CNet:
Mac OS X seller (not Apple) disappears after reports.
This brings up the longstanding debate about whether Apple should make its OS available on generic hardware. There are a lot of variables to consider; ten years ago, before Jobs brought it back from the brink, it seemed like a great idea, but now I'm thinking Apple's better off sticking to its own hardware.
Now, on the one hand, IBM floundered after opening its hardware, but on the other, Microsoft flourished. Since Apple is both the hardware AND OS vendor, it's hard to say for sure where this would go.
HOWEVER. Anyone who's ever used Motorola's short-lived line of Mac clones from the mid-1990's can testify that they were utter shit. Trying to run OSX on crappy hardware is bound to degrade its reputation, and that dilemma gets worse if you start to think about driver support for generic hardware. One of the biggest strengths of OSX is that it just works; it just works because it's designed to run on very few possible hardware configurations. Contrast with, say, any Windows version prior to 98 or after 32-bit XP, or 1990's-era Linux; hardware support can be a real bastard, and it's not a fight Apple should get into unprepared.
So okay. On the "Should Apple support foreign hardware?" issue, I'm in the "no" court. But on the "Should savvy hackers be allowed to put OSX on foreign hardware" issue, well, you may notice a trend in which side I typically fall on in corporation-versus-consumer rights debates. The way I see it, once you buy something, it's yours and you can do whatever you want with it; if it voids the warranty, that's your choice.
BUT. What we're looking at here isn't just an individual installing a purchased-but-modded copy of OSX on purchased hardware, it's a company buying OSX, modding it, installing it on foreign hardware, and then reselling it. So we're well into gray-area territory here; it's a pretty clear breach of the license, and the law's clearly on Apple's side, but of course it's still possible to debate the ethics of the issue and whether the law is just.
My guess is that the way this goes down is Psystar stops selling machines with OSX preinstalled, but continues to sell hardware advertising that it is capable of running a modded OSX. This is liable to rile Apple, and actually including instructions on how to install OSX on the hardware is probably illegal under the DMCA, but simply acknowleding such a possibility exists should be nice and legal. Linking to instructions on an external site might even be all right, and failing that, suggesting a Google search that will turn up useful results has to be allowable.
Of course, simply creating the barrier for entry that a user has to patch and then install the OS may be enough to keep Apple from caring. That takes the market for the product from a niche of a niche (people who want generic Macs) to a niche of that niche of a niche (sufficiently skilled hackers who want generic Macs and are capable of patching the OS installer themselves). I don't recall hearing about Apple going after the OSx86 project (though it could be that they have and have simply been unsuccessful); I think the key issue here is simply the license breach by a company reselling the product rather than an individual.
