Yesterday, I brought word of Psystar’s OpenMac Open Computer (you sneaky guys, they won’t notice you now), a computer promised to support Leopard despite being completely unauthorized by Apple and in conflict with the EULA. InformationWeek got a phone interview with the company, who promises to fight Apple.
But Psystar said Monday that the company believes Apple’s terms violate U.S. monopoly laws. “What if Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) said you could only install Windows on Dell (Dell) computers?” said a Psystar employee.
The employee, who would only identify himself as Robert, said Apple grossly overcharges for the hardware on which its operating systems, including Leopard, come preinstalled. “They’re charging an 80% markup on hardware,” Robert said in a brief phone interview.
He also said Psystar believes Apple’s prohibition against third-party installations might not hold up in court: “What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?”
Robert said Psystar will continue to sell the OpenMac system, despite the fact that it appears to violate Apple’s EULA. “We’re not breaking any laws,” he insisted.
I had to quote that much. It’s chock full of priceless quotes and a complete lack of understanding Apple’s business model. I especially like the “We’re not breaking any laws” part. Right, like violating the EULA doesn’t invalidate the license and make the software unauthorized. My advice to all of you: put down the morning coffee and wait for the other shoe to drop. You don’t want to be caught with a mouth full of liquid when Apple finally puts the screws to them. It’s going to be hilarious.
[via MacNN]
They probably are correct that Apple can't really touch them in that an End User License Agreement isn't really a legal document and they aren't breaking an actual law. That said you'd have to be nuts to buy an computer that comes with no support since clearly Apple has no obligation to ensure that OS X or their applications plays nicely with "Open Computer". Taking Apple to court to force them to support non-Apple hardware would be a very interesting case to watch and one that I expect Psystar would lose.
Overall, I don't really see this coming to anything. Sure, they'll sell a few of these things but I don't think it will be enough to trouble Apple. Mind you, if even Apple can't release hardware that works properly (witness the recent laptop graphics glitches) then that'd sure reduce the perceived barrier to buying a "Mac" from another company.
They probably are correct that Apple can't really touch them in that an End User License Agreement isn't really a legal document and they aren't breaking an actual law. That said you'd have to be nuts to buy an computer that comes with no support since clearly Apple has no obligation to ensure that OS X or their applications plays nicely with "Open Computer". Taking Apple to court to force them to support non-Apple hardware would be a very interesting case to watch and one that I expect Psystar would lose.
Overall, I don't really see this coming to anything. Sure, they'll sell a few of these things but I don't think it will be enough to trouble Apple. Mind you, if even Apple can't release hardware that works properly (witness the recent laptop graphics glitches) then that'd sure reduce the perceived barrier to buying a "Mac" from another company.
"like violating the EULA doesn't invalidate the license"
It's an END USER license Agreement. Psystar are not an end user, thus are not violating the agreement. Therefore they are not violating any license, whatsoever.
I think there needs to be a legal test of these EULAs before the legality of what Psystar is doing can be confidently assumed either way. Unfortunately, I believe if Apple sends a cease & desist to this company, they will fold the idea rather than go to court, they are not big enough to take on Apple.
Apple or any other company aside, I think EULAs need testing in court. Some of them revoke minimum consumer protection they should not be revoking.
He trotted out the old automakers and proprietary roads line? That's so 1995.
Why you always gotta be hatin'?
Posts like this where you delight in the failure of someone trying to make a living just make you look like high school kids.
I was a proud owner of a PowerCenter 150. It served me well at a time when I would have otherwise been unable to afford a "real" Mac. Cheaper hardware means more adopters, means bigger better things for Apple.
You seem to be skeptical about whether or not Psystar is breaking any laws.
Does the EULA have the same weight as Law?
Past Apple Family Pack EULA's that I've read appear to be violated if you install Mac OS X on a laptop, and then take that laptop to work, school, or any place not in the residence in which the software was installed.
Any experts want to weigh in?
They can still the machines. Nothing prevents that. They just can't bundle OS X according to apple's EULA. Though, I have to agree with Pystar. Personally, I think the Apple OS X EULA is a bunch of hooey. I love the macs I have, but I think they overcharge for their hardware. I'm not a lwayer, so maybe the EULA will stand up in court. In any case, if I were Pystar, I'd sell the machine, just drop the bundle, but give a link to the Hackintosh site.
Yes, they "overcharge", blah, blah, blah.
I just have to laugh when people complain about price. My mother paid over three thousand dollars for our first Macintosh Plus in in the eighties. This seems surreal now, but compared to the cost of IBM PCs at the time.
Today, I can get credible performance out of a video editing program on a Mini for six hundred dollars. Who cares if its overpriced?
It's like complaining that a 4GB XD memory card for forty bucks is overpriced. Yeah, but man, that's a lot of pictures!
Anyway, buying the white box knock off is a bad idea. If you are clever enough to want to build your own computer, do it, hack Mac OS X to run on it, send the pictures to SlashDot and revel in the nerd glory. If you aren't that clever, cough up fifty more bucks for a Mini. It's a much sexier machine and you'll be happier in the end.
No snickering. I laughed heartily.
While I do not know the legality of what this company is doing, this logic or reasoning is faulty.
Apple manufactures the computers. Apple writes the software. There's no monopoly there. Plenty of other computer manufacturers and plenty of other operating systems. Are you going to sue Cisco for only allowing IOS to run on Cisco equipment? ( and I have no idea if they license any of it out, this is just an example.)
I won't be purchasing one of these because it's simply not supported. Do these guys plan on supporting it all?
@Aaron:
"Cheaper hardware means more adopters, means bigger better things for Apple." Well it didn't turn out to be better for Apple since Apple had to revoke the program just to stay in business.
Also in the mid 90's Apple licensed their OS to these "cloners" which is not going on here. These are just a couple of hackers trying to makes some quick bucks of their own without any agreement with Apple.
Also, have any of these guys tried to build an equivalent to the MacPro? I'd like to see their "80% markup" argument there. If these guys are so brazen as to act like they are doing the world a favor by cutting Apple out of Apple's own business then I hope they get stopped real quick.
I'm a huge Mac fan, but not Apple. How about a MacBook with a real video card? Or the fabled missing Mac? Such hardware is available on the PC side. If some other co. can do what Apple won't, why would I be against that?
"Apple can do no wrong" mentality is alive and well hear at MacUser, it seems.
Despite the dearest wishes of many (including myself), EULAs are in fact legal documents and are enforceable. People need to stop with the old "EULAs haven't been tested in court" myth, they have been, and they've been upheld. Now, this isn't to say that specific EULAs are enforceable, but as a class of documents they are. FYI, IAAL (but I'm not yours).
As far as what Psystar is doing, they're pretty close to crossing the line. Changing the name helps them somewhat (they're no longer potentially infringing on Apple's trademarks), and of course there's nothing illegal about manufacturing computers, and probably nothing illegal about advertising them as able to install the hackintosh version of OS X. Where they'll probably end up getting into trouble is their offer to install OS X on the box for you - assuming that Apple's EULA is valid, they're clearly violating it by doing so. If they wanted to play it really safe, they'd sell the box with instructions for putting OS X on it, along with maybe a disk of any tools needed to do so. Of course, none of this will stop Apple from sicking their lawyers on them and bleeding them dry until they run them out of business.
Apple's silence is deafning.
Apple is clearly not confident of their case here. I guess they choose to proceed carefully before squashing Psystar cloners.
Maybe Psystar can hire a lawer that got his law degree from one of those spam 'get your degree' places
some things to think about, apple earns their bread from the sale of their hardware, not the software, fine for another company to sell a product that has "unofficial support for mac os x" but as soon as someone see's these machines they will lower their opinion of apple, something apple has worked hard for and definitely earnt. mac's and pc's are priced the same, just because they say its a full desktop thats cheaper doesn't mean it's worth those couple extra gold coins on, the choice of spending a hundred dollars more for something that isn't hacked or emulated just seems smarter, especially if it's hardware from apple and includes a years support from apple, your garaunteed to have a working computer, if it doesn't, go back and you'll get another one. could psystar garauntee that? they are hardly making money to be spending on keeping their customers happy.
if people view their work and mistake it for apple (going to happen, because lets admit it, there are some stupid people out there) there will be plenty of lawsuits about apple not supporting mac os x for psystar.
personal opinion, apple shouldn't let this happen, or at least make sure everyone knows they don't support them, so that when the lawsuits start coming in, psystar has to take the blame.
In fairness, I'd be dead against this company if Apple was hitting the mark with their hardware these days. However, while I do not think that Macs are really that expensive, unless you opt to have Apple install additional RAM (which is still criminally expensive), they don't make models that satisfy everyone and even the ones that they do make appear to exhibit problems. In this respect a bit of competition might give them the kick that they need and, coincidentally, make OS X a much more attractive proposition for companies since they can engage in a competitive bid process.
Yes, I'm fully aware of how Apple does business and the clone wars, but they need to up their game. Where is, for example, a MacBook with a 17" screen for those who need a bigger screen to work on but don't need the power of the MacBook Pro?