Mac clone maker wins legal round against Apple

Kash · Feb 12, 2009

Theoretically, nothing

fletch33 · Feb 12, 2009

i wanted to make sure that my earlier post about E-Machines etc..

was a joke and i meant that i believe that my apple machines cost more but also last MUCH longer.

i am satisfied with the current status of having to buy from apple for OS X.

for example i have a 2001 iBook G3 running 10.4.11 and it runs flawlessly. i did have the logic board issue but fixed it and has been my only problem with any of my apple computers.

i also have a 1999 G4 Sawtooth Tower that with a simple upgrade to a 1.6GHz processor it runs Leopard and runs great.

i fix and own a lot of PC's and cant think of a single one that would run as well as my old machines mentioned above.

i have friends with Mac's and friend with PC's and although i am generally fixing something for someone on a weekly basis it is almost never a Mac that i have to fix.

i have no problem paying extra for the satisfaction of knowing i have quality equipment. not only that but when i have had to go to apple for any fix it was handled extremely fast and with little time on the phone or emailing.

try to get apple type service from HP, Dell, Sony, blah blah blah because i know from experience that none of them are even close in customer service.

all of that is worth a few extra bucks.

as a side note i did a write up on here of my experience (without discussing the how to's or anything that would be illegal here) and although i was able to have a fully functional netbook with absolutely no problems running Leopard i only liked it for a couple weeks and quickly went back to my macbook because it just isnt the same when its not on an apple product.

i felt no ill feelings about doing it since i spend a lot of money with apple as you can see in my mac specs and there are many products i couldnt list there because there wasn't enough room

just thought i would make sure my original post was not misunderstood

thanks

Mama Luigi · Feb 12, 2009

Kash said:
Apple's marketshare is actually closer to 10% ;P

U.S. market share I assume? I've seen figures all over the place. You've got high numbers (8-14%) for values like "U.S. consumer market share," which ignores corporate and institutional sales and anything outside the U.S. The lowest numbers are of course for "total global market share," which are probably still hovering around 5%. You might also see numbers between 5-10% for "total U.S. market share."

It's definitely growing but I still firmly believe Apple is a luxury brand. They're positioned like a luxury brand, they have the same corporate philosophy as a luxury brand... they are a luxury brand. I don't mean that in a disparaging way - they're just like any luxury car maker in that they still have "low end" configurations that are more affordable in order to appeal to more people. Compare to the Lexus ES, Audi A4, and so on.

Also, I for one hate pre-built PC desktops. Homebuilt ones are a totally different story, but that doesn't really have anything to do with Psystar. I'd never buy a prebuilt desktop, from Apple or any other company. Fixing it yourself is infinitely better than depending on someone else to do it for you (even if "someone else" is Apple). Imagine how Psystar's support network would compare to Apple's... it's not pretty.

Kash · Feb 12, 2009

From recent reports, it's about 10% globally and around 20% in the US. That's a 30% increase from the year before.

I wasn't arguing your luxury brand point, just pointing out that the marketshare is higher than you made it out to be.

gixxersean · Feb 12, 2009

cwa107 said:
Well, chances are that if you can afford to be on the hardware upgrade merry-go-round, a laptop and a desktop shouldn't be too far of a stretch. And quite frankly, one can build a decent budget gaming box for less than $500 (not including monitor).

I do have a laptop and a desktop. Both are Mac though. Building another computer wouldn't be a problem except for the lack of space for another desktop, and the girlfriend that will...*coughs*...castrate me if I buy/build another computer. That, and I recently lost my job so I have no cash flow right now.

Mama Luigi · Feb 12, 2009

Kash said:
From recent reports, it's about 10% globally and around 20% in the US. That's a 30% increase from the year before.

I wasn't arguing your luxury brand point, just pointing out that the marketshare is higher than you made it out to be.

