Apple swings DMCA at Hackintosh maker Just two weeks after US District Judge William Alsup threw out wannabe Mac-clone vendor Psystar's countersuit against Apple, the One True Mac-Maker has un-holstered another weapon in its campaign to crush the Florida-based upstart. It was revealed today that Apple has amended its complaint against Psystar, first filed back on …
If you own the code you get to set the licensing policies and conditions.
If Apple don't want to sell software for use on other machines, then why the hell should they? Don't like the conditions? Well then don't buy the product!
Apple are still far from having a monopoly (yet) so they can hardly be accused of anti-trust(yet).
Some people (including, apparently, the author of this piece) miss the point of the original court hearing - the question was not about the wording of the EULA (which very clearly states that you can only run the OS on Apple hardware), but whether the EULA *itself* was legal (ie, was Apple legally allowed to impose such restrictions).
And before you say "it's their product, they can add whatever they want to the EULA", I'd like to point out that most EULAs generally contain at least one or two points which are not enforceable under local laws. Admittedly, these points tend to vary depending on where you live, but odds are the EULA is not 100% enforceable in your jurisdiction. Most software companies depend on you not being bothered to find out which sections specifically do not apply to you and that you will cower in front of the Big Stick(tm).
So yeah, I can understand why the legality (not the wording) of Apple's EULA was challenged.
Well, it's not entirely surprising that others want a go at it. After all, it's a fairly decent OS and lots of people enjoy using it on non Apple hardware, illegally. Apple would do well to open (sic) it up a little but as was mentioned, they've absolutely no requirement to do so. Monopolistic? No. At least no more so than MS.
And this is coming from someone who thinks Apple are the world of the devil. Well, in a sense they are, hence the icon. But disrespecting a companies rights and conditions isn't on, really.
@Alzain: "visit my site and make suggestions,its www.zlabs.tk"
I would but I'd feel very lonely if I was the first person to post in the forums. Allthe pages are empty except one (which links to some pretty terrible youtube videos) The site just screams "placeholder" to me. No content that I could see at all.
My suggestion is: cut out all the pages on the site that you DON'T use and come up with some real original content for the rest of he site.
Apple cares because MacOS is a selling point for Apple hardware, which I would imagine Apple makes a healthy profit from.
If it allowed MacOS to run on any PC then the price of Apple hardware would go down because of the competition, and Apple would makes less money from their Mac sales than they are now (though you could argue this would be offset by increased software sales, I don't know how much profit Apple make from each channel).
I think they're more likely to win under the DMCA than the terms of their EULA, though I don't know exactly how the copy protection is implemented (is there special code in the Mac EFI that MacOS looks for?).
Charles Manning 'Apple are still far from having a monopoly (yet) '
Apple will never, ever have a monopoly until they learn to play nice and share their toys. I can fairly confidently predict that's a lesson they will never learn, they've had opportunities time and again and every time they've taken their toys home with them, employing bullies to beat up anyone who tried to play with them.
If Apple had shared their toys then they'd have a lot more friends, hell the only reason they still exist is because MS bailed them out with a 'gift' of $150 million (which stopped MS having to answer some awkward monopoly questions) so now they're a poor competitor that props up its range of overpriced but very pretty PCs with the profits from its real business of making (very good) MP3 players and dodgy phones.
The major reason MS is dominant is because the platform is so cheap and easy to get hold of, even Apple sells it's kit on the ability to run MS operating systems.
Paris, she's got a fancy box too (but I bet there's no real substance there either)
If Apple don't want their OS to be used on "other compatible hardware" (i.e. generic components without a fruity logo) why do they sell it seperately for use on x86 systems ? AIUI the new versions will be x86 only.
All x86 machines that have been sold by Apple came with a copy pre-installed, so they should sell updates only - not the full OS - perhaps in a way in which the update disc creates a new image with the new changes slipstreamed (a-la windows) which has to be burned first.
If they want a bespoke hardware system, build an Amiga-esque hardware system, where custom chipsets make it impossible.
"This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so"
Maybe Psystar are removing labels at their local grocery store and attaching them to the computers before they sell them?
Me thinks Apple are just worried that they might have to support some third party drivers at some stage while would compromise the rock solid stability and inpenetrability of their codebase.
