplier of their OEM operating system, then any forcing Apple into such OEM licensing would actually be more likely to create a new monopoly (with Apple and Microsoft exchanging places) than to further competition in the market for operating systems. The anti-trust agencies know this and they'd be thinking twice about taking any such action which most likely would only replace Microsoft monopoly with an Apple monopoly and in the process gain nothing.
Imagine a world with "Ready for OS X PC's" .... whoa is us ...
Now WHY would anyone want to buy a PC that is "Ready for OS X" ????? Because THIS is just what you would be faced with everyday x 356 (and these are FACTS compliments of MacTard site macfixit.com, where the reports like these are DAILY!)
TYPICAL Apple and Mac OS X bugs reported DAILY!
1 - Calendar subscription problems and limitations with MobileMe
2 - iPhone 3G/iPhone OS 2.0 troubleshooting roundup
a - Restore and update your iPhone 3G to squash bugs
b - Dozens of accessories don't work with the iPhone 3G
c - Removing stubborn iPhone apps
d - iPhone 3G battery draining too fast?
e- Boosting iPhone 3G (weak) signal strength
3 - iPhoto library cannot be found
4 - iTunes 7.7 (#3): stalls with a spinning beach ball on iPod connection, missing GUI
5 - Apple TV update 2.1 will not apply
6 - iTunes 7.7 (#2): erased drive data, empty library, unexpected quits; more
7 - Front Row failing to display iTunes content stored on external drives
8 - iTunes 7.7: causing major iPod/iPhone connectivity problems, other issues
9 - Menu items do not highlight with mouse hover
10 - Trashed Time Machine "inprogress" files will not delete
11 - Mac OS X 10.5.4 (#5): Adobe CS3 problems persist?; Random problem? Try re-applying the combo updater first; and MORE ...
12 - Safari not displaying PDFs
( oh this one is precious!! he he he ):
13 - Rebuilding Aperture library fixes stalled consistency checks
Aperture users run consistency checks on their libraries to ensure, among other items, that photo contents match the previews associated with them. Some users have found that these routines and appear to stall out.
(hmmmm, this never happens with Windows security updates!)
14 - Security Update 2008-004 for Tiger (#2): system will not startup; applications won't launch!!!
15 - Safari 3.1.2 for Tiger (#2): will not launch; problems installing
16 - Mac OS X 10.5.4 (#4): Spotlight problems; random shutdowns; poor performance; more
17 - Another potential fix for choppy playback in QuickTime 7.5
18 - "syslogd" process taking 100% CPU under Mac OS X 10.5.4 (he he he he he!!)
Oh wouldn't it a WONDERFUL WORLD with Apple and OS X on a " OS X Ready PC"!
Wow! I just woke up from a HORRIBLE Nightmare! Stevie Gods took over the world and made OS X available for PC's!! OMG, I so glad that was just a Nighmare!!
AppleTards. Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ........
Couldn't they sell the machines whilst complying with the EULA by writing 'apple' on a sticker and putting that on the boxes?
there isn't actually a definition of "Apple-labeled" in the Leopard EULA either (although "Apple" is 'Apple inc")
"..the Freetards to claim "Well, now I'm switching to Linux!" even though Apple couldn't care less about them (which causes them to hate Apple more)."
You've got it backwards ... Freetards don't pay inflated prices for consumer-level gear. Mactards do that. And Mactards resent Freetards' ability to "think outside the box". Sit a Mactard and a Freetard down in front of a professional-level system, say, a Solaris or true BSD box, and let's see who has a prayer of being productive.
Perhaps I'm missing something
If Apple spend time and money developing an operating system why *shouldn't* they be able to dictate the conditions on how it's used?
Honestly, what is the problem?
In years gone by, I never recall much vitriol spewed out by Atari ST users, complaining that AmigaOS was tied exclusively to Commodore's own hardware and should be litigated against to make it compatible with their own hardware. That Sony should be FORCED to make their Playstation games compatible with Saturns. That Bentley should ensure that their engines fit quite happily in a Ferrari.
