ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
Home / News & Blogs / Hardware 2.0

Apple nukes Psystar

By | November 15, 2009, 6:19am PST

The Apple vs Psystar case has ended rather predictably, with Apple basically nuking the Mac clone maker out of existence.

Florida-based Psystar rose to fame back in February of 2008 when it started to market Mac close systems - basically PCs modified and configured to run the Mac OS. In July of that year Apple threw a spanner into Psystar’s plans by filing a lawsuit against the company. That case has been progressing through the legal system ever since.

However, on Friday Judge William Alsup dealt what seems to be a fatal blow for Psystar by granting Apple’s motion for summary judgment while denying Psystar’s counterclaims.

Basically Alsup ruled that the Mac OS End User License Agreement (EULA) is both legal and valid and ruled that installation of the OS on non-Apple hardware is not allowable. Period.

Alsup also dismissed claims that Psystar was protected by the first sale doctrine (doctrine that gives purchasers of a copyrighted works the right to resell without the permission of, or payment to, the copyright holder). Alsup stated that first sale doctrine only applies to legal copies of software and since Psystar had modified the OS to run on their systems, it did not apply.

This isn’t the end though. A hearing is scheduled for December 14 to thrash out remedies, which should be interesting. And who knows, Psystar might still appeal.

So, what does this mean? Well, basically that Psystar is dead. Nuked out of existence by Apple’s legal machine. It also sees the legal system side with the EULA. It also kills off any chance of seeing other OEM come out with Mac clones anytime soon.

At time of writing the Psystar website is still open and offering systems running Mac OS X for sale.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Hardware 2.0”

Topics

Apple Macintosh, Apple Inc., Psystar, Apple Mac OS, Desktops, Operating Systems, Software, Hardware, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

374
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Apple nukes Psystar
jfreedle2@... 29th Dec 2009
The reason that Apple does not want their operating system to run on other hardware is that they know how much it sucks as comparied to Windows, therefore they will definately go out of business if they allow it.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Apple's legal team...
UsernameRequired Updated - 15th Nov 2009
...didn't nuke Psystar, the law nuked Psystar. They were acting
unlawfully from the start. A good analysis can be found over on
Groklaw (http://tinyurl.com/ycu7uaz).
0 Votes
+ -
I agree. Apple doesn't want OS X on non-Apple hardware.
No More Microsoft Software Ever! 16th Nov 2009
Apple has that right. They sell hardware and happen to supply the OS to operate said hardware.

Want OS X? Buy Apple hardware. EOS!
0 Votes
+ -
Ever the comedian aren't you.
xuniL_z 16th Nov 2009
To stand behind a corporation bent on gouging the consumer while out the other side of your mouth you rant and rage on about Windows legal EULA and legal right to sell their software with their legal partners.

Just like your nic, your double standards do nothing but highlight your biased opinions and negate you from having any professional qualities.
0 Votes
+ -
Here come the clowns...
UsernameRequired 16th Nov 2009
NT
0 Votes
+ -
Great song. Sad Cafe circa 1978
xuniL_z 16th Nov 2009
On the other hand, my nic is not "no more open source software ever!", speaking of clowns.
0 Votes
+ -
Good come back!
UsernameRequired 16th Nov 2009
Credit where it's due!
0 Votes
+ -
Well Done - nt
TheBottomLineIsAllThatMatters 16th Nov 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, quite entertaining - nt
TheBottomLineIsAllThatMatters Updated - 16th Nov 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
fortunately, I DON'T want an Apple OS anywhere NEAR my PC
loupgarous Updated - 25th Nov 2009
I own several Macintoshes. They have very artistically-designed cases and are splendid examples of industrial design. However, I have not found an Apple OS to handle the business tasks I have worked with (word processing, database management, image processing and some computer applications development) as well as the contemporary front-line Microsoft OS and its available applications since the mid-1990s.

My last go-around with Macintosh OSes - the 8.x series shipped with iMac desktops - cured me of ANY desire to operate an Apple OS on ANY hardware platform. My wife's former employers were and continue to be a Mac shop despite constant system outages, data loss and not infrequent malware problems (oh, but Macs don't GET viruses.... ). The "I'm a Mac" character on Apple's TV ads should be played by Tommy Chong.
0 Votes
+ -
Why is this legal?
wayne62682 15th Nov 2009
What I want to know is *why* is it legal for Apple to say "OSX can only run on hardware we provide"? Wouldn't that constitute a monopoly (on OSX) since they stifle competition and someone else can't provide OSX software systems? Isn't that the literal definition of a monopoly?

