Apple and Psystar have settled a large chunk of their legal wrangling, with the Hackintosher agreeing to pay Apple $2.7m rather than continue to trial in federal court in Northern California. The legal wrangling on Psystar's home turf in Florida, however, will continue. In a filing by Apple's legal team Tuesday morning, the two …
Resistance is Futile
The Steve of the Dark Side always wins.
They're dead, Jim
Finished. Kaput. History. Apple's killer sharks are closing in to rip chunks off the carcass.
I can but wonder where the hell these guys are getting that kind of money? I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but something smells really REALLY bad here.
@raving angry loony
"...something smells really REALLY bad here."
Not really. If you'd gone hunting for investment money for your start-up with the pitch that you'll allow people to build computers with the usability of a Mac but the price of Windows, I reckon you'd have got a nice pile o' cash to start with (though I appreciate your implication of exactly WHO the investors were).
I would have liked to see Apple lose this, for the single reason that if Apple had been forced to design OSX for multiple vendors' machines then it would have been in the same boat as Microsoft's Windows and, I would suggest, lose a lot of the selling point of a Mac. It's a damn sight easier to build a stable OS for just one type of computer...
"I would have liked to see Apple lose this, for the single reason that if Apple had been forced to design OSX for multiple vendors' machines then it would have been in the same boat as Microsoft's Windows"
You illustrate a very common misconception. Why *should* Apple be forced to design OSX for multiple vendors' machines? Apple is a principally a *hardware* vendor. They design OSX to give their hardware an OS and a unique selling point. It's *their* OS for *their* hardware, so they can do whatever they like with it, and there's no reason whatsoever that they should be forced to make it run on other machines. Microsoft, on the other hand, is principally a *software* vendor and makes its money from selling Windows and Office etc. It's in their interest to make Windows run on as many different types of hardware as possible so they can sell more copies. For Microsoft, a copy of Windows running on a Mac is one more sale. For Apple, a copy of OS X running on non-Apple hardware is a Mac sale lost.
By your logic Sony should design their PlayStation OS to run on XBoxes, Wiis and PCs, and BMW should make their iDrive system compatible with Audis and Mercedes, both of which of course are absurd.
"Psystar may have perhaps been unintentionally prophetic when it mentioned that "Apple has yet to litigate" against the Rebel EFI utility."
Nonsense. The court has already ruled on that. They indicated that selling something to circumvent Apple's encryption method constitutes contributory infringement. Psystar can't go that route (even if they come up with $3 M to pay off their debts).
You really ought to rely on the legal decision rather than the drivel coming from Psystar. It ought to be clear to anyone with more than a 3rd grade education that Psystar is making all sorts of stupid arguments that they can't possibly win -- and even flat out lying when it suits their purposes.
Are they still in business?
Their website indicates their out of stock on all servers and desktops, and seem to be only selling parts now.
Out of stock?
Drat. I just went to buy a Psystar system, and they're unfortunately ALL out of stock!
However, Rebel EFI is listed for $0.00 - a bargain at twice the price!
Oh well, no great loss. They ripped off Apple software and they ripped off the hard work of the OSX86 hacking community too! The founders already had a slightly shady past so I'm sure they will toddle off back to doing something more useful with their obvious talents of taking other's hard work and seling as their own!
I do love their defence though. "Did you license OSX?", "We bought inidividual copies of OSX install discs, but we can't find any of the reciepts at the moment!"...pure class!
Before you Apple haters get going again....
Don't start that crap about Apple being a monpoly, for the last time, they are not. They opened up the hardware to support other O/Ss, they even give you the bloody Windows drivers on the OSX install DVD!
Limiting their O/S to their hardware is the opposite of monpoly. Bullying retailers into only selling your product to the detriment of other's, is a monopoly. MS forcing hardware makers to only sell Windows and nothing else, that's a monopoly!
what's at stake here
The MacFanatics can only see one issue in this: what Apple wants, Apple must get. What the wider effects of giving Apple what it wants may be, who cares?
So in the present case, what Apple wants is to be able to sell OSX at retail in a form which will install on many standard X86 main boards. However, it also wants to restrict what you do your installs on to only systems bought from Apple. It wants to do this by EULA clause in software sold at retail and unbundled from any hardware/.
These systems, on which the EULA forbids installation, may be no different technically from the same systems bought from other suppliers (with the exception of EFI which is a tiny piece of the thing). But Apple does not want you to use them, it wants to restrict what you install on based solely on how it is branded.
