Submitted by The legal back-and-forth between PsyStar and Apple is slowly but surely moving into the twilight zone. Not too long ago we had Apple going all black helicopter on PsyStar claiming people and/or companies other than PsyStar are involved in the clone maker’s unlawful practices, even though Apple could so far not name any of them because, well, they don’t know who they are yet. If that wasn’t enough, PsyStar now claims that Apple’s copyright on Mac OS X is invalid.
PsyStar claims that due to Apple using improper procedures while acquiring the US copyright to Mac OS X, the Cupertino company has no legal basis to claim that PsyStar is infringing upon the Mac OS X copyright, which happens to be a major part of the lawsuit. Whether these claims hold any water remains to be seen (read: unlikely), but you have to admit, if they pull this one off, they’re pretty clever.
PsyStar further reiterated its position that that the processor check employed by Apple in Mac OS X does not constitute as copy protection, and as such, circumventing the check is not a violation of the DMCA. PsyStar says that it’s not copyright protection because a failed check just results in a system crash.
In any case, this is shaping up to be one fun lawsuit. Whatever the outcome, we’ll have our laughs.
One of the previous news stories made it out to look like they were just another company looking for a quick buck by stepping on Apple’s feet and causing a bit of a stir, then just giving up. Now it seems clear that they’re quite serious. What can I say? I really do hope they win.
Either my sarcasm detector is completely broken or you are not reading the same story I am. “Quite serious”? Really? By pulling the most ridiculous allegations out of thin air? This is nothing but desperation and it actually supports exactly the argument that Psystar are “just another company looking for a quick buck by stepping on Apple’s feet and causing a bit of a stir, then just giving up”.
They’re a small company. Just about any small company (or even medium or probably large one) would have *given up* by now. Hell, they wouldn’t have even done something like this in the first place. It’s too much of a gamble (and likely a losing one at that). The fact that they’re still willing to fight (even if that means digging their own grave even deeper) shows that they’re at least trying… despite how laughable their claims may be. They could have just took the publicity and ran.
Well, what is REALLY happening is rather typical of any lawsuit. You ALWAYS try to attack the very merits by whatever means available of the other party’s case – ALWAYS.
If you find that a copyright application form was filed improperly – for whatever reason – you try and use that if your opponent’s case depends on it. Cases get thrown out on technicalities all the time. Sometimes ones that don’t even make sense.
Sadly, what I don’t see here, is what Psystar’s evidence is in regards to this matter. It could be something really minor ( like a typo )… or it could be something rather serious ( like the wrong proof of product – instead of OS X, they supplied Darwin (happens) ).
I wish I knew.
Besides, in the U.S., copyrights are automatic – so it ain’t gonna work… but whatever…
Still, my desire is to see Psystar pull out a surprise win. Not just because I almost always root for the underdog, but because I believe Psystar is in the right. NOTHING in the law prevents Psystar, or anyone else, from installing MacOS X on a non-Apple computer.
Technical hurdles for copy-protect only apply to piracy. They buy MacOS X at retail and sell computers with a service to install MacOS X for the customer – while warranting that the computer will be able to run MacOS X. All legal.
–The loon
PS: I think I get it now:
From copyright.gov:
Edited 2008-12-25 05:46 UTC
Using Mac OS X isn’t a right! It’s a privilege! If you want OS X buy a Mac.
The real question is why would you want to use such an OS, when better options exist like Windows XP and Windows Vista, or the free option (Linux) for people who care about money?
It is if you pay for it. Through Pystar, you DO pay for Mac OS X. The real question is does Apple have the right to limit how you use it after you’ve paid for it, and also whether or not Pystar broke copyright by intentionally altering/fooling/bypassing/whatever part of the OS.
That is completely subjective. While one person may argue that Windows is a better option, another may argue that Mac OS is a better option. In the end they may both be right (or wrong), because really it’s up to the end user as to what’s best for them. Same goes for Linux.
In the end, it’s not a privilege, but an option. And when a company attempts to limit a consumers options for it’s own gain, you may run into problems.
You do know that anyone who buys a retail copy of OS X is assumed to own a Mac, and thus is buying an upgrade, when Apple starts selling Macs without Mac OS X pre-installed, then your claim (or Psystar’s) makes sense.
