There's the kicker -- they sell their software independently of the hardware. They are both a software and a hardware manufacturer.
while they ALLOW -- under certain circumstances -- Mac owners to put other software on the Apple hardware
That is the equivalent of saying while Ford will allow -- under certain circumstances -- owners to put non-Ford gasoline (if Ford sold gasoline) in Ford cars. Ford doesn't allow anything, and Apple shouldn't be able to either. You bought the hardware, it's yours, period.
When will the Psystar apologists realize that Psystar is not making a competing product (a system) -- they are making an illegal copyright-infringing piece of hardware and encouraging Mac-heads to violate the terms of the OS-X EULA
Here is where we disagree. Psystar is paying for each copy of OS X. The first question is the EULA. I don't think that should be enforceable because it stretches copyright beyond its intent. I believe Apple has the right to prevent you from making and distributing multiple copies of OS X off the disk you bought -- that's right in with copyright. But I can't agree with them having the power to say what you can and can't install it on. You bought it, it's yours, you install it wherever you want. Just don't distribute copies.
The second is the DMCA. I believe this is an extremely clear case of the interoperability exemption, since they are trying to get OS X to operate with standard PC hardware.
Here I run up against the problem of principle vs. practical. I do NOT want Psystar diluting the OS X market with unsupported machines that have no quality engineering in them (they may be decent by PC standards, but that's a lower standard). History with Microsoft shows people will blame Apple for any of Psystar's screw-ups. But the principles of original copyright intent and being against copyright abuse override that.
I'm unaware of them selling OS-X except for use on Mac computers which came with it (or upgrade from OS9). The fact that they also sell iTunes and Safari and whatnot for Windows means zilch in this instance, since the limitation is about installing OS-X on non-Apple hardware.
> That is the equivalent of saying while Ford will allow -- under certain circumstances -- owners to put non-Ford gasoline (if Ford sold gasoline) in Ford cars. Ford doesn't allow anything, and Apple shouldn't be able to either. You bought the hardware, it's yours, period.
I agree that if you buy Apple's hardware, it's yours to load with whatever you want. Indeed, I've got an old PPC MacMini that I put Fedora Core 10 on -- not a VM, right on the hardware. I've got a newer Intel Mini that is BootCamped with XP alongside Leopard. (These are in addition to perhaps a dozen VMware VMs of you-name-it.)
The limitation is on the software. OS-X is for use on Mac hardware with certain design characteristics that are (as far as I know) copyrighted by Apple as part of that hardware design.
I don't see why people expect Apple to give up exclusivity on OS-X. They're primarily a hardware company, and are interested in selling hardware. Sure, OS-X is pretty cool, and I like that it's BSD Unix under the hood. But really, Apple is about the SYSTEM and the user experience. They do that by integrating the hardware and software.
Running OS-X on PC-quality hardware might seem reasonable to a user, but allowing it would be beyond insane for Apple, for the support headaches and bad press alone. Nevermind that they would lose a chunk of their market for their SYSTEMS and hardware.
> I can't agree with them having the power to say what you can and can't install it on. You bought it, it's yours, you install it wherever you want.
I likewise believe that if I buy a piece of software, I should be able to install it on anything I want.
BUT -- and this is a BIG BUT -- I should take all responsibility for the problems I encounter, and not blame Apple, who is not going to support it, and who makes no claim of operability on my random hardware.
And we both know that that won't happen -- users will complain about OS-X not doing this or that on the Psystar, or acting up on their homebrew crap machine, and Apple will suffer even if they don't have to formally provide support.
Back in 1978 or so, I got a copy of a cassette tape of Microsoft 8K BASIC for the 6502, and I cobbed it up to work on my homebrew 6502 system (originally based on a KIM-1, later a wirewrap of my own design). When I had problems, did I call Bill Gates and complain? Hell no, it was a matter of honor to get it working myself!
That ethic is nearly gone, what's left is mostly over in Linux-land, and we both know that most of the Psystar owners are going to piss and moan about OS-X, and blame Apple for their troubles, instead of stepping up and fixing them themselves. They want the right to run the software on hardware it wasn't designed for, they can bloody well figure out how to support it themselves. I have absolutely no sympathy for them.
Hence my siding with Apple on this one, despite the fact that I agree that if I buy the software it's mine to do with as I please.