Why Psystar should be supported
Psystar, the hackintosh developer that's selling Mac OS X on its own machines, is finally getting some backlash from Apple over its claim that Steve Jobs and company is a monopoly. Apple claims that it's not, that it has numerous competitors, and that Psystar's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
I can't help but agree that, yes, Psystar's complaint of an Apple monopoly is total and utter garbage, but I think the company should be supported in its fight against Apple. I know that may not be the popular opinion in Cupertino, but the way I see it, supporting Psystar could lead to significant changes at Apple that will benefit all of us.
When I say that I support Psystar, I should note that I don't really care if it succeeds or not. See, I look at Psystar as a necessary evil; a company that matters little and will probably never have any real impact on any of us directly. More than anything, I look at Psystar as a company that can help Apple fill a void that's growing more significant in the marketplace each day: the need for a more ubiquitous robust operating system.
If nothing else, Psystar has shown that Apple's control over the market isn't necessarily best for consumers. Sure, it serves Apple's purposes well as the company continues its climb in the hardware market, but it locks us down into machines that we may not want.
And if Psystar is successful in its case against Apple and is able to continue selling Mac OS X on its own brand of machines, I think you'll see a significant shift in Apple strategy that will have a lasting impact on all of us. Of course, the one casualty in all this is Psystar itself.
If Psystar wins its case against Apple and is allowed to license Mac OS X and stay in business, a slew of Psystar clones will pop up across the globe. Realizing that there is now a precedent in place to ensure their success, companies will start licensing Mac OS X and sell the OS on their own brand of computers.
At that point, Apple will need to make a decision. Will it want to go to court and fight each company that crops up or will it want to kill each of them off as quickly as possible? The decision won't be an easy one. If it chooses the former, it risks losing and spending millions on lawyers that weren't able to get the job done. If it chooses the latter, it'll need to totally change its Mac business strategy in favor a software-first mentality.
And although that may not be in the cards now, I think that strategy -- choosing to kill off these small companies -- is the best way to go about it. And if it does follow that advice, you and I will benefit.
The only way to kill all these small companies is to license Mac OS X to major companies like Dell and HP. Both vendors are chomping at the bit to have Mac OS X offered on their computers because it makes perfect sense from their standpoint: Apple is the most popular company in the industry right now and a slew of people want to get their hands on anything made by Apple. Even better, it puts Microsoft on notice and gives the vendors some leverage on the Vista front.
From Apple's perspective, that may not be the most ideal move. Steve Jobs has constantly said that he views his company as a hardware organization first and he's the reason Apple doesn't license its OS anymore.
But what else can he do? Will he be content making little off small companies that are trying to grow at his own expense or would he rather license Mac OS X to the major companies and bring in some considerable revenue, while killing the small companies off? Granted, this may or may not hurt hardware sales, but given its leverage, there's no reason why Apple can't recoup those losses (and then some) on its software.
And that's exactly why we should support Psystar through all this. It's not because we have a soft spot in our hearts for the company or that we want to see it succeed over the long-term. It's because a licensed Mac OS X on computers from other companies will appeal to the greatest number of consumers, force Microsoft's hand to create a better operating system, and create a real competitive environment in the OS market that will force each and every company to offer better products.
As Vista shows, status quo just isn't working. We need a catalyst to spark change and maybe Psystar is it.
Check out Don's Digital Home podcast, Twitter feed, and FriendFeed.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
One would think that Apple would approve of any step necessary to increase market share. If some cheap clones are out there that would give people a similar experience to that of the full Apple hardware, then that's a plus for both Apple and the consumer. If the consumer becomes comfortable with the MacinClone, then maybe he/she will be more likely in the future to buy the actual Apple hardware next time around. Apple gets the benefit of increased market share in both OS and browser, and also is introduced to potential new customers that might not have looked at Apple the first time around.
respectfully - you are talking nonsense. I and many 100,000s of people already use a ubiquitous, stable operating system. It is called Windows, and my case Windows Vista. There are probably less devices out there without Vista drivers than there are with OSX drivers.
The Apple operating system is just like every previous version - elitist, pretty, and guaranteed to force you and software developers to do things only one way.
I am a PC and I am an individual - and to quote Burger King - 'I want it my way'
Now that's the funniest **** I've ever read here.
FTW - you are classic.
And BTW, there's only 17 confirmed Vista users - the same idiots on the "MojaveExperiment" commercials...
"I am a PC and I am an individual"
No you're not, your a follower like MS assimilating into their "me-too" commercial.