The most nonsensical statement in the history of EVAR. Mac OS X retail is a full functioning product, and nowhere on the box does it say it is an upgrade or that you need to own a Mac before you may run it. In addition, no store clerk has ever mentioned it to me, even though I’ve bought several retail copies of Mac OS X.
This is an argument thought up by Mac zealots affected by the RDF. It’s such utter nonsense, it makes me wonder how it even survived this long.
Um, the box states:
Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor
“The most nonsensical statement in the history of EVAR. Mac OS X retail is a full functioning product, and nowhere on the box does it say it is an upgrade or that you need to own a Mac before you may run it.”
Well, I just looked at my copy to be sure. The box purchased from an Apple store actually has the following printed on it:
“Contents DVD containing Mac OS X;printed and electronic documentation. Requirements Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4(867MHZ or faster) processor; 512MB RAM; DVD Drive for installation…..”
This is pretty clear that you need to own a Mac to run it. Granted it does not say it is an upgrade, but it does say that you need to have a Mac.
That doesn’t mean that Apple is entitled to additional financial compensation from everyone who installs OSX on a computer that falls outside those specs.
Every computer software box has a list of system requirements – but whether or not customers ‘obey’ the specs is beyond their control. Apple (or Id Software, or Microsoft, or Red Hat, or anyone else) has no legal right to enforce the “system requirements” printed on the box.
“That doesn’t mean that Apple is entitled to additional financial compensation from everyone who installs OSX on a computer that falls outside those specs.”
Right, and I never said they did. That post was a response to Thom saying that a requirement to have a Mac was not listed on the box.
Apple has never sought financial compensation in the manner you mention, nor is that what the whole case is about.
This is not a case of you or I running OS X on a computer we put together, of which Apple really does not care one way or the other. This is a case of a commercial entity doing the work and then selling the finished product, not the end user.
This will put that section of Apples EULA to the test, and the court will decide if that is legal or not. It really is that simple.
That post was a response to Thom saying that a requirement to have a Mac was not listed on the box.
Gotcha. My point, the use of the word “requirement” as in “System Requirements” listed on the box are not the same thing as a legal requirement.
Apple has never sought financial compensation in the manner you mention, nor is that what the whole case is about.
Apple is suing for “damages”, as if Psystar owes them something above and beyond the full retail price of OSX that Psystar has already paid.
This is not a case of you or I running OS X on a computer we put together, of which Apple really does not care one way or the other. This is a case of a commercial entity doing the work and then selling the finished product, not the end user.
No legal difference that I can see. The real-life difference, Psystar is a commercial operation that’s vulnerable to Apple making an example of them.
This will put that section of Apples EULA to the test, and the court will decide if that is legal or not. It really is that simple.
This is the most interesting aspect for sure.
Wow. Just… wow. What the hell are you talking about?
And I’d really hate to burst your bubble, but my first “real” computer (a ’97 Gateway 2000 machine with Windows 95) was the introduction that really sparked my interest in computers (sorry… the previous Apple IIe with DOS doesn’t count), and I’ve been a Windows user until just a couple years ago. It ended with Windows XP for various reasons, including:
1) Microsoft’s seemingly increasing lack of care for their own users with preference towards the mega “entertainment” corporations (one word/abbreviation: DRM).
2) Their insistence to attempt to kill off what worked, and worked quite well I might add (Windows XP), and try to force Vista onto PC users like they’ve never forced an “upgrade” before. It seemed like an eternity that they held back even the slightest hint of an SP3 of XP, for example, while they were busy trying to force Vista down people’s throats.
3) My increasing knowledge of what they, as a company, have done in the past, and increasing skepticism of them as a result.
4) The realization that there are, in fact, “better” alternatives to their OSes available, and even free of charge.
What this all means is that, as a longtime Windows user, I’ve given up with Microsoft starting with Vista. I’m currently a Linux user, but BSD, Solaris, Haiku, and possibly even Mac OS X are not out of the question. So, I’m not quite sure what you mean when saying that Windows XP and (*gasp*) Vista are better. They’re exactly what I’m running from.
Edited 2008-12-25 03:30 UTC
The only reason OS X ‘just works’ is because it doesn’t support as much hardware variations as Windows.
Windows Vista works trouble-free if you run it on proper hardware, if yo are trying to run Windows on crappy hardware, you are bound to have issues.
