Psystar Is Still Kicking And Screaming, Apple Still Crying
I'll be real honest, I pretty much forgot about this Apple/Psystar Open Computer drama. I figured once Apple came at them, they'd back down. But Psystar has decided to fight the man, and they are still going. Hell, not only are they still fighting the lawsuit from Apple, they are still selling the Open Computers on their website!
Apple's EULA (End User License Agreement... that thing you arbitrarily click "I have read, and agree" to every time you install a new piece of software) clearly states that Mac OS X, in any of it's iterations, can only be run on Apple branded products. It's a fairly self-explanatory statement with little ambiguity. So what could Psystar possibly say to justify obviously breaking that EULA? Apparently, they are saying that Apple is engaged in uncompetitive behavior:
Psystar made its claims at a press conference Tuesday, during which it said it will soon file a legal complaint against Apple alleging the Cupertino, Calif., computer maker is engaged in unfair competition and an attempt to monopolize and other violations of U.S. antitrust acts.
It's still an interesting fight. To be honest, I'm rooting for Psystar here. I'm not such a big fan of things being locked and stationary. I put this case up there with DRM. If I buy the song, I should be able to use it however I like to use it. It's mine. I own it. If I buy an OS, or just about any piece of software for that matter, I should be able to use it. It's mine. I own it.
I really think this will be an interesting debate in the courts assuming Psystar's magical funding machine keeps up. The results of this case could ring loud within the development community, as EULA's with restrictive content have been more commonplace as of late. If Psystar wins, it could lead to a more open community, wherein competition is based on innovation and overall quality of the software itself and cross-functionality, but if Apple wins, it could lead to a closed community that thrives on verticals within the software industry that do not promote interoperability.
While I wouldn't mind seeing Apple get a slap in the face (in particular after this ridiculous iPhone 3G debacle... even after I got my new one, I still get the slow keyboard effect most of the time when I start SMS), it's not so much about Apple for me as it is a general movement in the software development community, of which Apple is at the forefront. As with many things, we'll just have to wait for the courts to decide, or hope that our Congresspeople take the time to learn what them there fancy computers are to make some relative and useful regulation on the matter.
Jesse James
Posted to Hot Stuff, In the News on 27 August 2008
· Comments (7)
Other stuff like this: Anti-competitive, Apple, lawsuit, open computer, os x, PsyStar
3D iPhone glasses. Why?
We're twins:
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/007604.html
"If Psystar wins, it could lead to a more open community, wherein competition is based on innovation and overall quality of the software itself and cross-functionality, but if Apple wins, it could lead to a closed community that thrives on verticals within the software industry that do not promote interoperability."
My head is spinning. How exactly is Apple the obstacle to meritocracy? The reason merit isn't a factor in the boxed operating system market is because there is no boxed operating system market. OS/2, BeOS, NeXT, boxed retail copies of Linux -- all are stone dead (and obviously forgotten, based on your statements).
What there is is an insanely profitable monopoly on the generic PC side and a highly profitable niche in Apple. Breaking apart the niche will only make the monopoly stronger.
What frustrates me endlessly about people taking Psystar's side is that this is a violation of copyright and commercial licensing. This is NOT Apple suing an end user for doing some shenanigans in his own home. They don't go after that stuff, not even with the likes of WGA. You want to make a hackintosh? Go right ahead. You can even torrent the OS and Apple won't notice or care. You want to build a commercial enterprise around someone else's unlicensed software? Well, unless it's the '80s and you're Bill Gates, you probably won't get very far, and the law certainly shouldn't allow it either way.
Psystar is ridiculously arrogant to think they have the right to force Apple into a different business model, and their supporters are ridiculously ignorant to think multiple companies can compete at Microsoft's game. Microsoft does not sell boxed copies of Windows in any significant quantity because a very small piece of the PC market actually installs their own OS. The market goes to whatever comes installed, and that's a Windows monopoly. Anyone else is swimming uphill. Yeah, swimming uphill is impossible; that's the point.
