backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by sebmel.. on Nov 17 at 9:35 AM


RIP Psystar?? A judge ruled in a summary judgment that Psystar infringed on Apple's copyrights and violated the DCMA, in building Mac clones. One of these clones is pictured here, a $599 clone here that comes packed with a 3.33 GHz Intel processor, a GeForce 9600GSO, iWork, and iLife (all at approximately half the price of a comparable setup from Apple).  (Source: Psystar)
A summary judgment goes very badly for Psystar

Apple has been trying to crush Psystar for over a year now.  After all, the persistent company has been selling OS X clones at cheaper prices than Apple's own designs.  In doing so, it is undermining Apple's closed box model of using software to justify hardware price markups.  More recently, the company threw more dirt in Apple's face, releasing a tool to help customers freely install OS X on any machine, something Apple has long fought against.

However, Apple has at last gained the upper hand over Psystar, delivering it a potentially fatal blow in court.  In a summary judgment delivered on November 13 in a San Francisco court, Judge William Alsup ruled that Psystar infringed on Apple's copyrights to put OS X on the unauthorized computers it built and sold.  He also ruled that Psystar violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by circumventing Apple's software protections that block its software from being installed on third-party hardware.

Reads the ruling, "Psystar infringed Apple's exclusive right to create derivative works of Mac OS X.  Specifically, it made three modifications: (1) replacing the Mac OS X bootloader with a different bootloader to enable an unauthorized copy of Mac OS X to run on Psystar's computers; (2) disabling and removing Apple kernel extension files; and (3) adding non-Apple kernel extensions."

Psystar, which is claiming Apple is misusing its copyrights, was also denied its own request for summary judgment.  The company was told that it was perfectly legal for Apple to use its EULA to control what platforms its own software is allowed on.

A second hearing is scheduled for December 14 and an official trial will start January 2010.  The summary judgement does deal a major blow to Psystar as it sets the mood for the trial, and may lead to Apple gaining a restraining order against Psystar's sales.  As Psystar already went bankrupt once, this could spell doom for the young company.

The ruling also is a pleasing victory for Apple as it validates its argument that it installing OS X on forbidden hardware is a violation of the DMCA.  And as California, unlike most states, requires evidence to be presented before summary judgment is determined, the ruling could be viewed as more considered or binding.  This could open the door to Apple being able to crack down harder on individual Hackintosh makers. 

Apple recently looked to stomp out the Hackintosh community by killing support for the Intel Atom processor, effectively making its Snow Leopard and Leopard unable to be installed on netbooks.  However, despite Apple's determined efforts it can't seem to stop fans of its operating system from freely installing OS X on a variety of systems.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

And yet...
By FITCamaro on 11/16/2009 8:47:05 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The company was told that it was perfectly legal for Apple to use its EULA to control what platforms its own software is allowed on.


Microsoft is told they're not allowed to decide what software just to bundle with its system yet Apple can do that plus control everything down to the drivers of the hardware of the components of the system.

Fair and balanced justice system we have.




RE: And yet...
By Motoman on 11/16/2009 8:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone should be surprised about this...there was pretty much no chance in hell that Psystar would win this fight.

A contract is a contract, unless you can prove in a court of law that it's blatantly illegal in and of itself. Once again, if you don't like the contract, don't buy the product.

Anyway, considering that Apple has ~4% of the personal computer market, I think it's high time we stop pretending they matter. Because they don't.


RE: And yet...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/16/2009 9:21:33 AM , Rating: 3
As long as they artificially constrain their market by forcing their software to be tied to their hardware this is true. If they opened it up, they would either be shown to be a complete sham, or they would gain increased market share.

For the meantime though you are correct, they do not matter in the computer market and are a decided non-factor in anything outside of the portable media player/smartphone arena.


RE: And yet...
By mellomonk on 11/16/2009 9:42:13 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, but you assume a larger market share equates to more intellectual importance and more profit, which of course it does not.

The BMW auto group does not have the markeshare or profits of say Toyota or GM. But that does not mean they don't carry a disproportionate mindshare due to their trend setting products and developments. Apple may only have 5+% of the overall PC marketplace, but their trend setting designs, powerful marketing and unique features (ie.OSX) give them a far larger portion of the news and mindshare. Something is only as 'important' as people think it is and they are obviously very important in the consumer PC space.


RE: And yet...
By Spuke on 11/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: And yet...
By jragosta on 11/16/2009 1:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
"Companies exist to make a profit and 4% marketshare is nothing."