Wow, that's nuts! I would have never expected that. I can see the U.S. market share rising, but internationally I was sure that it wouldn't go up that much because of how many emerging markets there are where Macs don't even factor into the equation (like India and China). If you buy a Mac in China you've probably got a good chance of getting a knock-off instead

Kash · Feb 12, 2009

I'm fairly certain the majority of Macs sold outside of the US are in Europe or Australia rather than anywhere in Asia

Shikarnov · Feb 13, 2009

I worry about the United States sometimes and the draconian levels of control people are willing to cede to corporations under the guise of rights.

There's a difference between a technical decision and a policy decision.

Few would suggest that an author has the right to stipulate that his or her latest novel appear only in hardcover books and not softcover or in an eBook format.

Few would suggest that a musician has the right to say a song can only be published on 78s and 8-Tracks, but not on CDs. (Although the DMCA does do exactly this where digitial music formats are concerned - and is being vigorously fought against in the courts).

Few would suggest that Kellogs has the right to determine that your box of Pop Tarts must never be placed in a pantry, but should always reside on the counter next to the toaster.

Few would suggest that a factory robotic system designed to handle the processing of apples and bottling of apple juice, had to be installed in RobotCorp built facilities.

These instances all seem insane because they are. It's a matter of common sense. When the only reason Kellogs can give for ordering you to keep Pop Tarts on the counter instead of the pantry is that they have the right to determine where their product is stored, then that's bologna. Now, if, for whatever reason, the Pop Tart will explode in a dark place, then there might be some reason for the policy.

In the specific case of OSX, this is just a matter of Apple being a control freak. There's no technical reason that OSX cannot work correctly on non-Apple hardware if that hardware meets the supported specifications.

Apple doesn't choose where or how I use my Macbooks. They don't decide whether I can eat while typing. They don't decide whether my systems must reside on a wood, metal, glass, or plastic desk.

So what makes OSX so special that they get to determine how and where I use it as a matter of policy?

fletch33 · Feb 13, 2009

Shikarnov said:
So what makes OSX so special that they get to determine how and where I use it as a matter of policy?

when you invent something for profit and patent/trademark it and a company ignores your ownership and decides to use it in a manner that you did not intend it to be used then maybe you would understand.

it is theirs and they should be able to decide what to do with it.

if you want a choice to put an OS on any machine get Windows or Linux because they dont care.

placing OS X on any machine allows for the possibility of misrepresenting the operating manner of how THEIR OS was designed to operate.

i don't get the argument here?

OS X belongs to Apple and is licensed through them to be used on their products and there is nothing wrong with that.

what i don't understand is foreign countries ideas that it is ok to copy or break the patent rules of other companies.

i see it all the times with trade shows i attend where representatives from other countries come to the trade show and snap some pics of a new product and then they arrive back next year with a replica at a cheaper price and their country could care less.

that is not an exact example of what is going on with OS X on other machines but i think you see my point.

OS X belong to Apple, they made, and they can use it as they see fit.

invent an OS if you don't like the choices.

cwa107 · Feb 13, 2009

Shikarnov said:
I worry about the United States sometimes and the draconian levels of control people are willing to cede to corporations under the guise of rights.

There's a difference between a technical decision and a policy decision.

Few would suggest that an author has the right to stipulate that his or her latest novel appear only in hardcover books and not softcover or in an eBook format.

Few would suggest that a musician has the right to say a song can only be published on 78s and 8-Tracks, but not on CDs. (Although the DMCA does do exactly this where digitial music formats are concerned - and is being vigorously fought against in the courts).

Few would suggest that Kellogs has the right to determine that your box of Pop Tarts must never be placed in a pantry, but should always reside on the counter next to the toaster.

Few would suggest that a factory robotic system designed to handle the processing of apples and bottling of apple juice, had to be installed in RobotCorp built facilities.

These instances all seem insane because they are. It's a matter of common sense. When the only reason Kellogs can give for ordering you to keep Pop Tarts on the counter instead of the pantry is that they have the right to determine where their product is stored, then that's bologna. Now, if, for whatever reason, the Pop Tart will explode in a dark place, then there might be some reason for the policy.

In the specific case of OSX, this is just a matter of Apple being a control freak. There's no technical reason that OSX cannot work correctly on non-Apple hardware if that hardware meets the supported specifications.

