Why I won't be buying a "Hackint0sh" system

Why I won't be buying a "Hackint0sh" system

Summary: A few people have been asking me why I've not gone to the Psystar website, whipped out my wallet, blown the moths out of it and bought myself an OpenComputer. Well, here's why ...

SHARE:

A few people have been asking me why I've not gone to the Psystar website, whipped out my wallet, blown the moths out of it and bought myself an OpenComputer. Well, here's why ...

The idea seems to be that if I slap down my cash and buy one, and I actually get it, and when I get it, the system actually runs Mac OS X like a Swiss watch, I've proved both that the company actually intends to ship systems, and that those systems are actually capable of running Mac OS X. Case closed.

Not so fast there Sherlock. Personally, I don't think it would prove a damn thing. First off, I've never once claimed that Psystar is a fake or hoax company, or that it doesn't have any intentions of shipping systems.

Secondly, there's a good chance that the system will run Mac OS X just like it says it will on the box. It's not as though Psystar came up with the idea of the Hackint0sh. If you want a PC that will run Mac OS X, you don't have to or need to go to Psystar. You can do it yourself. Google is your friend. There's no magic to it. It's not easy, but that doesn't stop people from doing it.

Another reason why I'm not interested in a Hackint0sh is that I've no intentions of getting caught up in the crossfire between Apple and Psystar. In much the same way that Apple updates bricked unlocked iPhones, I expect Apple to tweak the Mac OS X code so it breaks the EFI V8 emulation and that's then going to be a problem not just for Psystar and its customers, but for everyone running a Hackint0sh. Sure, Apple won't be able to prevent Hackint0sh, but it can make life difficult for owners. Also, let's not forget that Psystar is making commercial use of the EFI V8 emulator, a move that violates the latest license agreement.

But there's another reason why I'm not buying a hackint0sh, and that's because the system is nothing more than a science experiment and I already have enough science experiments going. I've already got a Mac and at the moment I don't really need another, especially not one that could need a lot of hand-holding in the future.

Thoughts?

Topics: Operating Systems, Apple, Hardware, Software

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

Talkback

137 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Agreed

    Its to bad there's not a happy ending to this story. I'm just trying to figure out why apple get all the breaks, compared to Microsoft. I guess apple just isn't big enough yet... where they have to truly share their code.
    Eventually... assuming everyone will have there day in court.
    pcguy777
    • Convicted Criminal

      Maybe it's because Apple has not been convicted more then once for it's illegal monpolistic practices.
      observer1959
      • How long do you guys intend to beat this horse? (nt)

        .
        ye
        • Where do you get that?

          The man was just stating facts. Microsoft is a convicted criminal enterprise in most countries. People should be watching them and wondering what they'll do next. Defending illegal anti competitive activity simply hurts everybody.
          DemonX
          • So since a company...

            ... isn't a convicted felon yet it's ok for them to engage in illegal, or at least questionable activities? You know, like Apple did when they bricked iPhones that had been hacked?

            In the US it is illegal for anyone (person or company) to intentionally render useless a piece of hardware that has been purchased by a consumer. This is exactly what Apple did when they released the iPhone update that would bricke hacked iPhones. Was OK for Apple to do this in your eyes just because they haven't been labeled a "felon?"

            It doesn't matter if the company is a felon or not, if they intentionally render some hardware you purchased useless they should be hung out to dry like everyone else.
            tikigawd
          • Not criminal - "moral" may be a different matter

            [i]So since a company isn't a convicted felon yet it's ok for them to engage in illegal, or at least questionable activities? You know, like Apple did when they bricked iPhones that had been hacked?[/i]

            Nope - no criminal action involved - or, at least, one that would be [i]very[/i] hard to prove; if an upgrade to a device breaks a wildcat modification, that's the lookout of the one who modified it.

            Especially if, by performing that mod, youi wsere in violation of the contract you had to sign to buy the iPhone in the first place.

            It's long been established that, say, cable companies can legitimately remotely disable illicitly modified set-top boxes attached to thjeir system; bricking an illcitly modified iPhone is much the same thing.

            Understand, i'm not best pleased with Apple's {i][b]moral[/b][/i] position in this - for aopcmpany that got its original startup money by selling blue boxes to object to anyone else beating it's own phone system seems a tad hypocritical.
            fairportfan
          • Actually...

            [i]Nope - no criminal action involved - or, at least, one that would be very hard to prove; if an upgrade to a device breaks a wildcat modification, that's the lookout of the one who modified it.[/i]

            Actually, it is illegal for anyone (person or company) to [b]intentionally[/b] render inoperable any property you own.

            In the case of the iPhone the murkiness lies on whether Apple bricked iPhones on purpose or not. I understand that if you choose to get updated firmware and that firmware happens to be incompatible with your mod, you're on your own. But by reading the post Apple put on their website right after the first wave of iPhone unlockings, telling people that the new update WOULD brick hacked phones, I'd say they bricked phones on purpose.


            [i]Especially if, by performing that mod, youi wsere in violation of the contract you had to sign to buy the iPhone in the first place[/i]

            Regardless of whether Apple makes you sign something saying you can't modify a piece of hardware you bought from them, if that clause is in conflict with an existing law the clause is unenforceable, and thus void.