Not that blatantly ignoring the EULA means anything when you're not the EU - they seem to forget that an End User License Agreement applies to the End User, rather than the supplier/OEM
Muffets
"I admit that I installed OSX onto a box I'd built myself and it sucks. Badly."
Really? Perhaps the reason it "sucks" is because you installed it on a box you'd built yourself rather than Apple hardware?
I'm not an Apple fanboi by any stretch, but I did recently buy a Mac for home and to be honest its desktop implementation is leaps and bounds above any Linux distro IMHO - and this is coming from someone with a Unix heritage (AIX, SCO, SunOS/Solaris, HP-UX) and a keen advocate of Linux.
I have a simple test when it comes to OS desktops - can my dad use it and install software on it? Whilst Vista or XP pass this test, most Linux distros do not and they really need to look at what Apple has done with OS/X to see how to make "Unix" accessible to non-IT users.
Apple *already uses* custom hardware not available on the average PC. For example, few PCs today employ the Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI). Plus there are various custom Apple ROMs and other chips included. Thing is, with the power available in today's CPUs and a little software tinkering, you can *emulate* almost anything. That's how the Opens work--they emulate those pieces of the Apple hardware they don't have.
...but it's their ball. If they want to remain the minnow in the IT trade, then let them be. Their kit looks better than most, their OS is pretty damned good, the build quality is good and their customer service generally good too (this is relative to the market, not a "perfect" company).
If, however, they want to gain some traction they should simply license other manufacturers. They set certain criteria (level of support, hardware standards etc.) and demand that these be met. The other manufactures can then pay a fee to label each box as "Apple Approved" or something. So they get money from the OS, money from the licensing and Apple gain penetration. They can also charge component manufacturers for testing their kit/creating drivers etc.
The world is increasingly sniffing about for an alternative to MS and as good as Linux may be, it is still not up to the consumer world; still too nerdy and geeky (and still has a few serious bugs that need ironed out - c'mon guys, fix network share browsing would you*?) for the Average Joe just now. If Apple went for it, I think they could start to give MS a serious run for its money. The other option is to sit in that ivory tower and watch as Linux standardises, converges, continues its progress (if you look at Linux over the past few years, it has made some amazing advances) and eventually becomes a serious threat to both Apple and MS.
Heck, Apple stores could even officially "retro-fit" OSX on to existing compatible hardware for a fee.
Paris because she also wants good penetration.
*And before the freetards start, it is broken at the gvfs level and has been for quite some time.
Interesting that it's an offence specifically to circumvent copy protection technology. If the technology actually worked there would be no use for such a law...
Does this mean that Apple could use entirely bogus encryption (rot13, say), and then sue people for "circumventing" their "technology"?
It's like Macrovision all over again...
I'm not arguing about the ethics, just saying that inasmuch as it interacts with "technology", the law doesn't make sense.
@Justin White
So mac users/buyers are sheep. Fine. What is the biggest selling OS? Which has the largest market share? I'll give you a clue - the Head office of the manufacturer is in Redmond.
I use linux too (as well as Mac and Windows). It has its good points, it also has LOTS of bad points too, the main ones being that unless you are a Geek/Nerd its next to impossible to set up properly and the distro system is too disjointed making for an unfriendly user ecosystem. Fix those, fix Linux becoming mainstream.
@ AC "Why bother??"
I've tried Suse with KDE 4.0 and 4.1, both feel like beta software, (certainly not a patch on OSX) on a Dell laptop that works with pretty much every distro except Suse. Common components aren't supported, and even after you tell the bootloader to install on the OS partition, it still takes over...
Why do you think OSX sucks? You cannot just say that it badly sucks - qualify the statement! Or are you an MS fanboi AND freetard?! Was it slow on YOUR custom built PC? It runs really well on Apple built hardware. Goes to show, software piracy is bad.
@ AC "god forbid..."
If you want OSX, buy a mac. This has always been the model. Why should the sell it for non mac hardware? Look at the fiasco that was the Vista launch. There is still a hell of alot of unsupported hardware around that MS are duty bound to sort out - except they'll show there usual contempt for consumers...
Oh very well, I'll rise to the bait:
The $150m didn't 'save' Apple in 1997, at the time Apple had around $4bn in the bank, in cash - hardly 'troubled' or 'dying' as MS apologists would have you believe. The deal was, in fact, to save Microsoft! Oh yes! MS realised that it had to maintain development of Office for Mac and to provide Apple with API's and other vital information to help Apple remain a competitor, otherwise MS would be hammered as a monopolist (quelle surprise!). MS also collected some Apple stock options (which they sold as soon as possible, 3 years later, for quadruple their value).
