OSNews

Why do you think that? Surely if Apple were not a hardware company[1] they would license OS X to OEMs. They could stand to make much more money selling software this way, and there would be a corresponding saving in not have to design their own computers.

[1]: By "hardware" I'm referring to computers only. Devices such as the iPod & iPhone are a different class of device.

Edited 2009-07-03 12:33 UTC

But to maintain a high quality it would involve a massive amount of control when it comes to licensing and many OEM's would simply refuse. How many OEM's right now have flat out refused to move to UEFI? On the issue of UEFI alone it epitomises the PC industries refusal to move beyond 30 years ago - why would Apple want to put up with that crap?

I can see it now, Apple would say, "ok, you need to do this, this, and this" and we would have whiners on here complaining that Apple's demands are too stringent. Its a no win situation with some idiots on this website - what it is all about is envy and jealousy. I can't have that product so I'd sooner see the company get destroyed instead.

Edited 2009-07-03 13:46 UTC

Dell and other OEMs are happily shipping Ubuntu on their hardware, which requires a similar amount of "control" in respect of the hardware they select. Why would it suddenly be different for Apple? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that Dell would fall over themselves if Apple offered them to option to ship OS X on their machines.



I have no idea if that was aimed at me or just a general comment, but it's bizarre reasoning on your part either way.

What have they done for Ubuntu? there are still the same incompatibilities; they still are choosing to ship BroadCom even though their drivers are shonky, they continue to provide ATI GPU's with Linux laptop seven though the drivers are more or less a joke. Then there is the firmware itself - where as a nice, clean and efficient UEFI would do, they hobble it with a buggy BIOS.

I'd say that Dell did the least amount humanly possible.



It was a general comment; the feeling I get from some people here is if they can't get something - they'd sooner see Apple get destroyed. Its akin to saying, "I really want a Ferrari, but because they don't provide a cheap one or allow cheap clones - I want the to go bust instead". Call it the extension of the, "I want now" syndrome.

While that may well be true on Dells part, they do at least ensure that the OS works with the hardware. There's no reason why, in my hypothetical universe, Apple could not contractually enforce more control over the hardware than Conanical have done.

I know that it is hypothetically possible but Dell might end up turning around and saying, "well, hang on, who is running this company?" and just flag it.

Don't get me wrong though, my vision of Apple is as a purely software company - and this vision would be based upon the idea of Apple purchasing Adobe, focusing on expanding their middleware, then possibly gradually rolling back their hardware division with the focus is on strictly controlled contractual arrangements with big name vendors that allow them enough room to differentiate but not too much as to cause incompatibilities (for example, a standard motherboard with the differentiating factor is a bigger hard disk, faster processor, more memory or a better graphics card).

I too would love to be able to walk into a shop, purchase a Lenovo Thinkpad, run Mac OS X and have it fully supported by Lenovo but I don't see it happening anytime soon - thats the sad reality unfortunately.

That's almost exactly what I'm proposing.

Part of the problem with Windows is that the hardware manufacturers write the drivers. With the crap drivers & software Dell installs on their machines, OS X would not be a pleasant experience on those machines.

Apple's engineers write the drivers for their systems, it adds to their costs, but also is part of the stability which most here apparently want.

Kelly

eh? they certainly dont write all the drivers...

just because they come with the OS (not always) does not mean they were written by Apple.

Apple engineers are good - but not that good!

kawai, you say "what it is all about is envy and jealousy. I can't have that product so I'd sooner see the company get destroyed instead."

Not for me. I don't want the product. What its about for me is whether a company, any company, can sell a software package and then have you, during the installation or use process, agree to a further contract which restrains how you may use it.

I don't see any difference between Apple telling you what kind of hardware you may install on, and Apple telling you what books you may read with it, or what other software you may install with it. In the end this issue is about our intellectual freedom, its about whether we or the supplier own what we may access through the software. It touches on stuff like open file formats and similar forms of lockin. It touches on ability to migrate from one platform to another.

Here, let me give you a real concrete example. There is a software package in the UK which I deal with, which has no export facility, and which keeps the data a customer keys in, in binary and proprietary formats. Now, the files are hackable so I have helped a customer extract their own data. If Apple's method of operating is upheld, so would a clause in a EULA be that said that you agree not to access the file C:\etc\etc, that you agree not to decompress it, that you agree not to use awk perl or sed or similar products in conjunction with it - in short, that you agree to pay 100 Euro for the service every time you want to get your data out, and you agree not to then put your data in to any competitive product.

This is why this case is so important. And this is why the case is not even mainly about Apple and its business model or its fortunes. This is about us, this is about people being able to do what they want with the software they have bought, versus a point of view that says, I will sell it to you, and then I will dictate what you may or may not do with it, in any respect I care to name, and no, nothing you create with this software is yours, even if it is entirely your own intellectual property. It is mine, because you did it with my software package.

And if I take steps that are in my interests as a company and not in yours as a user, well that's tough.