            [i]It's long been established that, say, cable companies can legitimately remotely disable illicitly modified set-top boxes attached to thjeir system; bricking an illcitly modified iPhone is much the same thing.[/i]

            I would argue the cable companies in this case would be preventing people from stealing their service. They are in their full right to prevent this.
            In the case of the iPhone on one is stealing any service. People just wanted to not be forced to go with AT&T, and give their business to another company instead (T-Mobile in the US).


            [i]Apple [...] seems a tad hypocritical[/i]

            Indeed
            tikigawd
          • Ok.. everybody call the MOD police

            apparently this only applies to software and not any other electronic devices?
            pcguy777
          • Are you a lawyer?

            Or are you just pretending to know the law?
            msalzberg
          • Holiday Inn Express

            No He is not, but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
            jmcabee66@...
          • You don't need to be a lawyer

            to know the law.

            37 CFR 201.40(b) (current as of 4-17-2008) allows for people to modify their telephone for the purpose of having it connect to an arbitrary wireless telephone communication network.

            It doesn't take an extreme interpretation of that law to apply it inversely. Namely, to interpret it in such a way that it makes it unlawful for an entity to purposely undo the lawful modification of said telephone.
            tikigawd
          • @tikigawd...

            Interpretation of the law is the job of the courts. Unless
            you are a constitutional lawyer, I suggest you don't try to
            make your own interpretation seem as if it were true.

            There are two different ways of interpreting law: One
            camp feels that unless something is specifically called out
            in the law (which it's not in this case, according to you), it's
            not covered by that law. Any other interpretation is
            considered "judicial activism." The other camp feels that
            there are implications not specifically written.

            I'd suggest you study the history and decisions of the
            Supreme Court. Come back when you understand.
            msalzberg
          • And suddenly you're an authority on me

            [i]Interpretation of the law is the job of the courts.[/i]

            Yes, it is. I guess I'll just have to wait until a case pertinent to this interpretation comes up.

            [i]One camp feels that unless something is specifically called out in the law (which it's not in this case, according to you), it's not covered by that law. Any other interpretation is
            considered "judicial activism." The other camp feels that there are implications not specifically written.[/i]

            The "camps" can feel whatever they want. Laws are open to interpretation by the courts every day. Whether you believe that or not doesn't matter to me.

            [i]Unless you are a constitutional lawyer, I suggest you don't try to make your own interpretation seem as if it were true[/i]

            Oh, "constitutional lawyers" are the only ones who can interpret the law are they? Let me write that down.


            [i]I'd suggest you study the history and decisions of the Supreme Court. Come back when you understand.[/i]

            Please explain how exactly do you know what I have or have not studied?


            [i]I'd suggest you study the history and decisions of the Supreme Court. Come back when you understand.[/i]

            Oh, the Supreme Court is the only court that can set precedents on interpretation of the law? Let me write that down too.


            You can try and discredit me all you want. At the end of the day you have absolutely no base for it. You don't know what I do for a living. You don't know what information I have or don't have access to. You know nothing about who I am or what I do.

            Go ahead and state that you disagree with my interpretation. That's fair. But trying to put yourself on some higher plane of knowledge without any backup aside from snide remarks in order to discredit my opinion is laughable.

            It's quite hilarious that you feel so threatened that I call out Apple on their questionable practices. All I've done is give my opinion. I apologize for questioning Apple's shady actions instead of saying "yessum, Mr Jobs" and bowing down my head blindly.
            tikigawd
          • Bogus argument, logical fallacy

            Msalzberg, you just committed the logical fallacy called "false dilemma."

            Basically, you provide a question, and allow only two possible answers, completely ignoring all other possibilities except those that you state.

            Knowing the law has nothing to do with having a law degree. There are plenty of legal assistants, court reporters, law enforcement officers, judges, prisoners, and simply curious people who know the law as well as or better than some attorneys.

            In your microcosm, nobody but lawyers is allowed to talk about the law. Sorry, not interested in that fantasy world.


            Another way of putting it is, your post is a steaming pile of crap.
            bmerc
          • Technically....

            They aren't criminals, they were found liable of wrongdoing. Certain people who would argue against your point will be quick to point that out and dismiss everything else you say from this point on.
            Michael Kelly
          • There's no denying they are a convicted monopolist.

            That's not what I'm questioning. What I asking is how long are you going to use this as an excuse to beat down Microsoft? We're now 10 years past this behavior. While I don't think Microsoft is an angle I think this response is getting rather long in the tooth.
            ye
        • Trust doesn't get rebuilt overnight

          Especially when no effort has gone into rebuilding that trust.

          Now personally I don't beat that horse, dead or not, because their wrongdoings did not have that great, if any, of an effect on me or my wallet. I did have issues with their software and driver support back then, which is what drove me to experiment with Linux, but since I found my other choice I don't have any legal gripes about it. However others did get hit hard in the wallet as a result of MS's wrongdoings. BeOS is a direct casualty. OEM's were hit in the pocketbook. If I were an employee of any of those companies, I'd sure be sore at MS, even ten years later.
          Michael Kelly
          • It's been 10 years. Is that your idea of overnight? (nt)

            .
            ye
          • And in those 10 years

            what have they done to rebuild that trust? Trust is never automatic. And lost trust is ten times as hard to earn back as the trust you initially had.

            You know, apologies go a long way in today's society. I've yet to hear one coming out of Redmond. If I had heard even one, I'd be a lot more sympathetic to their plight.
            Michael Kelly
          • Oops...didn't know who I was responding to. (nt)

            .
            ye