OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/19904/PsyStar_s_Open_Computer_the_Alterna-Mac Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:22:51 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Not necessarily bad for Apple http://osnews.com/thread?319619 http://osnews.com/thread?319619 To determine if this is a bad thing for Apple or not we need to consider a number of things. Firstly in the article you talk about companies putting together off-the-shelf clones to run MacOS. This is true to a certain degree - but these clones still use the same chipset, graphics sets, etc that are available in current Macs. This may change, but for the moment that means that the suggestion that Apple's claims about how they keep the system stable being untrue is itself not quite correct.

Secondly, we need to consider how much Apple actually make from hardware. Due to the scales involved and type of materials used in Apple's manufacturing it is no doubt costing them a little more than the cost of your average clone to build a Mac, so the argument could be raised that they really make most of their "Mac" money from the OS and Apps - which they are still doing with the Pystar clones out there. So to some degree it would be more advantageous for these clones to exist.

Thirdly, I think we are missing something in this whole mix - Knowledge Navigator. That is where Apple want to be. Look at the concepts in that video then look at iPhone. They aren't there yet, but make no mistake they will be - maybe not exactly as per the original concept, but I believe that is the place Apple want to be. The desktop market the way we know it will ultimately die, so I don't believe this is as big a threat to Apple as hype would want us to believe. I don't think we will see Apple do anything about Pystar because I think its actually good for them.

Only time will tell... Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mrhasbean) Comments maybe, maybe not. http://osnews.com/thread?319620 http://osnews.com/thread?319620 It doesn't HAVE to be bad for Apple... they just need to improve their business plans and start to actually sell the system... Several PC builders (such as Dell and probably HP and others) are really interested.

But still, the most important thing is that it would be MUCH better to costumers, who would be presented with choices and options to run from vendor lock-in.

(Apple reviewed their plans with iPhone, and instead of selling the hole gadget, and them, receive part of the network's income, they're just leaving the pricing to the networks and charging them a fixed price... Unfortunately it still a closed platform too, but maybe one day it may be not...) Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JrezIN) Comments Easy way for Apple http://osnews.com/thread?319624 http://osnews.com/thread?319624 The easy way for Apple to progress forward and benefit is to open up their platform to competition. Allow other vendors to sell their software and adhere to open standards with their software but make sure that these vendors adhere to guidlines that don't compromise the usability of Apples Software. We all know that now for Apple it is about the software which really differentiates them so why not capitalise on it.

I might even be able to present Apple as an alternative OS if this happens but I will not whilst they still insist on standards and hardware lock-in. Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (blitze) Comments Apple Won't Go After Them http://osnews.com/thread?319628 http://osnews.com/thread?319628 Apple won't go after them because they know if they lose, the entire concept of the EULA flies out the window smashing to its gruesome death 13 stories below. Tue, 24 Jun 2008 00:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (DittoBox) Comments RE: Apple Won't Go After Them http://osnews.com/thread?319634 http://osnews.com/thread?319634 Slightly off topic, but I'll say it anyway. If Apple's EULA was found to be legally invalid, imagine what that would do to other companies' EULAs. Sure, not all EULAs contain clauses that might be found illegal, but seeing one EULA invalidated would bring all of them into question. For example, how legal are the terms in the Windows XP EULA? The GNU GPL? Tue, 24 Jun 2008 01:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Moredhas) Comments RE[2]: Apple Won't Go After Them http://osnews.com/thread?319636 http://osnews.com/thread?319636 The GPL is not an EULA. It governs distribution of the software, not what the end user does with it or what machines he may run it on or what conditions he must follow to use it.Edited 2008-06-24 01:32 UTC Tue, 24 Jun 2008 01:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (MamiyaOtaru) Comments RE: Not necessarily bad for Apple http://osnews.com/thread?319641 http://osnews.com/thread?319641
Firstly in the article you talk about companies putting together off-the-shelf clones to run MacOS. This is true to a certain degree - but these clones still use the same chipset, graphics sets, etc that are available in current Macs. This may change, but for the moment that means that the suggestion that Apple's claims about how they keep the system stable being untrue is itself not quite correct.


On the contrary - IMHO, it thoroughly torpedoes the argument that "Macs are less-problematic because Apple controls both the OS and the hardware". I do agree with the premise that Macs are less-problematic in terms of hardware-related problems, but it has nothing to do with Apple controlling the hardware and the software (if for no other reason that Apple actually doesn't have control over the hardware used in Macs - not beyond the choice of which third-party components to use, at least). Tue, 24 Jun 2008 02:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (StephenBeDoper) Comments RE[2]: Apple Won't Go After Them http://osnews.com/thread?319642 http://osnews.com/thread?319642 IANAL - but if the "can only be used on Apple-branded computers" clause of the OS X EULA were found to be unenforceable, then it would not be the "end of the EULA as we know it."

The legal precedent would only apply to other EULAs that attempt to stipulate what hardware can or can't be used to run a piece of software. Offhand, I can't think of any other software that would be effected. Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (StephenBeDoper) Comments RE[3]: Apple Won't Go After Them http://osnews.com/thread?319643 http://osnews.com/thread?319643 Unless of course the EULA itself is found to be illegal. Remember, many states have laws about how a contract (and thats really what the EULA is) can be entered into, what it can specify, and other such limitations. EULA's for the most part have never been tested. Frankly, its about time they are.Edited 2008-06-24 03:21 UTC Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TechGeek) Comments RE[4]: Apple Won't Go After Them http://osnews.com/thread?319644 http://osnews.com/thread?319644
Unless of course the EULA itself is found to be illegal.