Microsoft chose to sell their OS to whoever wished to install it and had compatible hardware. Linux and similar strive to make their OS as compatible as possible. Apple chose to tie their OS to their hardware and ensured that in the terms and conditions that it wasn't to be run on 3rd-party hardware.
Does that really matter? Each was ultimately a concious decision made by its creators.
Honestly, just use whichever damn operating system you want to. Don't like a company? Don't buy their products. End of story.
What I can't figure is why Apple insists on bothering with this. OS-X is pretty
much a rpiif of FBSD to begin with. They should sell a SERVICE contract with
every one of their boxen that implements an up-to-date OS on that box. All the
Open-Sauce fanbois will do is popularize the desktop at no charge. Apple will
be in the same position IBM would have been had they not given away the
PC OS for a blow-job: not having a monopoly can still make you rich, so who cares?
Now where is...
... Webster Phreakey when one needs him?
I'll leave the monopoly discussion aside -- it's really not pertinent here -- but unlike Microshaft's terms, Apple's have yet to be legally challenged successfully, so I would agree, it's rather unlikely that Apple will lose this one, seeing that the chosen court is inside the USA.
The ramifications of a loss would be highly interesting, as I also agree with those who noted before that Apple would prefer to support a limited hardware base, as opposed to M$' attempt to take over the world which can be, I think, largely be regarded as failed due to lack of device drivers (I am using at least three intel-compatible computers at this time that contain hardware NOT supported by recent editions of Windows... runs nice on Linux though).
Also, it would be interesting to see how the Darwin community would react -- after all, as an OSS project based on FreeBSD, they have access to the incredibly huge amount of drivers written for Linux. And just for those not remembering this: the proprietary bits of MacOS X run on top of Darwin.
Its not so complicated. . .
all Apple need do is say install OSX on anything you like, but we will only support it on approved hardware. The hardware manufacturers can provide support for their own machines. Apple makes more money and pc customers get more choice, it's a win-win.
Hmmm , for Pystar let me introduce you to our dear departed soul called "Franklin" who was born in the halcyon early days but departed quickly before the all in one handy dandy useful Mac 9" the best man made toilet paper hanger case arrived on the scene which is about all it ever was good for anyway from day one to it's better much improved G4/G5 sons of Franklin arrived much later on the scene as too little too late !
As for the other problem me sees much smoke and mirrors with heavy fog clouds on the horizon ,since the largest bulk of the compiled central core of OSX and Snow Leopard is actually open source BSD Unix code as such and is freely available under GPL or copyleft so if the Cupertino pirates and control freaks win , will they go after the BSD fan club and steal all that juicy Unix/Linux copyleft material from under their very noses after that shoot down of Pystar 007 over the Florida Straights latest Oil field with all pipes sucking from the Cuban side of the fence !
I can see an opening here for the Beatles record label to get their own back. Just lend their name (for a fee, of course) to a computer hardware manufacturer and it's all legal.
History Repeats Itself
So Psystar pirated Apple's firmware to enable OS X to run on their own hardware?
Wasn't there a Research Center in Palo Alto that developed a certain rodent-like device that someone decided to steal to build a computer with a GUI interface?
Be prepared for less than perfect
Apple software and hardware works great. The main reason why this is, is because, as they blatently say in their commercial, they make it all (Both the hardware and the software). This means that they get to play god over every aspect of their products. So this means problems are rare, its all mostly (mostly) simple to use, and over all people are satisfied. This is what make them a great company, but dont get me wrong:
Mac hardware is expensive.
So i think it would be great if hackintosh wins over macintosh. BUT if they do, we have to be prepared for less then perfection, as they may not be the last to use apple software on non-apple hardware. So be prepared for less of the perfection that is generally associated with apple.
Blame Apple don't blame us (HW vendor)
Dear valued customer,
Our sincerest condolences for your continued problems concerning the smooth running of your machine.
