If geeks love it, we're on it

18 Comments:

1. Snarkasm
   4 Jul '09, 12:35 am

   Now with more powerful hardware!

   Good times.
2. chrisWhite
   5 Jul '09, 5:04 pm

   I like that they're shaking things up, but I don't think they're right or should legally get away with it. Very similar to how I feel felt about The Pirate Bay
3. Cliff_Forster
   6 Jul '09, 8:55 am

   Another reminder on why I am a PC.

   If Microsoft got out of bed tomorrow morning and choose to by an exclusive OEM to make PC's, I wonder how that would go over? The anti-trust allegations would fly, and it would be over before it began.

   Consumers should be allowed to buy a full unrestricted license to any OS and use it on the hardware they choose.
4. mirage
   6 Jul '09, 11:05 am

   Freedom has two ends. Consumers are free to choose but companies are also free in designing and offering their products. IMHO, it is Apple's product and property and Psystar is a parasite. Like Cliff, I am a PC too since I need more freedom space at my end. But I support Apple in the Psystar case.
5. Snarkasm
   6 Jul '09, 1:33 pm

   My main beef is that Apple's trying to tell you what you can do with something that you can legally purchase from them. I can go into an Apple store right now and buy a standalone copy of OSX. As soon as I get home and open the box, ta-da, I get greeted with a EULA that tells me I'm not allowed to do anything with it but install it on "Apple-labeled" hardware. If I can get it to install on non-Apple hardware, isn't that my right as a consumer who already paid Apple for their hard work? Nobody's asking that they support it necessarily, but to flat out tell me I cannot do it is a bad, bad thing.

   Apple is free to build and design it however they want, but they aren't allowed to tell me where I can and cannot install it. They're free to release constant updates that BREAK my shady installation, if they so choose. Imagine if Intel only allowed you to use Intel SSDs with Intel chipsets. Or if AMD motherboards only worked with ATi graphics cards. Imagine if the makers of DOOM put a clause in the EULA that said you could only install it on i386 chips.

   The place more companies (manufacturers, designers, even entertainment companies) are trying to get to is a total and complete clampdown on your purchases. You buy a Blu-Ray now and it comes with a digital copy - that you're allowed to put into WMP or iTunes only. The iPhone only works with iTunes. The Kindle uses proprietary formats. What happened to the days when you could buy a book, read it, and resell it - so you could buy more books? That was the right of first sale - I was free to do whatever I wanted with it after I bought it. That so many aspects of this are getting trampled roughshod over just because we've entered the digital age is saddening, though not unanticipated.
6. mirage
   6 Jul '09, 1:53 pm

   Snarkasm, I do not like Apple's business model as much as you. But I think we have to respect their freedom for choosing their business model. When we pay for their software, we merely pay for the right to use it. And, their user agreement defines the conditions of usage. I agree with your comments about IPhone, ITunes, software updates, and everything else. But, thankfully, we are free not to use their products. There are multiple alternatives for everything they produce, including my favorite GNU/Linux distribution Ubuntu. On the other hand, sacrificing a little freedom for convenience is preferred by many people.
7. kryyst
   6 Jul '09, 2:00 pm

   Apple designs their software to work with their hardware and their EULA says as much. You want to use their products you subscribe to their licensing. Your argument of I bought it so I can do what I want with it has limits in every sector so to apply it here and not universally fails. If you buy a product with known limitations you are acknowledging that you will abide by those limitations through the act of ownership. If you don't want to follow those limits don't buy it. If you do buy it and still choose not to follow those limits then you are at fault if caught and have waved the right to cry foul.
8. Snarkasm
   6 Jul '09, 2:11 pm

   The limits in other sectors are almost universally to prevent harm, injury, or otherwise unpleasant outcomes. How is installing OSX on standard hardware injurious to anybody? Apple made a sale, and the user gets what they want. What other similar situations are you thinking of, kryyst?

   I don't personally care one way or the other and am quite content with my Ubuntu and Win 7, but it just seems fallacious to me, and like something that very few companies would ever get away with.
9. kryyst
   6 Jul '09, 2:18 pm

   The most obvious being open any closed hardware you own, void the warranty, regardless if you actually do anything to it or not. You can't legally buy a copy of windows in North America and install over seas. You can't buy a Dish Net satellite receiver in the US and legally watch it in Canada. You can't legally use most free anti-virus software on a commercially owned computer. That's just for starters.

   As for being Fallacious, I can't see how you find it to be that way at all. Apple is very clear in how they want their software to be used. There is nothing grey or secretive in that at all, nor are they being deceptive in how they market it. OS X is for iMac's. OS X is not for other PC based computers.
10. Snarkasm
    6 Jul '09, 2:28 pm

    How you want your software to be used and how you dictate that it be used are two different things to me.

    Void the warranty for opening something? Fine. That's no different than requesting that we be allowed to install software on non-branded hardware and not expecting support.

