Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Desktops (Apple) Hardware

Psystar Offers $399 "OpenMac" Computer 615

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Psystar Offers $399 "OpenMac" Computer

Comments Filter:
  • Not the first (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Monday April 14, 2008 @04:45PM (#23069134) Homepage

    These aren't the first people to try something like this. People used to post instructions on buying various 3rd party PPC boards to build your own Mac.

    The interesting part of this is that they have vowed to challenge Apple's EULA in court if (he he he, "if") they get sued. The outcome of that battle will be interesting. I want to say I'm on Apple's side on this one (they should get to say "only on Macs"), but a big part of me hates all the crazy restrictions in EULAs and I'm sure if Apple wasn't in a minority position I'd be crying foul over that clause as monopolistic.

    The somewhat sad part is that this could satisfy quite a bit of the complains I've seen on /. and other places asking for an upgradeable Mac that costs less than the Mac Pro. Yet the hobbled the default configuration with integrated graphics. I also enjoy the bits I've read about this where they recommend AGAINST installing OS X updates until they say it's OK because it could easily hose the system.

    All and all, while I don't expect this to go anywhere, it will be amusing to watch.

  • Re:Mmm.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Monday April 14, 2008 @04:46PM (#23069162) Homepage

    Because Apple said so. They are allowed to put whatever restrictions in their license they want, as long as they are legal. They can put some really weird things in that and have each product have conflicting requirements.

    The question here is: is that particular restriction legal (and thus valid) or illegal (and thus can be ignored)

  • EULA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Schraegstrichpunkt ( 931443 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @04:49PM (#23069208) Homepage

    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.

    And the first-sale doctrine states that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install it wherever he wants, EULA notwithstanding.

  • Re:This is /. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by calebt3 ( 1098475 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @04:50PM (#23069216)
    So what does Apple care if you use their OS on a PC?
  • Re:This is /. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by joeytmann ( 664434 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @04:55PM (#23069306)
    Very good point, so MS "forces" IE/MediaPlayer/Whathaveyou on you, Apple "forces" you to their hardware. Which is worse?
  • Re:This is /. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mongoose Disciple ( 722373 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @04:58PM (#23069334)
    Apple makes computers. Microsoft doesn't. World of difference.

    In other words, all Microsoft has to do is open a hardware division of PCs they build that run Windows and they instantly have the moral high ground on more or less everything?

    I doubt anyone would agree with that, but if that's not what you're saying, then I can't understand how what you are saying would make any sense.
  • by ccguy ( 1116865 ) * on Monday April 14, 2008 @04:59PM (#23069354) Homepage

    Not sure why public perception would be like that, since the vast majority would actually own a mac and upgrades truly would just work.
    Yes, but pissed off people make more noise than happy customers. Some would rather rant in a blog and submit links everywhere than admit that their purchase wasn't that clever.
  • EULA flipflop (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Umuri ( 897961 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @05:01PM (#23069382)
    Alright, to everyone posting the sarcastic comments wondering whether slashdot is Pro EULA or Anti EULA this week because it's apple and not microsoft, lets try to spell out things that hopefully everyone can agree on.

    1. EULAs are pretty much unenforcable in what littel court cases have involved them to any degree.

    2. Apple has every right to say that they won't support or vouch for the stability software that isn't running on hardware they approve of.

    Beyond that, you can argue how you wish. However that's pretty much what this eula thing boils down to.

    Apple makes it a point to ensure stability in their operating system, sometimes at the purported sacrifice of flexible code for hardware they don't sell. But if people want to try to get it working on other hardware, i really don't think apple will mind. If they do, the only reason i could think of it is they're worried about their image as the "cool" and "hip" computers getting tied in with people's hacked together junker computers running MacOS.

    Apple cares about image, and it's image is "just works". They use an eula to spell it out, albeit in a nonbinding way.