Vista is not stable, I run it daily and see it crash and burn often enough to be objective about the situation. XP is stable but it took how many years to get it that way? Quit making Windows users look foolish!
2. So old mac clones suck. too bad that isnt now, then you wouldve had a point.
Apple is not a monopoly.
Why? The same reason the Supreme ct decided Reynolds Co. wasn't monopoly. In the case of Reynolds wrap, it has a substitute, plastic wrap. That is a good that can replace other good, doing similar functions. In studies, they proved when Reynolds rasied prices, ppl bought more plastic wrap and less aluminum foil. Yes it cannot do ALL the things reynolds wrap does and reynolds cannot do ALL the thing plastic wrap can do, yet they function similarly. So ppl buy more of one when the other raises prices. What happens when Apple raises prices? Ppl buy less macs and more computers with Windows/Unix/Linux. Of course Appl isn't an monopoly! Tough if you want to use Mac OS, it's simply an os, built on BSD. There are substitutes.
If Apple really wants to kill off such cloners, that's simple. Just release an expandable mini-Tower Mac. This is a huge hole in Apple's product line, and Psystar's success is mostly based on filling it. Granted the Psystar is a little cheaper, but not much. If you really want a cheap general purpose tower, you can get a nice $200 gOS PC from Walmart.com.
Why are so many of your columns not just about Apple, but openly critical of them?
Ever write a column about Sony, or Dell, or Windows DRM? Those all have bigger real-life impacts on "the digital home" than Apple.
OSX = the worst form of DRM.
There are a LOT of people who are openly critical about Apple because its difficult to get those voices heard. Most people get blasted for saying anything bad about Apple, whether its justified or not.
However, despite legal questions surrounding the EULA, a plain reading of makes Psystar's actions illegal, and until the EULA is challenged in court, this discussion essentially moot
Apple's hardware are not exactly good for the price you pay. Because there's no competition in terms of hardware design for Mac OS X, Mac hardware will not improve but stay in their close-minded system.
I do hope Psystar wins on this one and open the floodgates for better Mac hardware that's not from Apple.
Apple/Mac/OS X is a closed system and it's a MONOPOLY. Period.
Someone needs to take Apple to court over that, because there is NO reason they should charge such a...... premium for the same hardware as in another computer with Windows Vista or XP.
monopoly
? [usu. with negative ] the exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something : men don't have a monopoly on unrequited love.
? a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service : areas where cable companies operate as monopolies.
? a commodity or service controlled in this way
Since almost all computers sold today have Windows pre-installed Apple cannot possibly be a monopoly. If you want to use the latest version of Windows Media Player you have to buy Windows. So I guess you also feel the WMP is a music player monopoly?
The WMP example is flawed too. You can run WMP on a Mac if you know how to do it without breaking the EULA. Whereas, in this Psystar/Apple case, Apple refused to allow the usage of Mac OS X on any machine other than the Macs.
Microsoft got into trouble because of being anti-competitive. Apple with a closed system a.k.a. monopoly has always been anti-competitive and is constantly pro-active about it. Just because they were small then, no one really cares. Until everyone realises that it's too late, someone must do something now.
Apple is extremely smart on getting support from fanboys and fans. But if one really sits down and studies carefully on Apple's behavior in recent times, you will find whoever quoted the dictionary here on monopoly is pretty spot on. Quoting from a dictionary without understanding it is useless too.
Please don't compare cars to computers. It's just dumb, honestly. The issue is focused on locking users to a software/hardware eco-system, again monopoly. As a user, I want choice. OS shouldn't be locked to a specific brand of hardware.
Ultimately, if Apple was a monopoly supplier of computing services then the prices they charge could be considered a problem. But they aren't. As any debate on a new Apple product will show, you can no doubt by a comparable product at a lower price from someone else. Just because Microsoft's business strategy is to simply sell software to hardware vendors does not mean that the same must be true of anyone else. Apple simply makes their own products and sells them at a price they think the customer will pay.
http://www.apple.com/macpro/design.html
There are no messy wires in a MacPro or contorting to install or upgrade something. Hell there isn't even any need for keeping track of screws. It's a tool-less system.
Your comment about Apple being a monopoly is completely idiotic. Apple has a monopoly on Apple computers?!? Are you really that clueless? By that standard, Sony has a monopoly on PS3s and MS has a monopoly on Xboxes and Nintendo has a monopoly on Wiis! These three companies don't have monopolies on their own systems, they compete with each other, just as Dell, HP, Acer, MS, etc. compete with Apple.