If Microsoft tried this, they would be hanged, so why is it okay for Apple? Simply because they have a minority market share? I'm no lawyer but that seems ridiculous: Stifling competition is fine and dandy if you're the minority, but it's not okay and wrong if you become successful and you have the most market share? It's the same thing, no matter what level of share you have.
0 Votes
+ -
Read the decision...
msalzberg Updated - 15th Nov 2009
you can find it at www.groklaw.com.

Apple does not stifle competition; they do not prevent anyone from
selling an OS, nor from selling a computer. They have competition in
both hardware and software.

Judge Alsup: "Apple has not prohibited others from independently
developing and using their own operating systems."
0 Votes
+ -
Correct
WarhavenSC 16th Nov 2009
Apple's not stopping you from installing Windows or Linux onto your Apple hardware. In fact, Apple helps you do it by providing Windows drivers for some of their hardware bits.

Also, it's not illegal nor is it wrong in any way to be a monopoly. The government can't fault a company for being successful. It is, however, illegal to abuse your position as a monopoly in order to maintain a monopolistic hold on the marketplace.
0 Votes
+ -
Which is why Microsoft would be in trouble if Windows worked only on MS H/W
No More Microsoft Software Ever! 16th Nov 2009
Microsoft HAS a monopoly on Operating Systems for IBM-PC compatible computers. If Microsoft decided to manufacture said hardware and suddenly made Windows ONLY work on that hardware then MS would be abusing their OS monopoly.

Apple does sell OS X. It comes with the hardware. They only sell OS X upgrades for existing Apple hardware customers.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Where's my Franklin ACE
seannj427 16th Nov 2009
Apple has a long history of protecting itself in this way, and their buiness model which is very different from the M$ model.
the M$ model from the start was to sell S/W and services whereas the Apple model from the start was a combined approach.
Its only since Apple started using INTEL chips instead of powerPc that the APPLEMICROSOFT debate has grow hotter, since it is now possible to build a hackintosh (but no one said it was easy).
PsyStar's mistake was to start selling the mahcines without Apple's blessing, and Apple made them pay dearly. Apple is like the big alpha male, don't fool with them or they will come after YOU.
To me this is NO DIFFERENT than the guys who sell ripped DVD copies of movies on the sidewalk. Its more likely that a studio will go after them than someone who makes a "backup copy" of a DVD from a rental place to keep and posts it on bitorrent. Why? Because the bloke is earning profit from it! Folks, its all about the ca$h.



0 Votes
+ -
der
thatroom 16th Nov 2009
so it's not about how heinous you are, just whether you're on top.

Apple's big-brothering is hurting them in that it could garner a huge audience in its' OS, but it's obvious from their stance in the matter, that they make a metric buttload of money on their hardware (serious Duh) because part for part, a mac is exactly the same as a PC, except for that special "copy protection" parity chip that allows osX installation. Granted, they have serious design chops (MOSTLY. what is up with the Air, anyhow?) and they use good hardware, but not an extra grand good. They don't have phenomenal resolutions on their LCDs, nothing special in their superdisk drives (in fact, all of those miniDVD recording camcorder owners are out of luck using the discs with a mac.) but if they sold the OS to anyone, and made the extra money on the "value added"(coughcough) superior hardware th go with it, they would still have plenty of fanboi action, and more and more people would be enamored of osX, want to program for it, and be able to afford to. Apple's efforts to release "price-effective" hardware have turned up utter crap. They DO know their market. They DO have some of the most amazing ad people, and they absolutely know how to wring a buck out of every gen-x design freak to continue the fallacy that macs are better at anything at all besides emptying wallets and strongarming people who WANT the OS but aren't willing to sell a spleen or testicle to get it.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Which is why Microsoft would be in trouble if Windows worked only on MS
bb_apptix 25th Nov 2009
Microsoft HAS a monopoly on Operating Systems for IBM-PC compatible computers.

Why is that? In part because Apple won't allow you to run their OS on any IBM-PC compatible computers.

This is a marketing move on Apple's part to protect both the integrety and reputation of their OS and corporate image, and their profit margin.

Imaging if MSFT only allowed Vista to run on MSFT built computers... we wouldn't have had all the horror stories of Vista not running properly on your hardware.