  • Re:Mmm.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PC and Sony Fanboy ( 1248258 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @05:03PM (#23069420) Journal
    the EULA for safari says 'only on apple branded hardware'
    the EULA for OSX says 'only on apple branded hardware'

    I don't see the difference EITHER... and apple is actively distributing safari to anyone with itunes, which includes a LOT of PCs.
  • Feature list (Score:3, Interesting)

    by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @05:03PM (#23069422)
    the computer this compares to is the imac not the powermac. on that basis:
    faster CPU: 1.8-2 Ghz versus 2.2 Hhz
    more memory in base model: 1Gb versus 2
    bigger hard drive in base mode: 80gb versus 200gb

    I note that places like mac-mall already slightly discount the price of macs and give memory upgrades so the memory comparison is irrelevant.

    what you give up:
    size: the mac is teeny weenie. this thing is a full sized box

    quiet: this is not really known, but it's a fair guess that you don't get a quiet fan on a budget machine.

    other costly items:
    software: buy a copy of leopard $125
    other missing: bluetooth and wifi. not clear on GB ethernet or firewire.

    thus this thing is not very welcome in the living room, nor even on your desktop. since it will go under the desk this means lots of coords and down on your knees crawling under the desk.

    The main drawback is no software update. which is of course what you really are paying for when you buy the OS. having all your apple apps staying secure automatically is peace of mind. Their website says that software update will occasionaly be unsafe to use. One can bet this will quickly become defacto true.

    other things: no apple support. this is really good service. if you have computer problems apple is very good to you.

    $399 + 125, does not really seem like much of a bargain.

    conversely this sort of shows that the "apple tax" may be a myth.

  • Re:This is /. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Constantine XVI ( 880691 ) <trash,eighty+slashdot&gmail,com> on Monday April 14, 2008 @05:04PM (#23069448)

    Second thing? Support issues. Now they are going to have to field support calls for non-Apple supported hardware.
    No they don't. While the legality of not allowing the OS on other hardware is questionable, it's perfectly legal to not provide support for anything but Apple hardware.
  • by PC and Sony Fanboy ( 1248258 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @05:05PM (#23069460) Journal
    vanilla kernal on a hackintosh is really easy if the hardware specs are right... so I'm not sure why they had to modify the OS - maybe they just needed the EFI emulator, which starts up before OSX? *shrugs*
  • Re:EULA (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14, 2008 @05:05PM (#23069464)
    the problem is, you can't purchase anything but an upgrade copy of Mac OS. The hardware is your license key to the full copy (think of it as a very large dongle). You can't purchase a "full" legal copy of Leopard without buying a Mac.

    This makes upgrading fairly painless because the upgrade software assumes you must have a valid license because it is designed to only run on hardware that came with a valid license (no searching for previous version product keys).
  • Re:Reality check (Score:5, Interesting)

    by netwiz ( 33291 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @05:10PM (#23069518) Homepage
    The catch with the "Mac Tax" is that while you can't configure a Mac to have less than the shipping hardware (integrated camera, gigabit ethernet, do-it-yourself RAM, firewire, etc.), when pricing against equivalent hardware, they usually are cost-equal or a hair less. In the case of the Mac Pro, the difference is almost 25% given the CPU horsepower with which the system ships. At release, it was impossible to find a four-way workstation within $1000 of Apple's hardware.

    This isn't to say Apple's the value leader, quite the opposite. Their surcharge on disk and RAM borders on userous; the video choices, while current at release, are updated slowly and tend not to support the more advanced configurations (SLI). That said, I'll take Apple's build quality over almost anything else, and for me at least, OSX significantly improves my workflow over Windows. YMMV.
  • by CajunArson ( 465943 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @05:13PM (#23069556) Journal
    Apple will win this case without any problems whatsoever and (if you were to print out the decisions) probably more than a ton of case law on Apple's side. The license is perfectly clear, not even close to being unconscionable, 100% enforceable, ans Psystar knows this. Apple probably has not bothered suing home enthusiasts who mod the software by hand since a. it is a waste of money going after individuals who are not
    making money; b. there is little to no chance of it causing problems with Apple brand perception. However, as soon as this goes from a wacky and semi-functional side-project into a money making business.

        The funny thing is for all the people who think Psystar is somehow great, after doing this (assuming it's not just a prank) there is probably a GREATER chance that the hobbyists will get sued in the future since more publicity makes this more of a threat to Apple's image.
  • by insanemime ( 985459 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @05:29PM (#23069826)
    What I love is this from their FAQ:

    Can I run updates: The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are not non-safe. It's best to check on InsanelyMac for this information but when in doubt don't update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.
    I see this blowing up in their faces big time.
  • Re:EULA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zjbs14 ( 549864 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @05:39PM (#23069968) Homepage

    And the first-sale doctrine states that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install it wherever he wants, EULA notwithstanding.

    First sale doctrine applies to the re-sale of the disks/content. Doing something else with the content comes under fair use. Whether that can be controlled by a EULA is pretty much up in the air from a legal perspective.
  • by StarKruzr ( 74642 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @05:49PM (#23070148) Journal
    I want the Mac Apple refuses to sell me: an upgradeable machine that doesn't have ridiculous components (Xeons, FB-DIMMS) that maybe 0.01% of the userbase actually needs.

    Jobs refuses to sell it because he knows people will buy it. He fears this because he is in love with AIO and wants people to buy iMacs even when they aren't a fit for their needs. He also is under the delusion that creating a Mac upgradeable prosumer desktop will somehow "Dell-ize" Apple. The reality, which most Mac users understand, is that what is actually valuable about Macs is not their different-ness, but the fact that they run OS X, which is the best consumer operating system on the market. Mac hardware is not special. It got even less special after 2005. Mac SOFTWARE is what is special.
  • Re:Feature list (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ender- ( 42944 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @06:09PM (#23070442) Homepage Journal

    other things: no apple support. this is really good service. if you have computer problems apple is very good to you.
    I only have 1 personal experience with Apple's service. I worked for a small company [only 4 ppl in the office]. They had a 2-cpu G4 tower that was out of warranty. One of the internal fans had come out off its bearings and broke in half. It took me 30 seconds to remove that fan.

    I called Apple, knowing the machine was out of warranty. All I wanted was the part number and price for a replacement part [just an 80mm fan, with an odd connector]. Apple support wouldn't give me the information. They told me to call an authorized Apple service place.

    So I called the local Apple store and asked to speak with one of the techs. I asked how much it would cost me to buy a replacement fan. I was told that it wasn't a user serviceable part, and that they couldn't give me that information over the phone. They said I *HAD* to bring the computer into the store and have one of their Apple 'gurus' look at the computer.

    What the hell kind of service is that? I don't have time to drive 25 miles to have some zit-faced dork look at the computer and tell me the fan is broken. I already know it's broken. Just fucking tell me how much the part will cost me.

    With that kind of service, I'm not exactly inclined to spend 3x as much on a new Apple.
  • by Cajun Hell ( 725246 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @07:27PM (#23071342) Homepage Journal

    Not sure why public perception would be like that, since the vast majority would actually own a mac and upgrades truly would just work.

    I wouldn't count on that. Once you start putting "deliberately fail" code in your product (to deal with the customers whose money you don't want), you risk it getting triggered for the customers you did want. Every logic bomb that Apple adds to their product with the intention of crippling it for non-Apple-hardware customers, is a logic bomb that might go off unintentionally (e.g. when the user runs MacOS on Mac hardware with a virtualizer in between the OS and hardware).

    You see this with DRM systems all the time, where the user isn't doing something the attacker really wanted to prevent, but stuff fails to "just work" anyway.

    Apple might pull it off, but it's nontrivial.

  • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @08:23PM (#23071826)
    I doubt Apple has the slightest interest in suing individuals who try to put OS X on their PCs (as they haven't so far).

    The EULA is so they can go after companies like this.
  • by djtack ( 545324 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @08:43PM (#23072010)
    Maybe Pstystar is trying to get sued, to establish a precedent?

    They could argue that the first sale doctrine allows them to modify and resell it.

    To get around the EULA, they could bypass the "I agree to sell my soul" box by disassembling the installer program, and disabling the EULA dialog. So they never "Agree" to the license.

    Of course installing the software necessarily involves making a copy, from the DVD media to the computer's memory and hard drive. While you might think a license would be needed to perform this copying, in fact Title 17, section 117 specifically exempts this copying:

    117 Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53 (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner
    I don't think Psystar can win, but this is more a reflection of the power that the copyright cartels wield over the government. (BTW I like Apple and would not look forward to another clone war, but that's a different post).

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @10:38PM (#23072934) Homepage

    Apple is going to lose this one. It's a illegal tying arrangement [aurorawdc.com] under the Clayton Act:

    The basic requirements that must be met for tying to be per se illegal are as follows:

    1. There must be two separate products or services.
    2. There must be a sale or an agreement to sell one product (or service) on the condition that the buyer purchase another product or service (or the buyer agrees not to purchase the product or service from another supplier).
    3. The seller must have sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product.
    4. The tying arrangement must affect a "not insubstantial" amount of commerce.

    Apple would have to try to enforce their EULA in court against an antitrust claim that their EULA is an illegal tying arrangement, which, on its face, it is.

    Apple was able to put the previous generation of clone-makers out of business because some key portions of the original MacOS were in ROM, shipped with the machine. So they could make copyright arguments against cloning the Mac ROMs. But for today's machines, the OS isn't built onto the motherboard, so there's no copyright claim.

    IBM lost this issue a long time ago, when Compaq made the first PC clone. That's why there's a PC industry.

    Apple could put DRM hardware in future Macs and encrypt future OS releases, like a game console. Not having done that, they're stuck.

  • by aliquis ( 678370 ) on Monday April 14, 2008 @11:08PM (#23073200)
    Especially considering the macs use EFI and not BIOS, but then again the hacks works nice with BIOS graphics cards so it can't be that much of a deal if Apple wanted to use them. To require a special mac graphics card are so fucking retarded I don't know where to start.
  • by kris.montpetit ( 1265946 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @01:29AM (#23074018)

    There's a giant stream of money flowing past Cupertino, and all they have to do is reach out and scoop some of it up, but they refuse to do so.
    yes, and point taken. The reason they don't, however is an obvious and often commented upon brand move: Apple is the BMW of computers. Just like BMW doesn't make a Geo Metro, apple doesn't make a budget, upgradeable computer. they make a really cool budget computer (mini) and a really insane upgradeable computer (mac pro) and of course a really high end all in one desktop (iMac). But they don't make a run of the mill computer because they figure they are better off not 'stooping so low' as to make a standard, mediocre box. Think of what it would do to their reality distortion field!

    Which is why I'm OSX-86'ing my girlfriend's crappy computer that she got for free through an internet subscription, instead of buying a mac mini...I've come to accept apple is a snobby, high end company, and even if they did make this box, I can make my own for cheaper XD

  • by garote ( 682822 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @04:27AM (#23074774) Homepage
    The concept of "free competition for buying" a single offering produced by a single company is a contradiction in terms, like saying that Nintendo has "a monopoly" on the Nintendo DS. Your argument does not even make grammatical economic sense. Also, you have it backwards. OS X comes INCLUDED with every purchase of a Mac. The only way to be exposed to tying is to buy OS X when you don't own a Mac, which makes OS X the product that is doing the tying, NOT the product being tied. And even THEN, you are not required by the EULA to go out and purchase a Mac to run OS X on. You can just shove the DVD in a drawer. So there is not even any tying taking place. The only sensible legal question raised by the EULA and Pystar is about fair use: Are they allowed to prohibit you from hacking the software to run on whatever hardware you choose? Are they allowed to prohibit a company from selling hardware/software/services that facilitate this? This Clayton Act nonsense is a pleasant geek diversion being bandied about by Slashdotters who think they can interpret law like they can read code fragments.
  • Re:Feature list (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Tuesday April 15, 2008 @08:32AM (#23075924) Journal
    I've had a few experiences with Apple 'support.' My PowerBook went in for some repairs to the screen. After six weeks and ten hours on the telephone (most of it on hold, on a 10p/minute number) during which time I was repeatedly lied to (told it had already been shipped back to me), they admitted that it had been lost sometime between UPS delivering it and it entering their repair system. The eventually sent me a replacement which was DOA. Two months after initially sending it in for repair, I had a new one, which had some minor faults, such as the second DIMM slot being defective and it only seeing half of my RAM, but which I kept for about a year before sending it back because I didn't trust them not to lose it.

    I have a Mac Mini in a colo centre in the US which had its hard disk fail just under a year after I bought it. The Apple Store refused to honour the warranty because it was not in their tracking system somehow. The colo company eventually replaced it at their own expense.

    My next experience was having the hinges repaired on the PowerBook. They decided to close their mail-in repair centre in the UK (violating their own AppleCare T&Cs) and require me to take it to an authorised repair centre. The nearest one of these was an hour's train ride away. Apple also refused to cover the cost of this (even though the hinges had been broken the last time I sent it in for repair) but the repair centre did.

    I was eventually contacted by an Apple Executive Relations person, who basically told me I must have imagined their piss-poor support because they did surveys which said everyone was very satisfied with them.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...