We’ve got some intriguing news about the Apple vs. Psystar case. The depositions where Apple asked questions to Psystar are now over, and now it’s time for Psystar to hold depositions of several people in the very highest echelons in Apple. Psystar’s new lawyer team takes a more open approach to the lawsuit, and has now published the list of Apple people that will be testifying, and is also asking for community input.
Psystar is clearly eager to start the deposition process. “For the past week and for the following ten days we will be doing depositions of some of Apple’s highest level people,” Psystar writes, “After numerous depositions of Psystar employees and associates the shoe is finally on the other foot, oh the joy!”
This is the list of people testifying:
Aug. 07 – John Wright – OS X – Senior Software Manager
Aug. 12 – Kevin Van Vechten – OS X – Software Engineering Manager
Aug. 13 – Phil Schiller – Marketing – Senior VP Worldwide Product Marketing
Aug. 14 – Mike Culbert – Mac Hardware – Senior Director
Aug. 18 – Gary Thomas – TBD
Aug. 19 – Simon Patience – OS X – Head of Core OS
Aug. 21 – Mark Donnelly – Apple – VP Finance and Worldwide Business management
Aug. 21 – Greg Christie – TBD
Aug. 21 – Mansfield – Mac Hardware – Senior VP Mac Hardware Engineering
Due to the interest in this lawsuit, Psystar’s lawyers are providing the community with the opportunity to send in the questions they’d want answered. The ten most popular questions for each person in the list will be asked, but Psystar warns that the answers might not become public until the case is over.
The one question I want answered is the one question that is the central pillar of this entire discussion, and I don’t care who answers it. The Mac OS X EULA speaks of “Apple-labelled computers”. What is the strict definition of “Apple-labelled”? It can’t mean “manufactured by Apple”, because just like any other OEM, Apple doesn’t actually manufacture any hardware. Do I have to take it literally? Can I put an Apple logo on a hackintosh and be in compliance? Maybe it means designed by Apple, then? All sorts of questions rise from this: can I take the PowerPC guts out of my PowerMac G4, put modern hardware in it, and then install Mac OS X without breaking the EULA? The PowerMac would still be designed and sold by Apple! Does it mean sold by Apple? What if I buy at an independent retailer? That’s all we have in The Netherlands (except for buying from Apple online)!
I’d like an answer to that one. The Apple-labelled thing is at the very centre of this discussion, and exposing the ridiculousness of it will invalidate the Mac OS X-only-on-Apple-hardware post-sale restriction like a house of cards.
It might be argued that ripping the guts out of a G4, replacing the motherboard, would constitute a new computer… or, some might see it as an upgrade, but, If they are talking “Apple labelled…” and they haven’t defined that term legally, I think you have something! I would suggest that the stick-on Apple logos that I’ve found in Apple packaging might just suffice..!
Oh drat! I suppose that breaks copyright… G4 it is!
Can’t wait to hear what happens with this. I’d have a hunch they’re getting funded now to go through and fight the case. Now who could be doing that..?
Didn’t they just file for bankruptcy?
If that is the case, they should be under a court-appointed controller, and I am willing to bet that such lawsuits should be interpreted as frivolous and may possibly violate some of the guidelines that I am sure they had to abide in order to request bankruptcy protection.
It would violate trademark, not copyright.
I think “labeled by Apple” is a very, very reasonable interpretation of “Apple-labeled.”
Trying to make the argument otherwise is like saying “that shirt isn’t purple; it’s violet.”
Of course, this is just dancing around the issue of whether or not EULAs are actually enforceable.
Dear Pystar: What part of “Apple labeled” do you not get? Hem and haw and cry the victim, but you are violating Apple’s copyrights here. You are going to lose.
“What is the strict definition of “Apple-labelled”?”
Well, that’s a very good question, Thom. I’d also like to get an answer for this one, although I’m not planning to use Psystar HW+SW set in the nearest future.
It’s just so unclear whether they [Apple] understand the license correctly themselves, not mentioning the crowd of the Apple fans.
Whatever the answer is, we can’t forget, that Apple can actually do pretty much everything they want with their own software and hardware they sell. We – as the customers – are not forced to use anything and – as long as I have a choice – I’m happy.
