After a flood of traffic, Psystar is once again selling its "Open Computer" with Mac OS X Leopard preinstalled, and might be setting itself up for a protracted legal battle with Apple and the court system.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
At the start of the 21st century, there's no tech outfit more influential than Apple. CNET News' Erica Ogg and other reporters will attempt to make sense of the rumors, hype, products, and people that will shape the future of the company. But Apple's not the only game in town, as the established cell phone companies and others strike back against the iPhone. E-mail Erica at erica.ogg@cnet.com.
Add this feed to your online news reader
market and I suspect significantly less of the enterprise market.
Eight percent does not make a monopoly, far from it. If you don't
like Apple, don't buy it, there are alternatives.
Like the blog says... I think it really comes down to the EULA. Personally, I would love to see EULA's fully tested in court for many reasons. However, I seriously doubt a little start-up has the cash to take on Apple, who is very litigious and overly protective, IMO, of it's market already...
For example, if we're talking about the overall personal computing HW/SW marketplace, Apple clearly does not have a monopoly. That said, if some government entity with an axe to grind were to further define a "sub-market" of OS X computers (unlikely, I know), Apple could be deemed a monopolist exercising anti-competitive behavior over that smaller market.
By the same token, it's possible that MS could have avoided the monopolist label in the 1990s if the U.S. federal government or the EU had considered MS' share of the overall computing market (including server OSes) instead of focusing solely on the personal computing market. It's all in the definitions.
This is a non-issue today, but if Apple's growth continues at the same rate they're experiencing these days, this *could* be a bigger issue in 10 years or so.
-Mister Winky
Charles Arthur on his blog at The Guardian did some research on Psystar and makes a case that this "company" is dubious at best. Read the comments below his article for more details on just how shaky this outfit looks:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/04/15/so_exactly_who_or_what_is_psystar_we_dig_a_little.html
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
- Ben Franklin
http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar-exposed-looks-like-a-hoax
The issue of whether a company can dictate the media their software runs on is almost the same situation as music labels dictating what media you are allowed to play a song on.
And frankly, the answer is the same.
It's none of their damn business.
Once Psystar has legal title to a copy of the software, what they do with that copy (as long as they don't make more of them) is their business, and not Apples'. If they want to pile them up in the parking lot and have a bonfire, that's their right (barring EPA regulations). And if they want to bundle a copy with each computer they sell, that also is their right. I beleive that's called, "VALUE ADDED".
Now Apple does not have any obligation to provide service for their software running on non-Apple systems; so if a customer buys one of these from Psystar and it goes belly up, Joe Customer may be out of luck.
do with that copy (as long as they don't make more of them) is
their business, and not Apples'."
In the US (and most other countries) that is not true. When you
pay money for a piece of software, you do not buy the software,
and it is not your property. You are not paying the money to own
a copy of the software. Instead, you are paying for a limited,
revokable right to *use* the software.
The money you spend buys you a license; it does not buy you
the software. Because the software is not your property, you can
not do whatever you like with it. You can do only what the
license expressly permits you to do.
You might not like that. I might not like that. But it is the legal
and financial truth. The courts have upheld this model of
software licensing; this is the law of the land. Even if Psystar is
paying Apple for the copies of Leopard, they still do not have the
legal right to do what they are doing, because in the end they do
not own those copies of Leopard.
This is the way almost all software from every major vendor is
sold. It applies to Microsoft Windows, Adobe Photoshop, and
nearly every other commercial program out there. Regardless of
what your opinion may be on it, the law does not support what
you say.
computers yet, much less taken delivery of one. If the "company"
is to be believed, many folks have given them money, but
nobody has received a computer yet.
It could very well be that a lot of people are going to wake up
tomorrow to find that Psystar, whose mailing address has
already changed three times in the last two days, has
evaporated, taking their money with it. Or that they receive
something in the mail, but it is not what they expected to get, or
does not work the way they expected it to work.
The notion of "don't believe everything you read" appears to
hold here. The "company" seems, from all appearances, to be
one guy with no business address, and a Web site that's only
been around for a few days. Not an auspicious sign, I suspect.
Caveat emptor.
MIAMI FL 33176
FUD
If you do not get the PC then your credit card company will give
you a refund if they charge your card. So it is credit card company
emptor. What is latin for credit card company?
OK, maybe some concern should be given that the Mac clone will
be buggy like the early PC clones.