From Neonmadman's article:
"He went on to say that the Mac OS is 'essentially generic software' and wished to provide a cheaper option for those interested in the system but not the 'exorbitant' Apple prices.
"That's hard to argue with. Anyone who's looked at a MacBook Air price tag lately knows the cost of Apple's sex appeal."
Yay, more anti-Apple stupidity! Let's look at the most expensive specialty item in their lineup and judge its price against an e-waste box from Dell! Honestly, mainstream tech writing about Apple is shoddy at best.
Psystar, You go girl!
It could be Apple or any number of other software developers that strangle their software. It's simply that, in this example, it's Apple, and they are currently the largest proponent of this method.
Again, take it out of the context of the OS itself. We don't, as consumers, stand for any strangulation of products and services, so why should we be OK with it in one instance or another?
Are my MP3 files locked to a device? Well, not anymore, because that's not how I want to consume them. Are my PC games strangled to one computer? Nope, because I don't like it like that. Should I be able to rune the Zune OS on an iPod? I would say yes, in theory, but let's be real, who wants to do that. But why wouldn't I want to run OS X on another platform, if I purchase it?
It would change the current trend in software development if this case sides with Psystar (and all subsequent appeals that would last probably 10-15 years). It would also further cement the current trend if sided with Apple. Personally, I want to see personal choice prevail, but in either situation, this is an important case that needs to be heard.
Jesse, you really need to take Andy B's words to heart. People seem to equate what Psystar is doing to what "the little guy" in his own house does by buying cheap hardware and installing an illegal copy of OSX on it.
I can tell you: it isn't. That little guy in his house isn't trying to make money off of someone else's intellectual property. And Apple rarely, if ever, pays any attention at all to that.
What Psystar is doing is taking an OS Apple has spent decades designing, tweaking, and updating (spending a LOT of money on talented programmers and designers) and illegally installing it on their systems to make money off it. There's the catch: MAKE MONEY OFF IT. We have these protections for a reason people!
Pretty much every single thing Andy B said is entirely true: Psystar deserves NO support in what they are doing. Apple has many problems. They are arrogant, and like every other company, fuck up every once in a while. But this is simply not one of those times.
While I won't disagree with MarsAttack and Andy B (because I agree with them), here's another point:
OS X is so stable because Apple has control over the hardware that is approved for it. Not in a "Microsoft Vista Certified" sticker kind of way, but in a real, we've tested this a bazillion times kind of way. They wrote their operating system to work with this hardware.
And yes, this means Apple hardware is more expensive. A little less competition, a little more stability. Apple has a brand, one that prides itself on the simplicity of design, the stability of its architecture, and its ease of use. The brand is tied through-and-through with its hardware and software. Damaging any leg of that brand is damaging to Apple.
What Psystar is doing is damaging to that brand on two fronts. And if their goal is truly open computing, Apple is not the target they should be looking for.
Like TiVo, Apple isn't going after the home hacker. They're going after the people making money off of their business model, their brand.
Apple has a lot of faults, don't get me wrong. (Green initiatives? Battery failures?) But they offer a product and a service beyond what you get from PC manufacturers. Even if it is at a premium.
I would have to take Pystars side on this.
Apple has a Terms and use that says I cant install Safari or Itunes on anything but a Mac...... yet they have windows versions (unless they finally corrected this.... oversight) They also designed a program or set of code to let you install your Windows XP/Vista on your Mac. ..... As long as you have a license.
But reverse the characters in the game and we have an issue? When Pystar is adding code to start of the os and installing it with an included purchase license of OSX. Apple screams foul. Of course if something goes wrong the customers go to pystar for support.
You think this country would be ok If microsoft decided to wake up tomorrow and say... ok.. we are no longer letting anyone run Windows on any machine but Dell. and you have to deal with their 300% price hike and overseas support.