Thom, guess I’m puzzled by your position that “exposing the ridiculousness of it [Apple’s protection of OS X exclusivity on their computers] will invalidate the Mac OS X-only-on-Apple-hardware post-sale restriction.”
Isn’t Apple entitled to restrict the use of their operating system/intellectual property (and the millions of dollars invested) however they want?
And doesn’t Apple offer an “open” version of much of the technology (excepting mostly the UI) at no cost for anyone who wants to “roll their own” similar OS, (Darwin) including Pystar?
And certainly we’ve learned from the Windows side of the business that there are benefits in controlling the hardware and software thus insuring a more stable, compatible and secure operating system (Microsoft Vista Compatible program anyone?).
Obviously you’re a fan of OS X or otherwise there wouldn’t be a desire to install it on other systems.
Are you willing to sacrifice stability, security, driver incompatibility issues, and other issues just to be able to “roll your own” (even though it’s not your intellectual property) or more important, trust a pretty shady company that has never competed in any other market, Linux, Windows or based on a company that doesn’t seem to have any history before April 2008?
And if there’s an issue with an Apple computer or the operating system, isn’t there a benefit in turning to a single company Apple, for support, instead of the mess that is other platforms…contact your hardware manufacturer, contact your software manufacturer, download an driver from another company, etc.?
Your position just doesn’t make sense to me…unless you come from the camp that all software should be free, or there shouldn’t be software patents, or some other movement that says a company doesn’t have a right to protect their intellectual property, receive a return on (probably millions of dollars in development) their investment or provide a competitive advantage versus the competition.
Signed, Puzzled in Austin, TX.
It is more than just the UI and it would not be a similar OS without the UI!
I agree that without the Aqua interface, Darwin isn’t all that practical as a desktop interface, but that illustrates my point that Apple should be allowed to restrict bundling OS X by another competitive hardware manufacturer, one who has not contributed a single line of code to OS X, Darwin or BSD for that matter.
Yeah. No one should be allowed to purchase a copy of an operating system and install it on their computer unless they’ve first contributed code to the OS.
[rolls eyes]
I wonder how often Joe’s Computer Shop contributes code to Windows?
Uh…they PURCHASE a LICENSE from the LICENSOR authorizing them to install the software on their systems, consistent with the terms and conditions set forth by the LICENSOR. Failure to abide by the LICENSE AGREEMENT is a BREACH OF CONTRACT, uh similar to the Apple/PsyStar case?!?!?
My post was responding exclusively to your point that Psystar somehow doesn’t deserve the right to purchase and install Apple software because they didn’t contribute code. Do you contribute code to all of the software titles you purchase?
Any license that prohibits the customer from installing software except on a particular brand of computer is not legally binding.
Now if Psystar had signed a negotiated contract forfeiting their right to install the software, THAT would be a legally binding agreement. And failure to adhere to the contract terms would make them rightfully vulnerable to legal action.
Uh… No. They don’t always.
Some small shops just purchase and install retail copies, rather than joining Microsoft’s oem partner program.
Perfectly legal, and a lot less rigamarole.
I’d bet that only the large OEMs (Dell, Asus, etc.) are able to negotiate Windows pricing contracts with Microsoft. Small builders are probably stuck with the retail-OEM copies of Windows that sell at only a slight discount and that anyone can buy.
I’m going to break one of my own most sacred rules, but I have no choice, as the thickness of some people cannot be penetrated with just lower-case.
THE EULA IS A POST-SALE RESTRICTION, AND THOSE ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE IN MANY JURISDICTIONS. IF APPLE WANTS THE EULA TO BE VALID, THEY’LL HAVE TO PRESENT IT TO ME AS PART OF THE SALES AGREEMENT. IF NOT, THEN IT IS NOT VALID.
Got it?
Thom, first, personal insults are pretty unprofessional and are not consistent with the high standards established by OSNEWS.
I can assure you I’m not “thick” and get very well the dynamics of this subject.
In your own words you state regarding post-sale restrictions “THOSE ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE IN MANY JURISDICTIONS”.