You can run any flavor of Linux on an IBM-PC compatible computers. If Apple allowed their OS on IBM-PC compatible computers, then the MSFT "monopoly" might not even exist, seeing how OSX is so superior...
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft DOES NOT have a monopoly on PC OSes
loupgarous 25th Nov 2009
In fact, Microsoft didn't have a definite lock on IBM-compatible PCs going back to the early 1980s. Later, those of us of a certain age remember Digital Research's DOS ("DRDOS," pronounced "Doctor DOS") as well as other non-Microsoft OSes which quite legally ran on IBM-compatible iron throughout the 1980s and 1990s. And, of course, Linus Torvald's OS and all of its derivatives have run on IBM-compatible computers with no problems relating to any "monopoly" owned by Microsoft or anyone else.

Where DO you get your information?
0 Votes
+ -
Agreed
mrjoctave@... 25th Nov 2009
But try telling that to those that think big means monopoly... although i am guilty of terming MS as a monopoly through its capability to monopolize just because of its sheer size.

And i do have to agree with bb_attix... many Apple users are in the belief that MS is the big bad monopolist that should be tamed, when Apple seem to have the only OS that maybe able to loosen MS's grip on PC's if only they where to make it available to install on non Apple hardware.

But there is a problem with that, without the safety of screened hardware, i fear OS X will become just another OS as its reputation for stability and reliability is tested.
0 Votes
+ -
Correct?
noel.a.rivera@... 16th Nov 2009
Why is it legal to run another OS (Windows or Linux) on Apple hardware, but you can't run the Apple O/S on non Apple hardware?
0 Votes
+ -
Without being flippant...
UsernameRequired 16th Nov 2009
because it is! happy
0 Votes
+ -
It's the license
frabjous Updated - 16th Nov 2009
If you don't know by now, the "legality" is the license/contract
that users agree to when they buy from Apple--it simply does not
allow their OS to be run on any hardware but their own. Microsoft
chose a different business model and allows their OS to be run on
essentially any hardware--but it also tries to strictly enforce the
license/contract buyers agree to when they buy MS software or
OS. It is not complicated.
0 Votes
+ -
MAC goes to great strides to prevent OSs
oweno4 17th Nov 2009
From being installed other then what Apple produces.

Apple just does not want to have a market to sell to.

I have worked at many Schools that are trashing the MAC labs in place of PCs. Lack of support Lack of software, and impossible restrictions.

The District just decided to remove them instead of fighting to keep them working.
0 Votes
+ -
You're not making any sense...
olePigeon Updated - 18th Nov 2009
You're not making any sense. First of all, Mac is just short for
Macintosh. It is not an acronym, nor is it the name of the company
that sells computers (which is Apple.)

Secondly, it makes absolutely no sense to replace existing Macs with
PCs. Macs run Windows just fine, and there are no restrictions on
running Windows on a Mac. Apple even provides Windows drivers for
the hardware.

At the schools I've worked at (both college and k-12 level), the
schools had been systematically removing the PCs and replacing them
with Macs. This allowed students to use either preferred platform, and
it saved the school money by not only being able to consolidate
computer labs, but their support team as well.

Of course, anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of evidence. I don't
think there's a trend either way.
0 Votes
+ -
@olePigeon
Badgered 19th Nov 2009
Secondly, it makes absolutely no sense to replace existing Macs with PCs. Macs run windows just fine, and there are no restrictions on running Windows on a Mac.

Sure they do, as long as you buy a license for it. Schools are on a budget. Why pay for 2 OSes when one will do?

If all the software and hardware they need or want is available on one OS, use that one. Unless of course the second is free, i.e. Linux.
0 Votes
+ -
|_ OS X is free with every new Mac. [nt]
olePigeon 19th Nov 2009
[nt]
0 Votes
+ -
It's built into the price and you know it (NT)
Badgered 23rd Nov 2009
.
0 Votes
+ -
Right on
frabjous Updated - 16th Nov 2009
Um, Wayne62862, we knew you were not a lawyer. in legal
terms, monopoly has to do with a market, not a product. Apple
competes as a minority player in the market for computer OS
and computer systems--they don't have the monopolistic
power that, say, Microsoft has in the OS market. Still, having a
monopoly is not illegal; using a monopolistic position to
damage other competitors, or customers, is illegal. Look up all
the monopoly lawsuits Microsoft has lost around the world to
understand the difference. Apple is not stifling competition;
anyone can create a competing OS. What the law does not allow
is someone to take the intellectual property that Apple has
created, at considerable expense, to sell that party's hardware
instead of Apple's. If you feel the Mac OS best suits your needs,
buy a Mac. If not, buy something else.
0 Votes
+ -
legal
bannedfromzdnetagain Updated - 15th Nov 2009
it is legal because you are supposed to benefit from your own creations
and not someone else. that's one of the basic principles of capitalism. if
microsoft would decide to sell windows only on their own hardware that
would be perfectly fine also. contrary to common belief it is not illegal to
have a monopoly, it is only illegal to abuse that monopoly position.