Your problem, namely (insert problem) is due to the nature of Mac OSX. While we adhere to and strive to keep up with new developments in the hardware field Apple refuses to do likewise with OSX. As you agreed when purchasing your Slackintosh 5004 computer we, Sloppy Inc, are only responsible for the hardware and Apple are responsible for the OS. As you know, they offer no support to users such as yourself who choose to buy non Apple hardware. In fact they don't even recognise you as a user of their product. Please feel free to write to them to change this.
If you do experience any fault in your hardware please feel free to consult us as to your cover status in our repair and replacement policy.
Best of luck
"I do hope that Apple fails and Psystar are allowed to sell OSX on their hardware if for no other reason than EULAs are evil and illegally strip us of our rights to use what we bought in the way we want."
I just bought this keen new axe. I want to use it to chop down your front door. Still think people should be able to use things they bought any way they want?
OSX drivers != FBSD drivers
Yes, the OSX userland is based on FreeBSD, but the OSX kernel is based on CMU Mach. Not withstanding some FreeBSD kernel API calls added in for a basic level of system call compatibility, OSX' API for driver implementation, called IOKit could not be more different from that of FreeBSD, or any other OS for that matter. For starters, OSX drivers cannot be written in C, they must be written in embedded C++. Typically, a driver for OSX has to be rewritten from scratch.
For the (seemingly typical) attention deficit suffering readers of this board that means:
- The OSX kernel is NOT BASED ON FreeBSD.
- Drivers for FreeBSD are incompatible with OSX.
- OSX drivers cannot be derived from FreeBSD (nor any other OS).
- OSX does not in any way benefit from the availability of drivers for FreeBSD.
Of course, more likely than not, somebody will post here again that OSX can use FreeBSD drivers, because the internet is after all a place where millions of bozos spread nonsense based on hearsay without ever checking if what they say is actually based on any facts.
The internet may as well be called HearsayNet, that would more accurately describe its most striking feature.
Never trust a computer geek with history
"Wasn't there a Research Center in Palo Alto that developed a certain rodent-like device that someone decided to steal to build a computer with a GUI interface?"
And you know this how? From hearsay?
Apple paid 1 million USD to Xerox for the technology. The Xerox board was not interested in pursuing the technology on their own, they preferred to take Apple's money and let Apple pursue the ideas further on their own. Since Apple paid Xerox and Xerox accepted the payment, there is no theft.
Anybody who says that Apple stole the GUI from Xerox is thus either an ignorant idiot (unknowingly spreading lies) or a nasty liar (knowingly spreading lies).
A friend of mine collects used cooking oil from restaurants to make his own biodiesel. The restaurants give him the used cooking oil because they consider it of no further value to them. If he will become rich selling biodiesel, the same idiots will probably start spreading lies that he stole the cooking oil from all those restaurants creating the impression that he sneaked in at night to take it without permission. All those internet idiots will then repeat the story over and over and over again until it becomes "fact". Same principle, different industry.
>If Apple spend time and money developing an operating system why
>*shouldn't* they be able to dictate the conditions on how it's used?
They probably could, (to a point,) with an explicit license agreement between them and each customer.
However, with EULAs in general it is my understanding that the provider of the software takes the stand that since they hold the copyright, anyone making copies must have a license from them to make copies of the software and this license is granted only when the terms of the EULA are met; since using a piece of PC software requires making copies of the same on the mass storage medium (installing) and RAM(/swap) (running), an EULA effectively applies to its use as well.
To make an EULA work the provider of the software is relying on the protection of the copyright laws. This is where it gets interesting, however: for example here (*) the law explicitly allows for making the copies of a computer program that are necessary for running the same, which would seem to thoroughly wreck the legal foundation of an EULA as presented above.
(*) Finland, the rest of EU is likely to be similar (?)
Why doesn't anybody build their own OSX?
I don't quite understand why all those people who mostly distrust corporations to a level that borders on corporation-phobia, why they so desperately want a corporation (Apple) to sell them OSX.