Fact is, like it or not, in many jurisdictions EULAs ARE enforceable and it seems the courts and legislative bodies at least here in the United States have sided with software publishers by allowing the posting of EULAs on company websites, or through the use of click through agreements in software.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Computer_Information_Transacti…)
Let’s not play stupid here, pretty much everyone that purchases or even uses software understands that there is usually an EULA or terms and conditions and they are bound by these terms.
If you move the “agreement” before the sale as you so adamantly insist, you are STILL bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement!
And if the agreement says you cannot install the software on non-Apple labeled systems, you legally can not install the software on non-Apple systems. It is a CONTRACT and if you fail to abide by the terms you are in breach of contract.
And when you add to the discussion such issues as product liability, licensing agreements for embedded technology, commercial code of conduct and other issues those who have a differing opinion may not be quite as “thick” as you infer.
Has a someone directed an insult at someone personally in this thread? Please point-out just where someone was singled-out personally.
Probably, only if their provisions merely reiterate existing law. A lot of EULA clauses have be found invalid by the courts, because they contradict consumer protection laws.
EULAs are merely declarations by the manufacturer. Hypothetically, a manufacturer could declare in an EULA that OSNews users named “mjhi11” cannot use the manufacturer’s product on Tuesday afternoons. Just because a provision exists in an EULA doesn’t make the provision valid.
Impeccable logic.
Let’s consider another hypothetical scenario. On my website, I have a statement that declares that any OSNews user named “mjhi11” wears pink panties. There is a page on the website where users can click to agree with that statement.
The US courts and the US congress have sided with me on this statement, by allowing me to post the statement on my website and by allowing users to click in agreement.
Here’s an interesting sentence from the UCITA Wikipedia page linked above:
“The UCITA has been extremely controversial and has been opposed by a number of consumer groups and the Attorneys General of many states because, in the opinion of these critics, it considerably weakens consumer protections, reinterprets contracts and licenses in such a way that is unduly favorable to the software producers, and disregards the reasonable entitlements of consumers.”
Keep in mind that the UCITA is a proposed law, supported by software manufactures.
Evidently, for some of us, there is no need to pretend.
Even if such were the case, one cannot agree to the terms until one reads them. If one can only read the terms after the sale, how can an EULA be a valid agreement?
Yes. That is sort of the point of making the agreement before the sale.
No. For the ten zillionth time — no.
There is a rather dramatic difference between government “legal” laws and provisions in private agreements.
Even if one were to put one’s signature on a contract stating that one would not install OSX on a non-Apple computer, it would not be illegal for that person to do such an act. That person would not be breaking any laws, and the police would not arrest that person. However, the act would violate the contract, and the other party would have strong grounds for a private lawsuit.
Actually, if it is not signed and witnessed, it is a “one-sided” contract, at best.
Not sure what is the point of this sentence.
The Pystar case is occurring in the USA. A jurisdiction where EULAs have been found to be enforceable in the past. If this was happening in the Netherlands (which you are clearly comparing with), you might have a point. Once you understand that, you may think before labeling people as “thick”.
EULA’s have been found to be enforceable in the USA?:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080901-washington-court-deal…
Edited 2009-08-17 12:24 UTC
I’m not sure this selected example of “AT&T’s terms of service for long distance” is supposed to disprove my statement. From the Wikipedia article on EULAs : “The enforceability of an EULA depends on several factors, one of them being the court in which the case is heard.”. It then goes on to state cases where EULAs were found to be invalid and cases where they were found to be valid. All I’m saying is that a blanket statement that “EULA’s are invalid. Period” Does not hold here, as much as any of us may want to think otherwise. We may not like them – doesn’t make them invalid.
Certainly, jurisdictions outside of the U.S. do not have any relevance to the Pystar case.
It amuses me how often people put words in other’s mouths that are clearly divergent from what they actually said. Nobody has said Apple can’t do what they like with their intelectual property they can store it away where noboy can get to it, eat it, set it on fire and call it macaroni.
What Apple have done is put it in a package and put that packgage on sale with the contdition that it’s only installed on Apple hardware. Now given the approach to sales that most people take as it makes the most sense to them. The package that Apple sells is their’s to do with what they like, including install it on a hackintosh. The end user doesn’t care about the EULA, they spent their money on something, they own it.