besides that the case apple vs. psystar it is not a monopoly problem
because there is plenty of competition. if you don't want to buy a
computer from apple buy a computer from dell.
0 Votes
+ -
Eloquence...
UsernameRequired Updated - 15th Nov 2009
Your opening sentences are really eloquently put. Beautiful!
0 Votes
+ -
But he is wrong.
No More Microsoft Software Ever! 16th Nov 2009
MS has a monopoly on OS. If they then tried to kill of the PC hardware business by leveraging that monopoly to sell MS hardware they would be in court so fast your head would spin!
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Nope!
UsernameRequired 16th Nov 2009
NT
0 Votes
+ -
But he is right
aj.redmond@... 16th Nov 2009
If you want to eliminate all monopolies, get Dell, HP, Asus, and all hardware manufacturers to develop their own OS just like Apple did. Then you would have real choice in the marketplace.

Apple holds no monopoly in the computer market. All you need to do is walk into any computer retailer and watch how many people will purchase non-Apple products.

And of all the companies in the computer industry, the only one I can think of that has had to appear before the DOJ for anti-competition violations is Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
No Monopoly
noel.a.rivera@... 16th Nov 2009
As stated before there is OSX, linux and whatever out there. No monopoly on Operating Systems for Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
Begging to Differ
CyberGuerilla Updated - 16th Nov 2009
Had Apple been sincere about OSX and the hardware as item meant only for each other and pitched as a closed system, and not meant to be used in other machines; they should have NEVER made any new OSX install disks available for sale in stores, other than the upgrades. Shouldn't the new OSX install disks be bundled with the machines?

However these OSX installs are sold as separate billable items and I will point out that Apple's has *already* been benefiting from its ingenuity in OSX development with part of the proceeds from their hardware sales (since Macs bundle with OSX) and more importantly, the sales revenue they'd be getting from the standalone OSX install disks (which is over US$150).

The judge appears to define the competitive space as "hardware" and "software" on their own. It would be interesting to see how Psystar responds. If one narrow down the competitive space to "machines that can run any operating systems environments" but specifically to "machines that can run the OSX operating system"; you would get a very different viewpoint; that Apple sells product Y (OSX) in public but forces you to buy product X (Mac) which is a product offering in a different market. If you view the issue like that, you will see why Psystar's argument of Apple grossly abusing its EULA to push their product X over any potential competition (PCs with some sort of Chaemeon-based EFI bootloading stuff, Psystar or not).

Plus, if you want to develop an iPhone application you can only use Apple's specific IDE tools which run in OSX only. According to the Apple's EULA this means you have to buy a Mac to write iPhone applications. If Apple does not look like misusing its monopoly in the general computing user, it certainly looks like so to the developer community. Talk about barrier of entry.

I wonder if we'll also see other jurisdictions share Apple's EULA viewpoints. If a large market like EU or China rules against Apple's EULA, things might be very different.
0 Votes
+ -
What if ???
tom@... 16th Nov 2009
What if in its' death thoes, Psystar releases all of its' code/mods /hacks into the wild so that people could freely build their own mac clones
0 Votes
+ -
Psystar's already doing that with Rebel EFI.But there are free alternatives
CyberGuerilla 16th Nov 2009
nm
0 Votes
+ -
You're Right!
WarhavenSC 16th Nov 2009

Let's sue Microsoft because they don't allow me to run the Zune software on my iPod. Or better yet, let's sue Texas Instruments because they don't let me use their calculator software on a competitor's calculator.
0 Votes
+ -
The foundation of your argument is faulty.
RationalGuy 16th Nov 2009
Had Apple been sincere about OSX and the hardware as item meant only for each other and pitched as a closed system, and not meant to be used in other machines; they should have NEVER made any new OSX install disks available for sale in stores, other than the upgrades. Shouldn't the new OSX install disks be bundled with the machines?

The description of Snow Leopard and Snow Leopard Family Pack on Apple's website start with "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard ...". Further down in big bold print, it says, "Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."

