Psystar sells Macs... that aren't from Apple

They probably followed this:
Build a Hackintosh

Installing OS X on non-Apple hardware violates the EULA. That alone wouldn't stop them from selling it, but Pystar is not an authorized reseller. That's more problematic, legally.

For what it's worth, I'm hoping their site never comes back. When you buy a Mac, you're not just buying a computer from Apple, or some hardware that runs OS X; you're buying an integrated product. That's the route Apple has chosen for their products. A creator has the right to determine under what conditions his product will be sold. If you don't like that, then you should just get over it, or find something else. I see no big difference between a Hackintosh and outright theft. OS X has certain terms of sale, and paying for it is only one of those terms.

I disagree, when I walk into a store and buy a copy of OSX they have lost the right to tell me what to do with the disks, barring distribution. If I install it on hardware that they don't like, they have no recourse. It would be akin to a cutting board manufacturer trying to say that only henkel knives could be used with it. Or sony saying that their cd's can only be played on sony hardware.

when I walk into a store and buy a copy of OSX they have lost the right to tell me what to do with the disks, barring distribution.

Correction, when you buy a copy of OS X or any other software, you agree to abide by the EULA, legally. What you decide to do with it after that is your choice.

No when you agree to the EULA then you agree to the EULA. Buying a box off a shelf does not obligate you to anything.

@hemphill,

so when you go to install the software do you intend to bypass the EULA? Because I do not believe that can legally be done.

In reality, when you buy software, you are not purchasing the actually program, but a license to use said program. And that license is a legally binding agreement that includes what you can do with said software.

I don't intend anything, I would never buy an OS.

When you buy boxed software at a store you are purchasing a license to use the software contained in that box, yes. You are not however obligated to use it in the fashion they want you to. Wether the EULA can be disregarded or not is dependant on where you are, courts have ruled in a variety of different ways. The software manufacturers really want the EULA to be binding, but they have uneven success getting the courts to accept that it is a legal contract. For it to be binding across the board you have to agree to the EULA before purchase.

If I install it on hardware that they don't like, they have no recourse.

I think you missed my point. I'm not saying that Apple has any effective legal recourse against people using their software in violation of the EULA. I'm saying that it is morally wrong to. Apple created the software and has the moral right to define the terms of its sale. If you want to buy it and violate the terms, you certainly can. My contention, however, is that as long as Apple maintains its current terms, you should not.

That's a shaky argument there, and one I don't buy. What ethical (not moral; morality is a social force) obligation does one incur when one buys a product? Certainly as the rightful owner of the product (look up the doctrine of first sale) one shouldn't be bound by the manufacturer's desired restrictions. Whether they support it or not is entirely Apple's decision (and I'd even go so far as to say it would be a good business decision not to), but I doubt you'll ever see a court backing an unsigned document that's presented in a format that encourages the user to click through without substantial review and is subject to change at whim.

I would disagree, I find nothing immoral about installing a purchased copy of an operating system on an emulator. I do agree that creation does give you the right to dictate terms, however when they put it on the shelf and sell it to anyone with the cash they have stated their terms.

I would think Apple would fare a little better in court against these guys as they are trying to profit from violating Apple's EULA. The hackintosh project, as far as I know, isn't a for-profit venture (although publishers have successfully sued against guitar tab and lyric websites that have Google Ad Words on them, so who knows).

That, and the people who do hack an OSx86 system together generally don't trumpet it this much.

What ethical (not moral; morality is a social force) obligation does one incur when one buys a product?

The distinction between "ethics" and "morality" is negligible.

Certainly as the rightful owner of the product (look up the doctrine of first sale) one shouldn't be bound by the manufacturer's desired restrictions.

And why not? Mac OS X is not a product offered to anybody for any use at all. It is a software product designed to run on Apple's hardware.

Consider a gun store. Though they probably don't post signs to the effect, there's an implicit agreement when buying the gun that you're not going to use it to commit a crime. No responsible shop would sell you the gun if they thought you were going to murder someone with it. The fact that you buy a product mean you have free rein with it, especially if it was purchased fraudulently.

In Apple's case, you aren't even purchasing a product, per se, but a license. Licenses do come with restrictions on how they can be used. Any other use is just as fraudulent as my above example.

when they put it on the shelf and sell it to anyone with the cash they have stated their terms.

The terms are well known. Moreover, the fact that you actually have to hack the software to get it to work on non-Apple hardware tells me they are doing their due diligence to protect their terms.

Time for a bonus analogy: pets. When you buy an animal, the seller assumes you're going to take care of it. They may not be able to actively enforce this condition of sale, but they wouldn't sell it to you otherwise. Likewise, Apple will not purposefully sell you a product if you intend to violate the EULA. Again, the enforceability of these restrictions is irrelevant.

The terms are well known. Moreover, the fact that you actually have to hack the software to get it to work on non-Apple hardware tells me they are doing their due diligence to protect their terms.

You are assuming that they are indeed hacking it. I don't know that that is in fact the case.

Looking through the page above, I can't find anything that says that they have. They appear to be loading a custom kernel but that's all I can find reference to.

Mac OS X is not a product offered to anybody for any use at all. It is a software product designed to run on Apple's hardware.

So it is not sold independently of mac hardware? Wow best buy must be crooks, they have it on the shelf for anybody at all to buy.

They may not have hacked Leopard to get this thing working, but I do enjoy this gem from their FAQ:

Can I run updates on my Open Computer?
The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are safe. It's best to check the web for this information but when in doubt don't update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.

Ok....I guess, I'm not sure that would make sense to my parents, who would be interested in a lower-priced Mac, but whatever.

And then, according to Charles Arthur of The Guardian:

And then we thought we'd look closer at the location they're in. And that's where things got really strange.

The address had changed completely.

Earlier in the day, it was giving 10645 SW 112 St, Miami FL 33176. (Happily, I took a screenshot.)

And now, while I'd been writing this post, it's moved - to 10481 NW 28th St, Miami, FL 33172.

OK, that's got to be the weirdest thing I've ever seen in years of covering technology. The first address, on Google Maps, looks like your average row of suburban houses.

The second - new! - one looks far more office-y, or at least industrial.

I just typed in Psystar Corporation into Google Maps and got nothin'.

So it is not sold independently of mac hardware? Wow best buy must be crooks, they have it on the shelf for anybody at all to buy.

This actually brings up a really good point (which I just thought of in the shower, actually) that I haven't heard anyone make.

The boxed copy of Leopard on the shelves is an upgrade. A "full" version is not available for sale. It's the same as buying an upgrade version of Vista and hacking it to run on a computer without a previous version. It's stealing. Now, yes, I'm aware the boxed version of Leopard does indeed contain everything needed for a clean install, and doesn't nag you with things such as previous product ID codes, but that's because it's only supposed to be used to upgrade a Mac, and you can't buy a Mac without buying a previous copy of the OS.

The boxed copy of Leopard on the shelves is an upgrade. A "full" version is not available for sale

It looks like a full copy to me.

It looks like a full copy to me.

Wow. I thought I preemptively addressed this. Let's back up and remember that you're buying a license to the software anyway, regardless of what's in the box.* A "full version" of an OS is one that may be installed on hardware where no previous version existed. An "upgrade" is one that may be installed on hardware where a previous, qualifying version existed. Since you can't buy a Mac without buying OS X, all boxed copies of OS X are, in fact, upgrades. There is no "full version" available at any price. Since you can't actually buy a full version, you can't legitimately install it on non-Apple hardware.

*As point of comparison, the install DVD for even the cheap versions of Vista actually includes the other versions, up to and including Ultimate on it, to allow for easy secondary upgrades, if you decide you needed more than you originally bought. When you buy the box, you're buying a license to use certain software under certain conditions. Just because you can cheat the system doesn't mean you aren't still stealing.

The point you seem to be trying to dance around is: you can in fact buy a copy of os x without owning a mac. That copy will install on a clean fresh hard drive where no OS exists if the hardware is suitable. The license doesn't enter into anything until it has been installed on suitable hardware.

The point you seem to be trying to dance around is: you can in fact buy a copy of os x without owning a mac. That copy will install on a clean fresh hard drive where no OS exists if the hardware is suitable. The license doesn't enter into anything until it has been installed on suitable hardware.

Dance around? I stated as much before you even objected. However, the boxed copy of Leopard will not install on a hardware that didn't already have OS X installed unless you hack it. The only thing you can buy is an upgrade copy of OS X. It doesn't say "Upgrade" on it because they are all upgrade copies. There is no full version for sale, and therefore, hacking the upgrade copy is actually software piracy. You may have paid $129 for it, but you could pay the same amount for an upgrade version of Vista and trick it to run on new hardware too. It's still stealing.

The boxed copy installed fine and dandy for me on a system with a brand new hard drive.

The boxed copy installed fine and dandy for me on a system with a brand new hard drive.

I'm assuming you mean a Mac with a brand new drive. Of course it would. The limitations are with regards to what's on the motherboard. You can also completely format your hard drive and it will work just fine. It doesn't need to check that a previous version is already installed because (without hacking) it will install only on a Mac, which of course must have already had a version anyway.

You keep saying that the install requires a previous version of osx, that is simply not true.

@hemphill: It is impossible to purchase a Mac without a copy of OS X installed on it. It is against the EULA to install OS X on anything other than a Mac. Therefore, all boxed copies of OS X are upgrades. There is no need to print the word upgrade on the box since there no equivalent to the Windows "full-version". Windows sells the full-version since it is possible to build or buy a box with no OS at all or no Windows OS on it.

The OS X installation disks will work to do a full-install on a Mac because that Mac would have already had a copy of the OS on it when purchased.

I see the point of the analogy, but it is flawed. Car wax and oil changes would be like monitor cleaner and little keyboard vacuums in that they are things that maintain the product.

The iPod started life as an extension of the Mac. It grew into a strong product segment on its own. The iTunes Music Store was an extension of the iPod. Apple TV is a similar extension. If GM could figure out how to generate a lot of revenue from product line extensions, they would not be in the financial mess that they are in now.

Apple has diversified its product line very well over the last 5 years. They earn just under half of their revenue from non-computer product lines like iPod and iPhone.