[Barneski]

Who is stealing what?

[Podesta]

You have said you are planning to install a hacked version of OS X on a non-Apple computer in the next year. (You also said you never intend to buy an actual Apple computer, again.) So, you will be among those failing to compensate Apple for its operating system. That is a form of conversion for one's own use, as we say in the law. In the vernacular, people say theft.

[Barneski]

Wrong on both the small and the big points, I'm afraid, Podesta. You say 'You have said you are
planning to install a hacked version of OS X on a non-Apple computer in
the next year.'

I said it's still a year or two away. Far more importantly I said nothing about hacked versions of OSX.

'You also said you never intend to buy an actual Apple
computer, again.'

That's correct. I can find the parts that make up a computer a lot cheaper than Apple provides them, and they will all be the parts that I want and that I chose. Meanwhile, for its other customers, Apple can continue to make couterintuitive choices with its machines, as it did with the G4 desktop that I own (It has no direct mic. input; there's bags of space inside the beautifully neat enclosure but extremely limited upgradeability; awful access to parts like the hard drive and the CD/DVD drives, and a cooling system that got so noisy the computer was unusable until I ripped out the fans and put in some of my own. This is from the company that many will say gives you the best hardware. I hope they've upped their game since then.)

'So, you will be among those failing to compensate
Apple for its operating system. '

I don't follow you. I currently own three Apple operating systems that I paid full price for, in addition to a very early version of OSX that came bundled with my G4 in 2001, and have bought 2 new Apple computers at full retail price. If I get any of those old OS's to run on a PC I build, how does that constitute theft? And if I buy the latest version of OSX and run it on my home built PC, how is that theft? The company is paid for its operating system. Presumably, this is why they make it available in stores in exchange for cash.

What is it that makes Apple different? They sell hardware and they sell software like any other company. Even if they have created a "special" business model, surely back down here on Earth they have to follow the same market and competitive rules as anyone else, and if that puts a spike through their business plan, then so be it. Perhaps this is why they're so quiet about Hackintosh and Psystar.

Now, a simple question before you return your attention to calling me a thief. Is the OSX EULA legally binding? Across all markets? I've never read it, because it's irrelevant to my needs. But I doubt that it has any more legal validity than a roll of toilet paper.

[John_Scott]

As some have said, their is no warranty and it's their exsistance is also in question. But even if Apple turns them off. The computer will hardly be a paper weight. With the common hardware between Apple's and PC's. Installing a Linux version or a copy of XP or Vista could easily be done. At $700 for a upgradable (better then the Mac Mini) this computer could show some promise for those wanting a Mac. I kind of wished Apple would do something like this in a desktop. It would be nice to have a Mac Pro that's within more user's price range. At least maybe Apple will rethink this.

[Barneski]

Podesta, you responded to my post within hours and made a blatant and obviously incorrect accusation of theft, to which I replied. I am going to interpret the more than a week of silence that followed as the closest thing you can manage to a withdrawal and apology.

I will add that as a Mac customer who has always paid the full retail price for Apple hardware and software, has never sold a Mac, and has never bought a secondhand Mac or peripheral, my conscience is clear on what I choose to do with the OS discs that I have, and any future discs I buy. So if Apple considers it unacceptable that a piece of their operating software is run on a machine that doesn't carry the Apple brand, I could not care less. There is no law against pissing people off. If, on the other hand, the day ever comes when they can legally compel me or someone else not to use the software how I choose, I will reconsider the issue in light of that.

In the meantime, none of my questions have been answered. So I will repeat the point, as no one seems able to correct it:

The EULA is worthless. Apple knows this.

