Will Apple be Open any Time Soon?

i think its a very interesting point of view but i just dont see them winning i see apple winning ..

all tho if apple was to loose maybe then they would lower there price on there over priced machines so they could gain traction in the market place sure the mac mini is cheap but it sucks i wouldnt drop the money on it for what u get

I agree, I think it’s Time Apple opened up. Though there have been reported cases of people trying to make an apple equivalent machine and I have tested some of them, but hey, if they do, M$ has to really run for their money.

GS

Apple made os-x so i think they can do what they want with it. And why put a beautiful os like os-x leopard in a ugly box. If you don’t want to pay the price for a nice looking computer then buy a windows pc. Once you expirienced a appe computer you won’t want to go back to the cable hell. It’s like saying Ferrari must put his engine’s in a Toyota.

I hope psystar losses that counter sue.

I would still buy Apple hardware I don’t feel that anyone makes hardware as fine as Apple certainly not Dell. I would love to see Apple open up. but then I’ve been waiting for 20 years for Microsoft to use a format for their office files than can be read by everyone else. Their new “OpenDocument” docx and xlsx can only be used with their products and I’m sure they are using this new format to make it better for us the consumer ;)

I agree with Psystar. Apple should be forced to open up. If microsoft did what Apple do, then they would be sued faster than I could count.

with Apples growing market share, They should be forced to allow OSX on non apple hardware.

I’m pretty sure Apple losing this case will result in lower hardware sales on Apple’s side. The main reason why people buy Apple hardware is because it comes with OS X. If you can get OS X on non-Apple hardware, I think Apple’s computers will become “Luxury” products. You dont need their hardware, as others give you more choice for (possibly) less money. Not that hard a choice in my oppinion. Apple doesnt offer a lot of different systems. This could seriously lower their sales.

On the other hand. More people using OS X would probably result in better compatabillity with more software and games. This is something I’d support and wouldnt mind seeing.

Apart from above mentioned, I’d rather not see Apple convert into Microsoft-like.

It’s Apple’s software so Apple should be able to do whatever they want with it.

TheDub was possibly not around for the previous “official” beige box PCs running Mac OS in the nineties… I still have a Power Computing PowerCenter 150 clone Mac. At that time, all the clones did was eat into Apple’s market share. Apple DOES have something to lose with other brands being allowed to exist running OS X. Even if you argue that they don’t have to provide any tech. and troubleshooting support for these other brands, it bites them in another way. If OS X runs poorly due to oddball hardware that Apple has no control over themselves, then this gives the OS itself a black-eye and then Apple suffers from the bad publicity.

There is no pluses for Apple, and quite a few minuses. I can entirely see why Apple would immediately want to nip this in the bud.

It’s an old story, but you have to go back more than ten years and find all the old articles about this from the first time around when the clones were squelched.

I think I Psystar should win, TheDub brought up some good points, and I have also thought about them in the past but didnt think it was much of a big deal, such as what if Microsoft did what Apple has done but not letting their OS on any other hardware other then what they make? There would be laysuits out the wazoo. So I really hope Psystar wins and it opens it up to ever type of computer.

I am kinda on the fence with this. No matter how much I would love to see Apple software on a non-Apple hardware, I would like to see it stay the exact same it is know. The way I see it, if they start supporting more hardware, Apple is going to have a more difficult time trying to make sure there software would work 100% on the other hardware. Sure, there is letting the hardware makers to do that, but look at what happened to Windows Vista and there driver support when they where first released.

If they say Apple has to release their OS for other PCs because they have the monopoly, is like saying everyone should give out the software for their coffee-machines to other coffe-machine companys (there are probably better examples than this…)

Hogwash it is.

I hope they become open, as I would buy the OS right away. Though I think one of the reason’s their OS runs so well is because of the select hardware it supports.

Agreed. Nope, Psystar doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

This all happened once before with PC-DOS. IBM wasn’t forced to allow PC-Compatibles to run PC-DOS, even though the hardware was exactly the same. Microsoft had to step in with their own branded version of DOS, MS-DOS.

Besides Apple can always demonstrate that they intend to use proprietary chips and hardware in future models of the Mac, completely negating Psystar’s entire argument. They could argue they are in a transitional period moving from one proprietary design into another based on a different CPU and used available chip sets as a stepping stone.

You also can’t prove that Apple wants to control their entire market , as Linux, Windows, BSD, etc. can all be run on Apple hardware. And Apple even makes Windows drivers to offer full compatibility with their hardware.

OS X is solely used and subsidized to get people to buy Apple hardware. Plain and simple. Allowing it to be installed on non-Apple hardware would be detrimental to their Macintosh business.

To open OS X, Apple would need to create some kind of activation scheme to prevent mass pirating and double or triple the price to make up for the lost hardware revenue.

please read the ula on the os

I think Apple should drop it they’ll gain greater market share this way Last year I was looking to get a new laptop I looked at the black mac book but the price was the killer for $400 less I got a Vista laptop 1GB RAM, 120GB HD, 15″ screen, most of the same specs of the mac book and saved $400 yes I hated Vista and am now running ubuntu on it but still save $ and that why I don’t have a mac I did get a iPhone though

Personally, I think Apple should win this because technically, it is their product and they can do whatever they want with it. Psystar violated Apple’s copyrights by putting OSX on a non-Apple computer.

In a way, it like saying Microsoft can make Xbox 360’s that run the PlayStation 3 software. (Not the best comparison, but its what came to my head first)

I, personally, don’t mind that the Mac OS is closed. That’s one of the big reasons, IMHO, that it works so well and crashes so infrequently. Apple has a set group of hardware configs they have to worry about and don’t have to try to make it compatible with everything under the Sun. That’s one of the problems with Windows.

NOT having to deal with a zillion different combinations of motherboards, CPUs, memory chips, video cards and the like is, I think, what prevents the OS X version of the BSOD, the ever popular kernel panic.

Just one little flaw in the logic of TheDub: “I cannot think of a negative consequence of letting other OEMs build and sell OS X machines. Apple’s hardware sales will not go down, because Apple makes seriously impressive and high-quality machines.”

TheDub hasn’t thought enough. Apple’s hardware sales WOULD go down. Been there, done exactly that!

The same quote contains another little clue: “Apple makes seriously impressive and high-quality machines”. But they don’t make bargain basement machines . . . that’s where the OEM’s would come in and steal Apple hardware sales.

Psystar’s biggest mistake: copying and modifying Apple software updates.
- Not so much giving customers a copy of Mac OS X with the boxes . . that was legally obtained.
- Not so much installing Mac OS X on a generic box . . anybody can technically do it

Even if Apple loses the EULA related aspects of the suit, they’ve got the copyright aspects down solid.

Think of the EULA as granting rights to the user: Two Scenarios:
With EULA: users can copy and run Apple OS on Apple labelled computer

Without EULA: users can’t copy Apple OS or run it on anything!

I think Psystar is on the right track.
If I’d be a computer vendor, that would be the first thing I do right after OSX became available to Intel chips.
I hope they did their homework though. It is nasty to go to a court against Apple.

TheDub assumes an open, unsubsidized market and we don’t know this to be the case. Apple has always contended that it makes software to sell hardware. It is at it’s core a hardware company. Thus it is reasonable to assume that much of the money that goes into updating and maintaining OS X is not it the retail UPGRADE price but also in the cost of the hardware that it runs on.

So, with that in mind (and the knowledge that MS sells full versions of it’s OS for $300) it is fair to assume that if Apple were to license it’s os it would do so for much more than the $129 upgrade price it currently sell for.

You can be confused about this question until you realize that Apple is not a software company, it is a hardware company and then it all becomes very clear. Psystar is going to lose.

Hogwash all the way.

The reason that OS X is so solid is that Apple makes the hardware and software. If they were to open up the software to work on other platforms, they would have to add all sorts of bloat to make it stable on other hardware.

Someone might say, Apple doesn’t need to do anything , just open it up so user can make it work.

When OS X starts crashing on other hardware, then everyone will start pointing the finger at Apple. “See it’s junk. It isn’t stable at all…”

So Apple would have to divert resources and cash to make OS X solid on other hardware. Costs go up, reliability goes down. Part of MS’s trouble is they do have to support Windows on a huge variety of hardware. Trying to accomplish that task creates a bloated system loaded with patches and hacks.

So lets hope Apple holds steady and resists the foolish demands to cheapen the OS X experience by approving it on hardware not designed in Cupertino.

You want OS X? Buy a Mac!

This is an interesting topic and one I’m following with interest, to be honest, This is something that Apple will fight tooth and nail, but in the longrun I think it will actually benefit Apple and brining there OS into the mainstream arena rather than just restricting it to Apple Hardware.

Apple should licence it to clone providers instead of stepping on them.

I think Apple is just concerned their brand would get washed out as more and more machines would roll out that ignored their aesthetic standards. In a perfect world where every box looked gorgeous Apple would be open.

I really doubt Steve Jobs would go for that. I remember him saying that he wouldn’t want to sell a product with the Apple name on it that he couldn’t recommend to a friend. If they let it be open that means that your cheep PC could be loaded with Mac OS X and suck. It wouldn’t seem as “special” to own a Mac then because any other person could have it on their computer.

Chris PirilloWill Apple be Open any Time Soon?Cuil - A First Look Are You Also Addicted to LEGO? Do You Make Your Own Desktop and iPhone Wallpapers? How Do You Invite People to Events?

Mac OS X should only be run on an Apple computer. The reason Mac OS X runs so well is it is perfectly designed for their own hardware. If Mac OS X had to be run on a non-Apple computer, you would basically have Windows all over again, more or less, and the problems would commence. I don’t see why they should have to share now at this point in time. They have been running their own software on their own machines since, like, 1977, back when Apple Computers, Inc. was created. So why should it be any different now.

Now here’s my comparison.

PC and Mac is like the local police and the FBI: we all know the FBI can get more stuff done than the local cops, but you need to have a bigger problem or crime in order to get their help. Plus, the local cops are kinda dumb (Ex. with comp. terminology: Hanging out in the donut shop wasting valuable processes, leaking important info despite there being a firewall, being bribed by the local trojan spyware, etc.)

Now if the local police were to know the same information and have the same privileges as the FBI do, it would put the FBI in a position where they would have to clean up every mistake the local cops make, which in turn would lower the quality of the law enforcement as a whole on both ends and it would damage the FBI’s reputation.

So the point I was trying to make is if Mac OS were available on any computer, not only would Mac OS not work as well, but it would destroy Apple’s “It just works” moniker they worked so hard to maintain.

Psystar is completely wrong in their pursuits to make Mac OS open to any device. Instead of helping the public by getting a Mac at a lower price point, they are actually hurting the public because once the people get a non-Apple Mac-running computer, it will not work as advertised and will basically put it in the same position Windows is in now. I will say that Mac does some thing right that are not hardware dependent, such as its drop dead simple interface, but it does not excuse the fact that things will go horribly wrong the minute Mac is made available on a Wintel computer. Ask any person who has attempted to make a Hackintosh and they will tell you how crappy it runs on a PC.

I hope Apple will be an Open hardware system soon because im pretty much looking forward in buying a Mac in the future and if apple become an open system during that time it will significantly reduce it cost of ownership. Thus, making save a lot of money…………

Isn’t that the reason why we have stupid Microsoft Windows? Because some idiot stoled the Apples OS to make theirs, look what Windows has become! If Apple lets that happen I believe we are not going to have any reliable computers in the future, and we are going to have to run with more anti-viruses than ever.

I say: “If you want the best, then buy the best, not an imitation or a peace of ****!”

I think if OSX ran on non apple hardware I would purchase and stand behind it. That would remove the monopolistic model they have in place now.

I think it is funny that people say things like: “It’s like saying Ferrari must put his engines in a Toyota.”

Oh and another one I have seen around the web is that “Sony should be sued for a Monopoly because they won’t open source their PS3 OS.”

These arguments break down if you thin about them a little, not even a lot…

Sony and coffee machine makers don’t sell their software on Amazon.com, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc. This is where Pystar gets their argument from. Sure, you can tie the X-BOX 360 OS or the PS3 to the hardware, because the only way to get the OS is to buy the hardware. If it was on a shelf at Circuit City I could see the same argument being applied here.

The car analogy, what a crock! It’s not a Ferrari vs a Toyota, or as a friend of mine said “a Ferrari in a Pinto.” That logic breaks down even more easily than the other logic. The insides of a Mac Mini (This is the model Psystar is targeting) is all standard PC components. I went online to a pricewatch.com and built online a system that was equal in all key components, better in others (larger HDD, better graphics card, upgraded audio, etc) and came out to be $252 with no OS. Add to that the cost of OS X at Amazon .com ($110) and your total is only $362. Apple charges $600 for the basic mac mini.

The reason Apple wants to maintain the status quo is because of markup. If I can get the same hardware for half the price and the company is making a profit, can you imaging what the return is for Apple when they mark the hardware that much more? Sure, the cases look nice, but there are many non-Apple cases that look as good if not better.

If Steve ever wants more than 10% – 15% market share he is going to have to open his systems up to the masses. Either allow other OEMs to install OS X or lower the price of Apple hardware. And frankly, I can’ see spending 4 times as much for a Mac Book Pro when I can get a Windows machine that has more options, more support, and money left over!

The BEST option for this situation is this:

Apple would have manufacturers (such as Psystar), that MUST make sure that the user experience on those machines is perfect, with absolutely no problems. Apple would license out the right to distribute apple-based computers, but would also strengthen the chips on the board that specifically routes that manufaturer to the OSX they are using.

I’m probably not making any sense, but basically, Apple could sell licenses to manufacturers of other computers. Users would be required to keep the hardware the same (or allowed to modify within limits specified by the manufacturers). Apple would also dictate what price the manufacturers could sell at, as to not completely disturb their own hardware sales.

This is the best compromise I could think of, and I wish Apple would consider it.

Right now, though, OSX runs the best on Macs, and that shouldn’t be changed until things are worked out that insure what’s best for Apple and consumers.

They shouldn’t, they are perfect the way they are.

I think Apple should make OSX open so I can use it on my PC =]. I understand why they do it, it’s just more affordable for some to buy PC…

Chris, have you not read the OS X’s E/ULA ?

It states, very blatently - that it is to be installed on Apple-branded machines ONLY.

Psystar haven’t got a chance.

Not that they will be financally crippled before it even get to court, any way - thanks to Apple.

Oh, and by the way - they are adding an EFI emulator to the install discs.

Apple would be screwed if they had to open it up to a billion different configurations. They would lose what makes OS X, OS X.

I think apple should put out their OS onto PC for the simple reason that it might make microsoft stop making rubbish like vista and trying to copy apple. It would also mean that apple would indeed get more money and we could see some custom hardware that ran really cool apps using quartz composser and xcode tools that are free with OS X.

[...] Will Apple be Open any Time Soon? [...]

First of all I’d like to remind anyone who doesn’t know that Microsoft did not copy Apple by making Windows. In reality both Apple AND Microsoft stole the ideas of Xerox.

Another important point is that some people seem to think if Apple ran on non-apple machines it would suddenly support ALL HARDWARE. This is not the case, if Apple was force to open up they can choose to only support certain pieces of hardware, aka the same pieces of hardware that are in their Mac’s. nVidia cards, Intel Processors, etc.

I own a Macbook Pro so I’m not just a “jealous” PC user looking for OS X cheap.

Imagine though if Microsoft did not let Windows 7 run on Apple computers or in any kind of simulation software. They would have many lawsuits to deal with. Psystar machines from what I have watched read and been told run OS X with no problems except the automatic updates has Apple tries to hard-code them to stop working on non-apple machines. Yes Apple does OWN the software but Microsoft OWNS Windows. If Microsoft can not hard-code their software to not work on a particular configuration, such as an Apple computer, I do not see why Apple can hard-code theirs for only their machines.

I would love for them to go open source but unfortunately it won’t happen. I understand their strict licensing after the clone debacle back in the early days of OS 6 but I would replace Vista on my Quad Core in a heartbeat if they would just open it up.

There are historical stories that can argue both sides of this- IBM clones killed IBM computers (I believe there was even a lawsuit that made clones legal- Psystar should look into it)

But the arguments as I have read them seem to break down to Apple makes a great product they shouldn’t have to open it. Well if Apple does indeed make a superior product, then opening it up WILL NOT hurt them. There are how many brands of cars on the road and Ferrari does just fine.

So either Apple makes a superior product and will survive “true” competition or their product is only “better” by virtue of their monopoly and small user base.

I forgot- the best example of the double standard most people use in regards to Apple/Microsoft is virtualization. How many here recall (and maybe even participate) in the outrage that Microsoft dared to make it a difficult task or even legal to virtualize Vista? And yet, can I virtualize OSX? Where is the appropriate outcry?

i would prefere it… mac os x runs perfect on windows pcs, but it is until today illegal : (
… but this prevent nobody from using it ; ) … but it is some work to update the kernel, so some of the hackintosh users buy an apple machine so problems anymore (theoretically ^^)

i would prefere the open source, but i would be afraid that the prices of the hardware will fall down and down….

Apple makes their money off of hardware sales. The software may sell the hardware, but you can’t get the software without the hardware. If OSX is set free, Apple will lose a LOT of money. A lot people will buy any old Compaq with Leopard on it. They wouldn’t care if Apple’s hardware works a hell of a lot better with the OS. Most people just care about how much something costs.

I really hope this goes in Apple’s favor. This is just another stupid loophole.

Like Chris said for google chrome, to create competition that progresses things have to be open. Not necessarily open source though. The reason why osx isn’t gaining in the market share is because the chunk of people out there who like to customize their computers themselves can’t use osx due to hardware support. Imagine how many more computers would run osx if it could. I know I would be if there was the hardware and software support that it sorely needs. Until apple decides to play catch up and support new technology when YOU want to add it to your machine not them then they will always seriously lack in the competition of which could lead the market. Until then I will have to stick to gaming, 3d modelling etc on my pc and a laptop running osx.

Imagine the millions of gamers and artists and programmers who are stuck or forced to use a of due to no alternative support or minimal if any. Stuff running bootcamp for two os’s when he future could be windows having to do it to catch up to the leader. Assuming apple takes he lead.

^ Of course it will go in Apples favour.

They will hammer them to hell and back.

Most likely, Psystar will be financally crippled before they even get anywhere near a verdict.

And I will belly laugh.

If you want OS X, buy a Mac. Simple as.

Apples products may be well constructed physically, however they lack the average techies appeal due to the robotic like interface and lack of customization in the software department. Apple is the “Abercrombie” of the computer world, sure they look nice and market to the preppy upper middle class and up, but on the inside, they are just a fad. A fad that will quickly disperse when people realize that Apple is just a marketing genius with a poor excuse for a Kiosk as a computer competitor.

Lets take the Ipod for example, no matter how much they jazz the thing up with flashy colors and slimmer designs, it does 1 thing and one thing only, play media. For $249.99-$500.00 USD you are getting a piece of machinery that plays a media file, bottom line. But wait, lets mosie on down to the local Best Buy or Wall-Mart and fish me up an 8 gig Sony WZ that has a mini SD card expansion for even more data, and what is this? Its smaller and has a bigger screen and is less then half the price? Most importantly, the sound quality is the same if not better and the interface is easy to use, as well as PC integration, because really, who the hell wants to use ITunes on a PC? ( or even a mac ) Its not just this particular model either, its every MP3/4 player in the store, none of which exceeding the $200 mark.

So answering the question, no, Apple will never make their products open source. They rely on the ignorance of the non-tech savvy people with medium sized or larger wallets to use their easy to use software. The reason Linux is free is because it is difficult to use, but you can literally customize every aspect of the GUI to fit your needs. Lets see you try to change the properties of a folder to read only in a Mac, something as simple as this requires editing data files which in itself are inaccessible.

Ok I’m done, just needed to vent my anger.

I’d think Apple probably won’t do that anytime soon. I think they’d be more likely to bring down their prices to a more competitive stance then to let 3rd party hardware builders use their software.

Maybe Apple would decide to combine with one of the other PC companies like the Cingular-AT&T thing.

I think that psystar is doing a great things in the way of forcing apple to loosen its shell but still i do agree with the guy who said it is like putting a Ferrari’s engine in a toyota but when you think about it apple did that with boot camp and truthfully i think Vista is the ferrari but still… if both operating systems would work together with like a boot camp for windows and maybe even charge like $5 for it i think that would be a great thing for apple and also microsoft and they can still charge for Leopard or the New Snow Leopard like they usualy would but have it be compatable with windows and be able to run in even a virtual machine but having leopard on vista would be one thing i would HAVE to get!

Signed,
DualBoot32

i agree if mac does put there os on other machines bill should kiss his mula goodbye. but apple is pretty strong on their own computers so i dont see them having it run on onother machine

Throughout this whole escapade, I’ve been rooting for Psystar/OSx86. Running OS X on “white box” PCs IS possible, and despite a couple hiccups, is an overall pleasant experience. And these hiccups aren’t anything that couldn’t be resolved with the official support of Apple.

If this goes through, it would be a huge slap in the face to Apple, and also to all of the traditionalists out there who insist “No OSx86!” “Psystar’s Illegal!” I’m sick of it. Nothing would make me happier than having an official court ruling claiming the opposite.

However, we have to face reality. Apple will do everything in their power to ensure that the ruling doesn’t come out in favor of Psystar - it would kill their business model. Steve Jobs is NOT stupid, and neither are his lawyers.

But I’m keeping my fingers crossed.