I join Don in support of Psystar. If you look at personal computers as the market, then Apple is in fact not a monopoly but a niche (albeit a growing niche) player. If you look at "computers running OS X" as the market, however, then Apple is in fact a monopoly. You can't buy a computer to run OS X unless it's made by the Cupertino gang. As a result, Apple is free to innovate at its leisure, update its hardware on its own time, etc. A win by Psystar would put Apple on the defensive, having to compete both on price and performance against Mac clone makers. It would also, I have to think, strike fear in the hearts of the Windows developers at Microsoft. It would, as Don notes, give the HPs and Dells of the world a bargaining chip in their negotiations. All consumers, Mac and Windows users alike, would benefit.
Mac users will benefit because Apple will have to update its hardware often in order to keep clone makers from producing a product that has price/performance superiority. (This is why Apple killed the clones back in the 90's... they were providing a decent product at a price Apple couldn't match easily, and Apple wasn't making enough on the clones to offset the loss in their own hardware sales. It had nothing to do with, as "rolegp" implies, the clones being crappy products. I owned a couple of the clones, so I know that for a fact.) Mac users will also benefit from having alternatives at different price points than Apple currently offers. (For example, a desktop system priced between the Mac Mini and the Mac Pro that isn't an all-in-one iMac.)
Windows users would have a greater incentive to switch to OS X, since they would no longer be locked into Apple-branded hardware. This would make it much easier for corporations to justify a switch, no longer being locked into a single supplier for OS X hardware.
Windows users would also benefit from the increased pressure on Microsoft to compete with Apple and OS X.
To borrow an election slogan, a loss by Psystar would mean "more of the same" from both Apple and Microsoft.
And realize, opening up OS X to non-Apple hardware doesn't mean Apple would have to support every configuration Windows or Linux supports. They could pick and choose the chipsets, processors, graphics cards, etc., that they want to support and require third parties to build systems from those hand-picked components in order to receive Apple support. This would give Apple some control (though not as much as today) over the hardware running OS X and allow them to minimize the negative impact to the "Macintosh experience" brought about by third-party hardware. It needn't be, as many Mac fans seem to think, "hacked-together junk".
I'd like to see Psystar win, not because I care about buying a machine from them, but because I think it's a good thing for the industry as a whole... even though, as Don notes, it might not be the best thing for Apple itself.
If the quality of products can be maintained or improved then it does not really matter to me if the computer I use OS X on has an Apple badge or not. An increase in choice would be nice but I would not accept that if the overall experience deteriorates as a result.
Apple charges more for it's hardware because it's a premium you pay to be able to use OS X. Despite what many Apple fans would like to assert, you can put a very high quality system together for less than what Apple is charging (though I do agree their hardware is more competitive today than it has ever been).
I also agree with Msalsbury that the reason the clones were killed was NOT because they were making horribly inferior products, another falsehood that Apple fans have chosen to believe despite the lack of evidence.
I used to be very passionate about this particular subject. I wanted Apple OS on my hardware (I build my own computers and have for years). Now I just don't care any more. There are so many nice things about Linux now that I don't have to rely on Apple to avoid the long arm of Microsoft.
The real question here is not whether this would be good for us (the consumer), or good for the market or even good for Apple (in the long run). The only question that really matters is if this is legal or not. Apple has no obligation to do what's best for their customers. They have no obligation to do what's best for the market. (Technically, Apple is a publicly traded company so they are supposed to do what's best for the almighty bottom line but most CEO's (and boards) choose to take the short term view over the long term one. Regardless, there's really no way to convince them that releasing OS X for PC hardware would be the best way to go.) Apple is going to do what they "think" is best for Apple.
Personally, I don't think they meet the legal definition of monopoly, and, legally, I think that's a weak argument for Psystar to make. I think Psystar could have made a better argument coming from a different angle (and it would have been far more interesting to watch). In the end, my only real interest at this point is hoping that Psystar can increase the "rights" of consumers and take EULA's down a notch (or ten).
Established economic theory dictates that competition is not only benefits consumers but motivates innovation.
If psystar sucks, theyll go out of business on their own. If they are great, then apple might have to work a little harder to stay on top.
so someone make a valid point that disproves me...
If psystar sucks, theyll go out of business on their own. If they are great, then apple might have to work a little harder to stay on top.
so someone make a valid point that disproves me..."
Competition does benefit consumers. Theft does not.
If you remove the profit from innovating, innovation will stop. The system depends on companies benefiting from their work. Psystar is trying to benefit from Apple's work without any kind of agreement.
