The Mac Sucks!

CNET’s Jim Dalrymple posted a story about a Mac clone maker named “RussianMac“. According to the post, RussianMac claims that OS X is preinstalled on its computers and that the machines are able to receive automatic updates from Apple. CNET also notes that German company PearC is essentially doing the same thing. After the big fuss last year about Psystar offering Mac clones in the United States, it’s not surprising to see some overseas businesses trying to cash in on the idea, too.

A couple of the comments below the CNET RussianMac article got me thinking about Apple’s position on the clone makers’ actions. To me, the Apple position is “interesting” in light of a few facts:

• The OS X GUI is based on concepts pioneered in Mac OS 9 (and below), which in turn is derived from work done for the Apple Lisa, which is based on work done at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) that “inspired” Apple.
• Mac OS X is based on BSD UNIX. UNIX can trace its history back as far as 1969 to a system called “UNICS” at that time. UNIX existed long before Apple shipped its first Apple I personal computer, let alone the Mac.
• A wide variety of the components in Mac OS X are open source, apart from the BSD UNIX pieces. Apple didn’t build Apache, MySQL, rsync, and a number of other tools leveraged by OS X. It merely “appropriated” these tools and rolled them into its product.
• One of the commenters to the article on CNET claimed that Apple’s tight control of the hardware allowed it to include support for a wide range of different printers. Actually, it was Apple’s purchase of the Common Unix Printing System (CUPS) from Easy Software Products that made that possible. Apple deserves credit for open sourcing CUPS, but not for creating it.
• Apple’s support for networking with Windows file shares is made possible by Samba, an open source suite that has existed since 1992, when Apple still sold Macs with what is now called the “Classic” Mac OS.
• In fact, a lot of Mac OS X components were “borrowed” from the open source community. I’m not suggesting that this is wrong, merely pointing out that many of the technologies in Mac OS X were added to it by Apple from previously existing projects.

So the entire history of the Mac revolves around Apple engineers buying and borrowing things they liked. They borrowed the GUI concept from PARC. They borrowed the core of OS X from BSD UNIX. They bought CUPS and added it to OS X. They added functionality to BSD from other open source products and NeXT. And yes, they developed code themselves (how much of the resulting product is their work, I’m in no position to speculate).

What Apple did to create OS X is nothing new. It’s very much like what Red Hat (and other companies) have done to commercialize the Linux operating system and market it. And just like those companies, Apple does release an open source version of OS X, referred to as Darwin. Darwin lacks the Apple GUI and other Apple-created components of OS X, but contains much of the same core code. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not suggesting in any way that Apple is doing anything wrong or illegal. It isn’t. What it’s done is not even that unusual. All I’m suggesting is that when Apple created its OS X product, it decided to use some of the open source software it felt was “best” for its operating system, along with a component or two it purchased and included into the OS. The rest, presumably, Apple built itself.

Because Apple built OS X, it has every right (legal and otherwise) to license that software and to charge for those licenses (at least as far as I know). But when you think about it, what the clone makers have done is not that different from what Apple did in creating Mac OS X. The clone makers purchased hardware components they felt were appropriate, combined them into a finished personal computer, and licensed what they felt to be the “right” operating system software for their machine – Mac OS X. This is exactly what they would have done to produce a Windows PC or a Linux PC (except that Linux would have been free of charge). The only difference is a clause in Apple’s End User License Agreement (EULA) that says you are not permitted to install the software on anything other than Apple-labeled hardware. Psystar’s, PearC’s, and RussianMac’s hardware isn’t Apple-labeled (although one wonders if the legal definition of “Apple labeled” would include a machine with an Apple logo sticker affixed to it – like the ones that ship with iPods and Macs), thus it violates the terms of the EULA and (perhaps arguably) means that the license is null and void.

Apple’s EULA is effectively tying its operating system to its hardware. Antitrust laws make it illegal to have “an arrangement or agreement in which a seller will sell a product to a buyer only if the buyer will also buy another product.” Before you dismiss that allegation out of hand, consider this 2007 case against IBM brought by hardware maker Platform Solutions Inc. (PSI). PSI alleged that by IBM tying the sale of its z/OS mainframe operating system to its mainframe hardware, it prevented PSI from entering into the mainframe market with its server products (which also ran Windows, UNIX, and Linux). IBM later bought PSI, possibly to settle the lawsuit. European company T3 also sued IBM for tying its operating system to its mainframe hardware, effectively giving it a monopoly in the mainframe hardware market, and preventing T3 from entering that market. Linux advocates went after Microsoft for a similar agreement with major PC manufacturers, because it was at the time impossible to purchase a PC without an operating system (specifically, Microsoft Windows). Microsoft’s argument was that this prevented piracy of Windows. The Linux advocates claimed that this was illegal tying, because they were planning to run Linux, not a pirated copy of Windows, and thus did not need a Windows license. As you may recall, Microsoft took a real beating for that (in the media if not in court). What makes Apple’s position so different?