You don't think it can happen? It can. It does. If Apple wins it will be everywhere. A very skilled professional, not very computer savvy, was told by this company, when she asked tech support how to get the data, her own data, out, that it was all industry standard stuff, all she had to do was learn to write XSLT transforms. They suggested she learn Saxon and wished her good luck with it. She asked me where to start. I said, don't bother, they are laughing at you.

This is what is at stake. It has nothing to do with envy and jealousy, it has to do with intellectual freedom. It has to do whether, in order to give Apple the powers that it wants, but should not want, and does not need to maintain its business model, we abridge the intellectual freedom of the whole computer using public. That is, all of us.

Hell no, is what we should all be saying.

Almost, but not quite. The case has nothing to do with whether *you* or *I* as consumers put OS X on a computer after we have purchased OS X. That is allowed by law already, and has nothing at all to do with this case. Apple has no say in that matter, and doesn't give a rats ass about it. This case has to do with whether a commercial entity can do so. Commercial entities such as Psystar are not consumers, as they are a computer manufacturer. The line is finely drawn, but it is there.

Don't think so. If it is OK for me to do it, its OK for me to authorize (and pay) someone to do it. Once you admit that it is perfectly lawful for me, regardless of copyright and the EULA, to install OSX on an x86, then you have to admit it is lawful for me to pay a third party to do it for me.

Maybe it has to be done with some attention to the legal niceties, like perhaps ownership has to reside with me and not the third party when this is done. But there is going to be enough leeway in this to make it impossible to only allow individuals to install OSX on x86, and not organizations on their behalf.

This is explicitly recognized in US copyright law. The law in S117 explicitly gives the legitimate owner of a copy the right to make copies as necessary to use the software with a machine. It also gives him the right to authorize others to do this on his behalf. But it denies him or them the right to transfer ownership of the resulting copies without authorization from the copyright holder.

It follows that a properly structured arrangement will permit someone to go into the business of installing OSX on x86 machines for others, as long as those others own the machines and the copies at the time of the install, without violating copyright.

I do not know whether Psystar complied with these conditions or not. They do claim to build only to order, so maybe they do.

Whether the EULA will permit Apple to stop such installations is a different matter. But here too, there is no way that it can be lawful for an individual to violate the EULA but not lawful for a third party to do so acting on his authorization and doing it with his property.

Apple people get furious with the idea that Psystar is doing this to make money, as if we did not all do things to make money every day. But there is nothing unlawful about that. What may be unlawful, but should not be, is violating the EULA provision on where you install, or cause others to install for you.

According to copyright law and consumer law you can do with your copy what you wish. Whether or not you can pay a 3rd party to do it is exactly what this case will let us know once it is done. If it was illegal for you to install it, then "Hackintoshes" would be an issue, and they are not. The only issue is whether or not a commercial entity can provide that service. The laws apply to the end user of the item, in the case of Psystar you are not buying a copy of OS X and then sending it to them, they are providing it installed on a machine, and sending you the discs. That is the difference in it all. Psystar is not the end user, or consumer, but rather the provider and distributor.

Either way I will be glad when it is all said and done and we all can stop our speculations on it

In fact, it is not at all clear that you incur no liability for violating the EULA, which the software requires you to accept in order to install it. The extent to which such "click to accept" contracts are binding is hardly settled law. In practice, of course, this is makes no difference to you individually, because even if you are liable, suing an end-user for violation of the EULA would be such bad public relations, that Apple almost certainly would never do it.

No, i would say that if Apple were like microsoft and made an OS that you could run on whatever PC, then their market share would be higher than today, much higher.

You got the rest about right, but this one is wrong. You made the wrong assumption that Windows is sold at cost price. That could not be farest from the truth. It is a well known fact that Microsoft profit margin is close to 85%. On windows software, it it well higher than 90%. It means that their development cost (+ marketing + everything) is less than 10% their revenue.

Therefore, if the complexity was the same and development costs the same, even selling 10 times less software Apple would still be profitable. And actually their development costs are far from equal. They use the BSD kernel, the Webkit browser engine and they only support one kind of hardware. There are not much things they develop alone. Maybe Aqua and iTunes and that's about that.

Edited 2009-07-03 13:59 UTC

But they wouldn't have to kill themselves. Vendors and hardware manufacturers write a lot of drivers. Try installing a retail copy of Windows on a new name-brand laptop. You probably won't have wireless, network, or graphics drivers, not to mention all the drivers for fancy little hard drive protection, fingerprint reader, or optical drive silencing. Yes, Apple would have to support your particular chipset and motherboard etc., but they could let anyone who wants to install their OS on whatever he or she wants, at his or her own risk. Apple doesn't have to support unauthorized installations, and Apple doesn't. That doesn't mean that Apple has explicitly to prohibit such a use of its OS.

Yeah, and Windows dependency on the stella quality of third party drivers has really done wonders for the Windows reputation when it comes to stability, security and reliability. Mark my words, the day when Apple goes whole sale reliant on third party drivers it will be the beginning of the end. You'll have all the wonderful joys of Windows with all its mediocre reliability.

