As a Mac owner, you own the hardware. There is no license. Apple can’t tell you what to do with the Mac in terms of modifying it. Further, as a legitimate licensee of OSX (e.g. you own a Mac and bought the OS), Apple can’t tell you what to do with the OS provided the use is not for profit and doesn’t interfere with Apple’s business no more the Beatles can sue you for singing, “Hey, Jude” in the shower. That is called Fair-Use. Psystar failed to raise any significant fair-use defense because it didn’t have one.

You could, however, get in trouble with the DMCA if you post instructions on how to bypass Apple’s copyright protection scheme. Apple doesn’t seem to be going after these type of hacking sites though.

I for one think Apple in this case has exercised it’s rights fairly. Nobody is forcing anybody to buy a Mac. People have plenty of other choices. Psystar is free to develop it’s own OS, or ship it’s computers with some of the free OSes available. Further, in a free Country, Apple should not be forced to sell anything other then an upgrade version of it’s OS, which is what it does. As a Mac user, I understand the value of Macs is one company controls the whole hardware experience so if I am unhappy I know who to go to.

The likes of Adobe and Microsoft wouldn’t walk away. There’s too much money on the table for them to do so. This is the same reason that Adobe is hellbent on getting Flash Player onto the iPhone, even going so far as to set up Flash (the development software) to output semi-native iPhone apps.

The second part of that, though – you’re right. We’d see the same problems we do with the existing App Store, and eventually small developers will walk away.

“Folks who don’t like EULAs” typically have a problem with EULAs that attempt to covet their firstborn, as opposed to those that are indeed simple protections for the creator of the software. Copyright law and the DMCA cover most if not all rights covered by a EULA; while there are legitimate interests not covered there that can be placed in a EULA, as well as a reminder of copyright law, most EULAs go about 12 steps farther and attempt to dictate what color shirt the user puts on in the morning.

Judging from the actions they are taking regarding the app approval process they are very concerned with PR and no longer are they in the small mind camp.

Today with their Apple stores they have more to lose when customers stop coming to shop there because of bad press and actions which you insinuate they may carry out.

And in their after sale services they are bending backward to make Macusers and iPhoneusers happy because they now believe happy users bring more users.

After reading your piece bring to mind that Apple is stupid and keep make mistakes after mistakes and antagonizing their customers is part of their plan to will bring in more customers. There are enough Apple bashers to do the job.

One last thought if you are not happy and afraid that they will do what you insinuated you don’t have to use any Apple products.

I lived without a mac for a long time and I won;t like it but iI can do it again.

Otherwise this could be the boost Open Source needs.

I’d actually like to see it happen, as Open Source, primarily Linux, needs a boost to reach a critical mass to incentivise hardware manufacturers to produce the drivers that will make Linux viable for the masses.

Obviously you mean Apple is going to vehemently fight to prevent non-licensed Apple clones FROM BEING SOLD. Since to date they’ve never had any issue with the OSX86 community. We’ll have to wait to see how much damage Psystar has done on that front. However, you’re being disingenuous by omission here.

Folks who don’t like EULAs should spend some time talking with those of us who write and sell software for a living, or for that matter photographers, print-makers, and artists of many different types.

What this case means is that Apple sells OS X as part of a Macintosh computer, and it cannot be used on non-Apple hardware without their consent (which they will not give.) They make very little margin from OS sales, and would gain relatively little by allowing people to buy cheap PCs to install Mac OS than by selling their own hardware. If Apple has learned anything from the days without Steve Jobs, it must be that licensing the OS in a market where Windows dominates is not a profitable business to be in, especially when it cannibalizes their high margin hardware sales. Restrictions as you describe will do nothing but lose significant market share to competitors, which Apple as a company is far too smart to risk.

Phones are very different, and the recent Rick Astley story perhaps demonstrates Apple’s point of the danger of jailbreaking very well. Most people who buy phones do not do so to be the same general purpose use for which they buy computers, and they seem willing to accept more restrictions than they would if their far more expensive, general purpose personal computer had restrictions on which web sites or apps that they can or cannot run.

Psystar is also a company in business. And they have employees, that need that same things as well. Support them or not, they are taking all of Apple’s work and investment, and want to prosper and thrive off of it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable, in the area of business, to want to protect that. I think that if Psystar wants to make money, they should put their own resources in developing an original brand product (be it software, hardware, or services) that customers will clamor and shell out money for.

Apple is in the HARDWARE business, and the software that they develop is purely for the advancement of selling their hardware and developing a unique brand and customer experience that is in demand (and by the 30+ billion in cash that they have, I’d say they’re business model is doing well). They do not develop software for it’s own sake. Microsoft does that.

And I agree, that as an END USER/CUSTOMER, if you buy something, you own it. You can do whatever you want with it, as an END USER. You can use the car analogy, whatever… (hey use a toaster analogy if you want). I don’t know of any case where Apple has gone after an individual END USER in court, for violating any EULA, contract, DCMA, or any other “agreement” that you (again as the end user) has agreed to. But violating any of those, you do give up any warranty/guarantee provide by Apple… you’re on your own.

Psystar is NOT an END USER. What they are doing, is taking another company’s work (product) and then doing some “magic” to make it work to their liking, and then RESELLING it as a business, not as an end user. They want to make money off of somebody else’s work, brand, recognition, etc.

In the end, that’s what this case is all about. Business vs. business. One business making money that they put a lot of invesment in and wanting to protect it. The other business is wanting a free lunch to make money off of them. (In the animal kingdom, that would define what a parasite does.)

There may or may not be other ramifications of this case. And those ramifications may or may not impact us as end users. But if I had a business and put a lot of my time, effort, and money to make it sucessful, and someone wanted to take all of that so that they could make money off of MY work, I know what I would do.

And I think so does Apple.