Mac clone maker vows to test Apple on OS X licensing terms


Recommended Posts

Psystar Corporation, which this week began selling a series of Mac clone systems without Apple's blessing, is determined to challenge the Mac maker in court over the licensing terms for its Mac OS X operating system.

SOURCE: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/04...sing_terms.html

Big talk - wonder if they have the stones to really carry it through.

It would be an interesting case and would set a very interesting precedent in enforcement of EULA.

If Apple loses ... I can see more people building Apple clone systems ...

Apple would then have to lower there prices ...

Only time will tell ...

How would they lose though? A user agrees to a license when they buy the software--which they are clearly breaking.

That said though, hackintosh's have been around before this and it's quite hilarious what they offer as "support" for their own that they're selling:

Can I run updates on my OpenMac?

The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are not non-safe. It?s best to check on InsanelyMac for this information but when in doubt don?t update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.

Good luck to the:pinch:nch:

Apple would then have to lower there prices ...

And up the price of OS X. Remember that Apple subsidizes software R&D costs with hardware sales.

And don't think that Apple will make it easy for anyone to run OS X on non-Apple hardware.

I really don't see Apple losing this.

The argument about Apple price gouging doesn't really work. Nobody's stopping you from buying a Dell or HP or whatever... in fact, people actually willingly pay a premium to get a Mac.

And the antitrust thing... am I wrong, or are there other choices besides OS X? There's only an antitrust issue if OS X is the only operating system period, which isn't the case.

"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"

Um... (a) use a non-Microsoft operating system, and (b) buy a Toyota. This analogy only works if Microsoft is the only OS company and you could only buy cars made by Honda.

This whole thing is just dumb.

So these are commercial hackintoshes? lol.

basically yes, technically no.

hackintoshes use a modified kernel so you can run them off a pc.

psystar is emulating EFI on a pc, and installing an unmodified version of OSX.

I wish them luck.

I personally think EULAs like this are invalid due to the fact that you can't read the entire EULA at the moment of purchase AND if you disagree you can't return the software at the place of purchase (with some rare exceptions).

The fact that almost everyone refers to it as a purchase also has something to do with it. I don't say, 'hey I'm going to go to Best Buy to license some software', I say 'I'm going to go to Best Buy to buy some software'.

I think its about time. Apple's profit margins are exceedingly high given that most companies in the industry are lucky to make 1/2 that amount.

And don't forget Apple is simply repackaging the sum of all the parts in the computer without having to do all the research and development. Its a wonder why they can't sell the systems for less. I hardly think it all goes into OS X development. And if they're spending it all on making "nice" designer cases for the systems, then I question why they're spending so much money.

Let's sum Apple's R&D HW investments:

Processor? Intel R&D. Graphics Card? ATI or Nvidia or Intel. Sound card? Probably not Apple. Keyboard and mouse? I relinquish Apple develops that. Monitor? If not a 3rd party, Apple's panels are developed by another company. Hard drive? Nope. Motherboard? Apple has engineers for that but doesn't manufacture it. NIC? Nope. Bluetooth? Nope. Wireless? Nope. CD/DVD drive? Nope.

So basically, the only exclusive thing Apple really develops or has input on are the Motherboard, Monitor and the case. Oh, the keyboard and mouse can be bought retail so hardly exclusive.

When I look at buying another system, I'll really need to reconsider if buying another Mac is really worth it. There's really only one or two Mac-only apps that I'd have to do without and would not want to let go of.

I think its about time. Apple's profit margins are exceedingly high given that most companies in the industry are lucky to make 1/2 that amount.

And don't forget Apple is simply repackaging the sum of all the parts in the computer without having to do all the research and development. Its a wonder why they can't sell the systems for less. I hardly think it all goes into OS X development. And if they're spending it all on making "nice" designer cases for the systems, then I question why they're spending so much money.

Let's sum Apple's R&D HW investments:

Processor? Intel R&D. Graphics Card? ATI or Nvidia or Intel. Sound card? Probably not Apple. Keyboard and mouse? I relinquish Apple develops that. Monitor? If not a 3rd party, Apple's panels are developed by another company. Hard drive? Nope. Motherboard? Apple has engineers for that but doesn't manufacture it. NIC? Nope. Bluetooth? Nope. Wireless? Nope. CD/DVD drive? Nope.

So basically, the only exclusive thing Apple really develops or has input on are the Motherboard, Monitor and the case. Oh, the keyboard and mouse can be bought retail so hardly exclusive.

When I look at buying another system, I'll really need to reconsider if buying another Mac is really worth it. There's really only one or two Mac-only apps that I'd have to do without and would not want to let go of.

What company does sell systems that are 100% exclusive?

As for the OpenComputer, the update issue alone is a joke and deal-killer. Asking people to reinstall their OS for updates is suicide. People want to buy computer, turn on computer, use computer, and not worry about anything else.