Apple doesn't choose where or how I use my Macbooks. They don't decide whether I can eat while typing. They don't decide whether my systems must reside on a wood, metal, glass, or plastic desk.

So what makes OSX so special that they get to determine how and where I use it as a matter of policy?

Very well said - and I agree to an extent.

The problem is actually very simple and goes back to the whole doctrine of DRM. When you purchase a piece of software, you are not purchasing the software itself as much as you are purchasing a license to use it. This is very similar to the way music is sold in that you aren't purchasing the music itself, but a license to listen to it (and if you subscribe to the beliefs of the music industry, you are only entitled to listen to it in the medium under which it was distributed).

Apple is saying the same thing - when they sell you a computer that comes with OS X, that software is only licensed to be run on that computer. And when you purchase a retail copy of OS X, you are purchasing a license which entitles you to run the software on a Mac. You purchased a license, not the software itself, and just as a driver's license entitles one to drive a car (and can be revoked if you don't use it in the manner it was granted under), you must follow the framework defined by Apple in order to use your license.

In a perfect world, I would like to own something more tangible than a license, but that is essentially what I'm getting as a consumer. So, while I agree that Apple shouldn't be allowed to dictate how their software is being used, it is within their legal rights to do so (at least this is the precedent established in US courts thus far).

Mama Luigi · Feb 13, 2009

Shikarnov said:
Few would suggest that an author has the right to stipulate that his or her latest novel appear only in hardcover books and not softcover or in an eBook format.

Few would suggest that a musician has the right to say a song can only be published on 78s and 8-Tracks, but not on CDs. (Although the DMCA does do exactly this where digitial music formats are concerned - and is being vigorously fought against in the courts).

These two instances are up to the publisher to decide, not the creator. Of course, in the case of OS X, Apple is both the creator and the publisher.

Shikarnov said:
Few would suggest that Kellogs has the right to determine that your box of Pop Tarts must never be placed in a pantry, but should always reside on the counter next to the toaster.

Of course not, but that's personal use. If you look at where Pop Tarts are placed on store shelves, I bet Kellogg's has specific instructions as to which section Pop Tarts should be placed in. That's their right - they're the ones selling the product, they get to decide how it is sold.

Shikarnov said:
Few would suggest that a factory robotic system designed to handle the processing of apples and bottling of apple juice, had to be installed in RobotCorp built facilities.

Not unless RobotCorp invented and sold that system and is now requiring its customers to use RobotCorp facilities as well.

Shikarnov said:
These instances all seem insane because they are. It's a matter of common sense. When the only reason Kellogs can give for ordering you to keep Pop Tarts on the counter instead of the pantry is that they have the right to determine where their product is stored, then that's bologna. Now, if, for whatever reason, the Pop Tart will explode in a dark place, then there might be some reason for the policy.

In the specific case of OSX, this is just a matter of Apple being a control freak. There's no technical reason that OSX cannot work correctly on non-Apple hardware if that hardware meets the supported specifications.

Apple doesn't choose where or how I use my Macbooks. They don't decide whether I can eat while typing. They don't decide whether my systems must reside on a wood, metal, glass, or plastic desk.

So what makes OSX so special that they get to determine how and where I use it as a matter of policy?

Because they created it and they are selling it. You can still install OS X on a self-built PC if you want. Technically it violates their EULA, but those aren't really enforceable anyway. And besides, it's not like Apple would find out about it. However, on the corporate side of things, Apple DOES have the right to determine how and where their products are sold (including the OS). Leeway is given for individuals who want to resell a copy they own, but for a large company, Apple's going to try to stop them.

Mama Luigi · Feb 13, 2009

cwa107 said:
Apple is saying the same thing - when they sell you a computer that comes with OS X, that software is only licensed to be run on that computer. And when you purchase a retail copy of OS X, you are purchasing a license which entitles you to run the software on a Mac. You purchased a license, not the software itself, and just as a driver's license entitles one to drive a car (and can be revoked if you don't use it in the manner it was granted under), you must follow the framework defined by Apple in order to use your license.