    The free AV use on commercial computers is also less than relevant, since we're talking about the ability to use things we legitimately paid for. You didn't pay for the free AV; if you had paid for the commercial AV and they didn't let you install it on your home PC, that might be equivalent.

    As far as your other examples, I'm not up to speed on how exactly they're illegal, but I'll leave that to you to explain if you feel like it.
11. Thrax
    6 Jul '09, 2:31 pm

    Hey, dicks. Write an article.
12. mirage
    6 Jul '09, 2:34 pm

    Remember Vista's initial reliability problems mostly due to Nvidia drivers? Those problems costed MS dearly.

    It is so much more convenient for Apple to claim superior reliability and cut costs (from support, development, design) while building a brand impression with a complete well-designed hardware+software package.
13. Snarkasm
    6 Jul '09, 2:55 pm

    ^ And THAT'S why Apple is actively pursuing Psystar.

    The instant somebody gets one of these and sees similar instability problems that they used to see in Windows, and Apple's shiny image gets reduced. Apple's software is polished and fast because they control the hardware it runs on and can optimize and use shortcuts that they couldn't use (or would take much longer to evaluate and code) if they had to support the full base of hardware that the other OSes do. It's certainly a nice deal for them and allows them to push speed and stability, but they need to hold that image to keep making their hardware sales.
14. Cliff_Forster
    6 Jul '09, 3:39 pm

    Snark and I are in agreement. The OS is a component in a larger product. I should be able to tinker with it on whatever hardware I choose. Until I can do that, I have zero interest in OSX
15. kryyst
    6 Jul '09, 5:04 pm

    Quoting Snarkasm

    How you want your software to be used and how you dictate that it be used are two different things to me.

    Void the warranty for opening something? Fine. That's no different than requesting that we be allowed to install software on non-branded hardware and not expecting support.

    You can personally go install OS X on whatever you want. Go and make a company of doing that, that's an entirely different situation.

    The free AV use on commercial computers is also less than relevant, since we're talking about the ability to use things we legitimately paid for. You didn't pay for the free AV; if you had paid for the commercial AV and they didn't let you install it on your home PC, that might be equivalent.

    Free is the price though. You paid nothing $0 for it. If it was $.01 it's the same thing. You are violating their terms of use. They didn't give you the software you in downloading their software agreed to their contract. That is the same as when you install OS X. You agree to their contract. A commercial AV license that I bought and then sold to you as if you were another licensed user under my commercial license would be closer to what's going on and would still be illegal.

    If apple only wants to support people installing OS X on apples that's their choice. You can choose to ignore that or not. Profiting off that is the question at hand.
16. Snarkasm
    6 Jul '09, 5:18 pm

    It's hard to argue they're profiting off of it, though. They're selling hardware that happens to run OSX, and they're selling it with a copy of OSX that they bought and are reselling.

    Where's the harm?
17. kryyst
    7 Jul '09, 9:19 am

    Where's the harm - not a valid defense of anything.

    I personally could care less if Psystar sells PC's running OS X. But personal beliefs aren't what's at stake. It's not dissimilar to modchips for gaming consoles. Some places you can legally sell a modded console as long as you don't install certain bios's or dashboards. Other places even selling a modchip is illegal.

    Look as a fan of OS X I'm actually glad Apple only works on supporting their hardware. It allows them to keep the code base smaller and their OS more stable because they don't have to worry about driver inconsistency. I also like the fact though that I can go ahead and install OS X on another machine if I want to go to the headache of doing so. If Psystar goes bust that doesn't change.
18. chrisWhite
    7 Jul '09, 3:35 pm

    I'm with kryyst in the sense that there is a very different distinction between one of us hacking it onto our own hardware for our own use and a company selling a hacked OS X box. There may not be a distinction in how legal or illegal it is but Apple obviousely recognizes the difference because they are suing Psystar while I've never heard of a single individual getting in trouble.

    There are a couple of other things to keep in mind too. Yes OS X is an OS and if you think of it as just an OS you guys make valid points about putting it wherever you want. Keep in mind though that OS X is more then just a standalone OS, it's the software that comes with your hardware and since you can only legally run it on Apple hardware you could look at buying the latest versions as upgrading, not buying a who new OS. You already have to have an earlier version (if you're legal) regardless of how many versions ago it is that you're running.

    Considering that Apple sold Leopard for $129 and they'll be selling $29 for Snow Leopard you could make the argument that the OS is subsidized by the hardware you're buying. It's a package deal.

    So maybe they should unlock the OS and offer a $250 version for non Apple hardware but it dilutes their reputation and ability to support their customers. It also makes it much more difficult for Apple to write an OS that now has to run on hundreds of thousands of different configurations instead of just the stuff they've designed themselves.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Troll-free since 2003 ®

4 + 9 × 8 = ?

Advertisement