"The major reason MS is dominant is because the platform is so cheap and easy to get hold of, even Apple sells it's kit on the ability to run MS operating systems."
What tosh and utterly meaningless. The reason it's dominant is because of crippling MS licensing deals which forced corporate users (by far the biggest users of computer technology) to continually upgrade and not be allowed to use any other operating system. Remember, MS basically had a tax on every 'PC' that left manufacturing because, it argued, you could run Windows on it. Even if you didn't want to you still had to pay the tax, therefore no-one is going to pay twice to run an alternative OS.
There's plenty more of the truth about Apple vs MS out there if you can be bothered to Google.
@AC 8:55
"why do they sell it seperately for use on x86 systems"?
So that we don't have to purchase every upgrade they sell between the one our system is delivered with and the one we want to use. So that the occasional re-installation requires only one DVD, not three or four.
Meh.
@AC 8:56
"a poor competitor that props up its range of overpriced but very pretty PCs with the profits from its real business of making (very good) MP3 players and dodgy phones"
Unfortunately you seem to be in a minority with that view. Apple's share of computer sales (in terms of units shifted) doubled in the last 12 months, and they are the second biggest smartphone seller (again, in terms of units shifted).
As for overpriced. My last Windows laptop managed three years before expiring and couldn't be upgraded to run Vista in a way that gave adequate performance. A colleague's Mac, used just as frequently for the same job, went for five years and was still as sprightly as the day it was delivered, despite having been through several OS upgrades. When you consider the longevity of the hardware (quality and cost) and the fact that new versions of the OS don't require you to upgrade the memory, it actually compares very favourably.
Apple is pursuing this case.
Just look back into the dark days of the mid 90s when Apple did license clones.
It was an utter disaster and something Steve Jobs ended asap upon his return to the throne.
Thank god for that too otherwise we would be in a world populated by MS machines running Fista with the odd Linux distro elsewhere.
Then you could really talk about sheeple. They are the ones who turned MS into the edifice it is today with its blatant mac copy desktop (Windows 3.1 through to Fista).
Paris because she has more brains than most of those with their ill-informed comments!!
Doesn't matter. He didn't agree to it. **I** know the EULA exists. I'm not bound by its clauses.
Also, how can this be a DMCA fault? The DMCA specifically allows breaking a copy control mechanism in the interests of interoperability.
Worse for Apple, Pystar only edited their own copyrighted works and not the works of Apple.
This is a whole shitload of crap from Apple here.
as is shown by all the posts saying what a monopoly Apple could have if they opened up OSX to run on any old generic rubbish.
Vista Ultimate costs megabucks. The only (Ultimate) version of OSX costs £84.00 a pop, and doesn't require all the validation, activation etc., which drives so many Windows users to despair.
If Apple tried to continue their computer business based solely on selling £84 boxes of OS, how long would they last, and how much could they invest in R & D?
I'm amazed that some of the commenters are allowed without their Mommy - or at least a carer...
Imagine the auto industry putting the same restrictions on your car. You can't ever modify it or use parts from a supplier without their permission. Now, they can void your warranty, but they can't tell you what you're doing with the product. You aren't leasing or renting. You bought it. If you buy a book and right comments in the margins or modify the pages and re-sell it, the author can't turn around and sue you if you're selling original books in a modified form. How is this any different with software. If the cover of the book said that you couldn't share it; modify it; or highlight pages, it probably wouldn't hold up in court. Apple doesn't have to support this product because it's been modified. It doesn't tarnish the apple brand, because apple can just tell anyone that calls them up with problems that the system isn't an apple computer. As such, they either bought a counterfeit (branded as an apple but not) or a modified system (which is the OEM's problem). They can offer to sell them a real apple and/or advise them to only purchase from a reputable vendor. I couldn't buy a trabant with a bmw logo on it and expect it to be serviced by bmw. Same thing applies here.
Just to point out, the boxes you purchase are upgrades, not full release software like what you get with a purchase of any version of Windows.
You pay the premium when you purchase your Macintosh, which comes with OS X - that is your where your license is.