I almost never say this on the internet since everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I’ll say it now, since just because you have a right to an opinion doesn’t make you immune to being wrong:
You f–king idiot! I can’t tell if you’re trolling or if you’re really this stupid, but in my experience I’m usually right when I assume the latter.
“crappy hardware”? Hardware bought two years ago is still good hardware, but not good enough for Vista. Vista was the straw that broke the camel’s back regarding the Microsoft-forced illusion that it was NORMAL to double or triple the hardware requirements of an OS with every release. The box says a minimum of 512 MB of RAM, but I have never had a satisfactory experience with Vista with less than 2 GB. The computers we have at work have 4 GB of RAM and Quad-core processors, and even they feel the weight of Vista sometimes.
The number of people who ask us to “fix” their computers because they’re slow is astounding. You know what they all have in common? They’re running Vista with only 1 GB of RAM and a dual-core processor. Windows XP says 128 MB of RAM required on the box, have you ever tried running XP with that? On a machine with 512 MB of RAM, it’s only just on the fringe of what I’d call useful.
To get anything worthwhile out of Windows, you need hardware at least four times as powerful as what Microsoft tells you. In the case of Vista, you’d need a time machine to make a trip to the future to pick up what you’d need.
“Hardware bought two years ago is still good hardware, but not good enough for Vista.”
Vista runs fine on my hardware that was purchased in June of 2005. That is over 3 years old. The hardware is still good enough to run any modern OS, and that includes Vista. I buy a new machine every 3-4 years, and make sure that it will last for at least that long.
My desktop is from 2002/2003 (P42.8Ghz-HT, 2GB, GeForce 6200 128MB) and Vista flies, without any tweaking, full Aero, all bells and whistles.
My laptop, an Aspire One netbook, has 1.5GB RAM, Atom 1.6Ghz, integrated Intel video, and Vista flies, without any tweaking, full Aero, all bells and whistles.
I don’t know what everyone else is doing wrong, or what I did right.
You bought a MB capable of accepting 2GB of RAM and maxed it out, carefully selecting DIMMs that would allow you to achieve the full, and impressive, 2GB on that MB in 2002/2003. Don’t be so humble. Stand up and take the credit.
Edited 2008-12-27 00:37 UTC
I maxed out the RAM only a few months go. Before that, it had 512MB and ran Windows 2000.
“I don’t know what everyone else is doing wrong, or what I did right.”
Exactly what I keep wondering. I have friends and family that currently swear by Vista, and have had no issues. Granted my desktop system is pentium D 840 EE, 4GB RAM, and a 256 MB GeForce 6800 GT. I will grant this machine was top of the line when I bought it, but then as I said, I buy my machines to last 3-4 years, so take advances in technology/software into consideration so it lasts.
Using OSX is a “right” if you paid for it.
Edited 2008-12-25 07:47 UTC
The following question could be: Has PsyStar the right to distribute / re-sell mac OS X? It’s obvious that they got it from Apple by paying for it, so it’s not a pirated copy they offer. As it has been mentioned before, it’s valid to say that the customer pays for Mac OS X through PsyStar. A question in court could be if this right is included…
This case is actually really simple, and boils down to two simple questions:
I) Are 3rd parties allowed to resell legally purchased copies of Mac OS X?
II) Is Apple allowed to cripple its software to force people into buying its hardware?
Every other complaint flying back and forth between the two companies has to do with either of these two questions. Boiling it down to these very essences, any sincere and just court would rule in favour of PsyStar, and the general consumer.
With regards to number 2 i dont see why not. Its their product and its not a monopoly.
Number 1 is the interesting one and may be one of the key points in the case.
Of course they are. Are 3rd parties allowed to resell legally purchased Fords? Of course. Random House books? MS Windows retail copies? Of course. Copies of the NY Times? Of course! Is anyone really going to argue that OSX is the only thing you cannot sell second hand once you’ve legally bought it? Is there some special Act of Congress that makes it unlawful?
Far as I am concerned Psystar is stealing from Apple. I hope they will loose.