Psystar could provide the computer industry with a valuable service - that being to finally mount a legal challenge to the whole concept of EULA's - especially the shrink-wrap EULA's where the terms are not fully disclosed until the package is opened, thereby rendering it unreturnable.
Given prior precident and indications from other court cases, it is almost certain that EULA's will be found to be unenforceable.
Think about it. To hold otherwise would open the door for absurd results - like the EMI-Sony example above. Or even an EULA where MGM movies could not be played on Toshiba DVD players.
Even where the law is ambiguos and may appear to allow a result, Court's will generally avoid that result if it will lead to such absurdities.
In the past, software makers have generally gone out of their way to avoid or thwart legal challenges to EULA's as a whole. They are well aware of the very shaky kegal ground those "licenses" are on.
The time has come to put the issue of EULA's to rest, and Phystar is an excellent case to litigate the issue.
Calling their product Open Computer should not overshadow them as having their own profit motive. In this case, it's at the expense of Apple's work in OS development. Yes. They've paid for the single license for each copy of the OS, but isn't it telling that in the interest of their profit, they use the openness argument after breaking the EULA. Good for the community is not going to fly. If you think Psystar's interest is not profit?
One does not see Apple going after end users breaking their EULA, but just the ones profiting from breaking it and advertising it.
BTW - There is no such EULA from RIAA regarding the player of their music CD. It's not practiced at all. In fact, I'll bet RIAA would want to restrict computers from playing music CDs. They have no power to do that because they never indicated in their EULA. Your example has not basis to occur in reality. Otherwise, RIAA would be all over it by now. But there is certainly EULA in the software industry. Companies have different models of EULAs. Apple happens to be in the same camp as game consoles for most of their existence. This EULA is hardly legal fiction as a violation can be found and is quite visible.
Also, if you're Psystar, and you have opened one copy of Leopard, surely the EULA should be very clear by then. If not, it's their damn fault for not reading it. Besides, shrink wrapped EULA not visible on the box is a different issue from this one. Now they are very visible, the laws can be enforced and it should be.
being sold. There is a good chance this company just wanted
to take some orders, cash the checks, and skip town. It just
got a lot more publicity than it wanted. This is how business
is done in Florida. When they start shipping, then we'll see.
Maybe we need to go back to using ROM chips for the OS. It did have advantages. ROM chips run exceptionally fast and are very, very cheap when compared to RAM. How about pirating? Good luck. You can't just "burn a copy to disk". How many people out there have rom burners? Viruses? Good luck. It's a Read Only Memory, you don't write or change it. How about cost? Pretty darn cheap when you compare it against the cost of the operating system.
OS on ROM chips is, thus, the answer to nothing in today's world.
Right, makes total sense.
songs from iTunes on a non Apple MP3 that supports drag and
drop, you just can't use itunes on it. You can convert iTunes songs
from ACC to MP3 and play them through your PS3. Of course Apple
promotes their own products. What company doesn't? MS entire
business model is based on selling as many copies of their OS on as
much of the entire computer market possible. Apple sells
computers matched/specced to their OS. Apples and Oranges.
Why can't I play my XBox games on a Wii console?
Why can't I take perfectly good characters I've built up in World or Warcraft and set them loose in City of Heroes like a comic-book crossover? Or vice-versa?
Others make the rules - and some are more restrictive than Mac OS on Mac Hardware only - and we have to try to work with them.
If you agree to an EULA by opening it and using it, then it's up to you to hold that agreement. If you willingly break it, then that is your responsibility. If you agree to it and now want to change it, take the legal course of actions. It's completely up to you to rally a strategy of success for such an effort.
If you recognize a company's way of doing business and does not agree, by all means cease all business with said company.
But if you agree to an EULA and then change your mind and only whine about it, then you are being a whiner.
IOW - Don't buy it if you don't agree. Fight it if you want to change it. You are what you're doing.
Consider this aspect of Apple?s market position. They are
undoubtedly the under-dog within the global market place for
personal computing systems. However, they are aggressively,
and quite successfully, achieving greater market share through
their own means.
Consider how Tommy Hilfiger seeks to take market share. They
have a corporate strategy that affords a certain loss in revenues
due to ?lost merchandise?. This comes in the form of stolen
goods.
Tommy sees this as a benefit to their overall sales strategy
through brand recognition. By having stolen goods on the
street, they in-turn help to promote their product. Others,
more legitimate, see these goods, and in turn go out and
purchase their goods legally.
