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

    • Maradona if hydration breaks had existed in Mexico 86.
    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!