In a perfect world, I would like to own something more tangible than a license, but that is essentially what I'm getting as a consumer. So, while I agree that Apple shouldn't be allowed to dictate how their software is being used, it is within their legal rights to do so (at least this is the precedent established in US courts thus far).

I violate the DMCA as a matter of course (usually by getting no-CD patches for games I own), and I would not hesitate to violate Apple's EULA either, if I were to buy OS X and try to put it on a non-Apple PC. If I pay for software, I should be able to use it as I see fit. I'm not stealing the software by using it in a way that violates the EULA. And like I said, it's not like Apple will find out about me and threaten to sue me until I uninstall OS X. How would they even check? Why would they even care?

I'm just saying there's a distinction between what individuals do and what a corporation (Psystar) does.

fletch33 · Feb 13, 2009

Mama Luigi said:
I violate the DMCA as a matter of course (usually by getting no-CD patches for games I own), and I would not hesitate to violate Apple's EULA either, if I were to buy OS X and try to put it on a non-Apple PC. If I pay for software, I should be able to use it as I see fit. I'm not stealing the software by using it in a way that violates the EULA. And like I said, it's not like Apple will find out about me and threaten to sue me until I uninstall OS X. How would they even check? Why would they even care?

I'm just saying there's a distinction between what individuals do and what a corporation (Psystar) does.

i think if this thing were to roll out in Psystar's favor we would start to see a re-invention of the apple we currently know.

many would actually like to see this.

personally i would expect Apple to then severely raise the price of their OS as windows does and lower the price of their hardware. we currently pay more for our Apple products but is that for the OS or hardware or both? whatever the reason it would have to change and OS X would have to cost us more and most likely have online registration and validation etc.... so that they get paid for the OS they created but were forced to open up to other manufactures.

i guess following in this philosophy we would then see a Motorola touch screen phone running iPhone software.

cwa107 · Feb 13, 2009

fletch33 said:
i think if this thing were to roll out in Psystar's favor we would start to see a re-invention of the apple we currently know.

many would actually like to see this.

personally i would expect Apple to then severely raise the price of their OS as windows does and lower the price of their hardware. we currently pay more for our Apple products but is that for the OS or hardware or both? whatever the reason it would have to change and OS X would have to cost us more and most likely have online registration and validation etc.... so that they get paid for the OS they created but were forced to open up to other manufactures.

i guess following in this philosophy we would then see a Motorola touch screen phone running iPhone software.

No doubt, this would completely unravel the way the entire industry currently works and would be used a precedent to strike down the DMCA and other copyright laws. With that in mind, there's no way Apple is going to lose this case. And it's precisely why one has to believe that there are other entities backing the Psystar legal team.

Shikarnov · Feb 13, 2009

fletch33 said:
when you invent something for profit and patent/trademark it and a company ignores your ownership and decides to use it in a manner that you did not intend it to be used then maybe you would understand.

You shouldn't make assumptions about people you don't know. I happen to have invented a few things in my time, an profited from them nicely. I understand both patents and copyrights quite well.

it is theirs and they should be able to decide what to do with it.

This is absolutely false - or, at least, it has been pre-DMCA. You have the right to profit from your work, but not to control how its used. Being an inventor doesn't make you a dictator of use.

The inventor of the butter knife doesn't come around with lawsuits every time somebody uses it as a screwdriver.

if you want a choice to put an OS on any machine get Windows or Linux because they dont care.

Microsoft cares. You can't legally run Windows in a VM without ponying up for an "Ultimate" license, for example. That's wrong too.

placing OS X on any machine allows for the possibility of misrepresenting the operating manner of how THEIR OS was designed to operate.

Is OSX a brand? Is it a marketing campaign? No. It's a product. And it's not a matter of libel if you use something in a non-supported way and it behaves differently than it would if it was used in a supported way.

i don't get the argument here?

Nor do I understand yours. Seems we're in good company.

OS X belongs to Apple and is licensed through them to be used on their products and there is nothing wrong with that.