Regarding OEM installs and their responsibility; I wish it were that simple but if Mac OS X doesn't work on a given computer then it isn't the OEM vendor who is blamed, it is Apple that gets the blamed even though it is the OEM who is responsible for that side of the equation. Just like with those Nvidia failures - it isn't Nvidia who gets the flack, it is the clueless end user who blames the OEM for a fault that is actually the result of Nvidia. Reputation destroyed because a supplier further up the chain didn't do their home world. It takes years to build up a good reputation but it takes a matter of hours to destroy it.

Edited 2009-07-03 13:54 UTC

The development model is already in place. It's a BSD. Partner with the FreeBSD or OpenBSD kernel developers and they are all set. At worst, Apple signs some NDAs for the more close minded hardware manufacturers who choose to work with osX vendors. Hardware support is far less of an issue than people think.

Apple software is cheap because it's facing an uphill battle in a competitive market...
MS software is more expensive because it has the advantage of a monopoly and existing lock-in...

Pricing of software has very little to do with actual cost, once the initial development costs are covered it's pretty much pure profit whatever they charge for it, and a lower price will result in more sales and less piracy. Software is priced as high as possible, which for MS is pretty high because most of their customers are locked in and can't use anything else.

The financial reports don't discuss income or expenses related to OSX sales. In fact, they hardly mention OSX at all. Here are a couple of interesting things though:

Software sales were up, computer sales were down.

The entire Apple R&D budget for the three month period was 'only' $319,000,000. Software sales alone earned $625,000,000.

So it appears that Apple's software development does NOT need to be subsidized by hardware sales.

Its already been addressed so many times that Apple users like me wish that we had out head smashed into a wall - it is the way in which things are accounted for in regards to cost. The $10 you pay, for all intents and purposes, is a token amount. The account matter is the way in which costs are deferred/recorded - where it is not an update but an upgrade. Where as an update can be counted as part of the usual support required, an upgrade is giving away something for free.

The problem, Kaiwai, is that Apple appears to be the only company affected by SOX. So even though everyone says Apple does it because of SOX, it still appears that Apple is the only company following SOX...

...which makes a lot of people doubt the reasoning.

This whole SOX thing is actually a very good example, analogous to the article. Apple charges for the update, and everybody wonders why. Apple fans start digging and come up with SOX - Apple fans are really good at coming up with justifications for everything Apple does. This is then promoted to truth, even though no one from Apple ever said anything about this, and we've never seen any expert on the matter make any statements about it either.

I give Apple the benefit of the doubt here because they actually got hit with a fine under SOX a few years back.

Wasn't that for some strange stock option game they were playing?

In any case, SOX is one of those things that is largely interpretation - these days executives go way overboard in the name of SOX just to make sure they're not going to land in jail because they missed something.

It's pretty sad, really, as I've seen firsthand how a public company can do some pretty pointless and wacky, unreasonable things, in the name of SOX just to cover their asses. It's one of those things that basically punishes the innocent, like so many other laws out there.

I may be missing something as I haven't been watching this thing closely. What decryption or circumvention of countermeasures are they doing? My understanding was that the the firmware is an industry standard just like BIOS so there is no circumvention in using it. A boot loader isn't a circumvention either. It's not like they are doing a kernel modification between boot loader and Darwin startup.

From what I can tell, Psystar buys retail copies of osX and installs them on compatible hardware; no modification of osX to do so. This appears to be contractually questionable but there is no real technological hurdle involved.

Unclefester, take the light bulb out of your ass and substantiate those claims of 'leeching'. Leeching is a one way direction when it comes to a transaction; replace leech with 'mooching' or 'bumming' and you'd get the same result.

I only need to look at the many projects they contribute here there is a two way street; Sqlite, webkit, LLVM, GCC are four I can think off the top of my head - not including all the improvements in the area of compatibility which the various BSD's merge back into their respective projects.

If you're going to talk about leeches; name a single substantial thing Red Hat has done to advance Linux forward to the desktop besides regurgitating the same crap over and over again.

Ok, we know you don't like RedHat. However RedHat do not target the Desktop Market for their sales(mores the pity).
That said, the countless things they do with the Kernel and many other components that go into most Linux Distro benefit EVERY Linux User regardless of which one they use. Yes, even Ubuntu users benefit from the work that RH does.

BTW, you forgot one important thing that Apple contribute back to Linux and that is CUPS. Many people I have converted to Linux really marvel at how easy it is to add a printer to the system. No searching for, downloading and thenn installibg needed for the majority of Printers.

They target the enterprise market - and although the hardware support isn't there for esoteric devices one would expect in the mainstream end user desktop, the requirements remain the same. HAL has been a running joke ever since it was created - heck, I pointed out the foolish design of it way before all the issues about inefficiency which Intel's power management and detection tool demonstrated about some key GNU/Linux components.

What I see is a company that, instead of addressing the issues simply scale back their product range to an even smaller niche instead of addressing the problems that hold it back from being mainstream enterprise desktop platform.



Like what? most of the work Red Hat into the kernel all have to do with the server, not the desktop - name a single component outside of the kernel where Red Hat makes major structural contributions. Not merely just window dressing to address a bug or two but large design and overhauls of components which address long standing issues.