Paris, because even she knows how an upgrade works.
"You can't ever modify it or use parts from a supplier without their permission."
This, pretty much, is the law now in many countries and it is tightening across Europe. It may well come to pass that all those boy-racer mods become outlawed. Which might be good for getting rid of the boy-racers, but it will almost certainly kill motorcycling (most bikes are modified to either suit the rider's frame or post-accident (OEM parts are extortionate)).
I think Apple would argue that you did not buy the product, merely a license to use it under certain conditions.
C'mon guys, if you want to argue the point at least do so from a rational and reasonably accurate standpoint...
@Mark 13:40
"Worse for Apple, Pystar only edited their own copyrighted works and not the works of Apple." Doesn't matter, not with DMCA. IANAL but if they have edited 'their own' works (remember they also ripped off a third party's BIOS adapter code) to circumnavigate copyright protection (e.g. to emulate the Trusted Platform Module on every Apple motherboard that prevents OS X running on non-Apple hardware) then they have still committed some kind of civil act in breach of DMCA and the Apple suit stands. Smart move adding this point to the suit by Apple.
@AC 13:45
When you buy a car you own the car. When you buy software, you don't own it. If you bother to read the licence that comes with it, you are actually buying the right to use it. That is how all software is sold. If you don't like it, don't buy any software sold in this way. That includes Windows, Office, and all your favourite games.
Apple are not telling you what you can and can't do with your Mac. They've merely worded their licence to make it a violation to run your copy of OS X on non-Apple hardware. The thing that everybody forgets is that you've not bought the software. You've bought the packaging, DVD and manuals, and the right to use the software within the terms of the licence agreement. Using the software without agreeing is almost certainly a violation of the agreement because you may only use it by agreeing to do so within the licence terms. Or return the unopened and unused software for a refund.
Software has been sold this way since the year dot - I remember the RML 380Zs we had in secondary schools in the late 70's stated just this point on the floppy disc that came with the purchase of various versions of RML Basic.
Apple can't stop individuals buying an OS X disc and building a Hackintosh and probably don't care anyway. Why should they - they made a sale they probably wouldn't have otherwise, and the end user will either love the experience so much they go out and buy the real thing, or decide they don't like it - in which case Apple has still made money on the deal. Ditto if the disc is then passed on to others. It's a backward compliment to Apple which might explain why they don't jump on the original authors of the bios adapter software.
They do care when a company tries to swing a very large axe at their business model, promoting mass violation of the EULA for profit and, probably, violating the DMCA. No company on earth would stand by while a competitor shafts them in a way that is illegal. Psystar pre-install the operating system so THEY, not the end user, are violating the licence and DMCA.
@AC 14:17
Apple design everything themselves, using off the shelf chipsets. In that way they are as much a hardware manufacturer as HP or Dell, And like HP and Dell, everything is manufactured in China or other far eastern countries. You cannot buy a 'Mac compatible' motherboard, Apple's motherboards are not staock Intel boards which is why you need a 'fudge' layer of code to adapt a 'standard' BIOS and emulate the Trusted Platform Module which is a piece of hardware that identifies the motherboard as a Mac motherboard. See the osx86project.org FAQ for more information.
Personally, I'd like to see Apple make the OS available to third parties. I don't see them doing it because their business model is all about selling products that give them downstream revenue generation. If you have a Mac that you can use for five years, and it will perform well with new versions of OS X, you're going to buy the newer version. If on the other hand they did a Vista and you needed to buy buckets of extra memory, sales would be lower...
The thing is, Apple aren't transparent with their cost distribution. They are very good at showing you cheap OSX updates, but only on Apple approved hardware, as previously mentioned to death.
The reasons are pretty much two-fold:
1) The hardware costs subsidise the software R&D costs
2) Locked down or specific hardware enables them to deliver a stable solution.
This is exactly what it is though - a solution. It's neither hardware or software sold separately. Whether this is morally right, legal or whatever, it's fact.
The arguments "for" it are pretty weak. Buying your own hardware and buying an OSX disc are not reflecting their true worth. For Apple, the hardware and distribution costs will be minimal - just look at Dell for an example.
It's a bit like robbing Peter to pay Paul, but they're not going to change the business model because non Mac hardware users don't like it. The only thing they could do is to fairly attribute the costs for the OS, y'know, like MS do (to big complaints around the cost of Vista Ultimate for example... I'm sure if MS sold over-expensive hardware they could reduce the OS costs)
Actually, you can link together as many Macs as you have under Appletalk with the standard OS on each. That's never been a problem.
