

Psystar (generic PC with OSX vendor): Apple’s terms violate U.S. monopoly laws - mpc
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1685

======
dkokelley
You know, I'm inclined to lean towards what inovica was saying. We do all know
Psystar now. I wouldn't be surprised if this is all just a well executed
marketing plan by psystar.

The upside: Hundreds of thousands of curious people visit their site to see
the company that's standing up to Apple. They may even buy the system to get
OS X before it's taken off of the market. The company may even do some damage
to Apple's PR by bringing the high prices and 1-1 comparisons to the attention
of a lot of people.

The downside: Apple tells them that they can't offer this computer any more.
There are some other negligible downsides like the cost of removing the
product or if Apple sues then they might have to do some "reverse advertising"
because of a court order.

I doubt that this company is going to go through an expensive and lengthy
battle with Apple over this.

So in the end, I think that Psystar either has a brilliant marketing plan, or
just got lucky by all of the coverage.

~~~
Retric
I think apple has a vary strong case. EX: Faulty ram is frequently causes
systems to crash so Psystar's cheep hardware would damage the perception of OS
X's quality. Which harms apples brand.

~~~
wanorris
I'm not saying that Apple doesn't have a case, but I think the approach you're
suggesting is a bit dicey.

If Apple were afraid of having cheap RAM used in their systems, why would they
allow end-user-upgradable RAM compatible with third-party standards in their
own systems?

Another possible line of attack is that the retail versions of OS X are only
upgrade versions for systems that already have OS X, so they don't cover the
real cost of the produce.

~~~
Retric
I am not suggesting that they only use one line of attack. My point that even
if the EULA is not valid and the right of first sale let's the company install
OS X on custom systems Apple can still bring up other forms of "Harm" to stop
them.

As to the ram issue they could say the type of user who would upgrade RAM
would link a string of crashes to the RAM they added vs. assuming OS X is just
as crappy as Vista. However, a new user given a system with bad ram is more
likely to blame the OS than the hardware. So even if it's ok for them to build
systems for internal use they can't sell systems to the public and say it's
running OS X. (And even if it's identical HW the apple support network is
better able to handle issues which would otherwise harm the OS X brand etc
etc)

------
jeroen
A Psystar employee: “They’re charging an 80% markup on hardware,”

I've seen a lot of price comparisons over at /. but I don't think even the
most fervent Apple haters believe the markup to be that high.

~~~
mpc
I'm not an apple hater but think of it this way...spec out a mbp at 2400 and
compare it to a thinkpad with the same specs. Is the case and "industrial
design" worth 1200 bucks?

~~~
ken
Yay, this old argument! OK, I'll try just that:

MBP at 2400: $1999.00

Thinkpad: (lenovo.com -> laptop -> 15" -> nvidia -> 256mb vram -> customize ->
2.4ghz -> 2x1GB -> 250gb -> wifi n -> bt -> continue -> webcam -> continue ->
$1684.16 (on sale, down from $1952.95).

They're not the same computer, so you can't get exactly the same specs. The
Mac has a lower screen resolution, shorter battery life, and no option to get
a fingerprint scanner. The Thinkpad is heavier and thicker, doesn't have a
slot-loading drive, digital audio I/O, Firewire, a built-in camera, a lighted
keyboard, or a breakaway power cord. On specs alone, I wouldn't say either is
better: I could imagine any one of these factors could be a dealbreaker,
depending on your use of a laptop.

So the market says, no, good design isn't worth 1200 bucks. It's worth a
little over $300, and that's when the competition has a "sale".

------
inovica
The one thing that has come out of this is that we all know who Pystar is now!

~~~
tptacek
And the other thing we can count on is that we're all going to forget who they
are tomorrow.

~~~
wanorris
If I'm the Psystar marketing department, I'm trying to make hay while the sun
is shining. If they can't pursue the Mac thing, they have a small window to
try to shift interest to something they can actually sell.

~~~
tptacek
If you're the Pystar marketing department, you probably have very little time
to build that strategy while also screwing motherboards into ATX cases and
driving boxes over to the FedEx shipping office.

~~~
wanorris
Fair point, but with this kind of opportunity, I'd let the fulfillment fall
behind for a couple of days to pursue it.

------
tptacek
Come on. With _any_ complex product, there's always going to be a rhetorical
construct where you can claim somebody has a "monopoly". Do you really think
you can distribute X86 "routers" running patched IOS, or roll your own car ECU
with Bosch's firmware code?

Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior wasn't simply forcing strict terms on who
could use Windows; it was using Windows as a cudgel to prevent competing
software from being installed on hardware it didn't sell.

~~~
wanorris
Actually, my impression is that restricting third-party software isn't illegal
in general either. If Tivo cuts a deal for Samsung to make Samsung-branded
Tivo boxes, Tivo can still include a clause in the contract that stops them
from loading additional software on board, right?

The issue was that Microsoft did in fact have a _de facto_ monopoly (>90%
share) on operating systems, and was leveraging that monopoly for control of
other markets. EULAs have always been a dicey legal area, but no sensible
judge is going to throw out Apple's EULA simply on the grounds that they have
a monopoly when they are obviously the (still distant) #2 player in the OS
market.

~~~
tptacek
Am I missing the other legal barrier Cisco has to prevent people from adapting
IOS to aftermarket hardware, though, or is that just EULA? I note with
amusement that Cisco has a much more constrictive and anticompetitive monopoly
in switching than Microsoft ever had.

~~~
wanorris
Good question. I don't follow Cisco closely, but it may simply be the EULA
(and the team of legal attack dogs behind it).

It may also be the implicit expectation that computers are made to run other
software while switches are closed-case boxes engineered as a single unit.
This is pretty stupid to most engineers, because there isn't much technical
difference between the two, but sometimes legal things work that way. It's
also possible that Cisco has an antitrust suit in it's future (but probably
only under a Democratic administration).

------
bouncingsoul
Isn't this a straw man?

Do we know Apple has said anything to Pystar about EULA violations? I would
guess that if Apple has shutdown Pystar it is because they are violating
Apple's trademark by selling a product called OpenMac.

If Pystar was selling a computer called OpenDell they'd get a call from Dell.