This end user license stuff is just another way for big business to extract more money from people with laywer bullshit. You wouldn’t buy a TV that could only be used in a house that the manufaturer approved. Why would you take that kind shit from Apple, Microsoft or any other company that tries to pull that on you?
Well the $26,000 question is whether the lawyer bull is simply morally wrong, or legally wrong.
I’m frankly puzzled by your analogy of buying a TV for use in a manufacturer approved house, or fashion. In fact, purchase something and read the fine print, like using a toaster outside in the rain or in the bathroom. Or even using a TV outside.
Apple’s name and reputation are on the line with every product that they release. And yes it does come down to marriage of specific hardware and software creating an environment that just works. Again, if you folks want OS X that bad, and are smart enough to build your own cheap ass box, use darwin and have at it with your brilliant self.
Well, basic concepts often confuse the “one-button-mousers.”
Huh? Not sure what is the point.
Is this statement using an example of product safety warnings in an attempt to justify Apple’s efforts to restrict OSX usage on non-Apple machines?
If Apple’s name and reputation is so wonderful and important, perhaps it should ask the judge to forbid news reporting and forum discussions regarding:
– exploding Ipods;
– Apple’s extraordinary attempts to cover-up exploding Ipod incidents;
– spontaneous combustion of magsafe connectors;
– Apple’s restrictive Iphone policies;
– Safari/OSX security vulnerabilities;
– Apple’s marketing falsehoods/exaggerations;
– Apple’s forced obsolescence;
– the Iphone’s lack of a replaceable battery;
– the Iphone copy/paste fiasco;
– the many problems with Apple’s design and usabilty;
– the relative intelligence of the the Mac user base;
– etc. (list goes on…)
Actually, it would be even better if the judge could order that, when anyone criticizes Apple, everyone near the Apple critic must close their eyes and cover their ears. Such an order would really do wonders for Apple’s precious reputation.
Yes, because (as we all know) Macs just work:
http://www.macfixit.com/
http://forums.cnet.com/mac-forums/mac-laptops-forum/?tag=contentMai…
Why bother, when Apple will sell one a legal retail copy of OSX?
Edited 2009-08-16 20:33 UTC
Not after the sale no. There is this thing called consumer rights, and I know it may sound like some cold war, communist doomsday device to many americans, that actually say that companies can’t do whatever the hell they want or force consumers to accept any crazy restriciton.
You bought it, you own it and what you do with it and how you use it is no damn business of Apple’s. Sure, they can void your warranty but that’s it.
Just imagine if newspapers would say “sure, you can buy our issue but you can only read it on the toilet and with the lights off. Oh you dont like it? well, dont buy it then”. That wouldnt sit very well with most people now, would it.
This is just a bunch of nonsense from people who think the IT industry is fundamentally different (hint: it’s not) from other industries.
Edited 2009-08-15 10:36 UTC
How is my point an affront to consumer rights? I doubt seriously Apple is going to go after an individual who builds their own “hackintosh”, on the other hand doesn’t Apple have a right to restrict a direct competitor from using Apple’s intellectual property to sell competing systems?
As for EULAs, I’m no fan either, particularly of draconian license agreements or those lacking common sense, but the world is filled with contracts, license agreements, franchise agreements, permitted use agreements, etc. that restrict use of a product. For example many consumer goods are licensed for non-commercial use only(lawn equipment, appliances, just to name a couple).
And since there is a lot of technology cross licensing particularly in computer and software technology EULAs are a necessary evil. For example, Adobe has licensed Apple to include Postscript technology, which Apple licenses for the benefit of their customers. Shouldn’t Psystar have to negotiate for this technology themselves?
And finally, when you add in product liability issues and who will be the responsible party (Apple exclusively in the case of OS X…to the customer’s benefit) the need for EULAs aren’t so evil after all.
No, not legally – not without you signing away your right to universal interoperability.
The open version was a failed attempt by Apple to acquire a real supporting developer community. It is just the basic system, and too much is tied in with the UI to be of use. The underpinnings aren’t even that impressive.
And then, you have the only legal restrictions Apple CAN place ( you didn’t buy the source, did ya?? ).
ALL OEMs ( Dell, HP, etc… ) control their own hardware, and often even control the drivers – which is all that is really needed to keep a mature OS stable enough for the masses.