That's why Apple doesn't make a profit.

Oh, wait......

Apple has a business model which makes them the most profitable computer maker in the world. You don't like that model. Big deal. Once you've demonstrated the level of success which indicates that anyone should listen to your whining rather than Apple's years of success, then perhaps we'll listen.


RE: And yet...
By xmichaelx on 11/16/2009 4:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
Apple makes good profit on their computers, but until they branched into gadgets they saw 20 years of flat returns: http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=... .

Apples computer profits are a drop in the bucket when compared to 50%+ margins on iPhones and iPods.


RE: And yet...
By kmmatney on 11/16/2009 6:13:26 PM , Rating: 2
Seems liek if Apple "important", we wouldn't be getting an article about them everyday. I'm eagerly awaiting tomorrow's Apple/iPhone article.


RE: And yet...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/16/2009 12:23:07 PM , Rating: 1
I concur. Mindshare is a term invented by people who can attain the perception of being better but are unable to capitalize on it to grow their marketshare in a similar manner. Apple has good public perception, but their marketshare does not reflect them as being an industry leader in the PC market. In the Portable Media Device market however they were successfully able to market their brand and attain marketshare reflecting their reputation. In the PMP market a closed system is standard from all vendors, in the PC market software and hardware are not tied to each other and Apple's outdated business strategy in the PC market is a reflection that they have not modernized their business plan since its inception to match the changes in the PC market.

Another theory I have seen thrown around is that by tying their OS to their Hardware they are preventing themselves from directly competing with Microsoft, allowing them to "fly below the radar" in terms of the PC OS market.


RE: And yet...
By jragosta on 11/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: And yet...
By nikon133 on 11/16/2009 3:52:40 PM , Rating: 4
Still, Apple does compete against coalition set by MS, PC hardware and mobitel manufacturers.

You can't pretend that they don't have any contacts out there and exist on completely separate planes - if iPhone take sales from Windows Mobile phones, MS does suffer - even if they are not making phones themselves. If Apple take sales from HP, Dell... MS does suffer, even if they are not making PCs.

And the same goes the other way around.


RE: And yet...
By mckinney on 11/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: And yet...
By BioRebel on 11/16/2009 9:19:31 AM , Rating: 4
The problem isn't whether or not they actually control a significant share of the market, but its the continued advertising and brainwashing of its fanbase that they're a "free and open company".


RE: And yet...
By Lerianis on 11/16/2009 12:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
Good point there. The fact is that Apple is EVEN MORE CLOSED than Microsoft is, and even as a Microsoft fan/fanboy.... I have to say that Microsoft keeps stuff secret way too much and keeps too much of their code secret.


RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: And yet...
By Motoman on 11/16/2009 9:41:13 AM , Rating: 2
I mean a company that has 4% of a market doesn't matter. All of their bluster, their propaganda, their relentless marketing, their wildly disproportional media coverage...

A 4% player just doesn't matter to the market. So let them continuously throw their toys out of the pram and carry on with their shenanigans...they are an insignificant player, so just ignore them. Just a matter of statistics.


RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: And yet...
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/16/2009 10:07:09 AM , Rating: 5
You're missing the point. You could trim down the market as you just have to prove any point you want. But you haven't proven anything because all you've done is focus in on one aspect of the total market. You could do basically the same thing for the graphics market in order to claim that Matrox is a major player.

The fact is, in the total personal computer market, Apple does not have significant share.


RE: And yet...
By mellomonk on 11/16/2009 10:22:37 AM , Rating: 1
Matrox is not in the news everyday and on TV every night. They don't have hundreds of stores in the best retail spaces in the country. They are not a significant portion of Daily Tech's news. They are not number one in customer satisfaction. They do not have the best performing stock in tech right now. Marketshare is not as important as mindshare.


RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: And yet...
By LRonaldHubbs on 11/16/2009 8:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
The latter segment of your post was irrelevant to the matter and hand, so I won't even bother addressing that.

quote:
You're missing the point. You could trim down the market to that bit with most of the disposable income ...
Yes, you can do that... and if you made products they wanted you'd have a chance of being profitable, like Apple.

I'm not disputing that Apple makes a profit by catering to people with a tendency to overspend. What I am saying is that this category of users represents a niche market. Apple can pump out as many cute little commercials as they want, but at the end of the day, most of the demand is not in their niche. Of course Dell and others have high-end 'prestige' offerings, they'd be crazy not to. But that's not where most of the sales are. Intel, AMD, nvidia, ATi, all do the same thing (obviously, otherwise Dell and others couldn't), offer stupidly fast chips even though most of their sales are in the lower and midrange markets.

