December 2009

Apple vs. Psystar - No Winners, Just Losers.

At one point in time Steve Jobs endorsed the use of Mac Clones. This was back in 1993, long before Apple's sales skyrocketed alongside public interest in the company. Now, a tiny Florida outfit known as Psystar, a manufacturer of Mac Clones (or Hackintoshes) has been completely shut down after a successful lawsuit by Jobs and friends. They also want every computer Psystar ever sold recalled.

Among copyright infringement, Apple charged that their EULA was violated by having modified versions of OSX installed on Psystar's computers. Using an End User License Agreement as a defense in court is only acceptable in some parts of the US, and unfortunately for Psystar, in their neck of the woods as well.

Psystar's biggest mistake was modifying OSX internally to better gel with their boot loader, RebelEFI. This was stupid, since of course if you hack apart someone's product and resell it, you should be held accountable. Putting this aside, here's some of what Apple also alleged in court:

- Breach of contract for violating their EULA - There's a reason you can't use the EULA as a defense in court in many US states, and that's because a company can pretty much put anything it wants and sue people for not following it.

- Trademark infringement, for Psystar simply saying their computers could run Mac OSX Leopard

- Contributory and induced copyright infringement - This one's a no-brainer and probably what put the case over the top for Apple, in that Psystar was selling a modified version of OSX to run on its computers.

Here's where it got petty:

Trade dress infringement - Apple claimed people are used to Apple hardware and software coupled together, so it created a trade dress - or brand identity - that people were familiar with, and Psystar attempting to sell OSX on computers other than Apple's violated this.

Apple also tacked on a Trademark Dilution charge, saying Psystar's sales 'damaged' its brand. Chances are you haven't heard of Psystar until this post and probably weren't aware there was so much 'damage' being done.

These last two charges were unnecessary, as it would have easily been enough for Apple to win a court decision over there mere fact that OSX was being sold in a modified form. It's clear by claiming damage to the brand however, that Apple wanted to stamp Psystar off the map completely. This comes off like a major bullying tactic, and in my opinion just makes Apple look bad.

Devout Mac users will tell you that what makes Apple products so great is the symbiotic relationship between the hardware and software, and that's fine. But isn't it about time Apple embraced the fact that plenty of folks don't want to pay another $1000 bucks or so just to be able to enjoy using Mac's operating system? You can go into an Apple store and buy OSX Leopard(or Snow Leopard) on its own and what you do with it beyond that is your business, at least according to the first-sale doctrine. You'd be violating their EULA by installing it on your netbook, but in my eyes that's tantamount to no more than voiding the warranty on your toaster by unscrewing the bottom, not something you should be hauled into court over. It's YOUR product that you bought and paid for. For those who defend Apple by merely stating a violation of the EULA is wrong is more or less like saying you agree with everything Apple does, and it's a cop-out.

The reason I have a problem with Apple going after Psystar isn't because they sold a hacked version of OSX(a moot point since Psystar can't even SUGGEST people install OSX on their computers or show them how anymore), it's because I'm a strong proponent for Open Computing. Google embraces it, and even Microsoft to an extent - just look how many brands of computer you've seen Windows installed on with their approval. Open Computing is a way to get everyone in the technology community involved with improving products and catering to popular demand. If this community didn't exist, you would still be unable to use Copy and Paste on your iPhone, something I found absurd from the outset.

Apple comes off as looking scared of how OSX would run on different platforms, hence wanting to snuff out anyone else from doing it. Maybe that's an indicator of a lack of confidence in its stability, but it's been proven time again that Leopard has thrived on various netbooks, and on custom-built desktops.

Perhaps Apple's worried people won't want to pay a premium for sleek form factor if they can simply head to their local computer store and build a machine that runs Snow Leopard without issue for a fraction of the price. But is that something worth suing over?

Whatever the reasoning, Apple looks like a bully hiding in a castle shouting orders to destroy anyone who uses their products in any way other than how they tell them. Contrarily Apple doesn't seem to have a problem allowing third parties to make software that lets you install Windows on Apple products, nor does Microsoft, because to MS that's just another sale. Apple's groundbreaking 1984 commercial made them look like the little guy attacking Big Brother, but sadly it appears the roles are now reversed. Shame on you, Steve - I want the old Apple back.

The Google Phone: Death of Android? Hell no.

A few fuzzy shots of the Google Phone aka the Nexus One have popped up around the 'net as of late. Finally there are a couple of clearer shots available:

 

A few thoughts... I love the concept of a Google Phone. Some folks have suggested that by releasing Android on its own hardware that it will kill Android as a platform - that by having a fully custom, to-spec device that was made for all of Android's strengths, that people will be turned off to third-party devices making use of the open-source operating system(Eclair, or version 2.0 was released as an SDK in October for just such a purpose). I couldn't disagree more.

The strongest argument for the death of Android as a platform would have to be the existence of the iPhone. For example, if you took the iPhone OS and attempted to port it to another device, it would most definitely be a different experience. Applications made for a certain screen size would look different, touchscreens with capacitive touch surfaces(as opposed to Apple's resistive iPhone screen) would likely run into problems with scrolling, etc. In short, the useability issues would water down the iPhone experience on other devices and effectively kill it, while demonstrating the harmony created by Apple's walled garden philosophy over their devices.

As for using this as an argument toward the failure of Android as a platform by Google releasing their own phone/Android coupling, I couldn't disagree more. In my view, Android has been a fairly big success on the open market, with the G1 breaking ground in third-party usage of the OS. Android Market(Google's app store) is experiencing growing pains with just over 16,000 applications available, and while this is small compared to Apple's 100k+ currently available, it shows a definite interest for making applications and games that work across a multitude of devices and screen resolutions.

So will the Nexus One put a damper on this momentum? No way. Given that the Nexus is made by HTC - makers of the G1 - a third-party flavour is already being brought to Google's in-house hardware effort. If anything the Google Phone works to create a 'template' of what kind of specs third-party manufacturers would hope to strive for in providing the best possible Android experience - it will compliment other devices, not drag them down. Geeks will flock to the Nexus and use it as their main testing ground for creating the most stable user experience possible. This may be directly incongruent to Apple's wildly successful execution of their hardware-specific OS and app development, but having an open, Java SDK for people to create with alongside a phone to call their own will continue to show Google can gain a strong foothold to hang with the big boys in the cellular market.

Meanwhile my hope is that Google/HTC will revise that camera lens bubble so it doesn't get scratched to pieces. Seriously, what's up with that?

WIND Mobile Joins the Party... Now What?

The launch of Globalive’s WIND Mobile in Toronto last week had people cheering en masse that a fresh competitor was on the scene to blow away the competition. No contracts and a great deal on data access is enough to get anyone talking… er, texting, surfing, etc. As much as I want to jump on the bandwagon, a few things stuck out like a bevy of sore thumbs that have me taking a ‘wait and see’ attitude at best. So let’s take a look under the hood of this new player in the market and why I’m not sold… yet.

- No contracts. At all.

WIND touts the now age-old selling point of no contracts. Normally this means a company is pushing pay-as-you-go as their main hook while still offering long term plans, but WIND means it. They don’t offer contracts of any kind. As much as I want to see WIND thrive in a market currently dominated by The Big Three, offering no contracts whatsoever tells me someone wearing a suit isn’t exactly confident WIND will be around long enough to honour multi-year deals.

- You MUST buy your phone.

The main idea behind offering long term contracts is so you don’t have to pay full price for your phone. Aside from my geek friends who buy theirs from the manufacturer directly, most people prefer to pay a highly subsidized rate for their device on a contract, often getting their phone for $0. While the Blackberry Bold 9700 from WIND costs $450 compared to the $600 no-plan version from Rogers, this becomes a moot point when, generally, people don’t want to buy their phone anyway.

- The network

In order to break into the market, WIND leased lines on the AWS network, a frequency that only one other provider in North America uses – T-Mobile. It’s cheaper than attempting to get chunks of the GSM spectrum currently controlled by Rogers et al, but it means if you travel outside your ‘Home’ network, you’ll be signing on to Rogers’ GSM and paying some pretty hefty roaming charges to the tune of 25 cents per minute - for anyone who travels outside the GTA this is a huge turnoff. A slew of devices aren’t setup for AWS, which is a major reason WIND currently offers only 4 phones to choose from. According to WIND’s FAQ, SIM cards are on the way so you’ll be able to bring over your existing handset and avoid buying a brand new one, but it needs to ‘qualify’ first – i.e. it must support AWS - so you can forget about popping it into your iPhone.

So What’s Good?

With so few hardware options on the table and no ability to subsidize your phone purchase, WINDs chances of thriving in an already saturated market will be a tough sell. Despite my cynical perspective there is a bright spot to all this: Data access. 55 bucks gets you unlimited internet access without the possibility of being charged extra – so long as you stay inside the Home network, of course. Rogers/Fido, Telus, and Bell could take a lesson here as they all tack on per-Megabyte, metered charges to their already limited data plans, squeezing every last penny out of your mobile surfing experience. The downside is a gigantic 10 cents per 25 kilobyte charge for leaving WIND’s limited coverage area.

Passing WIND?

With marketing geared toward providing great customer support(much like T-Mobile down South), WIND wants to bring sweeping changes to how you’re being treated as a customer. I’m all for it, but first they desperately need to widen their coverage areas and expand their inventory into at least the double digits. In something of a catch-22 this is all dependent on how well they’re accepted in their current form. In 2010 Apple plans on releasing an AWS-compatible iPhone for T-Mobile users. Hopefully by that time WIND hasn’t been swept away by big-money competition.