To save a grand… sure!! Though, I simply installed OS X back in the day ‘cuz I could. 😉
This shows why your puzzled, you are missing the point: those who would purchase these machines don’t give much a rats arse about Apple’s tech support. They will call Psystar first, anyway. You are just switching one company for the other.
When someone buys a Dell and has a problem with Windows, they don’t normally call Microsoft – they call Dell.
NOTHING requires Apple to provide support to Psystar’s machines, even if the problem is 100% MacOS related! Product support is NOT A RIGHT.
However, buying a computer with MacOS X, regardless of who made it, is legal so long as no law was broke in the supply chain.
In this case Psystar did the following:
1. Built a very generic computer capable of running numerous OSes, with a focus on MacOS X compat.
**legal**
2. Installed a special code section to permit OS X installation by fooling OS X that it was being installed on an Apple computer.
**legal** ( universal interoperability )
3. Offer those machine for sale with MacOS X pre-installed.
**legal** ( if it was illegal to sell such a machine, a Mac would be illegal )
4. Purchase, without contract, from Apple, one copy of MacOS X per machine.
**legal** ( as Apple provides retail copies for sale )
5. Installed MacOS X on the machines in question.
**legal** ( universal interoperability )
6. Sold to those who would buy.
**legal** ( see #4)
7. Have been perfectly candid with what they have done.
**legal** ( indeed, this may be their saving grace )
You need to understand your rights! As a person, or a business, you have the right to reverse engineer something for the sake of compatibility. You cannot outright copy a design and resale it, but you can tear something apart to see how it works and how you can make something you make work with it.
Let us say you invent a fuel injector that will split hydrogen and oxygen from water to allow a car to run on straight, filtered, water. You then MUST find a way to fit it on the target car, or else your invention is worthless! By law no company can prevent you from doing this.
They don’t have to help you or permit warranty coverage should your modification cause damage, but they can’t sue you for making a product work with that car!
Just like Apple can’t tell you, or a business, that they can’t legally buy a copy of MacOS X and install it on any darn machine they want. I could install it in my Volvo, legally. I could even make a company that specializes in installing MacOS X on the Volvo ECU. No one would balk, probably not even Apple!
It is simply Apple’s inability to survive a competitive environment ( due to pricing itself out of the market ).
–The loon
ALL OEMs ( Dell, HP, etc… ) control their own hardware, and often even control the drivers – which is all that is really needed to keep a mature OS stable enough for the masses.
not if it’s a netbook they are controlled by microsoft
Edited 2009-08-17 01:01 UTC
The proper answer from a free-thinking individual would be “Yes.” I’m willing to give up one thing in favor of another knowing the potential benefits and consequences of my actions.
I think that’s a perfectly reasonable choice to leave up to the consumer, don’t you?
Why would you want to remove this choice… that’s like saying Apple knows what’s best for everyone, and we should be forced to choose what they want us to choose.
Wow.
If the license said something like “apple-licensed computers” or “computers manufactured by apple”, it would have made better sense. “Apple-labelled” was awkward to hear, it sounded to me as if slapping an apple sticker would make the installation legal. I seriously don’t understand why Apple couldn’t have made a better choice of words.
As for “guarding their hard-work”, I’m quite sure it can’t work like that — many stubborn antivirus vendors sued Microsoft for the better kernel security it has (which stopped the antivirus from patching the kernel).
Driver compatibility, it’s not a responsibility of Apple just as it isn’t a responsibility of Microsoft (“Vista Capable” is more about misleading marketing). Those who wish to take the risk of installing it on a non-Apple Computer can do it and have had no technical difficulties (that concerns apple) so far other than Apple manually forcing them.
My 2 cents (just to make thom twitch)
EDIT: Made a few changes to a stupid statement
Edited 2009-08-15 07:07 UTC
Agreed.
I think “labelled” more or less means the same as “branded” in this context. That is, a computer model officially sold by Apple. Replacing the guts of an old Apple computer does *not* count as an official Apple product.
The big problem with the “Apple-labeled” language is that it is so darn vague.
It could come back to bite Apple. If the judge takes the “Apple-labeled” part very literally, it could mean that the installation of your Hackintosh could be legal if you just put a sticker on your computer with the word Apple on it.