They are clearly meant for upgrades. Your assertion is just plain wrong, therefore the argument you built on it is faulty.

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no "product x" and "product y". There is one product, Macintosh, which has both hardware and software components.
0 Votes
+ -
Then can you please explain these OSX retail DVDs for sale links?
CyberGuerilla Updated - 16th Nov 2009
It is true that Snow Leopard is an upgrade only disk and my previous assertion that we see the Snow Leopard selling for over $150 was indeed a package deal involving other software titles. I'll give you this one: at least Apple does not sell full retail, non-upgrade, Mac OSX standalone right now.

So I checked the Internet on Apple's past track records and I came up with the following links. I don't know if anyone can fill in the details to see if earlier versions of Mac OS retail disks are also upgrade only.

http://www.amazon.com/Mac-OS-Version-10-5-6-Leopard/dp/B000FK88JK/ref=dp_cp_ob_sw_title_1

http://www.dealtime.com/xPO-Apple-Apple-Mac-OS-X-Version-10-5-Leopard

What I was saying is, had Apple truly believe its one product (x+y), instead of product x and product y, I should not see any sales channels selling the entire OS separate for hundreds of dollars without having it packaged as either upgrade-only or bundled within hardware.

The products listed in these links, if they're not marketed as upgrade only, seems to refute Apple's preferred assertion.

If they are upgrade only, it's highly unusual that they drop the cost of upgrade to a tenth of its previous price between 10.5.x and 10.6.x.
0 Votes
+ -
You might have had a point re: Leopard if only ...
RationalGuy 16th Nov 2009
... there were a SKU that was labelled "Upgrade" (i.e., there was a distinction between "Full" and "Upgrade" in their products). Alas, there were not and so you don't.

The product you linked was an upgrade product. If you wanted to go from Tiger to Leopard, that is what you had to buy. So, the wording is now more clear with Snow Leopard, but the situation hasn't changed at all.

There are plenty of virtualization situations where you would need additional licenses and install media. For example, if you run an Xserve with OS X Server and you want to install VMs running OS X client.

Because this can be abused by people creating "Hackintosh" knock-off machines, doesn't mean this was the intention. That's just nonsense. That would be like saying you're justified in walking into someone's house if the door's unlocked. Because clearly, the unlocked door refute the homeowner's assertion of home safety.
0 Votes
+ -
I'm not sure I understand you.
lostarchitect 16th Nov 2009
If I had a system running 10.3, and wanted to
run 10.5, maybe that's a big enough difference
to warrant a full upgrade.

Or maybe it's for the convenience of the
customer: What if I later want to reinstall the
OS on that computer? Do I really have to find
my 10.3 disks and do a full install, then find
my 10.5 disks and do a full upgrade? What a
hassle. It just makes sense to have the whole
OS on the 10.5 disk.
0 Votes
+ -
What we were talking about was....
CyberGuerilla 16th Nov 2009
How Apple marketed their previous OSes (price points and whether it's explicitly stated in packaging language) that Apple has always marketed these as upgrades as opposed to standalone product installs. This would provide a basis for debating whether Apple is selling one product (OS+hardware) or two separate products (OS and Mac hardware) separately, and look into whether EULA is a valid and correct exercising of Apple's rights.

Hope that makes it clear.

0 Votes
+ -
No just use the 10.5
Rick_K 16th Nov 2009
What if I later want to reinstall the OS on that computer? Do I really
have to find my 10.3 disks and do a full install, then find my 10.5
disks and do a full upgrade? What a hassle. It just makes sense to
have the whole OS on the 10.5 disk.