A commercial class server is a different matter - and even the Windows version of that ain't gonna run on standard Vista.
Can't see your point - unless you are confused.....
Yeah, I was an Apple user back when Apple licensed its OS in the 90's. I knew someone would bring that up eventually. The problem with making that comparison is that the Apple in the 90's was already thrashing about helplessly with little coherence or clue. Remember, this was the era of the Performa series, among other disasters (I seem to recall that the Quadra 630 lived at around that time, too). My recollection was that Apple in those days would have been hard-pressed to find its own arse with both hands, a map, a butler, and an arse-seeking guided missile. Of course the clone program failed.
But that's (forgive the unavoidable pun) apples and oranges compared to the situation today. Apple's lineup now is pretty slick, pretty straightforward, and, apparently, no more full of suck than any other pre-built box you can buy. Maybe even less. On days when I get tired of fiddling with badly-documented configuration files in linux, I sometimes contemplate giving up and buying one. Even if the OS could legally be acquired separately, "buy a Mac" would still be the ideal option for people who just don't want to be bothered anymore.
Now, Apple undoubted does make a hilariously large profit on its hardware. It has always charged ludicrous prices for RAM, and I expect the same markup goes into everything. But there's no reason why that couldn't be taken into account in selling "just the OS." How much profit does Apple make per box? Add that sum onto the cost of an "Open Edition" of OS X, sell it with the explicit condition that it comes with no support whatsoever for hardware, and possibly a condition against selling a box with it pre-installed, and let anyone who wants a DIY Mac buy that. Why wouldn't this be a win-win situation for everyone?
OWNERSHIP vs. RENTING/LEASING
You're correct... I'd own the car, but I wouldn't own the patents on the car or the copyright on the owner's manual. HOWEVER, I do have the right to do whatever I want with them. If someone wants to modify the code that they bought (If they bought 100 copies of the software, then they should be able to modify 100 copies of the software) and turn around and sell it as MODIFIED (clearly stated), they should be able to. It's no different than GM moaning that people are putting those tacky cloth covers on the roofs of their cadillacs. GM doesn't like it and could state that it voids the warranty (body yes, powertrain no), but people will still get it done with the non-GM company that does it. If someone sold a USED book and wrote through-out it, they wouldn't be sued for it. Same should apply to software. If someone buys the software and turns around and sells it as USED with modifications, then it's up to the buyer to determine whether to purchase with said modifications. I'm sure the barbie company doesn't like it when people create whacked out versions with their doll and sell them, but tough luck. This company seems to be purchasing each piece of software that they are changing.
Imagine where Shelby would be if they couldnt' modify cars. I would think that mod chips for cars would fall under this usage. Anything that changed the appearance... would diminish the automakers' "image". Couldn't get your car painted another color... It's a load of garbage.
If someone went out and bought 1000 books, re-wrote a few pages and sold it as modified, we wouldn't have this conversation. Even if someone put in the forward that you couldn't change the contents.
Just because it runs on a computer and some company puts a EULA on it that you CAN'T see until AFTER you purchase it doesn't mean you can't modify it. Putting software on your computer modifies the way it runs. What if apple decides that you have to have their approved backgrounds?
If I purchased it, I would have purchased the physical media and the SOFTWARE to run on the number of computers I bought it for, OTHERWISE it's RENTING. I think it's obvious that buying one disc for one computer means I shouldn't be allowed to place it on all company computers. However, I do have the right to modify my computer and the code that runs on it. If I make it run faster because I code better than someone in apple... too bad. Maybe they should quit whining and make something better.
If I OWN it, I have the right to modify it. If I RENT/LEASE it, then I don't have the right because I have to eventually return it.
And yes, this rant is pretty dis-jointed, but I'm at work and keep getting called from my desk.
Doesn't matter? HOW?????
1) Interoperability is allowed. Slam dunk right there. DMCA doesn't apply
2) It isn't copy protection. That stops Mac OS X going on non-brand hardware, it''s the EFI BIOS which is OPEN (A fact that Apple and their fans lauded HUGELY at the time)
3) Installation is not a copyright controlled action. SPECIFICALLY in the US laws for copyright. So how can writing your own BIOS that allows installation of the OS be a copyright infringement
FFS, LET GO OF YOUR ANKLES!
(That's his head up your arse).
Many of the posters seem to think that Apple has ambitions to beat, defeat, kill, Microsoft and the persons who choose to use Windows or anything other than the sacred MacOS. They should get in touch with the realities of business. Try running a business.
They should remember that it is not neccessary for a successful business to be dominant, for instance, Ferrari, Rolex or Saks.
All of these businesses are profitable and sucessful but they are nowhere near the market leaders in their respective fields. Do they care, of course not, they are profitable.
The first mantra of running a successful business is to make a profit. All else pales into insignificance, and despite all of those who think that Apple is somehow bent on world domination Apple is sucessful and profitable and that is its chief aim.
Like Ferrari, who don't want to be Ford, or Rolex, who don't want to be Swatch, or Saks who don't want to be WalMart, Apple do not want to be a commodity supplier of the computing experience, but a profitable maker and designer of a superior computing experience. Sure a Ford will get you to where you want just as a Ferrari will. And a Rolex will tell you the time no more accurately than does a Swatch and if you have any ego at all would you rather show a Saks than a Walmart label on your clothing.
In general, Apple software is more pleasant and consistent to use and their hardware is more elegant and stylish to look at. There may be a small premium to obtain these user experiences, but life is short, and you only live once, so why not have and use the best.
"If I OWN it, I have the right to modify it. If I RENT/LEASE it, then I don't have the right because I have to eventually return it."
You don't own and you're not renting or leasing. You've purchased a right to use, subject to licence conditions. Completely different to renting or leasing.
And in the UK at least, if you can't read the licence without opening the software, you are still entitled in law to return the opened software if you don't agree with the licence terms.
@Mark
I can see your point about the TPM chip not being copy protection but that wasn't my point. The TPM chip uses digital signing so that the OS can verify it is running on genuine Apple hardware.
Ignoring the violation of the EULA issue, Psystar are installing software that emulates the TPM chip. You can read about the TPM chip here: http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/TPM
Don't get me wrong, I'm against the idea behind TPM and IMHO it is one of the more dangerous under-the-radar changes that has happened in recent years. However, reverse engineering the TPM to emulate it in software quite possibly breaches the DMCA.
Reading the osx86 FAQ page - http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Legal - it is clear that the people running this site believe that to perform the act of installing OS X on non Apple is a breach of the DMCA. You can be certain that this site has been examined very closely by Apple's legal department and I'm therefore inclined to take their legal FAQ as a good approximation of the truth.
My hands aren't on my ankles as you so delicately put it... I use Apple gear because it is very good quality and I can afford it. I do not like their business model, which is why my AppleTV is cracked and patched to play non-Apple video formats and use local networked media files without needing a running iTunes. I don't agree with Apple's stance on the iTunes store. I'd like them to offer OS X on non-Apple hardware.
However it is Apple's right to do all these things, and to prevent other companies from profiting from their IPR illegally. We may not like what they do or how they do it, but we have to respect their right to do so, provided that it is legal.
Just because you write it in a EULA does not make it legal. As seen in the Autodeak suit to prohibit the resale of its software, US citizens have the constitutional right to resell anything they purchase. Calling software leased to get around this is not likely to hold up in court. I signed no papers agreeing to the lease at “Purchase”, there is no mention of lease on the box, why is it magically there when I install it. Oh and if I try to return the product because I do not agree to the lease “sorry, no refunds”. Well if the product is leased and not purchased then I should be able to get my money back if I do not agree to the terms.
"Just because you write it in a EULA does not make it legal" - agreed, and I'd like to see it discussed in court BUT the Psystar case against Apple has been thrown out so for now I guess that we're unlikely to find out if this clause can be overturned.
"Turn about - fair play?" Microsoft would not get away with adding this type of clause now because they are the dominant player in the market. Such a move would be viewed as an abuse of their dominant position. Apple do not have sufficient market share for their practices to be regarded as an abuse of position. However I suspect this would change - once their share of the enitre US market for all types of PC exceeds, say, 20% (right now I think it is 10%) then the authorities would probably be forced to think again.
For me, the best thing that can happen is for Apple to be so successful that they are forced to open up their EULA to support additional, non-Apple platforms.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