You're right; its funny how many *NIX vendors used to shun it but are now embracing it. With that being said, OpenSolaris developers are fighting it tooth and nail because they can't admit their existing printing system royally sucks donkey balls and riddled with out of date printer drivers.

Edited 2009-07-05 03:56 UTC

Since when was advancing linux on short of an enterprise workstation or server something redhat had any reason to "innovate" by your assumed standards?

Oh did you think redhat was competing with apple for shiny gadget market share that people like you can glance over and see their reflections on while typing on a forum trying to justify apple's cause?

Haha. No really, hahahaha.

Who said anything about innovation? the issues that exist in Linux hardly need innovation given that the solutions already exist - its just a matter of implementing them.

Then again, given the low bar you apply to innovation - I'm sure you consider the baking of a banana cake akin to a water shed moment in culinary innovation.



I don't to justify anything - quite frankly you could throw yourself off a cliff tomorrow and land head first into a sea of upturned swords; I wouldn't shed the slightest tear. That's how little I care for you and your opinions on the matter.



For a person who registered 4 years ago and made 34 posts; it speaks volumes for the fact that you're a troll who posts merely to incite a response rather than entering into any meaningful discourse.

Edited 2009-07-05 04:06 UTC

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?371826

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?371797

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?371784

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?371678

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?371687

One of my personal favorites that exhibits what a pompous *** hole you really are:

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?371675

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?371550

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?371552

http://www.osnews.com/permalink?371553

Would you like me to keep digging in your profile for more hot head cut throat fanaticism towards defending what I would almost think is your daddy if we were talking about a person?



So does this mean we're not friends? Seriously, are we not?



Well of course everyone is out fighting a losing battle for your approval, reading over your responses to nearly anyone on this forum makes that entirely clear to myself.



Trolling trolls my friend. I've been mostly lurking here long since before I even registered but when I see a pompous troll like you I can't help but make my presence known.

Don't hurt yourself trying to come up with more cheese **** "bed of swords" or "pull the light bulb out of your ass" responses. I'm done "trolling" and back to lurking.

Why are you afraid that 'parasites' will release and sell lousy hardware and blame Apple? If Apple's hardware - sorry 'experience' is so good, surely customers will keep on buying Apple?

Let's turn it around? What would happen if 3rd parties BOUGHT (not para-siting!) Apple's OS and sell it with a lovely box that performes the same (or better) as Apple for a fraction of the price? Surely, that is why Apple doesn't license its OS, they would sell themselves short.


From Apple's website, you can get their financial reports.

Unfortunately, Apple does not detail what percentage is coming from the OS but there is a general heading for Software

Software Total Sales
2008 2,207 32,479
2007 1,279 24,006
2006 1,508 19,315

That's 2.2 billion USD in 2008. It does not include iPhone software or iTunes sales.

So it's clear that Apple does make a good profit on the OS, unless you think that the development cost is more than 2.2 billion USD per year?

We'd have Psystar and the various other white-box Mac clone makers. That's exactly what they do. They pay for everything: there is no "leeching" going on as some Apple fans would like you to think, at least not in the sense that they would like you to think there is.

Apple sells a lot more than just OS X. You're forgetting Aperture, Final Cut and Logic. These are widely regarded in the industries they target and considerably more expensive than OS X.

I'm going to bet OS X makes up a minority of Apple's software sales.

It's an idea that's been posted over and over again in the forums, so many times that someone might even think it's gospel.

But the whole idea is ridiculous to me. If Apple wasn't making a profit on retail copies of OSX, then Apple wouldn't be offering OSX for sale.

Wrong. It is or is not an upgrade depending on how it works. Being an upgrade is a quality of the software. My personal purchase history is totally irrelevant. As is Apple's previous commercial policy.

Consider this. Suppose that you are right, and that OSX retail copies are really upgrades. This is so because Apple only permits installation on Macs. Now suppose they change this policy and permit installation on anything you want. So all those copies in the store, which work exactly the same way as they did yesterday, have suddenly ceased to be upgrades and become full copies?

No, this is absurd, the copies on the shelves either were or were not upgrades and they still are that. If you can boot from it and install from it onto a machine with a factory fresh hard drive and no copy of any OS anywhere on it, its not an upgrade, its a retail copy.

I agree with your idea that Apple's software drives their hardware sales, and vice versa. It's a good system that works well for them.

But the fact is Apple does sell OSX independent from hardware. And they sell it at a profit, and they sell it without doing all of the other things you say they would have to do.

No, they don't sell OS X independent from the hardware. They sell it licensed solely for use on Apple computers. They don't provide drivers and support for using it on Dells, HPs, Compaqs, Gateways, Lenovos, etc. You make a Hackintosh and just try to get them to give you software support when you sound, video, network, etc. does not work properly.

If all of the Mac in the world disappeared tomorrow, Apple would not be selling OS X at a profit. If OS X disappeared tomorrow, they would not be selling enough Macs to remain profitable.