I’m a Mac user and let me be the first to say that Apple deserves everything they get. In the past Apple has unleashed its lawyers with unprecedented litigious force
on people for doing far less than what Psystar is doing now. So in my opinion it’s about time karma caught up with Apple.
but last time I checked there were no “procedures” required to register a copyright in this country. It’s automatic as soon as the work is published
So you say that can write something like “You cannot scratch your nose when using Mac OS X” and if you do they can sue, win and put you in jail?
thats not entirely accurate, and if my boss didnt just say i could take the rest of teh day off i would write a lengthy post about how copyright law works in the US. But i will ahve ot save that for a later post
So you waste your bosses time by posting here but when its your own time it’s to valuable?
Edited 2008-12-25 00:39 UTC
You write that as if it’s a bad thing.
It is if you are the boss.
“but last time I checked there were no “procedures” required to register a copyright in this country. It’s automatic as soon as the work is published”
This is true and not true. There are definitely procedures for registering a work. As well, successful litigation for the work and getting damages would require registration.
From the FAQ at the US Copyright Office:
“Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney’s fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration†and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.”
The software copyright should only limit you on how many computers you can use the software *but* it *absolutely* should *not* limit you on the type of hardware you will be using it. That is your own right. You purchase a license and you are obliged to comply that you will not make illegal copies but when it comes to usage, I should be allowed to pick the hardware *I* want. Software and hardware are independent.
However, I am afraid if PsyStar does win, Apple’s days will be numbered. Soon everyone will start doing what PsyStar does and things will get out of control since the copyright will be invalid. Imagine if HP grabbed a bunch of Windows copies and put them on PCs without consulting with MS. So a company can do this and not care what Apple says. Apple will be powerless to stop them. They will struggle.
Apple is a hardware company. Although I dislike Apple and their business practises, I believe it would be very bad if they do lose as they are proven innovators and the only way to survive would be to continue to do what they do. For the sake of Apple and the rest of the IT world, I want them to win. I don’t like what they do BUT it would be better if they win. Only time will tell what they will come up with in the future — Personal Opinion —
Edited 2008-12-25 03:08 UTC
I don’t think a copyright can limit the amount of computers you can use the software with. A copyright is just a legal writ to say who has ownership to copy.
Any software you use is bound by the terms you agree to use it by, the EULA (end user legal agreement) and that stipulates that you can instal it on 1, 2 or however many machines. it may even refer you to other legal agreements such as site or seat licensing agreements.
Generally the only thing a legal copyright owner can tell you to do with software you’ve brought is to not to make a backup of it for anyone other then yourself.
Remember, when you ‘buy’ software, you’re usually buying the ‘right of use’ for it on the terms set out in the EULA.
Yes you are right, it is the EULA indeed.
Imagine if HP grabbed a bunch of Windows copies and put them on PCs without consulting with MS.
HP or any other computer manufacturer absolutely CAN do that, and many smaller companies and independent builders do it every day! Heck, I’ve done it several times myself with absolutely no ‘consultation’, permission, or communication with Microsoft.
In the case of HP though, they get a huge price break in exchange for signing marketing agreements with Microsoft.
Psystar isn’t asking for any such special agreements with Apple, but merely trying to protect their legal right to pre-install lawfully-purchased software on their computers.
But the peripheral suits and counter-suits are getting ridiculous and aren’t relavent to the basic disagreement. Another SCO-like circus…
Edited 2008-12-25 07:30 UTC
I can’t see why it would be the end of Apple. If OEMs had the choice of Vista or OSX – well I know which I’d choose. Apple might change from a hardware to a software company, but with innovative design etc even thats not inevitable.
Whether this would be a good thing – Apple with an OS monopoly – scary.
About the best arguement I have seen why PsyStar might win is product tying.
About product tying.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
copy and paste the link the ) is left off if you just click on the link
If you buy Mac OS X seperatly why must you buy a apple computer to use it. MS was not allow to tie IE to win98 in its own OS (in the netscape IE battle) but should apple be allow to tie an OS to the computers it can run on
Edited 2008-12-25 08:01 UTC
There is nothing wrong with product tying, if I’m not mistaken. The only reason it was an issue with MS was because they were and still are a monopoly with full control over the PC market. The other issue was that IE was tied directly to the OS without any hopes of removing to install something else (at the time Netscape) and very little chance that a third party would be able to do the same with their browser (though we now know how bad an idea that was). Your argument holds very little water, you should be able to sue Canonical for including Firefox as default, or Apple for including Safari, but that is not the case because they are not a monopoly and thus can’t sway masses of users by including one app. Product tying is not illegal and its done all the time, xbox, PS3, Wii, you name it, all of these products are tied to software or hardware or both. As it has already been legally established Apple is in competition with other PC manufacturers, what differentiates them from other OEM’s is OSX, they have the eright as a company of selling their product with whatever they think will gain them an advantage. To to top it off they support running other OS’s on their systems.
