Boom. Told ya.

And Apple, with a single-digit percentage of the PC market, has a monopoly on what?

And that's exactly why I don't buy Honda!

how come nobody thought of this before?

Mac Clone Wars... I heard how this ends... they blow up the Death, er... Psystar.

The Psystar comparison to buying a Honda fails on many levels.

Probably the best argument would be that opening the hardware restrictions on OSX could generate an untapped revenue stream for the Apple OS. Sort of like Apple failed to do for the past 20+ years as Windows kicked its ass in sales.

(Insert comment about Apple's superiority)

The problem for Apple is their rigid control over their hardware and the potential loss of profit from people rolling their own. I think Apple as a company will resist this effort passionately, as it would eventually force them to rethink much of their business model.

I would unquestionably buy OSX if I could build my own system, or just use the one I already have.

They have a monopoly on their operating system but they don't have a monopoly on operating systems in general. Having a monopoly over a product in general is what the monopoly laws protect against. Apple only has a small percentage of the OS market. Microsoft with it's huge percentage isn't even in violation. This whole case is completely baseless.

As nojo has suggested, you can't really monopolize this market if you're less than 10% of it. Also, Apple likely wouldn't have to support this anyway, so if your clone has issues, Apple's genius bar doesn't have to give them a second look. In the end, I see nothing but problems for buyers with these things, and I'm wondering if Pystar would be able to provide the hardware support in lieu of Apple's probable refusal to do so.

all they have to do is embed a protection scheme in the OS that will only allow installation on Apple machine, with specific EFI bios (i thought this is what they are already doing). I would say the only stopping Apple from doing this is the law. Should they lose in court, this would suck for apple, or would it? more OS on more machines?

Apple has monopolized ease of use, stability, and shiny graphics in the OS industry. Microsoft can't compete, thus, Apple must be stopped!

I'm not a fanboy or anything, but if Microsoft just fixed their crap then EVERYONE will be happy.

@pdok: You're right. They are better comparing this to Apple requiring that all songs you purchase via iTunes be played on iPods. European antitrust regulators have been on Apple for a few years now regarding that issue, and this is just another feather in their hat. I doubt the United States government will pursue antitrust action against Apple after the ugly IBM case (also it doesnt hurt that Apple is a US company), but I'm certain Europe will be more willing to push the issue.

I would so love to see what happened if OS X stepped onto the market as a OS challenger. Can you imagine if Dell had the option to sell, Linux/Vista/Leopard. Man I really wonder what the sales/market would look like.

"win for everybody"...
except Apple whose entire business model of high end- high margin systems in a closed environment to keep quality high would be crushed in front of their eyes... They wouldn't have the same type of quality control and the stigma associated with their name would mean nothing.

Don't get me wrong, what Apple does should violate monoply Laws. The OS should be availble, maybe not supported so the business model stays in tact. I do use a Hackentosh, and mine works quite fine. I would race to the apple store in a heartbeat if it was available, albeit at my own risk. (*note apple, do this for techie users, but offer no warrenty*)

But from a business perspective,considering the general consumer, their EULA being declared null and void in court would be the very worst thing ever, and i can see how much money in lawyers Apple is going to put in this case.

and we all rejoice!

and why didn't anyone think of this before?

Apple could just release a version of OS X that cost $400 but still ran on a limited selection of PC hardware (hell, limit it to Intel, Nvidia and a couple other mfrs) and it would still sell like hot cakes.

You'd have the fanboys who are happy because they're still using a "real" mac and you'd have the PC users happy because they can build a machine to their own specification.

A few big concerns come to mind if something like this came true.

1. What becomes of the Apple stores? I can't see them still existing if their branding image is diluted a la Microsoft.

2. Would this mean if OS X would become tied down with an online activation like Windows? If so, and if this happens, fuck it, I'm going to join nutbastard and become an Ubuntu man.

3. Support. So I imagine that I'd have to be wary of which manufacturer to buy from when it comes to customer support, since Apple would no longer be able to carry this out, and I'd no longer have a physical location in the city to bring my stuff to just in case.

Overall, I'm seeing nothing but stuff that drove me away from the PC pool a long time ago.

"What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?" if Honda built the fucking roads, then why not?

@Sheemo44: No one gave a damn before. Windows was a more useful OS with greater 3rd party development. Now, with that piece of crap they call Vista, more people are looking for alternatives, only to find costly barriers to entry. It was inevitable when Apple started to experience increased market share and exposure this argument would be advanced.

If I buy OS X to install on my watch, and for some strange reason it doesn't work, then it is my fault. I have no recourse to Apple unless they represent or warrant that that the software will work on intended device.

I do think that PsyStar needs to pay all due royalties to King-o Steve-o.
Besides that, if they want to install OS X on a vacuum cleaner, so be it.

The analogy to Microsoft is apt. It's true that Apple adds a lot of value with the closed box, but they could continue to sell a closed box for those who prefer a closed-box experience while allowing other, wilder types to buy an open box. And nothing antitrusty is going to prevent them from supporting only first-party hardware running first-party software.

Sure it would be a blow to their business model... but that's not really our problem.

@greenwald3132

Don't even think for 5 seconds the the fanboy base would buy anything other than an Apple built Mac.

Where Apple will lose out on this is that the clones will bring in people who have traditionally avoided Macs, therefore increasing their presence in the marketplace and revenue as well.

The Clone makers aren't going to try and one up the hardware or software... all they are doing is building a machine that can run the OS. And correct me if I'm wrong but the more of their OS they sell, the more money they will make, And when its time to upgrade that OS... guess where they will turn?

This is all about free market, which is something that Apple has fought against since the 1st Apple "Clone Wars"

i was waiting for someone to say this. Apple is more monopolistic than Microsoft ever was...