Apple doesn't treat it's paying customers in that manner. You would
just have to put the 10.5 disk in and install. The only difference
between the different Windows versions, and upgrades, is the
activation code. One DVD (one for 32 bit and one for 64 bit), the
activation key is what changes. I have read that the bits are there, you
just need the right key to unlock them. Apple just does not use
activation (unlock) keys, and only one SKU. Now due to this case,
things may change. but that's the price we will all pay due to thieves.
0 Votes
+ -
Let me try and explain this.
Rick_K 16th Nov 2009
The prices you are seeing are inflated by the seller. Since Apple
doesn't sell Leopard any longer, it is now supply vs. demand. Apple
never charged more than $129 for a single copy of any OS X upgrade.
From what I have learned it is an upgrade, it just doesn't require proof
of a previous copy. Apple does not treat their paying customers like
thieves. the way Microsoft does. So there is no activation or WGA
spying on what you are doing. Before the move to Intel processors,
there was little to no chance of hacking it to work on a Dell pc.
Leopard still works on PPC hardware. Maybe Apple should have
labeled it as "Upgrade Only", but that is another discussion. So the
$240 to $300 price is what the retailer is charging, based on a limited
supply. If you also note, it states that it is for Mac on the retailers
website. I have seen what's being sold as an OEM disk, half of those
are recovery disks, the rest are repair shop disks. Apple certified
repair shops have disks, and can reinstall OS X, should you hard drive
fail. I hope this clears things up for you.
0 Votes
+ -
This was "discussed" ad nauseum
UsernameRequired Updated - 16th Nov 2009
The short version is that Leopard -> Snow Leopard had enough
architectural changes to warrant a full point upgrade release, but not
enough to charge full price, so the powers that be, praise be the mighty
Jobs (just kidding wink ). It paid off as SL sold really well compared to
previous releases. There maybe some mocking of another OS developer
based in Washington State that has lots of SU and recently release a
service pack for frankly offensive prices grin !!!
0 Votes
+ -
First off, Apple has never sold a version of OS X for $300...
vulpine@... 18th Nov 2009
... So that invalidates the question, "it's highly unusual that
they drop the cost of upgrade to a tenth of its previous price
between 10.5.x and 10.6.x." It also invalidates the question
of why Windows upgrades normally run in the $200-$300
range while the full versions normally run in the $300-$500
range, but all reduced by over $100 for Win7. Clearly if Apple
can do it, Microsoft can and will do it as well.

The point is, every version of OS X ever sold in stores or on
Amazon were upgrade disks from a previous version. Every
single one of them indicated that one requirement for using the
software was a Mac computer, effectively stating that if you
don't already have a Mac, you don't want the disk. It's hardly
different from any PC game that says, "Requires PC with
Pentium Processor and a minimum of 'X' Graphics card,
Windows Y. Recommended Pentium Plus processor with 'Z'
graphics with Windows 'M'"
Or are you going to tell me I should be able to play that game
on a Mac despite these statements?
0 Votes
+ -
Err...
jeremychappell 16th Nov 2009
All Mac OS X DVDs ARE upgrades! You can't buy anything else, they don't
print "UPGRADE" all over it, as that would be redundant. Think about it...
0 Votes
+ -
I think you are confused
aj.redmond@... 16th Nov 2009
You can upgrade from 10.5 Leopard to 10.6 Snow Leopard for $39. If you want to go from Tiger 10.4 to Snow Leopard, you need a full version of Snow Leopard. That is reasonable and a better deal than MS is offering for Windows 7.

As for selling OS X as a separate billable item, why does this allow Psystar to violate the Apple EULA? Any company has a right to protect its own technology.

The idea of Apple only offering Mac OSX versions of its iPhone developer software is something that all manufacturers do every day in business. It is called leveraging your technology. That is not illegal or even immoral. It's just good business practice.
0 Votes
+ -
Your point?
Rick_K 16th Nov 2009
If I want to buy a Zune, I have to buy either a Windows PC, or a copy of
windows to run on my computer. If I want to buy Wii Sports, then I am
forced to buy a Nintendo Wii. Microsoft has a long history of locking out
competition. With all those "undocumented" APIs that only Microsoft
uses. Heck on a Windows pc, you have to have Internet Explorer to search
for update to Office. I tried using FIreFox but got an error message
stating Microsoft only supports Internet Explorer, for this function. I
should note that I tried this by disabling access to i.e. and clicked on the
link from within MS Office 2007 Ultimate.
0 Votes
+ -
Point taken
CyberGuerilla 16th Nov 2009
Thanks for enlightening me about the different examples.

As far as browser lock-ins in Office updates go I am sure EU jurisdiction will have something to say. Regardless, this lockin does not cause as much furor

I understand your point about the lockins that exist in the gaming console market. I've yet to look in detail about the details of each console platform and PC platform; but the closest that resemble the OSX/Psystar situation is Nintendo's Gameboy emulator patents. (http://www.emutalk.net/showthread.php?t=19393).

Considering the outcome, it is hard not to envision how the US courts rule on this one.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Apple nukes Psystar
jfreedle2@... 29th Dec 2009
The reason that Apple does not want their operating system to run on other hardware is that they know how much it sucks as comparied to Windows, therefore they will definately go out of business if they allow it.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix