Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/30/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
Valid point. Not why I hate Pystar. They knowingly rip off consumers. They sell systems they can't hope to support once they fail.
11/28/09
11/28/09
It's the same on the Microsoft side. You aren't actually buying Windows, you're buying a license to use Windows, again, within certain parameters. The only difference is that the Microsoft License is less restrictive.
A custom brew of Linux is pretty much the only "mainstream" OS you can actually own, and even then there are conditions of ownership.
Is it deceptive? No doubt, but that's how the entire software industry works these days (not just OSs) so the government and the courts aren't going to touch it.
With hardware it's a physical thing, in order to copy it you need to build a whole new one, from scratch. If you want to modify it you have to change the thing you bought, which involves risk because if you screw it up you have to buy a new one. With software, it's data, a couple keystrokes and you have another, for free, that you can give to a friend or modify with impunity. Which is why they don't sell software, they sell software licenses which are "physical".
11/29/09
Consider this: you buy 1 copy of an os for your own use on 1 machine. you buy 1 machine. you pay someone to install the software on the 1 machine. that is what psystar does. they are not selling illegal copies of osx. they buy a copy of osx for each customer from apple. then they install it on the computer their customer has purchased. whether it is illegal or not is up to the courts to decide, but legality can also be influenced by everyone.
I'm not actually saying who is right and who is wrong, or what is legal and what isn't (both being only loosely related). what I'm saying is that me personally, I would rather purchase to own than to license.
When you allow someone to tell you that you have no rights and you believe them, then you have no rights. Rights don't come for free and no one will give them to you. Rights are what we, collectively, say they are. If you give up so easy you won't have much.
11/29/09
But Apple doesn't sell a standalone OS license (and hence Pystar can't buy one). What you get when you buy OSX is an upgrade license, meaning in order for you to legally install it you have to have an existing full license to a previous version... and the only way you can get one of those is with a Mac.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
Apple could just make a "hi Im a mac. and Im a fake mac" commercial. LOL!
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
I know these aren't exactly counterfeits in physical terms as they don't look like Macs but they are counterfeiting the computer which has happened before. When Franklin was cloning Apple II's Franklin was found guilty of pirating the Apple II ROM. The court then gave Apple the right to hold on to the ROM and choose who it could be licensed to and that case is not but a stones throw from the likes of this one.
Apple has a bad history with letting things go in court. Lets not forget that the reason Windows is so big now is simply because Apple let Microsoft off the hook, only paying a small settlement, for taking parts of the Lisa OS and use it for Windows. If Apple had pursued that to the full extent the market share for desktop OSes would be very different now. That may have been a bad thing since Apple would have stagnated much more and OS X probably would have been much worse but you know what I bet each Linux distro would be like Mac OS today in terms of market share.
Rant mode off...
11/28/09
@deliciousburglar:
@quayzar:
I just dont see Psystar as a big threat since they only sold 800 units.
Why should Apple be bothered with them if consumers themselves dont even bother with them? lol!
IMO if I had a multi-billion dollar company I would not see the point in drawing attention to companies that are failures at stealing my customers away. YES I know that Apple has to make examples of someone but why bother with such a pathetic company?
They should focus more on the companies selling thousands of knock off iphones and ipods.
11/28/09
To rephrase, it is not Psystar's size or relevance or threat factor. It's not even about making an example. It is the fact that doing nothing sets a bad legal precedent for Apple. Let's say Apple ignores Psystar, and next year Asus starts to make mac knockoffs (I know, it's not gonna happen, but it's the point of the thing). Asus, being a big company, would have a lot more ability to hurt Apple's bottom line. Do you understand now?
11/28/09
EDIT: I just seems like Apples legal team is a little too fussy. Remember that Australian grocery store that got sued? [gizmodo.com]
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
Pystar is shady and wrong. It doesn't matter how much Apple wants to sell their products for, you'll either pay them and like it or not use Macs at all. Nobody has the right to use OS X, its a privilege, and if you can't attain it the way Apple requires you to then you don't deserve to use it at all.
11/28/09
11/28/09
But probably those balls were placed where their brains should be.
11/28/09
11/28/09
But they didn't dream big. Before they even got started they had to know it wouldn't work because the first step in an enterprise like this is to talk to lawyers and investment advisors and all of them should have said it was a failed illegal venture. They knew from the beginning it was crap and from there it was a rip off for everyone who bought their computers. Think about support, think about everything that should warn you a purchase from this company was a terrible idea ... They're criminals and that was the way it was from the beginning.
11/28/09
This was just an investment scam.
11/28/09
The funniest part from the ComputerWorld source article is that they claim they also make servers and were working on a laptop. With only 800 desktop sales, who the heck bought a server from them?
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
The irony is that they probably could have made a successful company if they had just focused on the software emulation Rebel EFI side of their business... assuming that they weren't violating any GNU licenses on that product as well, which is actually probably a pretty big assumption.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
@BobotheTeddy:
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
Like I said, I am not impressed with Psystars business practices, but I am impressed that they are taking Apple on.
Before the Fanboys jump in and call me an Apple Hater, I have personally owned over 15 Macs, 5 ipods, and 2 iPhones Over the course of the last 18 years. I have worked both for an Apple reseller and for Apple.
I do not own a Hackintosh, but I think the idea is great, and I have played around on one, and it worked impressively well. #apple
11/16/09
We may disagree with their limitations for a bunch of reasons, but it is their product to license however they wish.
If you don't like it - don't buy it. It's pretty simple. And buying it via a means that Apple (or whatever company) doesn't endorse is criminal.
If you don't like that then your beef is with the regulatory systems and laws the US has put in place that allow Apple to defend it's property, and the terms on which it is used.
11/16/09
well... the RIAA says you aren't supposed to be ripping CDs, but does that make it *wrong* to do so? I would argue that EULAs hold very little water and dont really need to be followed. If you sell me something, it's MINE to modify or resell or do with as i please. otherwise the concept of ownership has been completely perverted. If they want to keep a stranglehold on how their software is used, then they ought to call a spade a spade and LEASE the software. But AFAIK the software is not leased, it's sold. #apple
11/16/09
But at a certain point one has to accept it is what it is, if you don't like it then you don't have to endorse it with your money.
As for the CD ripping - there is no explicit license when you purchase a CD. An implied one, yes, but it falls into a grey area that needs external ruling to make it definitive (and that can still then be applied case by case). More so than an EULA that (technically) a user reads and agrees too. #apple
11/17/09
11/15/09
Someone explain this to me.
Why does Apple get to decide how you use their product, while the telecommunications providers get everyone up in their business? What's preventing internet providers from '"licensing" the use of their network, say preventing bittorrent traffic. If you don't like it, go fuck yourself and find another provider. How is that any different from the group of people that say, "If you want to use OS X, buy a Mac."? Why does Apple get a pass?
Apple apologists, what say ye? #apple
11/15/09
Does asking this question make me an Apple apologist or an intellectual property apologist?
11/15/09
Net neutrality is quite different because while they own the pipes, they don't own the contents in the pipe. The closest would be a toll road, and if the toll collected changed based 0n occupant and speed limit changed on vehicle type. #apple
11/15/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
The way I typically use to explain it is this: it's be like the water company charging you more per gallon for water you use for cooking than water you use to shower. #apple
11/15/09
Your basis for Apple to do what they want is ownership.
Telecoms own the fucking pipe. Why don't they get to decide how you use it?
Using the example of a toll road to explain net neutrality works well-- in support of network neutrality. Last time I used a toll road (yesterday), they charged vehicles per axle. Taking it even further, they also have the ability to deny use of a toll road to a vehicle that they feel is unfit to travel it.
So, you don't support net neutrality, and you support the DMCA. Correct? #apple
11/15/09
And, you would be an intellectual property apologist.
I think copyright, trademark, and patent laws in this country are royally screwed. Consequently, I'm a staunch supporter of open source. I also despise the DMCA. #apple
11/15/09
Strangely enough(well not so strangely), people are cool with that.
Internet providers regularly charge for different levels of service, particularly with regard to capacity. #apple
11/15/09
It makes no sense for people to waste their breath about how wonderful Apple (aka fanboy worshipping) is when Apple's primary goal is to separate people from their pocketbook.
I don't find greed to be a redeeming quality, but that's me. #apple
11/19/09
We wouldn't have the computers we have today (including Apple's Macs) if IBM did to cloners what Apple is doing to Pystar.
I could be wrong, but if I remember right PCs used to be simply called IBMs back in the late 80s. And what about AMD? They came on to the scene later than Intel, building chips based on the same architecture, and now we have a healthy competition between the two that drives improvements forward. Apple doesn't want that, they want the monopoly.
My 2 cents.
#tips
11/25/09
No, I do support net neutrality and I don't support DMCA. Just because I explained it clearly doesn't mean I support it.
In any case, Apple owns their content but the telecoms do not own the content on the pipe. Right now they charge per bit, not type of bit. They want to charge per type of bit.
Which is silly because every single bit on their pipe is identical, unlike your axel or weight example on the toll road.