It’s amazing that Apple’s legal department let this one slip through.
There seem to be a basic misunderstanding between “owning” and “licensing”.
With intellectual property you become a license for a certain use, you do not own the “product”. Those that bought the license are restricted mostly by copyright-law for example not to copy and sell it as their own product.
Buying a copy of OSX means you get a license to install and use it on one computer. Apple is trying to restrict that by adding “made (approved, branded, whatever) by Apple”.
Since Apple started to build computers with parts that can be bought in every PC-shop this has become pretty strange while everyone able to build a PC from parts can make Apple-like hardware, even Apple does not mind if you do.
Apple only starts to protest if you do so for other people and earn money with it.
Whatever the outcome of the trial, it will be very interesting. If Apple wins who is going to use this verdict for its own products?
If Apple loses will it become a bigger thread to Windows?
Personally I would like Apple to loose so the market will no longer be fully dominated by MS and I like the idea of more OSX running everywhere.
I might even buy a copy myself.
“Buying a copy of OSX means you get a license to install and use it on one computer.”
Not trying to be a smartass or anything but
If I buy a copy of OSX, I did not agree to a single thing.
If I however, boot it up and click on some sort of Agree button, I agree to the license.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s allowed to (if you own a mac) to sell your mac onwards, like any other object.
What psystar is doing, as far as I know, is building a computer and bundle osx (and the license) with it.
So as far as I know, nobody broke any laws, even if the EULA was valid.
That’s what software makers WANT you to believe. I see they’ve succeeded in capturing yet another soul.
The EULA is a post-sale restriction, and those are not enforceable in many jurisdictions. If Apple wants the EULA to be valid, they’ll have to present it to me as part of the sales agreement. If not, then it is not valid.
Exactly my thoughts but this should not apply to Apple only. This rule should be applied to all software companies. What’s the use of an EULA when you have to open up the packet in order for you to read the license ? When you open up a software packet there are *no* refunds or exchanges unless the disc is faulty and only then it may only be swapped for the same title. So you have no choice.
My solution? Have the disc enclosed in a sealed CD case within the carton box and have the license printed out separately and put it in the box (outside the sealed CD). The software key will be inside the sealed case with the CD and the license outside. I think some companies already do this?
This way, you can return the software even if the box is open because the sealed CD case is still brand new.
Edited 2009-08-15 13:27 UTC
Not good enough. They should present the eula as a part of the sale, not in the box but before you are able to purchase the software at least in the case of retail stores. I don’t know many who still buy their software that way, but I’m sure some do. In any case, it should be presented at the time of sale and the customer would have to agree before they could purchase the software. The reason for this is that in many places, like here in the U.S, if you pay for an item and request a refund it can take weeks if not months to actually receive that refund, or often you will simply get store credit instead of a refund and they are under no obligation to give you a refund if their policy says store credit. This situation would need to be avoided, and requiring the eula be verified prior to purchase is the only way I can think of to avoid it.
Wouldn’t help, it still would be a post-sale restriction. The industry will have to start selling software like it sells televisions: Without unexpected surprises for the consumer. There is no legal need for the “license” at all; the software industry needs to learn how to treat its customers with respect rather than wanting to take away their rights.
and Thom , thats why you run a billion dollar right?
The german EULA speaks of “Apple Computer” instead of “Apple labeled hardware”. Not that it is yet proven that an EULA is legally binding in germany 😛
Btw: Your login system is broken, always taking me to Login OK page even if the login failed due to wrong password
Licensing issues aside, by purchasing a Pystar computer and installing Mac OS on it, you are guaranteeing that you will NEVER get ANY support from Apple for ANY problem you may have. Pystar obviously can’t provide software support. Nor can they provide driver support. So when Apple’s next-generation OS is released (how many more cat names are there?), they can simply alter the code so it ONLY runs on Apple’s newest hardware – just like they did with Leopard. They could just as easily request an “Apple Only” processor from Intel that won’t be sold to anyone else – requiring everyone else to run OS X in “emulation” mode. They could do the same for ANY of the components that go into their computers. The list of changes that Apple could make is ENDLESS.