Neither you nor I know how Apple's accounting works. If they spend 10K man-hours building new versions of OS X, does it all get charged to the OS X softwware development charge number(s) or does some of it get charged to the charge numbers for the platforms they are adding support for (e.g., 2009 Mac Pros, MacBook Airs, etc.)?

Unless you have a support contract which you'll pay a hefty fee for, your going to pay for your support from Microsoft. "this call is billable at..."

For HP, you call HP. For Asus, you call Asus. For Lenovo, you call Lenovo. For Dell, you call Dell (who may forward you to Connonical depending on OS). If you buy from a local shop, you call the local shop for support.

So, why would it be any different. For Apple, you visit the fruit bar. For Psystar, you call Psystar. For Hackintosh-r-us, you call Hackentosh-r-us.

Vendor's provide drivers or driver interface specs so kernel developers can include support. Support comes from your retail company. Apple users benefit from competition where Apple already has a clear advantage. Nothing really changes that doesn't benefit the users.

And Apple provides support. Take that away, and the OS is less appealing and will sell in lower volumes.



You have a grossly oversimplified vision of the world. You call Dell and they tell you that the sound is not working because of a Windows problem -- not a Dell problem. You call Microsoft and pay for support, and they tell you that it's a problem with the unsigned driver that Dell provides. You call Dell back and they tell you that they get the driver from Realtek and that, since their test software makes sounds, it's not their problem. You spend two weeks trying to get an answer from Realtek and they refer you back to Dell -- because you have no contractual relationship with Realtek. Calling Dell back results in you being told to format your hard drive and reinstall everything, letting them know if that doesn't solve the sound problem.



1. Because Microsoft's model doesn't work. That's why Apple sells so many computers to frustrated Windows users (like me).

2. Because Apple has no desire to sell their OS to manufacturers of other hardware. They won't support Psystar or other "hackintosh" efforts to get the OS to run on that hardware. They won't help developers at 3Com, Creative Labs, Realtek, etc. write drivers to make their non-Apple-sold products work on a Psystar.



Yeah, let me know how it goes for you when you call Psystar with an esoteric problem regarding the OS. (I had a corrupted Java install that Apple spent over an hour and a half with me troubleshooting at no charge -- think they would do that for a Psystar customer?)

You are apparently not aware that a "hackintosh" is a cobbled-together system coaxed into running an illegal copy of OS X (which is licensed solely for use on Apple hardware -- regardless of whether you bought a copy at the Apple store, Best Buy, or from some guy on ebay). There is no support firm for a system you build from pieces. Gigabyte isn't going to provide you tech support to get OS X running on their motherboard. nVidia won't help you when you tell them that your Hackintosh video isn't working.



How does it benefit me to have Apple fighting fires and PR nightmares when their OS has major problems on hardware that they don't manufacture?

How does it help me to have OS X's reputation sullied by unstable hardware crashes being blamed on the OS?

How does it help me, as an Apple customer, to have Apple's hardware sales undercut by Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway, etc. -- because that's what would happen if OS X was turned into a runs-on-everything OS? Great, so Apple sells fewer systems. So they have less R&D money for their hardware. So there's less Apple-specific accessories in the aftermarket (cases, skins, etc.).

There's a reason why Steve Jobs is a billionaire. I realize that you think you know more about how to run Apple than he does, but you probably don't. Trust me on this one.

Going point by point just leads to stunningly long post so I'll just go all at once. It's still not a glacial difference.

So Dell sends you to MS who sends you to Dell. If I have problems with my Asus motherboard, it's still Asus forums I go too. The dis-functionality of the call centre is not the point but rather the fact that your supposed to call Dell first. For IBM, you still call IBM first; though, in that case it's a madening series of phone menus before a human will answer. Still, when you buy your system from IBM, you call them.

It's also not about if Microsoft's business model works or not. I personally have many issues with how MS does business but that's not the topic here. The point remains, why would Apple be forced to support non Apple systems? You apple fans are smart folks right? You'd realize your not getting support without an official Apple purchase right?

Nothing is stopping Apple from not supporting non-Apple hardware calls. I'm pretty sure the brain bar at the Apple store is not going to support your Hackintosh or a Psystar system. The phone centre can simply include it into the introductory script or state that registration of your purchase is required for phone support. I'm pretty sure I'm not getting support if I walk in with a jail-broken iPhone or a Linux distro on an iPod.

In this case, the "but Dell and MS does it differently" really doesn't apply. You call Psystar or Bob's Hack-A-Shack and that's the end point. It's not like either can say "oh yeah, that's an Apple issue, you need to call them". Given no prior assumption of support from Apple (MS does have a prior assumption of support) an obligation could be avoided in the future.

"You are apparently not aware that a "hackintosh" is a cobbled-together system"

I'll quote that one line though because I nearly fell down laughing. You also missed the "Hackintosh-R-Us" pun towards Psysar similar companies rather than "cobbled together systems"; bit quick to get defensive maybe?