One successful defense against allegations of tying has been when the two products are useless without each other. If Macs could only run Apple’s operating system and that operating system could not run on other computers, Apple could argue that the two are useless alone and thus the tying is a logical and necessary thing. However, today’s Macs can boot Windows and Linux. It isn’t strictly necessary to have OS X on a Macintosh anymore if you don’t want it there. And as lots of people have demonstrated, Mac OS X will run unmodified on hardware not created by Apple. So Apple’s tying of the two together could be alleged to constitute an illegal arrangement, with Apple trying to make someone who buys a Mac also buy OS X, and someone who buys OS X also buy Apple hardware. In fact, Psystar made just this argument early on in its fight with Apple but later dropped it in favor of a “misuse of copyright” claim which says Apple uses its EULA to unfairly prevent competition for Mac clones. (Apple has made counter-points to these claims, which you can read about elsewhere online.)

Do I really expect Apple to lose this fight against the clone makers? No. Apple has very deep pockets and lots of lawyers, so the odds that these (much smaller and presumably less-deeply-pocketed) clone makers will prevail is quite low. However, if Apple does lose the battle, it will be interesting to see how the computing landscape changes as a result. Would this entice competitors like HP, Dell, and Lenovo to jump into the Mac hardware marketplace? Would it force Microsoft to rethink its Windows licensing scheme to compete with Apple? It’s entertaining to consider.

I’ve heard some claim that Microsoft is behind the Psystar legal battle with Apple. If you think about it, however, Microsoft has the most to lose if Psystar wins. A Psystar win would mean that Apple would be required to sell OS X licenses to anyone who wants them, which could include the very same companies building Windows PCs today. Microsoft would be competing with Apple to get Windows licenses preinstalled on (hypothetically) HP and Dell PCs instead of OS X. Microsoft could be competing against Apple’s $129 Mac OS X packages, and would have to abandon (or at least adjust) its Windows price range to remain viable. A Psystar win could result in OS X decimating the Windows market. Maybe. OK, probably not, but again, it’s entertaining to consider.

As CNET’s Tom Krazit reported recently, it’s been a year since a then-unknown company called Psystar began offering computers with Apple’s Mac OS X preinstalled on them. Since then, the company has become entangled in a legal battle with Apple over Psystar’s right (or lack of it) to sell computers with Mac OS X on them. Psystar recently introduced a new “Open Computer” in its product line.

As Krazit reports, “Apple’s stance is pretty clear: the end-user licensing agreement that comes with Leopard forbids the user from installing that operating system on anything other than an Apple-labeled computer. Psystar, on the other hand, is attempting to argue that Apple is abusing its copyright on Mac OS X in requiring the operating system to run on Apple hardware…”

Psystsar claims that sales have exceeded their expectations, and that they still plan to release a notebook running Mac OS X at some point. “What Psystar has accomplished is to prove that a Mac OS computer that was not designed by Apple can deliver a satisfactory experience. CNET was one of the first to order an Open Computer in April 2008, and I’ve been using that machine as my primary work system ever since with few issues,” says Krazit. He mentions that while he’s been able to download every update to Leopard released since last April, he hasn’t always been able to download and install updates for Apple application software such as iTunes and iLife.

In terms of the user experience, Krazit reports that “the Open Computer is otherwise an almost identical Mac experience to the MacBook Pro I use at home. When it comes to reliability and service, Psystar may not be able to compete with Apple, but for people who know their way around a computer, the Open Computer is a Mac.”

While Apple is busy thinking up “pretty interesting ideas” for a netbook, the hacker community is busy figuring out how to get Mac OS X running on currently-available netbooks from MSI, Lenovo, Dell, etc. In fact, the BoingBoing.net Gadgets blog posted a chart back in December 2008 showing the compatibility of various netbooks with the cracked version of Mac OS X Leopard:

The interesting surprise here is the Dell Inspiron Mini 9, which apparently works well with Mac OS X Leopard. The Mini 9 can be purchased in the $249 to $412 range as of this writing, making it a very inexpensive (new) Hackintosh.

Interestingly, the netbook I personally use (the Asus Eee PC 1000H) also made the list, with only the Ethernet and audio not working. Checking the link provided in the table, I find that on the eNik blog that “sound is now partially working” and that with an “inexpensive MacBook Air USB to Ethernet Adaptor” you could even get Ethernet going. However, looking at the detailed steps on this blog, I’m not crazy about the idea of flashing the machine with a BIOS that’s been modified by someone I don’t know. I’m also, of course, not crazy about the idea of potentially finding myself in the same legal boat as the folks from Psystar… though I’ve never heard of Apple suing individuals for running a Hackintosh.

The ChannelWeb site posted an article today entitled “Can Apple Stop Mac Clones?” which suggests that Apple may be unable to snuff out Mac clones. According to the post, “Two system makers, PearC and Psystar, have avoided Apple’s attempts to snuff out systems that can run Apple’s popular Mac OS X operating system. Their ability to keep one step ahead of Apple’s ever-vigilant legal eagles is likely to spark more companies to brave the Mac clone waters.”

As evidence, ChannelWeb cites the fact that “Microsoft has been unsuccessful snuffing out software piracy overseas” and goes on to suggest that “Apple isn’t going to be successful snuffing out Mac clones” because “Mac users both here and overseas are sick and tired of buying high-priced Macs and are clamoring for compatible systems.”

The article says that “PearC evidently believes a German law regarding EULAs could derail any Apple legal maneuvering. Apparently PearC is betting on a German law that voids any EULA that can not be viewed by the customer on the product box before purchase.” Since Apple’s EULA is packed inside the box, it would appear to be void under that law.

Mac “clone” maker Psystar has scored a minor victory in its legal battle with Apple, Inc., according to an article in Computerworld. A federal judge has ruled that Psystar may continue its countersuit against Apple. If Psystar can prove its allegations that Apple has stretched copyright laws by tying the Mac OS to Apple hardware, Psystar and others may be free to sell computers with Mac OS X pre-installed.

The Computerworld article says that U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup said in his ruling: “Psystar may well have a legitimate interest in establishing misuse [of copyright] independent of Apple’s claims against it — for example, to clarify the risks it confronts by marketing the products at issue in this case or others it may wish to develop.” Later, the article reports that “Alsup also said that if Psystar proves that Apple abused copyright laws, some of Apple’s charges against the company would be moot. He also seemed to say that others would then be free to follow in Psystar’s footsteps.”

It should be interesting to see how this case turns out.

A company called EFi-X USA has, for some time, offered a device which can be plugged into a USB port on a standard PC motherboard which “fools” an unmodified Mac OS X DVD into thinking that it’s being booted on a “real” Apple Macintosh.  According to their web site earlier this week, customers of the approximately $200 device were having trouble finding PC hardware that was compatible with both the device and OS X.  The company decided to help resolve the problem by offering pre-built high-end PCs including the device that could boot an off-the-shelf, unmodified Mac OS X DVD so that OS X could be installed on it.  Then very shortly afterward, it pulled the announcement from its web site.

On the one hand, I think EFi-X USA made the right move in pulling the announcement.  Given the issues being faced by another would-be Mac cloner, Psystar, they would simply be opening themselves up even more for a lawsuit than the device they already sell could be doing.  On the other hand, it’s unfortunate for Psystar that they did, as this would have perhaps added a little weight to Psystar’s argument that there is an untapped market for machines which offer an alternative platform on which to run Mac OS X.  That probably would not have helped them win their case, but might have mitigated some of the potential damage by showing that other companies perceive the same marketplace to exist and want to serve it with Mac clones.

Apple has scored a minor victory in its case against Mac clone maker Psystar.  When Apple sued Psystar, alleging a variety of legal issues, Psystar sued back on the grounds that Apple has a monopoly on systems that run Mac OS X.  The judge in the case reportedly said that the Apple control of the Mac market isn’t a monopoly, and dismissed that charge in Psystar’s suit.  While this is certainly an unfortunate turn of events for Psystar, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Apple has won the entire case.  There is still ample room for Psystar to achieve some sort of victory that allows them to continue making and selling Mac clones.  

We speculated a while back that one thing Apple could do to destroy the lawsuit filed against them by Psystar would be to release a “full” OS X license that could be installed on third-party hardware, at a price above the current $129 licenses and (ideally) in line with Microsoft Windows licensing at the higher end.  There’s some talk in the media that Apple might do away with the Mac Mini at its upcoming desktop product launch. 

How does the demise of the Mac Mini imply the possibility of licensing the Mac OS for non-Apple hardware?  Consider what CNet.com says was the point of the Mini in Apple’s product line: “The Mac Mini was an experiment in affordability and minimalism on Apple’s part back in 2005. The small desktop was initially a hit with critics and consumers, but as the world’s PC preferences tilted strongly in favor of notebooks over the last several years, Apple spent more time updating and promoting the MacBook and iMac all-in-one desktops than the cute little cube…[snip]… It would, however, eliminate the cheapest Mac from Apple’s arsenal, raising the starting price of (officially, at least) entering the Mac OS X universe to $999. Analysts have been a little worried that the Mac is expensive in the midst of this year’s economic turmoil”.

So, by dropping the Mini, Apple raises a barrier to entry for potential Mac switchers.  Instead of being able to acquire a Mini for $600 and use existing peripherals to enter the Mac world cheaply, users would have to move to the $999 MacBooks.  If Apple wants to still be able to service those folks who can’t spend the $999 for a MacBook, releasing a “full” OS X license for use on third party hardware (at say, $299) is one way they could fill the void they’re leaving by dropping the Mini.  If a Psystar-type company wants to produce Mac clones, Apple can let them do so, while sitting back and collecting $299 on each one sold without having to do more than burn a CD and stuff it into a box.  If Apple makes it clear that they’ll only provide tech support for items on a pre-defined compatibility list, they can minimize the support costs this might generate while increasing revenue.

Thus, instead of the barrier to “Mac ownership” being a $599 Mac Mini, it would now be “the hardware you probably already have” plus only $299.  It might be worth $299 to me to have a machine at the house that is able to legally run OS X… and it just might to others, too.  In any case, it will be interesting to see if they do dump the Mini as predicted, and what they do about filling the void (if anything).

I can already see the commercial…

“Hi, I’m a Mac.”

“And I’m a PC. Say, what do you have there, Mac?”

“It’s a full license for OS X. I got it as a present for you.”

“For me? You shouldn’t have… I didn’t get you anything.”

“Go ahead, try it on.”

[screen fades, comes back, PC and Mac are either both the same guy, or both dressed alike]

“Hello, I’m a Mac.”

“…and so am I…”

[this would be followed by information about how you can now buy Mac OS X and legally use it on non-Apple hardware. to see if yours is compatible, go to xxx web address..]

Imagine the uproar in Redmond after seeing that commercial.  Even I am forced to admit it would definitely trump anything I can imagine Microsoft coming up with, and in time for the holidays, no less…  I think I’d pay to see that.  And it could explain why Apple has never really gone after the OSx86 site for running OS X on non-Apple hardware… they were using them as market research and a source for their compatibility list…

On the Cult of Mac site, there is a very thoughtful article by Leigh McMullen in which he suggests a way that Apple could put an abrupt end to the “Apple vs. Psystar” court case.  His solution?  Give away OS X.  Make Mac OS X “free for life” with a Mac.  With respect, McMullen has that completely backwards.  To put an abrupt end to the Psystar case and prevent them, or any other company, from competing with Apple on Mac hardware, Apple should in fact raise the price of Mac OS X.  Allow me to explain, because I’m sure that will sound counterintuitive.

Psystar’s allegation is that Apple has unfairly created a monopoly for hardware that runs Mac OS X by placing technical and contractual hurdles in the way of would-be cloners.  From a technical perspective, Psystar argues that Apple’s firmware is there to prevent OS X from booting on otherwise identical “generic PC hardware”.  Further, Apple argues that Psystar can’t legally install Mac OS X on its clones because the only license Psystar can buy at retail is technically an “upgrade” license.  Therefore, Psystar can’t legally install it because their hardware never had an OS X license to begin with, and thus can’t be “upgraded”.