I suspect that's exactly what the courts will be deciding. Personally, I hope they blow up the entire licensing scheme across the industry. Some of the EULA's in use today are just terrifying in the scope with which they dismantle the past 100 years worth of consumer rights.

what i don't understand is foreign countries ideas that it is ok to copy or break the patent rules of other companies.

Without know which country you're specifically talking about, it's hard to comment directly. But I would say that any company operating in any country must abide by that country's laws. National interests supersede corporate interests.

i see it all the times with trade shows i attend where representatives from other countries come to the trade show and snap some pics of a new product and then they arrive back next year with a replica at a cheaper price and their country could care less.

I don't disagree with you on this at all. Theft is wrong, plain and simple. However, this isn't about theft. It's about fair use.

that is not an exact example of what is going on with OS X on other machines but i think you see my point.

OS X belong to Apple, they made, and they can use it as they see fit.

invent an OS if you don't like the choices.

Will you feel the same way when you're summoned to court for placing your air conditioner in the wrong size window frame?

Shikarnov · Feb 13, 2009

cwa107 said:
In a perfect world, I would like to own something more tangible than a license, but that is essentially what I'm getting as a consumer. So, while I agree that Apple shouldn't be allowed to dictate how their software is being used, it is within their legal rights to do so (at least this is the precedent established in US courts thus far).

I agree with everything you said - but philosophically, I think we need to revise just how far licenses can go in overriding consumer rights of fair use.

Mama Luigi said:
Because they created it and they are selling it. You can still install OS X on a self-built PC if you want. Technically it violates their EULA, but those aren't really enforceable anyway. And besides, it's not like Apple would find out about it. However, on the corporate side of things, Apple DOES have the right to determine how and where their products are sold (including the OS). Leeway is given for individuals who want to resell a copy they own, but for a large company, Apple's going to try to stop them.

Well, said, and I should have kept in mind that there's a distinction between fair personal use and competing corporate interests. I agree that OSX should not be allowed to be used by competing companies to bolster their sales at the expense of Apple's.

However, I also believe the issue is somewhat larger. As I noted in my previous reply, the right to determine use has swung too far into the direction of the creator. Caveat Emptor has been so far surpassed, that you practically need the advice of an attorney to figure out if you should install World of Warcraft.

fletch33 said:
i think if this thing were to roll out in Psystar's favor we would start to see a re-invention of the apple we currently know.

I think you're right about that. And I should amend my original position somewhat to note that, while I'm hoping software licenses and control over software products will be loosened, I don't see Psystar's actions as being correct, nor do I think a precedent should be set of allowing competitors to use your own products against you.

cwa107 · Feb 13, 2009

Shikarnov said:
I agree with everything you said - but philosophically, I think we need to revise just how far licenses can go in overriding consumer rights of fair use.

You absolutely nailed it. That's what I liked about your earlier post in which you mentioned how disappointing it is to see consumers so willing to cede their right to fair use. It's amazing to me, not only that the DMCA exists, but that it has gone unmodified for so long now. The abuses to the American consumer that have taken place under the shield of the DMCA are flat out wrong. If there wasn't so much big money behind it, it would have been overturned like Prohibition was in the 30's.

Mama Luigi · Feb 13, 2009

fletch33 said:
personally i would expect Apple to then severely raise the price of their OS as windows does and lower the price of their hardware. we currently pay more for our Apple products but is that for the OS or hardware or both? whatever the reason it would have to change and OS X would have to cost us more and most likely have online registration and validation etc.... so that they get paid for the OS they created but were forced to open up to other manufactures.

When you think about it, when you buy OS X, you are ALWAYS buying the equivalent of one of the Windows upgrade versions, because every Mac ships with OS X and if you are buying the discs it means that you're just upgrading an existing Mac from an older version of the OS to the current one. It's different with Windows - when you buy a pre-built PC, it usually comes with Windows pre-loaded, but not always. You can buy or build a bare, no-OS PC. You can't do the same with a Mac.

So if Apple increased the price of the OS and decreased the price of their hardware, you'd probably end up with all Macs costing the same as they already do. However, it might put pressure on Apple to upgrade their computers' hardware a little more frequently.