[mac_user21]

MacGeek1955 said:

Obviously Apple knows about this venture. Apple could make an update to its OS that would render this machine useless if they chose to. I guess the owners could run Windows. If Apple were to suddenly put in something like "Apple Genuine Advantage" and offer it's OS legally as a new high end professional operating system and charge, let's say $400 instead of the $129 upgrade cost it charges for everyone else and $129 for further upgrades and you could see how Apple might let a bunch of these things get out there, because illegally using one of these things is at least as illegal as pirating software and much more illegal than burning MP3s into compilation CDs for personal use. The RIAA has really been pushing legislation to stop people from listening to music and are putting 11 year olds in jail and such. I think Apple is a whole lot smarter than the RIAA. I think OSX is popular enough that Apple could get at least $200 a copy for each machine that runs the OS and could very well license OSX and get a good cut on every non-Apple machine sold without putting forth much effort. Apple could shut these people down in a heartbeat. I think it's an experiment. I also think that MacWorld would be implicated for putting OSX on non-Apple machines and telling the world about it if that's what Apple chose to do. The problem with non-Apple hardware is that it threatens the great user experience one gets from using a Mac. Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't have decades of experience making it's OS run on boatloads of different computers. Of course Apple can sell licenses and offer little or no support for non-Apple machines. Many of the original Mac clones worked great, but a few had problems. My UMAX S-900 worked well for years. But some other models shipped with problems that weren't easy to fix. The problems tended to be with the lower end products. I suspect we'll soon see more Mac Clones and a price higher than the $129 upgrade license. Of course Apple may be happy with the upgrade price for these new machines. Since Apple is growing at 3 times the PC rate, can you imagine a Dell Mac?

Apple did do this stuff in 90s and it almost kill Apple (Almost bankrupt). why? because Apple is Primary Hardware Company, Software is what make their hardware unqiue. When Apple License OS in 90s, Many clone maker make apple computer, Apple lost moneys b/c they don't sell their hardware well. Steve Jobs change this by invent new OS and give it new EULA

nope, Apple will want to keep OS X to itself only.

[jel1955]

I would like to hear from some intellectual property attorneys on whether or not Apple actually can govern use of it's OS by end users in the way it purports to be able to do in it's user license. As for Apple's case against Psystar, I wonder just what it is beyond claiming Psystar's violation of apples license agreement.

I suspect that now that Apple uses technology much like that used in PC's which run Microsoft or Linux OS's, Apple has lost a number of its legal arguments which it has traditionally used when it demands that it's OS is only run on Apple built machines.

We live in a new world, but Apple has not moved into it happily. Apple wants to be both a first-rate software development company, and a first-rate consumer electronics manufacturer. History teaches us that it is unlikely that Apple will succeed in those goals.

My personal experience with Apple over the past fifteen years has been up, down, and around. I have found Apple's vaunted support to be non-existent, often, since the advent of the iPod and iPhone; and I also learned that even as a shareholder of the company, I was little more than just another idiot on the phone for Apple customer service agents. My biggest complaints are with Apple Store personnel, but I've also had negative experiences trying to get satisfaction over the phone. All that after having paid, dearly, for service contracts with the company.

Truth is Apple produces good desktops, and crappy laptops. If a good, sturdy, reasonably priced laptop was produced by Apple (say at the Dell price point); I could see defending the company, and being a loyal customer. Since that isn't the case, I say go for it Psystar! Build me a decent laptop that runs Mac OS, and is a complete clone of the crappy MacBook Pro I now have. The one that's burnt up two hard drives, and has Bluetooth that has never worked correctly.

[jman3001]

10 months with my Psystar Open Computer and everything is still working great. The only changes to the machine I made were to add a Firewire PCIe card and add 2 more Gigs of RAM, so that I have 4 Gigs of RAM. I do use the Psystar in my professional recording studio and the components are holding up very well, thank you. Mac OS X runs perfectly.

Psystar is now offering a line of very nice low-end to upper mid-range computers including an i7 Core machine that will probably work well with Snow Leopard installed.

The biggest thing this computer company has done, was to show the world that OS X runs very nicely on a PC. Beyond that, everything else is just Fodder.