The thing you all have to realize is what the rest of us, who are not Apple users and never want to be, find worrying in this. And it has nothing to do with Apple or its wants, which we find to be the least important part of this question. This is our worry. We do not like the idea that software makers can tell you where to buy the hardware you run their software on.
We do not, for instance, like the idea that MS could stipulate in EULA that you may install Windows on any system you like in dual boot mode, as long as it is not labeled Apple. We do not like the idea that MS could stipulate in EULA that you may run Office under Wine on the system of your choice, as long as it is not labelled Apple. We feel very uneasy about the idea that there might come an amendment to the GPL that would ban the installation of any GPL licensed products on Macs. And so on.
The thing you all have to get your heads around, after you stop cheering that West Ham has won, is that this is not a ruling for or about Apple. It is a ruling on what powers software makers have. And it does not give these powers just to Apple. It gives them to everyone, to use against anyone they feel like using them against, and that includes Apple.
So, are you all so sure you really like them Apples, now?
Re: what's at stake here?
>> "We do not like the idea that software makers can tell you where to buy the hardware you run their software on."
In a free marketplace, which last I heard the PC industry was, the producer can do pretty much anything they want with their products (as long as it is not illegal), and it's up to the consumer to make the decision of accepting the term, or not.
As I understand it, there is no right defined in the Constitution, nor stipulation in any law, that states that I shall be able to purchase and use Apple software as a matter of right. Like many other products, it has a license aggreement binding its use, and I am free to decide whether I want to abide by it or not.
It's simple really: If you do not accept Apple's terms, which you clearly do not, then you do not purchase Apple's software. Full stop. If enough consumers feel the same way and do likewise, it will affect Apple's position in the marketplace, which will result in either them re-evaluating their terms to gain the favor of the consumer, or alternatively (if enough people do not buy their products) going out of business.
The problem you seem to have is when your opinions regarding the manufacturer's terms are not shared by a majority: You decide to "punish" the manufacturer by not buying their products, stand on your soap-box and ask others to do the same--but alas! nobody listened. The company keeps on selling their wares, most people do not seem to care about the terms, they are not changed to your satisfaction; and all you are left with is an unsavoury taste.
You see, what you really wanted was to buy the product but *at your terms*, which didn't happen, based on some misguided sense of entitlement.
So, you call on the government, then. You claim that you have some right to or need of such product. That Bad Things will happen if you don't get access to it without the restrictions you do not like. That there is absolutely no other alternative in the market for this special product and that the terms are so onerous that you cannot live with them, and requiring the product, you are left in a precarious state. That the producer is exercising and abusing its position as a Monopoly, strangling the marketplace, and preventing you and everyone else from access to any useful alternative.
Only that this is not so. Your "brand-x" PC does not *require* Mac OS X to run--in fact, no other PC requires Mac OS X to run, except Apple's own PCs. Moreover, standard, run-of-the-mill PCs cannot even run Mac OS X. But even if for some reason they did, there are reasonable alternatives out there (for instance, you could, er, use the Windows OS that probably came with the PC). And if you bought an Apple PC, then you have no restrictions in using the software on it. So, where is the damage to the marketplace? Where is the abuse? And more importantly, *where* is the Monopoly status that you so selfrighteously claim exists?
>> "So, are you all so sure you really like them Apples, now?"
Well, yes, thank you for asking.
Full of strawmen...
What I have never understood is why the ABA brigade seem to think that things are different now that Apples ship with Intel processors?!
"So in the present case, what Apple wants is to be able to sell OSX at retail in a form which will install on many standard X86 main boards. However, it also wants to restrict what you do your installs on to only systems bought from Apple. It wants to do this by EULA clause in software sold at retail and unbundled from any hardware/[sic (Use 'shift' to get a question mark)]. These systems, on which the EULA forbids installation, may be no different technically from the same systems bought from other suppliers (with the exception of EFI which is a tiny piece of the thing). But Apple does not want you to use them, it wants to restrict what you install on based solely on how it is branded."
First, OSX isn't sold in the way that you assume. The disk that can be bought at most software retailers is an upgrade. The licence is bought with an Apple computer (this is partly what the EFI software is used for - checking the licence). Whether or not a machine is technically no different is *totally* irrelevant! The XBox is technically no different from pre 2006 Macs, I bet that I cannot install the XBox OS onto an pre 2006 Mac! You do know that Apple design the system boards themselves? The only technical architectural differences between PowerPC and Intel Macs is the processor and bootloader.
"We do not like the idea that software makers can tell you where to buy the hardware you run their software on."
