Ok so let me get you up to speed on this amazing little shit storm the Mac community has been watching. In very clear, almost un-legalese like language, the end user license agreement for Mac OS X states:
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. Single Use License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you have purchased a Family Pack or Upgrade license for the Apple Software, you are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.
I’ve probably only read under 10 of these stupid things. Emphasis on stupid. But I do write a lot, and I generally organize my thoughts into a priority order so the reader get the most important bits first should they drop off half way through. That’s mostly because I know how much everyone loves to read my raving craptastic blog. Just apply that concept to any other document, one can assume its so important to Apple that its the first thing they dive into regarding their product and the terms of using it (I’m not counting the ‘General’ paragraph above this because its not relevant to this article). I mean this bullet isn’t that hard to understand. Don’t go putting OS X on non-Apple hardware, don’t enable people to do it either. You might even interpret it as don’t think about enabling people to think about enabling Mac OS X on last nights pizza box.
Do people do it anyway, and should they? Absolutely. One of my favorite cultural motives to be in the tech industry is constantly being on the path of discovery. Let the geeks tinker away!
Should they do it for profit? Only if the discovery is so unique in solving a problem that its possible someone else is already working on it. Psystar was not this. The very company they depended on to power the software their computers shipped with was the same ‘vendor’ that they anticipated a big legal battle with. Before they even were truly in business.
There are only a few groups in life I never ever want to hear from in a negative situation. Apple Legal is #2. My ex wife is #1.
Even better, should Psystar suggest they could exceed Apple’s own sales figures? Well how about suggesting you could do it in 1/25th the time Apple took to get to that point? I’m no venture capitalist, hell I can barely keep my account positive. But I do believe that if I were in a VC’s shoes I would have this interpretation…a pitch to sell Mac OS X preinstalled PC’s, challenge a pretty well established legal precedent, and then see financial projections presented as conservative that are so polar opposites of the expected figures they match Apple’s own sales. In their aggressive growth model, Psystar suggested even more radical numbers. Well I would have to laugh and say I can’t wait to read about it in the news. Then today I would read about it here, sip another from my coffee mug, and smile.
Under its conservative projections, Psystar told investors it would sell 70,000 computers in 2009, 470,000 systems in 2010 and 1.45 million machines in 2011. The firm’s aggressive growth model, however, put those numbers at 130,000, 1.87 million and 12 million during 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively.
By comparison, Apple sold 10.4 million Macs during its 2009 fiscal year, the 12-month span that ended Sept. 30, 2009.
The first rule I know about VC’s is that whatever it is your business idea is, it better have something people can believe is the right thing to do and if necessary challenge the status quo. I’m sure the people behind Psystar’s funding saw this legal challenge coming. If I could’ve been a fly on the wall during that presentation, I would’ve loved to see the guy or girl that walked out when they saw growth from 70k to 470k units year over year, in a conservative model. I know of very few business owners able to handle that amount of growth when they have a physical product, attached with technical support, warranties, etc. I don’t care how much money you can throw at it, scaling a business that way is a recipe for failure. Certainly anything is possible. Its almost like these guys just pulled Apple’s SEC filings and then shaved it down for their own. Were they so ambitiously involved in this that they believed they could outsell Apple in its own market? In less than three years?
I guess all in all I’m fascinated with this story, like many Mac bloggers, at the fact they even got 768 units out the door. It seemed doomed right from their press release. The more that comes out of the court case Apple has built on them the more its clear just what a classic business failure this is. Maybe if the economy was just super awesome they could’ve pushed passed 770, but the truth is they didn’t even know how to do accounting correctly.
I’ve got some snipe oil to sell for my next big idea.