Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

Mac Cloner Psystar Ships First Service Pack

Posted by kdawson on Tue May 20, 2008 01:46 PM
from the cloe-wars dept.
Preedit writes "Not only is Mac clone maker Psystar continuing to defy Apple's ban on third-party Leopard installations, it's supporting the hardware with updates. Psystar Mac clones shipped as of Monday will include a 'service pack' that features fixes for a range of problems, some of them inherent in Apple's own software, according to InformationWeek. The fixes address a range of troubles, from glitches in Apple's Time Machine backup feature to quirks in the Keyboard Viewer and Character Palette entries in Leopard's system preferences menu. There's also support for the latest version of Java and other updates. According to the story, by offering a full menu of support, Psystar appears to be daring Apple to attempt to enforce provisions in the Leopard license agreement that forbid third-party installations and sales." We've been discussing Psystar clones for a while.

Related Stories

[+] Psystar Offers $399 "OpenMac" Computer 615 comments
mytrip writes to tell us that Psystar has announced a new line of Intel-based computers that promise to run an unmodified version of Mac OS X "Leopard". Unfortunately almost immediately after the launch their website went down and as of this story remains unaccessible. "Astute readers may well hear this news and ask themselves if it doesn't sound like a Mac clone, something whose time came -- during Gil Amelio's tenure at Apple -- and went shortly after current CEO Steve Jobs assumed the helm at the company. [...] It definitely defies the EULA for Mac OS X, which specifies that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install the operating system on an Apple-branded computer. If you buy the $399 OpenMac, you can check the EULA yourself if you also buy the pre-install option, as the company includes a retail copy of Leopard with your purchase."
[+] First Psystar Mac Clones Ship 466 comments
An anonymous reader writes "According to Gizmodo, Psystar has begun shipping its Macintosh clones, thus proving that the company is not a hoax. Initial impressions seem to be positive, though Software Update does not work."
[+] Your Rights Online: Apple Files Suit Against Psystar 805 comments
Reader The other A.N. Other, among others, alerts us to the news that Apple has filed suit against Psystar, the unauthorized clonemaker. (We've been discussing Psystar from the start.) The suit alleges violation of Apple's shrink wrap license and trademarks, and also copyright infringement. News of the lawsuit, filed on July 3, first surfaced on a legal blog. There's speculation that the case has been sealed.
[+] Apple Suit Demands That Psystar Recall OpenMacs 759 comments
Da'Man writes "The Psystar saga takes another series of turns. Not only is the website down but an examination of the suit filed by Apple shows that the Cupertino Goliath wants Psystar to recall all Open Computer and OpenServ systems sold by the company since April. It seems that Steve Jobs is out to totally sink Psystar and put an end to Mac clones."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login
Loading... please wait.
  • by alta (1263) on Tuesday May 20, @01:53PM (#23479070) Homepage Journal
    Really big hairy ones that must be protected by some sort of anti-steve force field.

    Or maybe they're eunichs (sp?) and steve can't cut off their balls.

  • The system is priced at $804.99. A similar, Apple-branded computer could cost more than $2,000.

    The Psystar system has a single Core 2 Duo CPU.

    They don't say what the "similar, Apple-branded computer" is, but if it's a Mac Pro it's got two four-core CPUs.

    The problem is that Apple doesn't make a similar computer. If they did, Psystar wouldn't have a market. And Apple would have a bigger one.
    • by yincrash (854885) on Tuesday May 20, @01:56PM (#23479124)
      If Apple did try to go for this market, they'd need to cut their margins by a lot to compete with the current pc market which plays in this price range.
      • Why? They wouldn't be competing with Dell, they'd be competing with themselves. People don't (and never will, I'll bet) buy a Mac because it's the cheapest, they buy it because they feel it's superior in some way and thus worth the money.

        What they would have to worry about is cannibalising the iMac sales, because a standard-tower Mac plus a third party monitor, graphics card & RAM would be cheaper than an iMac and superior in every way except form-factor, which isn't really high on most people's list for a desktop.
        • What they would have to worry about is cannibalising the iMac sales, because a standard-tower Mac plus a third party monitor, graphics card & RAM would be cheaper than an iMac and superior in every way except form-factor, which isn't really high on most people's list for a desktop.

          No it wouldn't. The mythical mini-tower Mac, if it were ever made, would be priced at a little less than equivalent iMacs (if not exactly the same).

          The real threat from such a box would be to Mac Pro sales.

    • The obvious comparison would be the iMac, as far as performance specs go.
        • Hmm, desktop hard drive? Check. Standard laptop RAM? Check. Ability to replace the video card? Technically, check. It can be replaced as it's a separate module. Upgrading...well, you'd have to have a lower-end card and find a service provider willing to order/install the better one for you. However, it's kind of a moot point. You know why? BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE DON'T GIVE A SHIT. Geeks need to get that through their obstinate skulls. The vast majority of the buying public doesn't give a shit about upgrading their video card. They just want a computer that works so they can check their email, do word processing, and organize their photos. Upgrade-happy geeks are a tiny sliver of the overall market.
  • by Khyber (864651) <khyberkitsune@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 20, @01:55PM (#23479108) Journal
    We'll see no lawsuit. This gives Apple more exposure. If they do sue, I won't be offering them a bandage for their blown-off foot.
      • Re:Bet ten to one (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Uncle Focker (1277658) on Tuesday May 20, @02:14PM (#23479460)

        My guess is that they will wait until the company dies. Then, if, for some reason, it fails to die, they'll sue 'em--and win, of course. Clearly, Apple has this one--this is a blatent knowing violation of the EULA by a for-profit corporation.
        There is no guarantee that that part of the EULA is even legally enforceable. Just because it's written in a EULA doesn't mean it has any actual force of law to back it up.
        • by kestasjk (933987) on Tuesday May 20, @02:53PM (#23480158) Homepage
          But at some point the people at Psystar must have clicked "I Agree", so they agreed to comply. This is the strongest contract in the entire software industry, even stronger than a "TOS" link at the bottom of a web-page
  • begun, the mac war has.
  • by Animats (122034) on Tuesday May 20, @02:05PM (#23479328) Homepage

    Apple is unlikely to sue Psystar. Apple would probably lose; Apple's EULA is an "illegal tying arrangement" under antitrust law. Psystar is tiny, but a court loss would encourage bigger players to start making clones.

    More likely, Apple will stop selling their OS as a boxed product.

      • FYI (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mpapet (761907) on Tuesday May 20, @02:58PM (#23480240) Homepage
        The mac market share isn't 4%. That's a dumb number that's used to make Windows appear much more dominant.

        Compare Dell's unit sales to HP's unit sales to Apple's unit sales for a given segment and you'll find Apple in the top-5 for sure on any given month. In laptops, Apple is #1 per unit and dollar and has been for a really, really long time.

        Still, I doubt there's the expertise on /. for a legitimate discussion about anti-trust.
  • by ToasterTester (95180) on Tuesday May 20, @02:20PM (#23479586)
    Buy doing nothing Apple isn't give any free press to this company. Companies like do are only looking for their fifteen minutes of fame. People who want Mac's will buy Mac and get a better deal once you factor in cost of OS X the clone isn't that good a deal. Down the road they will have trouble keeping up with updates and etc. In other words leave them alone and they will go back to being just another white box computer maker.
  • by Leomania (137289) on Tuesday May 20, @02:26PM (#23479690) Homepage

    Mac clone maker Psystar

    This box is NOT a clone, it is a hackintosh [wikipedia.org]. Please refer to it as such, but not a clone. A true clone would have EFI firmware, not EFI emulation. It would require no hacks to install OS X, it would cleanly install and be recognized by the OS.

    I believe this would actually be a desirable system if it really were a clone... but with that fan noise problem and all, how many people would really want one?

  • by mkaylor (1020395) on Tuesday May 20, @02:45PM (#23480042)
    Just maybe Apple is allowing this to continue to test the waters for a PC version of OS/X
  • by imyy4u3 (1290108) on Tuesday May 20, @02:59PM (#23480244)
    The funniest part of this whole thing is the guy who wrote the patch that allows Psystar to install Apple's OS X on their PC boxes is pissed because Psystar is using his "free software" to make tons of cash and they are not giving him any of the profit. What's ironic is the fact that he blatantly violated Apple's EULA, and is now surprised that Psystar is violating his EULA. LOL.
      • Re:Slow News Day? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by MightyYar (622222) on Tuesday May 20, @02:22PM (#23479638)
        I went through exactly this excercise the other day with someone. It turns out that Apple and Dell have very similar prices. The exception is with the MacBook Pro, in which Apple exceeds Dell by about 20% or so, but the closest Dell laptop is also larger by a fair margin.

        Dell doesn't sell a Mini competitor, and Apple doesn't sell a headless low or mid-end desktop tower, so those products were impossible to compare.

        Apple's MacBook line, iMac line, and Pro line are all very comparable - even cheaper right after a refresh - to their Dell counterparts.

        Go try it :)
        • by cheros (223479) on Tuesday May 20, @03:13PM (#23480442)
          even cheaper right after a refresh

          I've now tried refreshing several times, but in my browser Mac prices stay the same.
          Should I switch to Safari? :-)
        • The problem is (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Tuesday May 20, @04:22PM (#23481692)
          They don't have a consumer desktop line, which is what a whole lot of people and companies want. Their Mac Pros are good for the money if and only if you actually need all the high end hardware they mandate. The entry level Mac Pro is $2800 with no monitor. Now that's no surprising as it features things like dual quad core Xeons. Ok, fine, but there are very, very, very few apps that can use 8 cores. There are, in fact, very few that can use 4 cores. So for most people it, like much of the other high end hardware you have to get (ECC RAM, for example) is a waste of money. Consider that MPC (our supplier at work) will happily sell me a single quad core desktop for just under $1000.

          Thus it is overpriced if you don't need the hardware they are trying to push. They don't have a mid range tower at all.

          You can go down to their all in ones, but of course those come with their own problems. A big one would be why do I want to get a nice monitor, if I am going to have to get rid of it when the computer attached to it is obsolete? Monitors last longer than computers, particularly nice ones. You get a nice 24" IPS LCD, man, that's a keeper for a long time. However, the computer is going to get outdated at the same rate all computers do, which is to say fairly quickly. So if you buy the all in ones, you have to get a monitor every time you want a computer upgrade.

          That's a waste of money to most of us. Pretty much everyone I know keeps their monitors well past their computers. Either they buy cheap monitors, in which case they generally keep them until they break because they don't want to spend any more money on a display than they have to, or they buy good monitors, and they keep them because the monitor is still a good monitor and works for many years.

          I have a nice 26" IPS panel that I plan on keeping probably until it fails. Hell, first thing to go out on it will be the backlight, and I can and most likely will buy new tubes and a new ballast and replace it. It's a great display and when the day comes that I retire it from my primary system, it'll work very nicely on my guest system. No reason to throw it away in a couple years. However if it were tied to my computer, well that's what would happen. I upgrade my system very regularly. My monitor though, that lasts.

          So that's where the complaints against Apple's price tend to come from. It isn't that they are necessarily bad if you do a straight 1:1 comparison. It is that they don't offer many choices, and one of the choices they exclude is one of the most popular choices: consumer desktop/tower and separate monitor. People like that choice, and businesses REALLY like that choice. If you want a separate monitor, you either have to get a very low end system, with no upgradability (mini) or an amazingly powerful workstation (pro). Nothing in the middle range. Thus for most people, the pro is what they'd look at and it is expensive.

          Show me a mac tower with a single dual core processor and regular DDR2 RAM and then we can talk. Until then the choices are a system that isn't powerful or expandable enough or a system that is overpriced.
            • Re:Slow News Day? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by p0tat03 (985078) on Tuesday May 20, @02:48PM (#23480082) Homepage

              There is as much "perceived value" in style and interface as there is "perceived value" in genuine performance. A computer is a tool to do something, and for the vast majority of users not running servers, the interface contributes to the tool's usefulness as much as teh megahurtz.

              Having used some truly horrible interfaces in my time, and having seen the real productivity improvements that come with superior design, I assign a pretty high value to usability. Just look at any recent Motorola phone *shudder*.

      • Re:Slow News Day? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by p0tat03 (985078) on Tuesday May 20, @02:52PM (#23480136) Homepage

        Do you have any information to actually back this up or are you just making things up? Why in your view is the operation "shady"?

        Slashdot covered this before, as have other sites. In summary, the company pulled credit card orders a few short days after announcing the product. Efforts to track down the company at its real-life address turned out to be difficult, and we still have not seen any evidence that the company is legit (there was no business by its name at the address listed on its site). When confronted with this information the company changed its physical address on its website numerous times, none of which seem to reflect a real business. THAT is why it seems shady. Indeed, it looks like this is an amateur operation at best, a scam at worst.

        Apple is overpriced because they can be. They are on x86 architecture now so they don't really have an excuse. You CAN compare them to similar spec'd PC hardware to see how overpriced they are.

        Go ahead. Do it. I've done it, as have many others. When you don't make cheap excuses like "oh yeah let's leave out the Bluetooth, 'cos who uses it anyways?" you'll find that Macs are quite competitive. Yes, there's still a premium, but "as overpriced as can be" is not it. I would say Sony's are far more overpriced than Macs.

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)

        by mrsteveman1 (1010381) on Tuesday May 20, @03:44PM (#23480942)
        It may not be, but they can do any number of technological restrictions in the name of preventing piracy.

        Encrypted binaries fit in there, especially since the key is sitting in the SMC chip, which only real macs have.

        Eventually breaking those restrictions, whatever they may be in the future if anything, may run afoul of the DMCA, in which case it is no longer a license issue. Somewhat like breaking DRM to use music on the device of your choice, this would be breaking locks on the OS to use it on the hardware of your choice, and both would technically violate the DMCA...right?