That's possible, but I don't think it's likely. Just from a financial point of view, I imagine that it would be cheaper to challenge specific stipulations of a particular contract - as opposed to challenging the legality of all contracts of a certain type. Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (StephenBeDoper) Comments Nice Computer... Noisy though. http://osnews.com/thread?319648 http://osnews.com/thread?319648 A friend of mine who ordered one loves it... However, as a Mac owner (A real one), I must say that it is much louder than a similarly equipped iMac. I like the fact that my iMac is completely silent (With a minor exception of intensive DVD operations)

But hey that's just me. Like I love to say "Whatever works for you". Tue, 24 Jun 2008 04:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (shadow_x99) Comments RE: Easy way for Apple http://osnews.com/thread?319669 http://osnews.com/thread?319669 The easy way for Apple to progress forward and benefit is to open up their platform to competition

You're right -- because they're doing so badly otherwise :-)

Seriously though, I don't get it when people say "Apple needs to do this" or "Apple should do that". As I understand it, the company is selling more Macs than ever, so there's no way that letting OS X loose on generic white-box hardware will happen. Tue, 24 Jun 2008 08:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (M-Saunders) Comments RE: Nice Computer... Noisy though. http://osnews.com/thread?319672 http://osnews.com/thread?319672 Just spend $100 on a good aftermarket case like an Antec Sonata. Spend 30 minutes swapping the guts over to the new case. I can only tell my computer is on by looking at the power light - it is silent from 0.5m away. Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (unclefester) Comments EFI in firmware http://osnews.com/thread?319677 http://osnews.com/thread?319677 Why isn't EFI put into the firmware chip replacing BIOS instead of emulating an Apple Macintosh on top of BIOS?. Upgrades would be even more seamless that way and maybe you'd even be able to install from a real OS X installation medium. Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (psychicist) Comments RE[2]: Nice Computer... Noisy though. http://osnews.com/thread?319690 http://osnews.com/thread?319690 Psystar's idea is to sell cheap machines. A $100 cabinet is not :-) Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (biffuz) Comments RE: EFI in firmware http://osnews.com/thread?319692 http://osnews.com/thread?319692 Cost. Psystar is about cheap stuff. Not that it's bad, but replacing a stock mainboard's BIOS is a costly operation, due to development and maintenance. Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (biffuz) Comments RE[3]: Apple Won't Go After Them http://osnews.com/thread?319701 http://osnews.com/thread?319701
IANAL - but if the "can only be used on Apple-branded computers" clause of the OS X EULA were found to be unenforceable, then it would not be the "end of the EULA as we know it."


Agree.

The legal precedent would only apply to other EULAs that attempt to stipulate what hardware can or can't be used to run a piece of software. Offhand, I can't think of any other software that would be effected.


I believe that Microsoft also discriminates whether their software is being run into a real machine or a virtual one but I don't know if the pricing is any different on either case. And if the prices are the same then it doesn't make any sense and it would probably be dragged into the same discussion in case Apple's clauses validity are raised in a court.

It would be at the very least interesting to see how things could unfold in that direction. Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (DeadFishMan) Comments RE[2]: Easy way for Apple http://osnews.com/thread?319740 http://osnews.com/thread?319740
As I understand it, the company is selling more Macs than ever, so there's no way that letting OS X loose on generic white-box hardware will happen.


You mean like there was no way they'd ever switch to intel? Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jptros) Comments RE[3]: Apple Won't Go After Them http://osnews.com/thread?319757 http://osnews.com/thread?319757 Offhand, I can't think of any other software that would be effected.

Doesn't MS Office for Windows Eula specify what OS it may be run on? Which would imply not under Crossover Office? Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (alcibiades) Comments A couple things wrong... http://osnews.com/thread?319791 http://osnews.com/thread?319791 1. On Thom's part (I didn't see it in the cnet.com posting) there's mention of expanding the PyStar box to 16 TB RAM. 16 GB RAM for currently available hardware I can see, but 16 TB? Crack smoking is going on somewhere ;)

2. On PyStar's part, if they're actually modifying the Software Update utility as it seems to say in the article, is living dangerously from a legal standpoint by doing this. This goes outside the question of EULA's and straight into the question of copyrights. It'd at least be less risky if they merely provided instructions for how to do so, instead of actually selling it as part of the system.

I still remain convinced that it's only a matter of time before Apple terminates them either in a legal action method, or at least makes it too much of a hassle to get the latest OS versions for their hardware. It may be delayed by quite a bit, perhaps until the PR and legal costs are outweighed by the potential rewards or potential reduction of losses brought on by PyStar selling clones. I expect if they can do it by marginalizing the hardware's value via incompatible software updates, that'd be the cheapest for them, in all forms of reckoning, as it's likely to be much quieter, with only screaming coming from cheap geeks that wouldn't buy a regular Apple Mac anyway ;) Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JonathanBThompson) Comments RE[4]: Apple Won't Go After Them http://osnews.com/thread?319959 http://osnews.com/thread?319959
Doesn't MS Office for Windows Eula specify what OS it may be run on? Which would imply not under Crossover Office?


I'm not sure if that's directly comparable - but it certainly seems to be in the same spirit (using a license agreement to place artificial restrictions on how a piece of software can be used). Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (StephenBeDoper) Comments