Nothing wrong as in “It’s only illegal for monopolies”? Or nothing wrong as in “It shouldn’t be illegal for non-monopolies”? I’m starting to wonder whether “tying” shouldn’t be considered anti-consumer, and against the best interests of “We, the people (of the World)” across the board. The company I worked for for 20 years is tiny. Microscopic, really. And it certainly did a lot of things that were anti-consumer because the law allowed it. The clients in my charge were, to a great extent, insulated from that. And our owner wasn’t a bad guy. Just someone who operated within the law and felt legality was more or less equivalent to morality. I’m descibing him in more of a negative light, here, than is really warranted, because he had a conscience and a value system that I respected, or else I wouldn’t have worked there for 20 years. But let’s just say that our ethical systems diverged.
I have to wonder if tying of materials and services should be quite as legal as it is. Would it be better or worse if it was not… as long as everyone had to play by the same rules?
I’m pretty much just putting this out for discussion. I’m not sure where I actually stand on it.
Edited 2008-12-25 23:18 UTC
Product tying is, in fact, fully legal, as long as you don’t hold monopoly power. The idea is that, if you hold monopoly power, you can essentially force a customer to buy another product/service with the monopoly product by tying them together. Apple doesn’t hold a monopoly on Intel computers or OSes; hence, they are permitted under law to tie the products together. Similarly, the courts recognize that certain products are designed to work in conjunction with one another. For example, a computer is useless without an operating system; hence, for all practical purposes, it is “natural” to tie the two products together.
Funny anecdote. There’s a tire chain (Les Schwab) on the West coast that offered free steaks when you bought a full set of tires for your car. I’m not sure what possessed them to think that selling tires with steak was a good idea. This, in my opinion, was a good example of “unnatural” tying. ;-p
I doubt seriously that Apple has the power to force you, the customer, to run a separately purchased copy of OS X on their hardware, if you choose not to. There are legitimate reasons why copyright can be legally violated (e.g. Fair Use, etc). BUT, we’re not talking about you, the customer, here. We’re talking about a company (Psystar) that is RESELLING Apple’s operating system and running it on alternate hardware, in violation of copyright. That’s very different. The courts tend to treat copyright violation with respect to commercial enterprises more stringently because the potential for harm is greater.
There’s an easy way that Psystar could have gotten around this issue. They could have had the customer buy the OS from Apple and the computer hardware from Psystar. They could have provided automated software to do the install on the Psystar hardware. Game over. Apple wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on. But, no, unfortunately, Psystar opted to take on Apple directly (a bad idea, for a small company) by attempting to resell Apple’s operating system. Big mistake.
My parents have a cabin on Grand Lake here in Oklahoma. I spent a lot of time there when I was growing up. Afton was one of the close-by townships. And one of the businesses near there was “Afton Radiator Repair and Flower Shop”. I think you could do business with one division without purchasing from the other, though. So it wasn’t exactly “tying”. 😉
Edited 2008-12-26 20:32 UTC
As I understand this case … it’s not a problem that Pystar makes hardware that is compatible with Mac OS X, it’s not a problem if Pystar resells Mac OS X, it might be a breach of EULA if Pystar installs it on the OpenComputer and it might be a copyright infringement if they redistribute Apple’s patches and updates.
Obviously the part about the copyright infringement is the worse.
So, what I don’t understand is why they don’t make their own update program that pulls only safe patches directly from Apple’s servers without them passing through Pystar’s servers. Wouldn’t this pretty much solve the copyright issue? Is it doable?
Here you can buy this Hummer.
1) you are not allowed to drive it on roads that are 20% grey.
2) you are not allowed to drive it on 30 % white.
3) No driving on the moon at any time.
If you are found voilating these norms you will be sued. We will even say people are supporting you in fighting me.
This is my pick on a good EULA.
P.S This is an example of a eula GM should use . in My opinion in going with this arguement.
