Slashdot Log In
Psystar "Definitely Still Shipping" Mac Clones
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:12 AM
from the everyone-deserves-a-hackintosh dept.
from the everyone-deserves-a-hackintosh dept.
Preedit writes "Continuing its defiance of Apple, Psystar is reassuring customers that it is "definitely still shipping" its line of Mac clones. And, in a further nose-thumbing at Steve Jobs, Psystar this week said it's now making Leopard restore disks available to its customers, even as Apple insists that Mac clones sold to date be recalled.
In its story on the latest developments, Infoweek is reporting that tiny Psystar apparently has no intention of backing down in its legal dispute with the much larger Apple."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.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
Loading... please wait.
Well good for them (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
I for one am tired of Apple's Monopolistic business practices on their Mac range.
Isn't that like saying you're tired of Slashdot's monopolistic business practices on its Slashdot brand? By default, every company has a monopoly on its own products.
Parent
Re:WRONG!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or Apple's reputation of "just working" will go down the tubes because they no longer have total control over the hardware.
If Apple starts trying to support every combination of 3rd party hardware out there, OSX will start having reliability problems just like Windows does.
Parent
Re:WRONG!! (Score:5, Informative)
That reputation may apply to their software, but it doesn't apply to their hardware. Even Apple fans acknowledge that the first generation of almost anything is rather likely to expose some pretty significant flaws that, for some reason, never revealed itself during testing prior to release. I recall the overheating MacBookPro line... That should have been pretty darned obvious. But not every Apple fan acknowledges this... I had a vice president in my company acknowledge that he waited more than 4 hours to get the 3G iPhone and he has been rather disappointed in various aspects of its performance since.
Parent
Re:WRONG!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:WRONG!! (Score:4, Insightful)
More choice = better. Simple, really.
[Citation needed]
I don't like choice WRT Ethernet cables, or WIFI standards, or inter net protocols. I'm happy with IP having the monopoly of the internet.
Aside from that, Apple has no right to say what other manufacturer can build.
Of course, they can refuse to support OSX outside of Apple computers, that's their business choice.
Parent
Re:WRONG!! (Score:5, Interesting)
They do have a right to say that upgrade-only versions of their OS are not sold as full versions.
Parent
Re:WRONG!! (Score:5, Insightful)
you still have a choice of wifi manufacturers, ethernet cable manufacturers and implementors of internet protocols, I think you are confusing standardization and monopolization, they're two entirely unrelated concepts.
Parent
Re:WRONG!! (Score:5, Insightful)
OS X supports quite nearly as much hardware as Windows. It's a matter of getting good drivers written.
There's a conflicting statement if I ever saw one. It supports nearly as much hardware as Windows, but the drivers don't exist. That would imply that it doesn't support the hardware.
Parent
Re:WRONG!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple doesn't get special privileges because it "only" holds a smaller percentage of the hundreds of millions of computer sales out there. Their computers are overpriced and they need competition.
I am confused. You state that Apple has a small market share, but doesn't have enough competition. It would seem to me that the other 85% of the market might provide it some competition. For example, there's this OS called windows, perhaps you've heard of it? I've heard it's pretty popular, and some people apparently choose it instead of OS X.
Parent
Re:WRONG!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Everybody will win: more folks will run a more secure OS than Windows and Apple will still get all the OS sales.
Uhh. OSX is not very secure. IIRC a month or so back a windows, an OSX and a Linux machine were set up and the OSX machine went down first. Even before the Windows machine. OSX is secure cause nobody attacks it. As soon as more people run it you will see its shortcommings.
Parent
Re:Well good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Well good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It's simply the Mac business model (Score:5, Informative)
Does this qualify as fanboy bullshit? Why? I'm just saying if you don't like it, don't use it. But the facts speak for themselves. People hate Vista, the average Joe can't/won't figure out linux, and people generally enjoy the Apple experience.
Those opinions you express are not facts. They are, as you accurately phrase it, 'fanboy bullshit'.
Parent
The law doesn't enforce buiseness models (Score:5, Insightful)
The law should not care about apple's (or anyone else's) buiseness model. It should just care about providing a framework for a competitive market.
In my opinion, any license provision which enforces vertical integration should be unenforcable. I have not read TFA (hey, this is slashdot!), so I'll make a generic example. Let's say apple sells an operating system. It also sells computers with the os preinstalled. Let's say somebody else starts buying the operating system from apple, buying hardware from somewhere else, and selling the hardware with the operating system preinstalled. First sale doctrine should allow this. The assertion that the software is licensed rather than sold shouldn't in my non-lawyer opinion hold in court, since there are no recurring payments.
This is good for competition because it would force apple to have their hardware be competitively priced. Of course, if their hardware has a high cool factor (like the macbook air, or the iphone) and people are willing to pay extra for that, that doesn't mean it has to be cheap.
Parent
Re:It's simply the Mac business model (Score:5, Interesting)
"I have never met a single iPhone user who has had extensive use of a smart phone. Most iPhone users probably couldn't even come up with a somewhat accurate definition of a smart phone."
You have a deliberately narrow experience, you implicitly insult everyone who would buy an iPhone, and yet Slashdot readers think you're insightful.
"If a Mac is so superior that it is worth the money involved than people will not buy the clones and they will go under due to the alleged high standards of Apple."
This is exactly what will happen. I own a number of real Apple Macs, but I also own a fancy quad-core 8GB Hackintosh. I can attest that even the most modern Hacktintosh creation (like mine, running an unmolested retail copy of Leopard) is most definitely not as seamless an experience as a real Mac is. I'm not going to get rid of the Hackintosh, but I can say with some authority that the experience is sufficiently inferior to owning a real Mac that I wouldn't put up with it if I didn't enjoy tinkering with PC's.
Parent
Follow the money (Score:5, Interesting)
Where are Psystar getting the money from for all this? Because defending a case of this nature is going to be damn expensive and if they're such a small startup the last thing they want to be doing is spending all their money on legal bills.
Re:Follow the money (Score:5, Interesting)
It could be funded by a larger OEM manufacturer to use as a test case.
Of psystar fails, no effect to them. If it succeeds, they roll out their own line of Mac compatibles.
Parent
Re:Follow the money (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Follow the money (Score:5, Interesting)
When a person or private company is being sued by a large corporation or vice versa, in some cases the private company can claim in advance for expected legal fees, which they usually have to reimburse if they lose.
For example my father fell victim to a shady trick by a landholding corporation during a $1.2M real estate deal, and he refused to refund their $50k deposit. The corporation sued him for the deposit, and he countered with a claim for expected legal fees in advance, and was awarded $5k before even setting foot in court. He also had a strong case for misrepresentation, so the corporation withdrew the suit rather than add to their potential losses, realizing their bully tactics wouldn't work. The court ruled they still had to pay the $5k.
Parent
Re:Follow the money (Score:5, Funny)
Note, I am neither a lawyer nor a master criminal. As such an advice taken from this poor excuse at humor, may not be in your interest. And this posting should not be taken as an endorsement of any crimes or misdemeanors, but rather as a crudely constructed parody of such.
Parent
Good for them... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good for them... (Score:5, Insightful)
But didn't Apple spend a whole ton of money to write and maintain Mac OS X?
Yes they did, so if I wanted to buy a copy, I'd pay them for it. We're not talking about warez here, we're talking about the freedom to run software that I've paid for on whatever system I damn well like.
Parent
Re:Good for them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good for them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, well, problem is they are subsidizing the retail value of the OS with hardware. You get OS X for $129 because they are more interested in selling hardware. Take that away and they become another MS and the cost of the OS jumps. It also becomes big bloated mess like Windows (and Linux, sorry) because they have to support unlimited permutations of hardware.
If indeed they are well subsidizing the retail value of the OS with hardware, it still shouldn't be anyone else's problem but theirs. It's their job to adapt their business model to the open market, it is not the market's job to adapt to their business model.
Of course they shouldn't have to support anyone's hardware but their own. However, if I build a completely original box in my garage which can run OSX, and I sell and support it, why should Apple be allowed to shut me down?
Parent
Re:Good for them... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know this isn't the exact same situation but I can walk into an Apple store and buy a copy of OS X and go home and install on it on a system that isn't Apple. That should be my choice. I'm happy to give up whatever rights I have for support by doing this but it should be my choice. The same goes for all products. If I buy an iPhone, an EeePC, or a Dell, it should be my choice to mod it in anyway. I paid the money they asked for the product and now it becomes mine. They are willing to share their other software with my Windows machine (iTunes, Safari) so why not let us use their OS? We are paying for a license to use it.
Just my 2 cents.
Parent
Re:Good for them... (Score:5, Interesting)
Pystar is distributing them with a purchased license. It's not just a warez copy they're chunking in. The whole crux of the issue is whether the clause that OS X can only be installed on an Apple machine is legally enforceable. Despite having a metric shit-ton of money to throw at this trial, previous legal decisions don't look good for Apple in this case. They're free to sell any software they develop. They're free to sell any hardware as well. To try and artificially lock one to the other when there is no techincal reason to do so just might not fly.
If Toyota developer "SUPERGAS" that got 125 MPG in the new Camry but only sold it at Toyota dealerships and only to Toyota owners (with the explicit instructions that it not be sold to Ford owners), then they'd have a hell of a time legally claiming that somebody couldn't buy it from them and then sell it to owners of modified Mustangs to use. Doesn't matter that they developed the new gas with their cars in mind. Doesn't matter if they claim that you're not allowed to resell it to others. They couldn't legally restrict you from reselling it and using it as you see fit.
Parent
They are trying to get sued by Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think any sane company will break Apple's agreements, licenses on USA soil.
Remember the company shipped "Apple G6 Desktop" and got sued big time? It wasn't based at USA and they weren't trying that hard to get sued. Some media guy browsing Alibaba found the machine, that is all.
For some reason we can't know, Pystar looks like they will be very, very happy if Apple sues them further or this thing becomes more complex.
Would you dare to mess with a gigantic company who even tried to sue State of New York for "Apple" logo? If you dare, would you start your business in USA? Some very big promises/guarantees by very big corporate powers must be given to Pystar. Don't get surprised if there is real IT media left and uncovers it.
Re:They are trying to get sued by Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
If they win, they will have invsestors beating down their door. And they will break into the market of the fastest growing personal computer manufacturer. Plus, it will resolve a long standing legal question as to the validity of EULAs. I see no down side here for them at all.
Parent
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Plus ça change, plus c'est la même ch (Score:4, Informative)
I think Compaq had Microsoft and some part of Government/Corporate scene who is very afraid of IBM monopoly behind them.
Microsoft was allowed to license MS-DOS to _anyone which wants_ from the beginning. It is part of their agreement with IBM and it is why BillG and Ballmer are called "visionary". There is no such thing on OS X. Apple believes in integrated hardware/software combination from the very beginning.
Having reports like "I pressed power button but my Mac slept 10 secs later, it must be broken" is very common on Apple scene. It is nothing on a PC running Windows or Clone OS X.
What those idiots did is also convincing Apple that clones/licensed machines was always a bad idea. They ship JUNK PC.
Parent
I admire their gall (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to say that I admire their gall. They're paying a rather dangerous game*. Unless they have some really kick ass lawyers who can convince a judge of the unenforcability of Apple's licensing terms, I don't see anything happening except Psystar getting smacked down HARD. As in, take all their assets + punitive damages hard.
Of course, this could be a situation like General Computer Corporation. (The Namco & Atari partner who created Ms. Pac Man.) They were just a bunch of college kids having fun, and they didn't have money anyway. When they got sued, their reaction was: "Cool, we get to go to court!" Sometimes it's nice not having anything to lose.;-)
Mac Compatible... (Score:5, Interesting)
While it may be shaky grounds to sell these machines as Mac Clones. There should be no reason not to sell those machines with a Linux Equivalent. The nice thing is that you -could- buy a Leopard disk and load it, that is your own choice.
This is no different as my Intel PC that runs Ubuntu, but -could- run Vista if I wanted to.
Its the restore disks that will be their downfall! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's going to be their downfall in this - the derivative work.
Watch carefully!! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a VERY interesting case. Who is Psystar?
Seriously, out of nowhere, a tiny company starts to sell mac clones. It was so sketchy, we on slashdot originally called it a hoax.
Now, they got the guys who beat Apple once before representing them in the fight.
Curiouser and curiouser. It may be an intentionally staged dispute by various oems to create a Mac market for themselves. Vista is not moving boxes, but Mac compatible motherboards may be profitable.
The objective may be Apple's refusal to allow MacOS on non-Mac hardware. If they win, and Apple is not able to enforce this restriction, I can see a whole bunch of clones flooding the market.
What exactly is so special about these systems? (Score:4, Interesting)
Read TFA, googled a little. It seems like I'm missing something. It seems they simply charge outrageous markup on generic, mediocre Intel systems [psystar.com]. Throw in a moderately cheap-looking case and charge $155 [macworld.com] for the OS installation. What's new here?
If this was back when Apple was using PowerPC processors, maybe they'd have a point. But I don't see this as being a "clone" of a Mac, because clone implies hardware and this (and the Mac's) hardware is the same as everyone else's.
Even if they win, they'll still lose (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if Psystar somehow manages a court victory that would allow them to purchase and sell copies of OS X installed on generic x86 boxes, all that Apple has to do is stop selling OS X to any retail outlet other than its own. If Psystar can't get legal copies of the software to put on the machines it sells, there isn't any legal way that they can stay in business at that point, other than going to Apple stores and purchasing copies of OS X at full retail price.
We're also heading towards a future of digital distribution. It started with music, has moved to movie rentals, and looks as though it can be expanded to anything in the near future. What's to stop Apple from selling you the newer versions of OS X online? In five years when everyone wants to upgrade to Puma or whatever else they end up calling it, you have the option of downloading the upgrade to your computer instead of having to go out and purchase any physical install media.
Does it really matter if the court rules that Psystar can do whatever they want with a copy of OS X once they already have it if Apple does everything that they possibly can in order to prevent Psystar from ever obtaining a copy of OS X?
Psystar is going to win (Score:5, Informative)
Psystar is going to win this as long as Apple sells their OS as a boxed product.
Insisting that Apple's separately sold software has to be run on Apple's hardware is an unenforceable and illegal tying arrangement under US antitrust law. This exact issue has come up before in 734 F.2d 1336 DIGIDYNE CORP. v. DATA GENERAL. [precydent.com]. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: The issue presented for review is whether Data General's refusal to license its NOVA operating system software except to purchasers of its NOVA central processing units (CPUs) is an unlawful tying arrangement under section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 (1976) and section 3 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 14 (1976). We conclude that it is.
That's clear enough.
In antitrust tying cases, it's very unusual for a tying provision in a contract to be found legally enforceable. A more common situation is that some victim of a tying arrangement wants a court to compel the company in a monopoly position to do something, like sell them spare parts. [precydent.com] Even then, the tying company usually loses.
Re:Futile (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Futile (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Futile (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an entirely different case. In the case you cited, Formula were distributing a hacked copy of the Apple II software without a license. In the Pystar case, Pystar are buying a copy of OS X from Apple for every computer they sell. Apple are getting their $129 for every sale.
The first case is pure copyright infringement - you can't just take a copy of someone else's copyright work and distribute (modified or unmodified) copies without falling foul of copyright law.
The second case is about violation of the EULA. If copyright law regards installing, modifying, and running a computer program as non-infringing use (which it ought to, since a computer program you can't do any of this with is pretty useless) then a EULA is invalid because you don't need any rights from the copyright holder than copyright law grants. More likely, given the broken state of IP law in the US, it will be found that you do need to agree to a license, but whether the terms imposed by Apple are legal remains to be seen.
In the worst case, Apple will win on the basis that their EULA prevents this. In the best case, Apple will lose because EULAs are not required for computer software and this will set a precedent that no EULA is valid (distribution licenses, like any Free Software license, would be unaffected since these grant you rights beyond what copyright law gives). In the middle case, the validity of EULAs in general will be upheld but the restrictions in question (no installing it on non-Apple hardware) will be deemed unreasonable and unenforceable.
Parent
Re:Futile (Score:5, Informative)
While your right that Psystar is violating the EULA and that its not clear if the EULA is enforceable I do not believe that is the core of Apples case (mostly because they don't want to find out that their EULA is unenforceable).
I believe they are suing because Psystar modified and redistributed the software updates from apple which is a violation of copyright law. Apple didn't sue them when they first shipped units with OS X installed they waited until they had distributed a modified software update for just this reason.
Parent
Re:Futile (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, it's the right of first sale. Can I re-sell a textbook that I've underlined, annotated, crossed words out, drawn diagrams, erased diagrams, etc..? Sure. It's up to the buyer to verify that he's buying what he thinks he's buying. If he wants a pristine unmodified copy of a book, he needs to verify that before he purchases. If the buyer asks me if it's unmodified, and I lie, then it's fraud. But if I say "yes it's been modified" then it's caveat emptor -- buyer beware...
Parent
Re:Futile (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple are getting their $129 for every sale.
But Apple has set that price point with the restriction of "must be run on Apple-branded hardware". Who's to say the price wouldn't be $478 for a non-Apple-hardware license? Think of it as an "upgrade price" for people who already bought something else from the manufacturer.
Apple has chosen not to release a version of the OS without the hardware restriction, and I'm open to debate about whether or not they should, or whether or not the EULA is enforceable. But it's disingenuous to suggest that $129 is fair compensation just because there is some version of the software license available for that price, particularly when the retail price of Windows is more like $250.
Parent
Re:Futile (Score:5, Insightful)
It's fair compensation because it's what Apple charges.
If they want more money, they should charge more.
A seller's intent does not enter into it. My local grocery store sells peaches for about 50 cents each, intending that they be eaten. If I buy a peach for 50 cents and instead use that peach in some mysterious way to create an invention which makes me millions of dollars, that in no way entitles the local grocery store to any more than their original 50 cents, nor does it make the situation in any way unfair to them.
Apple sets their price with the assumption that buyers will be using the product on Apple hardware. If that assumption gets broken, that's Apple's problem for making it, not the buyer's fault for breaking it.
Parent
Re:Futile (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Because I can't help but suspect you would scream bloody murder at a company that was modifying and redistributing GPL software for money and not following the terms of the license. After all, they paid the requested price ($0) and now they should be able to do what they want with it, right? No, because the price was actually $0 + agreement to the terms of the license. Apple is not charging $130 for OSX. They are charging $130 + agreement to the terms of the license.
If you are not happy with the restrictions of the GPL license you are free to contact the copyright holder and, if they are agreeable, negotiate a different license. And if they are not agreeable you are SOL.
If you are not happy with the restrictions of the Apple license you are free to contact the copyright holder and, if they are agreeable, negotiate a different license. And if they are not agreeable you are SOL.
Parent
Re:Futile (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I can't stand Apple anymore... (Score:4, Interesting)
They're kind of compelling, actually check this out one:
http://psystar.com/index.php?&option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_images.tpl&product_id=38&Itemid=72 [psystar.com]
Base Configuration
* Mac OS X Leopard preinstalled
* no keyboard, mouse, or monitor included
* 2.0GHz Intel Dual-Core Pentium 2.0GHz Processor
* 2GB of DDR2 800 memory
* PCI-Express nVidia GeForce 7200GS 256MB
* Dual Layer 20x DVD+/-RW SATA drive
* Gigabit Ethernet
* 4 rear USB Ports
$560...
The lowest-priced Mac I can find on http://store.apple.com/us [apple.com] is $599, and that's a Mini.
What am I missing?
Parent
Re:I can't stand Apple anymore... (Score:5, Funny)
Why, so he can throw it while screaming he's going to "fucking kill Apple"?
Oh... Steve Jobs... sorry.
Honest mistake.
Parent
Re:This company needs to be shut down (Score:5, Informative)
Parent