By the way, if PsyStar is stupid enough to sell computers with pre-installed versions of Leopard, they are morons, and will find themselves on the losing end of a copyright infringement action.

Now if they sell computers that allow the consumer to go to the store and purchase EITHER Leopard or Vista/XP, they will be in a better position to advance the theory that they are doing nothing wrong.

Okay, let's walk down this path again.

1) Apple doesn't make computers. It makes consumer electronics.
2) Apple doesn't make an operating system. It makes a software suite designed around making their electronics more desirable.
3) If tying software to hardware is monopolistic, then video game consoles are far more egregious offenders than Apple.

@Samifumi: you're the moron. You make more money LICENSING THAN YOU DO PROPIETARY (yes sony and applp im looking at you). Niches in the software world is small and shrinking daily... its time they wise up and set it free or be out of business in 20 to 25 years when that marketshare shrinks to less than 5%. Its one thing to be a status symbol, but we all see how fads go in this country...ask Jordache, Nintendo, Sony, and MS

"Even if Psystar's machines aren't anything spectacular" I take issue with that statement simply because if you spec an OpenMac versus a MacPro or MacMini its like hundreds of dollars cheaper. That's pretty spectacular to me :)

@t3knomanser: 1) Apple doesn't make computers. It makes consumer electronics. Are they one and the same....HMMMM

2) Apple doesn't make an operating system. It makes a software suite designed around making their electronics more desirable.

So MS doesnt MAKE windows...they just design software around others electronics...HMMMM

3) If tying software to hardware is monopolistic, then video game consoles are far more egregious offenders than Apple.

Call the EU, they may have a few things to say about that....

Dude a little more REASEARCH and DILIGENCE before you speak...

Dont look now...your N00b's are showing

Psystar is rocking a XXXXXXXXL jock strap. Now watch legal fees put them in the red.

It'd be a monopoly if MacOS was the only operating system, but it isn't.

@t3knomanser: When was the last time you had to buy or install an operating system for any of your games consoles?

Apple probably would make more money licensing their OS than simply making high profit margins on their hardware. The vast majority of people I know only bought their Macs because of how good they look, not because of the OS, so as long as Apple continues to make aesthetically pleasing computers they'd still be in business.

Also, I don't think stability is a real concern for Apple. As bloated as Vista feels, it's been by experience that it's just as stable as OS X, even with all the hardware/drivers it supports.

Hi! I'm new here. I love Apple and they can do no wrong. They could poop in my shoe every morning and I would still hump Steamy-Steve's leg.

Whether this law suit is valid or not, it would be DISASTROUS for Apple if OS X was required to be installable on non-Apple branded hardware. Let's face it, Apple makes the vast majority of their profits on their hardware, hence the reason they're able to provide OS updates at such a low cost compared to, oh say, Microsoft. This is not to mention the closed-ecosystem problem they would face. One of the biggest reasons OS X is as stable as it is, is because its developers know EXACTLY what it will be run on. Take that away, and I firmly believe that OS X will have all the issues that Windows has had. The Apple execs are smart businessmen, they know the truth in all this. They will fight to the death to keep OS X on Apple-only hardware.

@@dOk: Apples entire philosophy behind their products is that its a closed system, so they can control the quality of everything. See iTunes ipod, see iLife, see macbook air.. Liscenceing out OSX would go against everything Apples stands for, and Jobs would have none of it. Apple had the chance to liscence out years ago, but they chose not to.. its what makes them better in the Home market, because they can control quality and that everything is done in hosue. ITs not free market, instead its business strategy... Having an army of cheap mac clones would also dilute the Apple brand.. .Some people will buy the knockoffs instead of the real thing, because they are not fanboys (which still constitute a small part of users) Macs are impressive Hardware wise, but at this point not much distinguishes them from the competition. The Dell XPS One out performs the iMacs in several ways and is still much cheaper. Other than the Macbook Air, and the iPods, apple is very much a software company..

I'd be surprised if it was possible to force Apple to do anything with OS X, it's their software, they can do whatever the hell they want with it.

... however, when people see it running just as well on a machine that costs half as much (not in this instance, but there are other perfectly valid and far more powerful configurations out there), they just might start wondering what the hell they're spending all that money on.

@dOk: "Don't even think for 5 seconds the the fanboy base would buy anything other than an Apple built Mac."

Ask all the fanboys around in the late 90s with Power Computing or UMAX hardware if they felt that they were any less of a Mac user. The OS is more important than the box (especially then).

Now notebooks... they're a different story.

@Kyoseki: AMEN

@One2ManyCords: Well, I sure am glad you have more money than Steve Jobs. Wait, what's that... you don't? You don't even have as much money as Steve Job's labrador retriever? Well then, who the heck are you telling us how Apple could make more money than they do now? Seems to me the billions in cash they have sitting around are evidence they might know a bit better than you how their business model works.

I shouldn't just pick on you, of course; coketown and others seem to think they know more about Apple's business than Apple does, too. But let's get serious here: saying that licensing is the way to go doesn't make it so. There's not a company on the planet that wouldn't axe half its staff and eliminate entire operations if doing so would boost their quarterly profits. But it's gonna take more than a couple of web commenters to actually convince them that's worth doing.

No-one (sane) is suggesting Apple adopt the Microsoft licensing scheme of trying to please everyone, they can still control the drivers and only allow Apple certification on certain devices, namely the ones they're already using.

This isn't even a cost thing, there are a number of reasons I don't own an iMac, but cost is not one of them.

oops, misplaced apostrophe there

Yeah, I remember the last time they did that. That worked out well.

@Sturm Truppen: It is. It only is suposed to run on Apple machines, nothing else. That is 100% of the Apple market. Momopoly.

@Kyoseki: The Wii has had OS update sev