The point is, why would anyone want to make an investment of their hard-earned dollars into a computer system that will guarantee them:
1. No return on their investment. Apple computers have a very high resale value. PCs typically end up being given away or sold at pennies on the dollar. People are STILL selling old G3 iMacs for $50-$75 online, and those computers are over 10 years old! Try selling an old 1st generation Pentium to ANYONE.
2. No support for their operating system or software. (Yes, even Apples have software bugs.)
3. Possible system instability/incompatibility. Pystar doesn’t manufacture anything. They ASSEMBLE computers from off the shelf parts. Apple has strict control over what components go into their computers, and one resistor, capacitor, diode, or IC is NOT the same as any other.
4. No guaranteed upgrade path. “Apple’s new OS X ‘Tabby Cat’ version only runs on Macs with Intel’s Core i7a processor.” (just an example, folks)
5. Mediocre hardware support. You can take your Mac into any of the HUNDREDS of Apple stores around the country and get either an instant fix or a loaner computer. Dell will send a technician directly to your house to fix your computer. Does Pystar offer that level of support? Or do Pystar users have to box their machine up and send it off somewhere?
When you buy a PC from a real manufacturer (say, Dell for example) they may not actually assemble the components onto the motherboard, but they have CONTROL over what components go on it. Is Pystar actively working with whomever builds their motherboards to take care of some errata on an HD controller because it causes slowdowns on Leopard? Probably not. Is that motherboard manufacturer going to support ANYTHING other than Windows? Nope.
Buying a “hackintosh” from Pystar is like getting your buddy to squeeze that gorgeous BMW 4.4L V8 into your Corolla. It may work, but is that a chance you want to take?
Wow, you fvcked up that one… that would be awesome!
If you think you’ve somehow made a point… you’re mistaken twice.
Anyone who buys a consumer item as an investment is a fool.
This is untrue. Psystar offer technical support and you still get OS X software updates (Why wouldn’t you? It’s a legally purchased retail copy of OS X!)
One assumes Psystar are not selling broken computers.
You don’t get one with Apple either.
No more of an issue with a Psystar machine than it is with an Apple machine.
More relevant, it’s like buying a Dell-Windows computer and installing Linux on it. Who’s responsible for problems then? What kind of warranty do most Linux distros offer? Isn’t the hardware warrantied by Dell regardless?
Either way, there’s nothing illegal or immoral about any of the three similar scenarios.
some computer makers demand that you send in the computer with windows if they find linux or other os they will deny your warranty and blame the other operatinsystem
It should be mentioned that the points you’ve mentioned argue against purchasing Pystar’s products from a consumer’s point of view – rather than addressing the question of whether or not Pystar should be allowed to sell those products in the first place.
How much do you think you would get if tried selling an old PowerMac 7200? Because that’s much more comparable to a first-gen Pentium than an iMac G3.
And if you were to compare the G3 iMac with PCs of comparable vintage (which would contain a P3/P4 or AMD equivalent – not a Pentium 1), there are plenty of them available 2nd hand in the $1-200 range.
Same with Apple – the only difference being that Apple uses custom-built cases.
As far as I’m aware, Apple hasn’t had that level of control over their hardware for at least a decade (if not longer). Any other OEM (or individual consumer for that matter) can go out and purchase the same components that you would get inside an Apple machine – the only difference is that the Mac will contain EFI instead of the PC BIOS.
In certain parts of world, yes – but not everywhere. E.g., the nearest Apple Store is a 2 or 3 day drive from city where I live; there are 2 Apple resellers, but they would need to order in most components (other than trivial stuff like RAM or HDDs).
The difference is that BMW probably won’t sue you for doing that, or for opening up a business which provides that service to others.
Other posters have already addressed most of the points you raised.
Yeah, bring your own torches and pitchforks guys, let’s show this Apple!!
Now they want the community to do their own market research for them?
Pysstar just go away, all they are doing is putting a big crosshairs on the OSX86 community… whose work they ripped off in order to make a quick buck.
Edited 2009-08-16 00:07 UTC
Huh?
Where did the notion come from that Psystar wants the community to do market research?
The article discusses Psystar’s call for questions to use in their Apple depositions.
Granted, such a move on Psystar’s part is great marketing.
who can force apple to sell mac os x to other company’s ?
Edited 2009-08-18 23:07 UTC