Actually, given the article a few weeks back, it doesn't even take a cobbling together of systems for one to do there own osX on non-Apple hardware. Naturally, I wouldn't expect support for a home built when ample support is available through forums anyhow. One who isn't comfortable with forum help likely isn't doing hackintosh installs either are they?

As a consumer, how would you be at a loss? Based on the "what if" situation that third parties can sell osX preinstalled systems; it would either show that equivalent quality can be provided at better prices or crappy clones can't stand up to competition from the original vendor. Doesn't that benefit you as a consumer? If a company couldn't provide solid support for it's products, they are not going to remain a competitor against Apple for very long are they?

The people who make a stink because Apple won't support non-standard installs are the same people find or dream up any reason to complain already. Apple can simply say; "if it's not an Apple baught standard product install, we're not going to support it". Already done with iPhone and the Pods after all.

I think Apple's a big company that would do just fine with some competition. The purists like yourself will never switch. They still sell a crapload of osX native aftermarket software which is already a large part of there income. They still sell accessories for each one of your USB ports. I don't see the R&D money going anywhere; it may actually drive more R&D and service for the brand loyal customers. It could be a way to differentiate; by Apple official hardware and get Apple direct support. Heck, they can charge support contracts for third party osX retailers which would amount to higher revenue per osX unit sold wouldn't it?

Your jumping to assumptions again at the end. I didn't sudgest I knew how to run Apple better than Mr Jobs. Why is suggesting that there may be benefits for the consumer equivalent to "I know how to run Apple better than that Steve guy"? Apple is a profit focused company and Steve is a profit focused businessman; every decision is fundamentally based on what will bring Apple more money. I'm not suggesting anything of that sort; I'm a consumer focused civilian who doesn't benefit from higher Apple shareholder equities.

But, since you suggest it, why should I trust you on this one? Is there a bit of full disclosure you need to share? Why so deeply offended by the suggestion that third party osX sales may be beneficial?

Frankly, your post was simply too long to address point by point.

But I thought that this line was absof**kinglutely hilarious:

You obviously know as much about me as you do about the computer industry. I have been a professional embedded system (hardware, software, and firmware) engineer since 1980. I have probably built more IBM clones than you have used (and built CP/M systems prior to the PC or Mac even being released). I bought my first Mac in the Fall of last year -- after over 25 years of owning non-Apple systems. I am sitting in my computer room where I have four PC clones that I built, a Dell server, and an inherited Dell workstation. And one Mac (a 2.8ghz 8-core Mac Pro).



"Support" includes making a version of OS X that boots on non-Apple hardware. Because, if you put an OS X disc into a non-Mac system, it doesn't boot. The OS does not install. There's not a big market for unbootable OS discs.



False dichotomy much? It would actually show that stupid consumers with no knowledge of engineering will decide based on price, not quality. Apple will lose sales, reducing money for R&D into new computers, and I, as a consumer, will be "at a loss."

I've watched it happen in the computer industry for over 20 years. Consumers mail-order crappy monitors that they have not even looked at because the monitors are cheap. Being, on average, about as intelligent as cocker spaniels, they think that the diagonal measurement and the resolution (e.g., 24", 1920x1200 pixels) fully define the monitor and any two monitors with matching numbers are basically identical.

It happens with laptops and desktops. It even happens with the "hobbyists" who buy motherboards based on features rather than construction. They don't know what bypass caps are, why they are important, or how manufacturers cut costs with cheap ones. They could not identify crappy bus connectors, low-grade power connectors, or lousy fans (why do you think so many clones are sold with unreliable, bottom-of-the-line, sleeve bushing fans rather than reliable, high-quality, dual-ball-bearing fans?).



Yes, there is. I've been in the computer field, professionally (and as a hobbyist) for over three decades. I am a professional engineer at a very senior level. I've designed and built computers at the PC (printed circuit) board level (as in sent off to have PC boards shot for my design, stuffed the boards, tested and debugged them, etc.). I had to clean up after over 3K PCs bought to a spec and low-bid basis (rather than a qualitative engineering eveluation) started failing disastrously, idling electromechanical systems that cost in excess of $50K each. I have the experience and expertise to evaluate computers, the marketplace, and consumer behavior.



Because it would harm Apple and intelligent consumers to benefit other firms and know-nothings. Apple would lose market share for their hardware as the know-nothings bought substandard clones based solely on price, resulting in higher prices for Apple hardware (due to lower sales volume, lower discounts from parts suppliers due to reduced quanitities, higher overhead per system, greater NRE costs per system sold, etc.). When crashes occurred, the consumers would blame the OS (being used to running Microsoft, presumably), eroding Apple's reputation for providing a very stable OS.

I hope that makes my objections and position clearer.

God you're arrogant.

So what if people buy machines based on price? What's wrong with that? Is that a crime? Who are you to judge people for buying based on price?

I can assure you that YOU buy based on price all the time as well. It just so happens that your expertise lies in the field of computing, and as such, you have the ability to examine the market in more detail. A lot of people cannot.

However, those very same people might be car specialists. Audio junkies. Gardeners. Professional sports players. Who knows. In all THOSE fields, they'll be able to make a much more informed buying decision than you.