Guys, if you want to build your own PCs (from existing components), you might as well build your own OSX (from existing components). The pieces are out there, ie. libfoundation, GNUstep and other projects, some BSD licensed, some GPL licensed!!! All available and all perfectly legal.
Considering the low entry barrier for a reasonably funded small company to build their own OSX based on those already available open source components, it is puzzling that nobody has done so yet. Why are they all such lazy buggers?
There are four types of ingredients needed: the core OS, drivers, the core foundation API, the Cocoa API.
For the core OS, one might just use Apple's core OS, Darwin, cause it is open sourced already. Alternatively, one could use FreeBSD as the core OS (using the FreeBSD kernel instead of the Darwin kernel).
For the drivers, some Darwin drivers are open source, some are not. If the FreeBSD kernel was used instead of Darwin, then one could just use FreeBSD drivers. Either way, a significant number of drivers would be available right away.
For the core foundation API, there are several open source implementations, the most prominent ones are libfoundation (BSD licensed) and foundation classes from GNUstep (GPL licensed).
For the Cocoa API, again there are several open source implementations, again BSD and GPL licensed ones. They lack some APIs which Apple has only recently added to Cocoa, but since all the APIs are documented, the projects can and do implement those APIs, just a matter of time and resources. A company wishing to sell their own OSX clone could support and fund those efforts to keep up with Apple's recent additions at a faster pace.
Granted, the graphics of those open source implementations look outdated. But here again, a company wishing to sell their own OSX clone could just hire some talented graphic designers to create nice looking GUI controls and then marry that with one of the existing open source alternatives to Cocoa.
This would be a little more effort than just taking Apple's installation DVD and hack it, but compared to re-engineering any other OS out there, the effort needed to roll one's own OSX is comparatively marginal. All that is needed is some integration and polishing work. The bulk of the work has already been done.
Before this background, it seems to me that those hackintosh folks (companies and individuals who hack OSX install DVDs to run on generic hardware) are just lazy opportunists who are not willing to do any real work even if the effort is rather small. They should stop whining and instead support those projects which are maintaining and further developing open source alternatives to Cocoa.
In fact, if all that effort spent on hacking Apple's install DVDs had instead been invested in projects such as libfoundation, GNUstep et al, the chance is there would already be a viable OSX clone OS available by now.
STOP WHINING, STOP HACKING, get to work, support those projects.
This is the only route we are ever going to get a legal and viable OSX clone OS.
history repeats itself
Either everyone on here are teenagers or people have a very selective memory. Apple has been here before, there used to be licensed third party powerpc products with an oem version of apple's os.
It did not sell too well then and it would not do it now. Sure there is an active scene making wintel platform images but that is such a tiny geek tech Market. An then people still talk about the expensive apple hardware. In like for like an true coat o ownership comparisons it is not more expensive than other tier 1 manufacturers. Compare like for like and you'll be surprised.
When developing code for the web it would be really nice if someone employed me and said, "code for this platform only because its ours and we made it, oh and here is everything you need to know about it".
This is closed source at its extreme so why no benefit from it, they did build it up afterall. Any buggy implementation on non-apple hardware will make OS X look bad.
For the record i'm a linux user, not apple, but their attitude does make commercial sense.
"If Apple spend time and money developing an operating system why *shouldn't* they be able to dictate the conditions on how it's used?"
Because they don't own it. What the hell has the fact that someone spent time and money producing a (crap) consumer good got to do with what I or anyone else who PAYS for it does with it afterwards?! EVERYTHING you own was developed by someone spending time and money on it.
There was a time when it was thought reasonable that companies should have more power than their customers and the result was constant abuse of those customers. So, against a great deal of resistance, consumer protection laws were brought in and our world is a far better place for it.
Apple are stuck in the dark ages (in more way than one) and think that *they* still own *your* property after it leaves the shop. They can stick that idea, and their crappy unreliable over-priced tacky hardware where the sun doesn't shine.