People should have tried the anti-trust argument back when mac's couldn't boot anything other than MacOS, Apple have since changed it to make macs able to boot just about anything (with the New World PPC macs, then emulating the BIOS in the Intel Macs)

Edit: Oh yeah, they're going to lose.

I think its about time. Apple's profit margins are exceedingly high given that most companies in the industry are lucky to make 1/2 that amount.

And don't forget Apple is simply repackaging the sum of all the parts in the computer without having to do all the research and development. Its a wonder why they can't sell the systems for less. I hardly think it all goes into OS X development. And if they're spending it all on making "nice" designer cases for the systems, then I question why they're spending so much money.

Let's sum Apple's R&D HW investments:

Processor? Intel R&D. Graphics Card? ATI or Nvidia or Intel. Sound card? Probably not Apple. Keyboard and mouse? I relinquish Apple develops that. Monitor? If not a 3rd party, Apple's panels are developed by another company. Hard drive? Nope. Motherboard? Apple has engineers for that but doesn't manufacture it. NIC? Nope. Bluetooth? Nope. Wireless? Nope. CD/DVD drive? Nope.

So basically, the only exclusive thing Apple really develops or has input on are the Motherboard, Monitor and the case. Oh, the keyboard and mouse can be bought retail so hardly exclusive.

When I look at buying another system, I'll really need to reconsider if buying another Mac is really worth it. There's really only one or two Mac-only apps that I'd have to do without and would not want to let go of.

To be honest, the Macbook, Mac Pro, iMac, Airport Extreme/Time Capsule, and ACDs are similarly priced compared to other vendors for what you get. (ACDs are S-IPS panels, so don't tell me they're twice the price of competitors. The XPS One = iMac competitor. Mac Pro = Xeon.).

The other items are really niche products and thus are priced more (mac mini, macbook air) Though I do perfectly agree with the company that the mac mini is grossly overpriced.

And I definitely hope that they don't spend less on design and development--it's the main reason that macs sell in the first place. (both hardware and software)

Note: I'm basing my comparisons on US prices and vendors.

I don't see how Apple could lose. The copy protection is a key in the TPM chip. They can't legally copy it.

Despite what you may have heard, OSX doesn't use a TPM, and never did. The first generation Intel macs had a TPM chip, but they were unused. Current Macs (like my MBP) don't have a TPM.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The reviews you refer to mean nothing. Where there is no journalism there is no reason to call the gaming media's opinion pieces "reviews". For GP games there is indeed a metric for success - increasing subscriptions. Which turns in revenue. The only circumstance in which subs do not rise when great is being released is a Game Pass system where the company is close to fully saturated with customers in a subscription. However, in that case as the theory goes you spend aplenty in all kind of games - from shady live service cash cows and customer offending agitprop crap in purple colours to robust and entertaining single player games. And keep a solid level of profitability. Ignoring the simply innocuous but mid games MGS has released primarily of the second kind.
    • Report: Microsoft to use AWS to help GitHub deal with a major surge in demand by Pradeep Viswanathan Thanks to the surge of coding AI agents, GitHub's usage has skyrocketed over the past 12 months. To meet this demand, GitHub started with a plan in October 2025 to increase capacity by 10x. However, by early this year, the company realized that it needed 30x scale. This rapid growth has caused severe strain on the platform's reliability, resulting in several small outages over the past few months. In April, GitHub published a long blog post explaining the steps it is taking to resolve these reliability issues. In the post, the company also confirmed that it is working toward a multi-cloud architecture for better resilience. Today, Business Insider reported that GitHub is turning to Amazon Web Services to help deal with a major surge in AI-driven coding activity. It is important to note that GitHub is still in the process of moving completely to the Azure cloud. The current plan is to move the platform fully to Azure by 2027 so that it can scale better as per developer demand. Therefore, the current decision to utilize AWS might be part of a short-term plan to meet immediate demand. A Microsoft spokesperson confirmed that GitHub is using multiple cloud providers with the following statement: For Microsoft, the decision highlights the operational pressure behind the AI boom. GitHub has to stay reliable for developers at a time when rivals such as Codex, Cursor, Claude Code, and other AI coding tools are gaining attention. And the decision to use AWS for computing capacity seems practical given the circumstances.
    • It's growing on me, however, your right, it make better usability sense if the tabs were bellow the address bar.
    • Qwen 3.6 is better value per dollar, and you can run it locally for free.
    • I don't believe them that anyone using threads, at least meaningfully. It's the same thing for Facebook, people just don't engage with Meta platforms like they are thinking. This isn't 2006.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      Dys Topia earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Conversation Starter
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      Console General earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Twozo Technologies earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Twozo Technologies earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      517
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      106
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      88
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!