In those fields, YOU are the "know-nothing".

I'm crushed -- because I live for the approval of random strangers on the net.



As I stated, it erodes market share from companies selling good, or even adequate, quality products, sometimes putting those more reputable firms out of business or, at the least, driving their prices up as they attempt to stay profitable.



That is absolutely untrue. I do my research, whether it's buying a computer, vacuum cleaner, car, boat, home heating system, lawn mower, motorcycle, etc. Price is sometimes a factor in my purchases, but it's never an overriding one.



If someone does not have the expertise to make an informed purchase, they should seek out help from someone (not a salesman) who does have that level of expertise. Or they should do the research necessary to become informed consumers.



Really? So you think that my choices of VMPS speakers, a Linn turntable, Rotel CD player, Creek headphone amp, and Hafler power amp were uninformed ones? You think that I did not know what I was buying when I opted for Bilstein shocks, Flyin' Miata anti-sway bars, and heim joint end links? People can have expertise in multiple areas.

But where you don't have expertise? That's what research is for. If I am going to buy something, I will do the research to assure that I buy a good one that meets my needs -- rather than just buying whatever is the cheapest.



No, by the time I make a purchase, I'm damned knowledgeable about what I'm buying.

So I don't know enough about you to jump to conclusions and you don't know enough about me to do the same. Can we dispence with the personal attacks and elitist snobbery then? Oh, wait.. there it is.. assumptions about my understanding of the computer industry.. guess not.. Good for you.. a firmware developer..

How does "support" require Apple to produce an osX that boots on all platforms? They currently require a limited scope of hardware to run the OS so why should that change? Why can't it remain up to the hardware vendors to stay within the supported scope of the OS? What is forcing Apple to support standard BIOS boot rather than EFI (I believe that's it anyhow, your the firmware developer though right?). We're not talking about home installs either here, we're talking about systems built to run osX so why would the OS disk suddenly not boot? System is purchases running preinstalled osX, hypothetical user buys upgrade osX disk and inserts it; well crap.. look at that.. it boots because nothing has changed in the hardware config.

Are you privy to Apple's budget? Can you confirm that the R&D budget would take a gross hit due to software sales without hardware? Care to confirm that software sales are not well enough into the profit margine to continue supporting the business? Are Apple's marketing geniouses not up to the task of differentiating between official products and clones? Poor consumer judgement automatically equates to branding death?

Seriously? You know a lot of hobbyists who think a 400$ machine is built from the top of the line parts? Funny, the hobbyists I know take days to select each component based on functions, quality and history.

See.. and now we have some background to provide a basis for trust. "Trust me on this" doesn't really offer much detail but a professional history does help. So, three decades in computers and engineering in a professional compacity. Aperently not a lot of diplomacy in that past with the way you come out swinging blindly but I gotta believe you have the technical knowledge. You could have skipped the back and forth posturing and just clarified with your last paragraph also.

Perhaps companies produce equal quality hardware and the margins Apple currently enjoys becomes a little less justifiable. In that case, reduced Apple market share would be valid while they would still retain all OS and application software sales. What if reduced volume sales plus competition don't equate directly to increased costs of official Apple products? This whole thing is a what-if situation at a time when computers are no longer a strange novelty. If the basis for comparison is IBM loosing the desktop computer market due to clones; that's done a huge amount for computing though at the expense of Microsoft's OS domination.

fmaxwell: As I alluded to in my other post, who gave Apple the right to no competition? I don't give two craps whether Apple's bottom line takes a nose dive or not. No one is entitled to market. If they can't keep their customers with their products, then they have two choices. Stop selling retail copies of OS X or make products that people want to buy over Psystar. They just can't be a bunch of whiny bitches and complain that some one else came and took what they left sitting along the road. (that would be the lower end consumer market) By the way, Apple uses bottom of the line hardware that they buy in bulk. So they can't be much better than Psystar.

I and a many, many others do care! :-)

We're normal individuals and families who own a stake in a successful company with a well-performing business model. Their value lies in their package of software AND hardware.

If this value were to "nose dive" as you put it, we would take our money elsewhere. Sadly, I see this happening unless Apple takes some very aggressive action against clone manufacturers, or withdraws the OS from retail.

You have done well for your customers and shareholders so far Apple, keep up the good work! :-)

The federal government. That's what copyright and patents are for. Apple owns the rights to OS X. If they want to license it for use solely on their systems, they have a right to do that. Psystar and other potential clone manufacturers have no "right" to use Apple's intellectual property.



Wow, you really have no understanding of intellectual property law at all, do you? Apple has a right to set the terms of the license under which their intellectual property (OS X) is used. Period. If Apple wants to remain a premium brand and not have their OS associated with bargain-basement (Psystar) hardware, that's their call.



Really? So the server-class dual, four-core Xeon processors in my Mac Pro are "bottom of the line hardware"? The case, which has been described as the best in the industry is just "bottom of the line" stuff bought in bulk? The ECC memory modules, complete with Apple-specific heatsinks to allow cooling with quieter fans are just cheap stuff bought in bulk? Please, tell us where we can all buy these components.