Furthermore, there is the monopoly, in sense of what posters are talking about, and the "nature monopoly". Of which any person making a electronic product would have, software + hardware.
If Allen-Bradley started using Siemens' PLC OS in its Programmable Logic Controllers without a specific license to do so (just by buying copies of the OS and installing them one at a time), nobody would say 'boo' about it, and AB would lose the lawsuit that Siemens would immediately bring. If Chevrolet started using Ford's EFI controller programming in it's engine control chips w/o a fat inter-corporate licensing agreement to specifically do so, again, the lawsuit would be a no-brainer.
That said, Apple says specifically in its license that you cannot stick OSX into a non-Apple computer. I did it as a hobbyist, and judging by the thriving Hackintosh community that Apple has never molested or bothered, it appears that Apple doesn't mind that. Now making a commercial competitor to Apple by using their own products? Nope - I'd expect to get sued if I did it.
Clear Apple is not confident that they can make money solely on the OS as Microsoft does. They don't believe their is enough of a customer base there. Make no mistake about it. The OS is merely there to sell the machine. Apple cares about selling you a computer at 36% GM. And the carrot used to drive that sales is OSX. Why sell the carrot to Dell if you don't have to?
Even though Dell is #2, Apple actually makes more raw profits than Dell does. Apple no doubt likes their model for making money.
What I don't understand about Apple is why they don't sell PCs with Windows pre-installed. They are after all a hardware company. And Windows is the best-selling OS. Why not sell what most customers want to buy? It would immediately raise the value of Apple. And please don't even bother replying about how Apple cares about quality or some other bull like that. Apple is a public company and ought to be creating shareholder value. Steve Jobs is merely an employee. He is not the owner. I am a stock holder, though he has more shares than I do, he still works for me and every other stock holder.
Alex Alexzander
I am sure the shares Apple are doing fine since, as you point out, Apple makes more raw profit on the sale of each machine than Dell. Why, because Dell has a focus on the inexpensive, or entry level market. Apple leads the +$1,100 computer sales, because it focuses on premium, or more expensive models. One, I might add, is something HP and Dell look to copy with their acquisitions of Voodoo and Alienware.
Yes, Mac OS is the carrot selling the computer. But Jobs is more than a mere employee, he is the CEO and the face, as well as voice of the company. He sets the tone, and if more stockholders were unhappy with his vision of Aplle, he would have been removed at a shareholders meeting......Things must be ok in Cupertino then.....
Having both OS X and WIndows installed by Apple is probably not something there is much demand for and they would also end up having to deliver support for Windows.
This vertical system is quite similar to the car industry. Each company builds their own unique vehicles, which often share common, off shelf components. Camera companies are vertical as well, making you choose their proprietary lensmount. If someone sued Canon because they did not allow them to use their lensmount, they would be laughed out of the courtroom. Canon sees it in their best interest to license the mount to lensmakers, so they their customers have more options, but not to cameramakers.
What does this have to do with computers...not much really, but more than this stupid column
Heck, the ONLY time my Windows Vista 64-bit computer bluescreened on me was when I was installing something that told me it would bluescreen and to install an update to the program after the computer restarted. I also installed ANOTHER program that said it would bluescreen..... Vista 64-bit didn't let it do that, and I was easily able to install the update to it WITHOUT having to restart my computer.
The best thing Microsoft could do: refuse to allow ANY system level drivers. For DRM, for hardware, etc. UNLESS THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY! Guess what? Even motherboard drivers on Vista run in user space!
-
by Perry_Clease
October 2, 2008 12:26 PM PDT
- If Psytar wants to fill a "significant" void then they should write their own OS instead of claim-jumping someone else's.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
-
by DrtyDogg
October 2, 2008 12:47 PM PDT
- Not exactly "claim-jumping" when every copy of OS X was purchased legally.
-
-
-
by Lerianis
October 2, 2008 1:23 PM PDT
- Actually, by the reading of the Sherman anti-trust act LITERALLY.... yes, Monopolies are illegal, period and done with.... UNLESS you don't have any other competitors because you are doing everything by the book and no one wants to challenge you because you are that good.
-
-
-
by rapier1
October 2, 2008 4:38 PM PDT
- Do you have any idea how hard it is to write an OS from the ground up? This is why Apple *didn't* do that, its a BSD/GNU varient.
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (82 Comments)As to Apple being a monopoly. Well monopolies per se are not illegal.
With Apple and Microsoft (a few years ago for the latter)...... that is not true, that last part of my statement about doing everything by the book.