They can milk the higher-profit market for all it's worth, fine, but they'd better have a solid mainstream offering if they hope to grow their market share to a respectable number. And that is exactly why Apple is not a major player in the PC market, they don't cater to the masses.

I didn't say they were irrelevant, I said they were not a significant player in terms of market share. They are very relevant in terms of image, and I think propaganda is their greatest contribution because they motivate Microsoft to produce a better product. But without a large chunk of the market, they just don't have clout to force major market changes.


RE: And yet...
By Alexstarfire on 11/17/2009 4:41:09 AM , Rating: 1
The fact that Apple picked the best codecs out of the ones you mentioned really doesn't matter in terms of almost anything. AAC might be gaining some ground, but it's way behind MP3s and there isn't much difference between them. And H.264 just happens to be one of the best video codecs around. They had the Quicktime format before that. Look at how the industry didn't give a rats ass about the crappy format. it's the same reason the industry didn't really care about WMV or WMA really. They just sucked.

And I think the point he was trying to make by saying Apple isn't relevant is that Apple isn't a company they have to worry about pushing people out of business. A small market share leaves the rest open to other people, even if they aren't making shit for money right now. Though, without the marketing machine that Apple has I don't think they'd be doing very well. Also, with the cell phone companies subsidizing cell phones they wouldn't be doing as well. They take advantage of the situation, but that's about it.


RE: And yet...
By Spuke on 11/16/2009 10:21:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They actually currently have about 10% of the US market and far higher than that when you strip out the commercial beige boxes. Microsoft estimate that 50% of the copies of their OS are pirated. When you strip out those too (since Microsoft make no money from them) the percentage of Macs rises again.
Pirated copies of software are not used in sales figures. LOL!

Apple OS marketshare in the US: 5.27%
Microsoft OS marketshare in the US: 92.52%

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-m...


RE: And yet...
By Spuke on 11/16/2009 10:29:12 AM , Rating: 2
Sh!t, these are worldwide numbers. Anyways, NPD reported 9.4% of the US market for Apple. Having a hard time finding overall numbers for Microsoft with all of the Win7 buzz. Apparently, Win7 is at 3% marketshare by itself. Not to bad in a recession.


RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/2009 10:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
Spuke:
quote:
Pirated copies of software are not used in sales figures. LOL!


Of course they are! These figures come from online surveys!


RE: And yet...
By mburton325 on 11/16/2009 12:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually their not. The piracy numbers are factored out to come up with close true market share as possible. Although the 95% for Windows is a little high as it was only 73% last report I saw with Mac 0S X at 12% and Linux just over 1%, the rest were "other". This was as of June. Windows 7 3% comes mostly from new PC buyers and upgrades from older versions. There is also a reason a variance is given in these reports. One is to make for any pirated copy of the OS that may have been missed. Another is due to tracking software that may determine the wrong OS or OS version.


RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/2009 3:54:18 PM , Rating: 2
mburton325:
quote:
The piracy numbers are factored out to come up with close true market share as possible.


Here are the numbers being referred... done by Net Applications:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-m...

Now you show us all how the piracy figures are factored out and where that's calculated for each country.


RE: And yet...
By Alexstarfire on 11/17/2009 4:53:17 AM , Rating: 2
Can't say that they are factored out, but why would you want them factored out. Does the fact they are using an OS simply not matter because they didn't pay for it? No. They are part of the market share even if you don't like it.


RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/17/2009 9:35:24 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for that considered reply. You are quite right that from certain points of view it is irrelevant. Some businesses will develop for the Windows platform on the basis that whether or not the OS was paid for it irrelevant to them.

Others will wonder at the value of developing for customers who will not pay for software.

Factoring out the piracy is important with regard to understanding the level of success of Microsoft and customer fidelity to them. For example, were Microsoft to come down hard on piracy in a number of countries, even with cheaper OS prices than in the US, they would find that the country would probably jump ship to Linux. Brazil springs to mind, where the government has stipulated that Linux and open file formats be used for government.

This thread was about Apple/Microsoft relative growth over the last 10 years and, thus, factoring out is relevant.


RE: And yet...
By OmegaVX on 11/16/2009 10:23:46 AM , Rating: 4
Wait wait wait...
Are you saying mac users are intelligent?
I know several mac users.
Not one of them could outwit a turnip.


RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/2009 10:40:19 AM , Rating: 2
OmegaVX
quote:
Wait wait wait...
Are you saying mac users are intelligent?
I know several mac users.
Not one of them could outwit a turnip.


Q.E.D.


RE: And yet...
By harmaton on 11/16/2009 10:53:10 AM , Rating: 2
so sad if you think that is proof.


RE: And yet...
By OmegaVX on 11/16/2009 10:56:05 AM , Rating: 2
quod erat demonstrandum?

its not an equation, so dont put a symbol for solved at the end of it.

Mac users are typically as thick as a yard of lard.

hence they pay the excessivly bloated prices for generic intel hardware with an apple logo on the side held together with a cheap lump o plastic with cooling that would be substandard if were being used in the arctic.


RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/2009 4:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
A rather arrogant comment from someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Yes, quod erat demonstrandum. It means: which was to be demonstrated. It does not apply simply to equations but anything one set out to demonstrate.

I mentioned a well known fact that Mac users tend to be better educated and better paid. OmegaVX replied with a comment that would fail to impress a half-wit and I referred to it with the retort: Q.E.D....

and now you have kindly proved my point a second time.

Q.E.D.


RE: And yet...
By OmegaVX on 11/17/2009 4:12:40 AM , Rating: 1
omg ur an idiot


RE: And yet...
By talozin on 11/16/2009 12:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
Are you saying mac users are intelligent?

Funny anecdote: I recently attended a meeting pursuant to a major U.S. space exploration mission (no names, but you've read about it on DT). We had representatives from the science personnel associated with the mission; the computing infrastructure team; the internal scientific programming team; and an external team of programmers from a highly regarded science school in southern California.

The one management guy showed up with a VAIO. Everyone else in the room had a Mac.


RE: And yet...
By twjr on 11/17/2009 3:03:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but all you have done there is proven that you are never going to get to the moon again.


RE: And yet...
By michael2k on 11/16/2009 11:01:38 AM , Rating: 2
Their US marketshare is significantly higher than 4%.

When you consider Dell is only, what, 25% of the market and Apple is 9%?


RE: And yet...
By jabberwolf on 11/16/2009 1:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
Psystar had an EXCELLENT chance of winning but with a retarded and untech savvy judge that knows nothing, they lost.

Apple sells its OS separately.
It admit tingly put sabotage code in its OSX install to loop if it could not find the EFI chip. This was done, admittedly by Apple, to prevent other hardware from being used to run its OSX.

Thus, it restricted other hardware from using is OS.

This, by almost an exact definition, is a violation of the COPYRIGHT MISUSE DOCTRINE. And is a violation of anti-trust laws. If MS were to locked down its OS to only specific vendors, its own, or a select... there would be blood in the streets! And no being a monopoly is not illegal, monopolistic practices are!!! < so dont go there!>

Either the judge is a total knucklhead, or a sympathetic matard.


RE: And yet...
By Motoman on 11/16/2009 2:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
...or, you don't know what you're talking about.


RE: And yet...
By sebmel on 11/16/2009 4:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
jabberwolf:
quote:
It admit tingly put sabotage code in its OSX install to loop if it could not find the EFI chip.


Jabber indeed.


RE: And yet...
By mellomonk on 11/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: And yet...
By FITCamaro on 11/16/2009 9:42:34 AM , Rating: 5
And Safari on OS X doesn't do this? The point is that Microsoft has a clear and valid reason to bundle IE with Windows. People want to be able to turn on the computer and get on the internet from the moment they purchase it. And no company in the world promotes a competitor's products over their own.

While there might have been a case to be made when IE was tied into Windows Update, that is no longer the case. IE is solely used as a web browser now and is not a critical function of the OS. Yet they are still sued. If others want to become the market leader, they just need to make a better browser. And they are. Every piece of software out there has certain defaults. Windows is no different. And its defaults are easy to change.

Basically your argument is the rest of the industry is a whiny little b*tch and should be able to direct how Microsoft develops its product.


RE: And yet...
By mellomonk on 11/16/2009 9:56:03 AM , Rating: 3
I would agree. I think MS should have the right to include IE for there are competitors, many superior. The problem was (for the market has changed significantly from the time of the bundling complaint) that because of their marketshare and the general newness of the internet, for a large number of folks, IE was the internet. That of course has changed.