Making Mac OS X free doesn’t negate Psystar’s argument.  If anything, it makes the argument even stronger.  Since Apple, in that situation, is giving away Mac OS X, it’s not financially harmed if Psystar installs OS X on non-Apple hardware.  Apple wasn’t going to make any money on that hardware or the OS, so they’ve got less of a complaint.  That’s why instead of making Mac OS X  free, Apple needs to do just the opposite… They need to sell it for more money than they do today.

Apple could shut down the whole Mac clone concept by introducing a “full” Mac OS X license to go with the existing “upgrade” license.  The new “full” license should get a suitably Apple-like price tag, such as $600.  The license agreement with the new “full” license should state very clearly that while it can be installed on non-Apple hardware, Apple reserves the right to deny technical support to anyone who doesn’t install it on an actual Apple Macintosh.

On the surface, this makes it completely legal for Psystar to sell systems pre-loaded with Mac OS X, and it would.  However, at $600 for the OS license, Psystar’s systems would be (at a minimum) on a price parity with Apple’s own machines.  More likely, the $600 OS X license would make them more expensive than Apple’s hardware.

Psystar’s arguments against Apple would, for the most part, begin to vaporize in this situation.  Apple could justify its high Mac prices by explaining that they include a $600 full license to Mac OS X.  It could no longer be accused of halting competition in the Mac marketplace because a “full” OS X license would be available to cloners and hobbyists.  No Mac owner would ever need to buy the “full” license because it would be included with the computer.  Mac owners would continue to buy the $129 upgrades as before.  And if anyone  did start selling Mac clones, well, Apple would be making about $600 on each one.   That’s a better deal for Apple than what will happen if Psystar manages to win this case… which (most likely) would mean that those $129 licenses would be legal to install on any compatible hardware.

Not long ago, the Mac world was buzzing over the announcement that a little company in Florida called Psystar was apparently building and selling Macintosh clones they called “Open Computers”.

At the time, no one understood why Apple was so silent, why it let this company get lots of press coverage (and presumably take lots of orders). Apple, it seems, has finally acted on the situation and filed a lawsuit against Psystar.

According to the folks at Slashdot, the suit alleges violation of Apple’s shrink wrap license and trademarks, as well as copyright infringement. It should be interesting to see how this turns out.

If Apple should lose the case, it would open the floodgates for other computer makers to produce OS X compatible systems and put them on the market. Those of you who have known Apple for a long time know that clones nearly killed Apple in the 1990s.

If Apple wins, one has to wonder if their next tactic will be to go after the Psystar customers and others running Mac OS X on hardware that Apple didn’t manufacture… and what that might mean to the computer industry at large.

Not that
it should surprise long-time readers of this site, but Macworld’s
Jonny Evans tells us that Apple’s Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard has already been hacked to run on non-Apple
Intel PCs.   According to Evans, the OSX86Scene Forum has released
instructions on how to install Apple’s newest OS on non-Apple
hardware (even though doing so is probably against the law, as Evans
points out).

We’re told that “Not all the features of
Leopard function with the patch — WiFi support, for example, is
reportedly inoperable.  Historically, Apple’s next move will be
to track down and act against those behind the hack.”  (Note
that WiFi support depends largely on the chipset used in the non-Apple
PC running Leopard.  Similarly, users report problems with
networking, sound, video, and the like, depending on the differences
between their PC configuration and Apple’s own hardware choices in
the Mac line.)

Evans also tells us that “this weekend a crew
of hackers unleashed Jailbreak Me, an online service iPod touch and
iPhone users can navigate to in order to break into these devices in
order to install applications on them.”

In the interest of
“getting the facts” (which so many of the Mac Faithful
visiting this site think I fail to do, even though I work with Macs,
PCs, and Linux on an almost daily basis and do considerable research
online), I visited the OSX86Scene’s web site and did some
reading.  Here are some things I learned that might be of interest
to Mac fans and non-Mac-fans alike:

• Guide to Installing Leopard on a Hackintosh
• How to Convert a Mac DMG to ISO format on Windows
  XP
• Using the bless command properly
• Loading Mac OS X 10.4.8 on a Dell Latitude C840
  Laptop
• Recommended Wireless Cards for Leopard and Tiger

Again, we want to be careful to highlight that
this site does NOT condone, endorse, recommend, suggest, or in any way
imply that you should install Apple’s software products in any
manner inconsistent with their licensing terms and conditions.  We
do not endorse or condone piracy, either.  But we do want to be
sure we share “the facts” when we have them, so that you can
be aware of what’s going on out there and make your own decisions
about what to do with them.