In you own writing, you missed the point. IT IS *THEIR* SOFTWARE! The users doesn't own it, they own a *license* to use it! Using your rational the EULA is unfair because it dictates where and how many computers you can install the software on, as they only allow you to install the software on to one machine!
"We do not, for instance, like the idea that MS could stipulate in EULA that you may install Windows on any system you like in dual boot mode, as long as it is not labeled Apple. We do not like the idea that MS could stipulate in EULA that you may run Office under Wine on the system of your choice, as long as it is not labelled Apple. We feel very uneasy about the idea that there might come an amendment to the GPL that would ban the installation of any GPL licensed products on Macs. And so on."
Wow. Just how ignorant can you be? Why would Microsoft or the GPL do that? First to the GPL. It's important to know that Apple are quite a big open source contributors themselves. Yes the FSF could amend the GPL licence, as could the Apache Foundation and all the other types of permissive licenses out there, but that would be a different licence, so ANY software released under the GPL/LGPL v1 - 3 (or others) wouldn't be affected. As for Microsoft, why make a change to your licence that, as it stands, ignore 5% of the market place? Financially, it makes no sense, and seeing as Microsoft are a software business, they would want to make as much money as possible. They were happy with the intel switch! Why? More potential customers! It's not "rocket surgery"!
"The thing you all have to get your heads around, after you stop cheering that West Ham has won, is that this is not a ruling for or about Apple. It is a ruling on what powers software makers have. And it does not give these powers just to Apple. It gives them to everyone, to use against anyone they feel like using them against, and that includes Apple."
Spoken like a truly ignorant Man U fan! The thing you have missed is that this is about *intellectual property* rights. In simple terms, Apple have the right to tell you how *their* intellectual property is used, as do Microsoft, Sun, Oracle, IBM, Nintendo, Dell, Sony... You get the point.
How on earth do you manage to blame Apple (of all people) for Microsoft allegedly/possibly (in the future) abusing _their_ EULA and _their_ monopoly?
Would you have preferred it if Apple had allowed this bunch of idiots to drag both companies into bankruptcy?
"The MacFanatics can only see one issue in this: what Apple wants, Apple must get. What the wider effects of giving Apple what it wants may be, who cares?"
Your tirade is just plain wrong. For some of us, it has absolutely nothing to do with Apple. In this case, the court affirmed that someone who develops intellectual property owns that intellectual property and is able to benefit from it by setting their own marketing strategy and execution plans. This was a HUGE win for innovators.
Now, for those of you who couldn't create anything new to save your soul, it may be a loss. It means that you'll have to actually pay for the products you use rather than just steal them, but that's just too bad.
Oh belt up troll!
No one forces you to buy it? It's not the only choice is it? You have Windows, Linux, BSD, plan 9, etc.
As the maker they have the right to do want they want, if it causes them to go under, then tough luck, that's market forces. Just ''cos you don't agree, doesn't make it right!
Back in the 80's how many 8bit micro companies tried to lock people in? How many lasted to the present day? None! Who has lasted? IBM PC. Even sodding Apple know that the Intel based PC is king, hence the butchered abomination, the EFI Intel based iMacs.
Jeez, I am so sick of people like you thinking you have a God-given right to something. "If I buy it, it's mine to do what I want!' Is it fuck! You have a license to use product X in a manner that the manufacturer deems, you have rented the software!
Believe it or not MS have a perfect right to come round your house tonight and demand you hand back that copy of Windows and do you know what? They have a perfect legal right to make the request, if their reasons are just! So suck it up troll, the law does not match your opinion!
SOFTWARE IS LICENSED, READ RENTED! YOU NEVER OWN IT!
Re: Good riddence
I'm sure they will toddle off back to doing something more useful with their obvious talents of taking other's hard work and seling as their own!
So they are going to work for Microsoft then?
@ AC Resistance is Futile
Psystar were thieves.
The Real Dark Side 0
You make an interesting point. However you appear to be using extreme examples of possible license restrictions to argue that no-one should be allowed to place any kind of license restrictions on their software.
If someone wants to write some software under an open source license and add the proviso that it must not be used on Macs, what is actually wrong with that?
In the case of Microsoft, there is nothing notionally wrong with that either, in my opinion, apart from Microsoft's effective monopoly in the desktop OS market. I suspect any attempt to enforce such a license would have them running foul of competition law.
The PC's openness is an exception, not the rule.
Atari VCS, Sinclair ZX Spectrum, Amstrad CPC464, Commodore Amiga, Acorn Archimedes, Nintendo's NES, SNES, Wii; Sega's Megadrive and Dreamcast; Sony's Playstation series—even Microsoft's own Xbox series.