But MS market share still is has some power. Would you want to be Norton or Macafee the day that MS free anti-virus/anti-spyware products are bundle and closly tied with Windows from the start? Could this be why you have to download them (and Live Essentials) rather then just have them installed from the start?


RE: And yet...
By Alexstarfire on 11/17/2009 4:58:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather be neither since both of them suck. Can't say much about MS Essentials though as I haven't used it. Been with some other free products for quite a while and they are working just fine.


RE: And yet...
By The0ne on 11/16/2009 11:41:05 AM , Rating: 2
It's simply a matter of how people view the two companies. Most still think MS is a giant monopoly and will limit what they include/have in their OS. Apple on the other hand appears to have loyal fans that will go along with just about anything Apple does, even if the contract states Apple owns their soul. Yes it sucks, but as of right now consumers are doing crap about it, not enough anyhow, and legal systems are turning a blind eye.

I agree with the OP, even with the contract. MS could be an ass and make such contract and doom everyone else in competition but they aren't, to some extent. Apple does it and people applaud. Doesn't make sense, or even fair, really.


RE: And yet...
By CREDULOUSdOLT on 11/16/2009 10:01:39 AM , Rating: 2
Why is this so hard for you people to understand? Microsoft's practices are deemed anti-competitive because of their market share, and because of the punitive steps they take against manufacturers who don't drink the kool-aid and agree to their draconian licensing agreements.

Apple is its own, significantly smaller, slice of the pie. Until it reaches MS's megalithic proportions in the market it's free to restrict *its* software to *its* hardware without, in any way, creating an anti-competitve environment.


RE: And yet...
By Drag0nFire on 11/16/2009 10:32:13 AM , Rating: 3
To rephrase this, I think it's worth noting that many of Apple's business practices are anti-competitive. The practices are not monopolistic yet because Apple has such a small market share.

If Dell decided one day to only install Linux on their PCs, on one would care because they could buy a Microsoft PC from Acer or Lenovo or HP etc. If Dell had 95% of the market share and tried the same trick, the government might get involved.

I pity Apple fans. They seem incapable of understanding what they're missing through Apple's anti-competitive practices.


RE: And yet...
By michael2k on 11/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: And yet...
By OmegaVX on 11/16/2009 11:10:01 AM , Rating: 2
haha mac user


RE: And yet...
By mburton325 on 11/16/2009 12:21:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're the ones that can run Windows, Linux, and Mac software all on one box, and we're the ones missing out?


I run two distros of Linux, Windows 7 and Windows Server 08 all on the same box. The only reason I do not run Mac OS X is I refuse to play Steve Jobs' Control freak game. Outside of that OS X is an excellent operating system.

Give it a rest VMs are a wonderful tool for IT development.


RE: And yet...
By michael2k on 11/16/2009 4:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
That still sounds like you're the one missing out since I can do all that, too.


RE: And yet...
By Alexstarfire on 11/17/2009 5:03:20 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's always been a bit ironic that many Mac people bring up the fact they can use Windows on their machine. Apart from people who just like the way OS X functions/looks over Windows there is no reason to install OS X on a PC. On the other hand, there is a reason to install Windows on a Mac machine, software compatibility. A lot of software just doesn't work with OS X.

Exactly why would someone pay more to do the exact same thing they ARE doing on a PC?


RE: And yet...
By yomamafor1 on 11/16/2009 12:24:41 PM , Rating: 3
That's because Apple doesn't allow any body else to run OS X on non-Apple taxed hardwares.

On MS based computers, I can run any program I like.

On OS X based computers, I can only run Apple approved programs.

That's what you're missing out.


RE: And yet...
By michael2k on 11/16/2009 4:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
That still sounds like you're the one missing out, not me.

I can get GPL, Linux, BSD, Windows, OS X, and all other Intel compatible applications on my Mac.

You, on the other hand, can't get OS X applications at all.


RE: And yet...
By Akrovah on 11/16/2009 7:24:39 PM , Rating: 2
And what OS X applications would I care about that I can not find a perfectly suitable replacement for Windows or Linux?


RE: And yet...
By michael2k on 11/16/2009 9:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
Does it matter? I get access to Mac only software, you don't. If you don't care then it doesn't matter, you're not missing out one bit.


RE: And yet...
By sprockkets on 11/16/2009 5:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
On OS X based computers, I can only run Apple approved programs.


That's the iphone, not Macs running OSX. Nothing stops people from installing Flash, VLC, Limewire, Handbrake or any other program that Apple doesn't make.

