Psystar’s Threat to OS X

      by Wyatt Walter

Apple has only allowed Mac OS X to be loaded on its own hardware since its beginning (although there was a short time where they allowed others). In some ways, it has helped Apple support its products since it didn’t have to support anyone else’s hardware. Before the switch to the Intel architecture, it was fairly easy to keep Mac OS X off traditional PCs since they ran different architectures. From 1995 to 1998 Apple allowed other PowerPC manufacturers to produce clones that ran MacOS, but have since disallowed that. Psystar’s suit against Apple claiming antitrust seems like a pretty steep uphill battle, but what would happen should Psystar succeed and force Apple to release Mac OS X for non-Mac hardware? Would it boost Mac OS X sales since anyone would be able to install it on any PC they wish?

For those of you living under a rock for the past few months, Florida-based Psystar Corporation started manufacturing PCs pre-installed with Mac OS X Leopard several months ago. Apple’s response was slow, but eventually filed a suit against Psystar in July since selling a non-Apple computer loaded with Mac OS X is in direct violation with the EULA. Psystar has since counter-sued citing Apple with “restraint of trade, unfair competition and other violations of antitrust law”. These two suits have yet to play out, but what would it do to Mac OS X to be forced to allow installation on standard PC hardware?

Now, it’s no secret that Mac OS X runs great on standard PC hardware. You can find dozens of how-tos on this subject and it’s not hard to get an installation disk to install Leopard on your PC. Psystar, of course, proved this to the world in a public way. Since both PCs and current Mac hardware both operate on the Intel architecture, this should come as no surprise. Driver support for a lot of components is spotty, but it works. It also works to run Windows on Apple hardware.

If Mac OS X can run on any PC, why wouldn’t Apple allow users to buy it and install it on their existing PCs. Certainly this would help push the operating system into the homes of thousands more people if they don’t have to replace the hardware alongside the OS. On the surface, it seems like a simple solution and a very huge opportunity for Apple. Given the success going head-to-head against Windows Vista, it seems like it would help if consumers would have a choice when purchasing a PC. Why not? The answer is simple: support. The advantages come on multiple levels of support. First, Apple doesn’t have to accommodate for hundreds of wireless cards or hundreds of motherboards, only the ones it produces. This helps with general technical support since a technician can ask the user to go to “About this Mac” and get all the information he or she needs within a matter of seconds to help troubleshoot a problem. Also, since the hardware is standard, Apple doesn’t have to worry about things like external wireless network managers and other driver issues that plague Windows. Linux also suffers greatly from a lack of hardware support because of this same thing. Second, Apple doesn’t have to test product releases on thousands of pieces of software and go stamp “Mac OS X Leopard compatible” stickers on machines sold at Best Buy the way Windows did. They simply had to say that it worked on a certain set of models and newer and that was enough. Microsoft has definitely learned their lesson in this arena.

The leads us back to our original question: If Apple is forced to change its EULA to allow for non-Apple hardware to run Mac OS X, what would the future hold for Mac OS X? I’m both an Apple and Linux fan, so don’t take this the wrong way, but Mac OS X will become just another Linux distribution. I spend a fair amount of times in the Ubuntu forums and the most common reason cite as their reason for quitting Linux is lack of hardware support. It will become difficult if not impossible to maintain the level of support that Mac OS X is able to achieve by only using their own software. Consumer printers and scanners are already a problem. HP and Canon consumer-grade printers and scanners use their own agents to manage the devices and can cause a lot of confusion to users when they want to manage multiple printers. Wireless adapter manufacturers will release their own management software for the adapters further confusing users just like in Windows as well.

While I would enjoy running Mac OS X on all of my older PCs, it seems as though it would cheapen the Apple experience and confuse users trying to get support. Apple supports its OS fairly well and to add hardware support alongside that from the same company is an incredible and necessary combination. Microsoft has learned its lesson from Vista on what hardware support can do to the image of an operating system, and Apple would do well to maintain its EULA. Again, I think that if Psystar would keep going with their suit, they have a long road ahead of them, but it’s interesting to think about what would happen in a world where Mac OS X was supported on any machine. The Apple experience for me has been made by the combination of the software integrating well with the software, anything less from Mac OS X would be disappointing.

Related Posts Related Websites

Tags: , ,
Filed under Tech Trends : Comments (1) : Sep 6th, 2008

One Response to “Psystar’s Threat to OS X”

  1. Apple Requests Suit Be Dismissed | What a n00b! Says:
    October 3rd, 2008 at 2:37 pm

    [...] flawed”. For a little background on the suits, see my comments from a while back on what Psystar’s suit could do to OS X in the (unlikely, in my opinion) event that Psystar [...]

Leave a Reply