Don't be so transparently dismissive. Some of the firmware I've developed includes multi-tasking firmware (including schedulers and real-time kernels) embedded in satellites and ground station equipment, with much of it being written in assembly language. It takes a lot greater understanding of hardware to do the work I do than it does to write GUI apps.



I didn't say on "all platforms," did I?



So you want Apple to publish complete hardware specifications, naming multiple different processors, motherboard chipsets, graphic chipsets, temperature sensors and locations, fan locations, etc to which they guarantee the OS will be compatible in all combinations. That's support in my book.



If it's so easy, then please explain why Psystar includes this on their web pages:

For something so easy, they sure are having trouble doing it.



No, and neither are you. So we are both speculating.



If you want to resort to straw man arguments, attributing claims to me that I never made, then you can declare yourself the winner and I'll move on. I never made any statement that effect (that a lot of hobbyists think that a $400 machine is built from top-of-the-line parts).



These same hobbyists who don't know Ohm's Law and couldn't operate an oscilloscope are suddenly able to judge the quality of motherboards, wave soldering, DIMM carriers, electrolytic and tantalum caps, and switching power supplies? Just get on the forums where these hobbyists are all contradicting one another (Asus rocks! Asus sucks!). Yeah, they're all experts.



I thought that my initial post to this thread was well-reasoned and level-headed.



Thank you. I assure you that I am not attempting to BS you or anyone reading this.



I don't think that Apple has some kind of monopolistic hold on the computer market like IBM did. Nor is Apple marketing unimaginative, low-performance products like IBM was. Apple's stuff is top-drawer, whether measured on industrial design, aesthetics, noise level, or performance. Losing that would harm the entire computer market. So would losing the Apple store business model where customers can get hardware service, software support, and educational classes. Take away the hardware sales and that goes away, too.

You're proposing a grand experiment with a lot of potential pitfalls for Apple. To me, the potential benefits of cheaper hardware don't justify the risks.

"So you want Apple to publish complete hardware specifications, naming multiple different processors, motherboard chipsets, graphic chipsets, temperature sensors and locations, fan locations, etc to which they guarantee the OS will be compatible in all combinations. That's support in my book. "

You've got this completely backwards. Exactly how does hardware resellers staing within the supported limits of osX suddenly require Apple to produce full specs? It seems hardware resellers can all ready stick within the supported limits of osX as can the hobbyists. Heck, it's a BSD underneath so the core and base is already out there. Darwin didn't suddenly evaporate did it? Did Apple stop publishing the base hardware specs of it's own system?

You suggested that Apple would suddenly have to write drivers to support extra hardware; I'm saying it still up to the resellers to deal with that or stick to the same already published base build specs of the Apple systems.

Is Psystar saying it won't support osX on it's systems or that it won't support user self installed OS? Isn't that it's fair choice to do so and wouldn't that reduce it's own reputation and ability to compete? Apple can still say "we don't support non-Apple hardware". If Psystar is providing updates, won't they then be obligated to provide a Leapard update at some point? Isn't this the same as any self install on a prepackaged block of hardware? Dell isn't going to support my Dell hardware when I blow away Windows or Ubuntu and put a different OS on it; heck, probably won't support it if I don't use the Dell install disk even if I did use one of those two brand names.

You suggested that hobbyists buy crap hardware based on price alone and suggesting that they have no clue about hardware quality. I'm simply asking about this. You put the straw man on your porch, I'm simply asking about the construction of it.

These things always start out civily. For me, it was your "you have a grossly simplified" and following exajurated assumptions about me that helped to devolve the discussion and my responses in like kind where probably not helpful either.

Apple does not have the crap marketing of IBM or the market inertia strategy of Microsoft. It is a very different company. More different even than it was when allowing clones in the past. The very market itself has changed and become much smarter about computers. You seem to suggest that Apple can't compete unless it is the only vendor of osX rather than the only vendor of osX on Apple hardware. If there is anything Apple does well, it's brand loyalty and marketing. heck, the could charge a premium for nonApple hardware classes and still not have to support the hardware directly "we support Apple official hardware and osX on Apple hardware but if you'd like to purchase training.. we can talk"

I just don't think brand destruction is the only possible outcome. If the court case finds EULA less valid then it will mean some changes but the ultimate outcome may very well be to Apple's own benefit. They are not the lethargic Redmond monolith or International Business Machines.

As a grand experiment, Apple would have to go willingly. Corporate law obligates Apple to fight tooth and nail for any potential profit sources. If you don't fight infringements on your trademark then it becomes void. I don't suggest the role over and hand off the goods by any means. It will take the outcome of the case to decide what happens.

I'd love to add osX to my VM hosted OS collection.

Exactly! They support a limited amount of hardware, their development team can be fairly small. They are tightly controlling what is done and what needs to done and they obviously have well developed processes in place for building and QA (ex. they had been building OS X on multiple platforms from the get-go while only supporting PPC in the beginning).

I am sure they automate as much as possible.