ALL closed platforms. Sealed units. Operating systems and user interfaces are merely a component used to help users interact with the device and provide a stable base for applications.
The IBM PC and its bastard spawn are an *aberrance*. It's an exception, not the rule. Right through to the early-90s, hardware platforms were usually *closed*, not open. Even today, most hardware seen in the wild is closed. (No, seriously: try installing Linux on a Nokia N97 or an Indesit tumble-dryer!)
If you honestly prefer open platforms and tinkerable hardware, great! Awesome! Nobody's stopping you buying a PC and installing Windows on it. (Or GNU/Linux, or *BSD, or Solaris, or... you get the idea). You're spoiled for choice on the OS market—any colour you like, as long as it's either Windows or a UNIX variant.
But YOU have to pay the price for using such an open hardware platform. As does Microsoft, whose Windows OS has a reputation for being flaky. (Not a well-deserved one today, either. Considering the vast array of hardware options Windows 7 has to work with, it's a miracle it works at all.)
As others have pointed out, even Microsoft are willing to produce *closed* platforms like their games consoles.
If you insist on buying an open hardware platform like the PC, you have umpteen choices of OS. None of them is made by Apple, but OS X really is just a UNIX variant with a very fancy GUI. (Quite why the GNU / FOSS movement *still* can't achieve something Apple managed to pull off with rather fewer resources and a lot less time escapes me, but you don't get to blame Apple for the FOSS community's failings.)
Nor do you get to demand companies like Apple support you in your every desire if they don't want to. It's their damned right to produce what THEY want. If you don't like it, you can choose to f*ck off and buy something else. That's the ONLY "right" you have.
This isn't even GCSE Commerce for f*ck's sake. What they hell do they teach in schools these days?*
* (I can't believe I just wrote that. Oh god, I'm becoming my father!)
On the Nose
I laughed so hard when I saw the end of this... 10 internets for you good sir!
But really though, I'm fairly disapointed with Pystar.. I mean Rebel EFI? bah.. repackaged Chameleon EFI loader.. worse than console emulators being sold to customer who never own the roms they're porting.. but thats another day's discussion.
Company's like this are giving hackintoshers a bad name..
You're having a laugh, aren't you?
Whatever the merits or faults of GNU and other FOSS groups, and the reasons for them, what you say is ridiculous.
"(Quite why the GNU / FOSS movement *still* can't achieve something Apple managed to pull off with rather fewer resources and a lot less time escapes me, but you don't get to blame Apple for the FOSS community's failings.)"
Rather fewer resources?
I don't really know the hard numbers (does anyone?), but I do know marketing is not cheap. And Apple's marketing is everywhere all the time -- I've lost the count of how many times I've seen that stupid iPod nano ad showing its video capabilities ("simulated", as the disclaimer obviously states) on TV last night only, for instance. So I guess it would be safe to assume that Apple spends more money on propaganda in a month than GNU has ever had their hands on for whatever purposes. Same would surely go for other FOSS projects like KDE, *BSDs, etc.
A lot less time?
Well, when you use someone else's free code as the basis of your OS, then I guess it does cut some corners. And anyway, "a lot less time" would be debatable. As I remember hearing, the first version(s) of OS X were quite crappy, and it took Apple some years to get it straightened out. Some might even say they still are trying -- like I feel like doing, every time I use that stupid Mac mini we have here at the lab (the old one we had was the same, so it's not just a bad, er, apple). The thing is quite buggy for a system so highly regarded. But that's propaganda for you.
P.S.: I don't hate Apple, and I think they are probably right in this court case against this particular "company". My girlfriend has a Macbook Pro and is very happy with its workings. Never had a (significant) problem, crashes are quite rare for her machine, and I'm happy I don't ever have to even look at it. What I do hate is the religion people here have, the "free-market" myth (wake up, it's non-existent and impossible) cult, of thinking that companies should be allowed to do whatever they want regardless of any consequences. Just because planned economies are demonstrably bad these people jump to the opposite conclusion with zealot fervor. You know, "drowning kills you, so never touch liquids again and you'll live forever" type of "logic"!
- Apple stuns world with rare SEVEN-way split: What does that mean?
- Special report Reg probe bombshell: How we HACKED mobile voicemail without a PIN
- RIP net neutrality? FCC boss mulls 'two-speed internet'
- Sony Xperia Z2: 4K vid, great audio, waterproof ... Oh, and you can make a phone call
- Pic Tooled-up Ryobi girl takes nine-inch grinder to Asus beach babe