BARF BARF
But Apple doesn’t say you can’t use your Mac as you wish.
A Hummer? No thanks, I’ll save my money. :p
Oh, and by the way… you implicitly agreed to these terms when you opened the driver’s door in the showroom to pick up this license card from the front seat.
Edited 2008-12-25 21:36 UTC
“but you have to admit, if they pull this one off, they’re pretty clever.”
You are kidding i guess. Their filing is full of spelling, grammatical and formal mistakes, how can you call them clever?
http://news.worldofapple.com/archives/2008/12/22/a-closer-look-at-a…
Given the outstanding mistakes in the filing, it is clear that their response was written in a hurry which means that they tried to pull off an argument with poor thinking.
More i look at Psystar more it seems that all of this is a joke. They are more and more lacking arguments and they did not find anything better to do than to write a totally flawed filing that a high school student could have written better.
It is not the first time that they come up with a flawed argument, they tried to accuse Apple for anti-competitive practice, argument which was naturally rejected by the judge. And come on, they are trying to support the argument that the Apple’s EULA is not valid and that they can sell computers using someone else software, which basically means that they are stealing it. But in the same time, Psystar is having an EULA for its own product. So guys at Psystar think that they can violate someone’s else rules, but ask to respect theirs. This single fact puts little credibility on this company and the people behind it.
http://news.worldofapple.com/archives/2008/12/05/amazing-psystar-ha…
Edited 2008-12-25 19:19 UTC
Surely you are not suggesting that the misspellings and typos (claimed by anonymous “World of Apple” commenter “dizzle” which you have linked) should have a direct relevance to the case? If a person is murdered and the prosecutor submits documents with grammatical problems, but which are still clearly understandable, should the defendant get off the hook because of it? Besides, “dizzle” had some misspellings just in his commentary, which when pointed out, he claims not to have had his morning coffee or some such.
I think Thom summed up the relevant questions handily here:
http://www.osnews.com/thread?341458
Writing an article focusing upon grammar and spelling says more about the anonymous dizzle’s agenda than about the case.
Edited 2008-12-25 19:45 UTC
It seems that every once in a while, there are some weird lawsuits launched agaisnt some successful company…
Sco vs IBM
Microsoft vs Mike Row Soft
Psystar vs Apple
etc.
It is at best pitiful.
At the worst, Apple may simply stop to sell retail versions of OS X and start publishing new versions of OS X online using a valve-like strategy (i.e. Steam) or blizzard-like strategy (i.e. WoW Patch System)
Psystar cannot do business if they cannot get their hands on these shiny retail copies…
I’ve been wondering this myself. If Apple intends for the retail box OSX packages to only be installed as ‘upgrades’, why do they include the entire operating system?
And if Apple is genuinely interested in preventing their OS from being installed on other makers’ computers, the most obvious solution is for Apple to return to their own propietary hardware that isn’t available to anyone else.
In Australia Third Line Forcing is explicitly illegal:
Ebay was banned from forcing sellers to offer Paypal only.
Car makers must honour warranties on new cars serviced by ANY licensed motor mechanic as long as the specified parts and lubricants are used. (By extension that means any other product such as watches or computers.)
Coca Cola was forced to allow any competitor to sell their product in Coca Cola owned and branded store refrigerators.
Making Mac OS installable on PCs was Apple’s mistake.
Now MS can say to them, “welcome to my world” lol.
Apple should have developed a strategy that made their hardware cheaper. This would have given them more users – thus encouraging software makers to port to their OS.
Also, they should have made their GUI more intuitive a LONG LONG time ago.
While OS X is like using Linux with Gnome or KDE, OS 9 and earlier versions were decidedly unfriendly to noobs and the cybernetically inept – who make up most of the home user market.
The reason that Apple is using Intel hardware is twfold: (1) most shops are already running Intel hardware, more parts are available, and it provides ensured compatibility, and (2) the Intel ecosystem is advancing faster than competing architectures and Apple can leverage those advances at the same rate (or faster) than competitors (Dell, Microsoft, HP, etc).
The UI isn’t the reason that Apple has a smaller market share. It’s price and compatibility. At one time, Apple’s UI was, in fact, much more innovative than anything offered by Microsoft. While some would argue that the Apple UI stagnated up to OS9, they’ve done a great job revamping the UI for OS X.