This could be a very good thing for Apple. Apple, don?t fight it.
Become a bit more competitive, continue to offer the stellar
hardware designs and software operation, and people will turn
to Apple more-so than they will turn to an OpenComputer or the
likes.
Could be a great marketing strategy.
I know you've all been conditioned to think that there is no way that Psystar can win. But I predict that Psystar will win and will open up a long overdue market for Apple clones.
Tom, I'm a bit disappointed with your unbalanced article. The fact is, you haven't addressed the real issue, that is, why can't somebody sell a computer with a legally licensed version of Mac OSX? If their EULA forbids it, then its time to challenge the EULA and that is exactly what Psystar is doing. If Microsoft ever did this, they would lose and the whole world would cry foul.
The world would benefit from having many companies providing Apple compatible hardware at lower prices. In fact I would contend that if this is left to run by itself Apple will grab a much larger share of the personal computing market in the same manner that Microsoft grew because of the availability of clone, ie non-IBM-OS2 hardware.
Its a bit cheeky for Apple to try to shut down an open seller like Psystar when they replaced the foundation of their entire OS in recent years with another open source player, FreeBSD/Linux.
I like Apple's products but I personally think that Psystar winning this important and vital battle for free and fair competition is an important victory for consumers and for our collective sanity.
OpenManCan
Fil403: "He didn't ask if Macs are worth (nor it is that the question), he asked how many people actually think Macs are comparably priced for the hardware..."
Gosh, it appears that someone overlooked that I made a direct hardware-only comparison of a Mac Pro to Dell Precision T7400, as well as the Psystar to the mini.
And while the point is well-taken about the Mac mini not being particularly expandable, the fallacy with this line of argument is that over 50% of all new PCs being purchased today are laptops, which are also non-expandable.
In other words, consumers are **voting with their wallets** for product features other than internal expandability. Such as portability/size.
The reality is that those of us who are willing to DIY our own upgrades are an increasingly small minority in the marketplace (in fact, the item that I was using Google today to try to find was a prior estimate of 'upgradable towers' as a percentage of all 4Q 2008 Mac sales. I think that the number was on the order of <5%, but didn't want to state that {elsewhere} without having the relevant research citations available).
Continuing:
" I have used Macs in the past and currently use Vista every day at home, so it's not like my decision is an ignorant one like yours (as it is clear from your supposed experience with BS problems in Windows that you have not used Vista thoroughly, so you decision has, in fact, been an ignornat one)."
Quote: "...used Macs IN THE PAST..." (emphasis added) - - and I'm supposedly the ignorant one?
Continuing:
"... assuming no one is pointing a gun to their heads forcing them to use Windows..."
In many business enterprises, it is the IT Department who is the one who did the "gun pointing".
And for the business where I'm currently at, they don't currently allow Vista, either.
BTW, since this dialog has taken place, I've suffered through a plethora of new Windows security patches within the past month, and now have a PC with its USB ports effectively disabled: no more thumb drives or external Hard Drives are allowed, due to a worm that they can't stomp out. Details can now be found on Google News and other open literature sources.
Finally:
"So my advice to you is that you try Vista (really try, not just claim you did and say it sucks, like almost everyone else) and watch out where you're doing your shopping because you're getting ripped off (but then again, you're an Apple sheep, so you must be used to that already, LOL)."
I did try Vista back in March; when I made my comments in April, that experience was still fresh.
However, there's simply no viable business case for me to "...try Vista..." today, because my current productivity solutions (hardware & software) have served me well, and a paradigm of "Change for Change's Sake" is foolhardy and not cost effective.
FWIW, I do expect to probably buy a new tower in 2009, as my current workhorse will turn 6 years old and as I've already detailed, on an "equal hardware" basis, the Mac Pro is cheaper than the equivalent Dell. I've heard the arguments of "but no one needs that much power" and happen to disagree: given how I've been pushing my current system with just an 8 megapixel dSLR, when I upgrade to a 20+MP dSLR in 2009, my productivity will benefit nicely from having 8 cores.
-hh
- by digiplaya2005 December 31, 2008 8:24 PM PST
- Actually just a quick correction on the previous commenter: some laptops DO have good expandability e.g. CPU, (on older models) the GPU, on every one memory, and new kinds of PCMCIA-style expansion ports.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 3 of 3 pages (166 Comments)But you do have other good valid points.