Microsoft makes Directx Windows only. Is that also too, anti-competitive? Is Google Maps GPS that is only available on Android 2.0 anti-competitive since it isn't on the iphone or WinMob (perhaps not yet)? Or is the fact that I can't get one of the best diesel engines by Cumins in a Ford anti-competative behavior of Dodge?

No. It's creating a compelling reason for people to buy your product as opposed to another. For a lot of people, they can run Windows and all of what they need without Apple, so their stuff doesn't have any value whatsoever.

To each his own. I find that I can do stuff easier in SuSE than in Vista/7. In fact, I can't get any program to play h.264 files in mkv containers with DTS or AC3 audio properly to my receiver. Either it plays 2 channel over SPDIF or nothing in Win Vista or 7, while it plays fine in SuSE.

Best part is, the same program, SMPlayer, was used in each OS. Neither VLC or MediaPlayerClassic HCE worked in Windows properly outputing the correct audio.


RE: And yet...
By Alexstarfire on 11/17/2009 5:06:54 AM , Rating: 1
If there is one thing to complain about for PCs it has to do with codecs. Codecs are just a bitch. Might have support for more formats on PC, though I don't think that really matters for the most part, but getting some stuff to work is just crazy. Multiple codecs to play the same format.... that just makes no sense.


RE: And yet...
By Helbore on 11/16/2009 1:15:44 PM , Rating: 3
Imagine if you could do that, but on hardware that cost 1/3 of the price, though.


RE: And yet...
By michael2k on 11/16/2009 10:59:47 AM , Rating: 3
Don't make erroneous comparisons. Microsoft is allowed to do the exact same thing as Apple in this case:
Home versions of Windows disallow installation on VM (HW restrictions on OS.. gee)
OEM versions of Windows disallow installation on non OEM HW (Another HW restriction!)

The difference is that Microsoft broke the law when they bundled IE by withholding Windows licenses from Compaq and IBM. Apple hasn't done that, yet.


RE: And yet...
By OmegaVX on 11/16/2009 11:15:44 AM , Rating: 2
you can build a pc out of any hardware you wish (as long as its capable of running stably) and then load load on a clean oem copy of windows (manufacturer oem copys are nothing to do with microsoft, theyre altered by the specific oems and on volume licence so they have to be hardware specific or theyd be fully legal (as far as ms could see) pirate copies)
an oem licence is not hardware specific, its supposed to be loaded on by whoever(supposed to be a company but not always the case) built the pc.


RE: And yet...
By michael2k on 11/16/2009 4:11:18 PM , Rating: 3
That's the point. The copy you buy from Apple isn't a clean OEM copy, it's a pre-restricted OEM copy.

So take your clean/stable PC and grab a $10 Dell OEM Windows disc and you'll find the OS won't install. You can hack it, of course, but then you're in the exact same situation as hacking OS X.

An OEM is exactly HW specific, it just happens that the OEM is the one who specifies the HW.

In Psystar's case, Apple is the OEM and not Psystar.
In your case, you are the OEM.


RE: And yet...
By Shadowself on 11/16/2009 2:25:11 PM , Rating: 3
I wish people would get this right. It was not about bundling IE with Windows. Microsoft does that today!

The anti-trust suit by the U.S. Government and 20 States was never about bundling. It was about integrating IE into the Windows OS. Microsoft was bundling IE with Windows for some time before they started integrating IE into Windows. This garnered no government interest at all. It also did not garner Microsoft any real market share in the browser market.

Then Microsoft integrated IE as as what it called an "integral" part of Windows. IE would always come up as the default browser (unless the user went in and hacked his/her version of Windows). This virtually overnight gave Microsoft's IE browser a significant market share and within a year or so IE had a commanding lead in market share in browsers.

The suit was over using Microsoft's acknowledged monopoly position in desktop operating systems (acknowledged by Microsoft as greater than 93% at the time) to extend Microsoft's reach and control into an application market where it had a miniscule market share (browsers) by integrating IE into Windows.

Once it went to trial Microsoft even had the audacity to lie to the court and say it was impossible to remove IE from Windows without completely crippling Windows. One of the prosecutors found a single individual who removed the IE functionality from Windows and left virtually all other functionality intact. If a single person could do it (without access to the source code) certainly Microsoft's team could have done it. Lying to a judge has a tendency to tick him off.

What was the bottom line for Microsoft? Making IE an application again, bundling it as a separate application and promising to never integrate applications like IE into the Windows OS ever again.

Those are the simple facts. It was never about bundling.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki