Psystar "Definitely Still Shipping" Mac Clones 833
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."
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.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (Score:5, Interesting)
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.;-)
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.
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.
Re:They are trying to get sued by Apple (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple mini is also still over a YEAR OLD AT the sa (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple mini is also still over a YEAR OLD AT the same PRICE and hardware. $799.00 for a 2.00GHz cpu, 1gb of ram, dvdwr, 120GB hard drive, and gma 950. Also the chipset maxes out at 3gb of ram as well. Is a very big rip off as you can get a system with the e8400, 2-4gb of ram a mid-range video card, dvdrw, big and fast desktop HD, nice MB, firewire, and more. For $700 to $1000. uses up to date parts and chip sets unlike the mini.
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.
In defense of Pystar (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:WRONG!! (Score:3, Interesting)
There's a chance of that, but arguably os/x's driver model is a bit more solid than windows'.
I'd hope for a very solid spec and verification program to keep things as reliable as they are today.
More choice = better. Simple, really.
Re:Good for them... (Score:2, Interesting)
yea Ill go load a base bsd and see if the integration is anywhere *near* what OSX provides...
Seriously you, I and many others *can* make BDS and Linux look and feel like OSX but apple does it better and out of the box, there is more to OSX than just its BSD underpinnings
Re:WRONG!! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Follow the money (Score:2, Interesting)
Psystar goes out of business in every scenario.
Psystar becomes another cheap PC maker. Market is over saturated, they have nothing special to offer, Psystar goes out of business.
If they capitulate to Apple, see above.
If they fight Apple and lose, see above.
If they fight Apple and win, then every manufacturer will start selling OSX for their systems, see above.
While I hope Psystar takes one for the team, I don't see them being in business in 3 years.
About the only scenario that would be a win for Psystar is if they were bought by a bigger company as a "Thank You" for helping everyone else out.
I would use the analogy of charging cannons. You know that the first rank is going to be slaughtered, but with enough people you can overcome the battery.
Good luck being cannon fodder Psystar!
Re:It's simply the Mac business model (Score:3, Interesting)
Err... hard to call the Windows generalization "bullshit" given all the backlash against Vista -- the word "hate" may be very applicable. Your standard off-the-street computer users can't figure out Windows, much less the more technologically-complex Linux. (Unless you're arguing that installing/using Linux requires fewer computer skills than Windows...?) And while plenty of people are dissatisfied with Apple, the company still has some of the highest customer service and satisfaction ratings in the computer industry. (Admittedly, that is a low target to shoot for.)
Question (Score:4, Interesting)
Why does Apple do things this way?
This is my own musing on the subject - MS did the smart thing in just making software and letting people install it on whoever's hardware. This allowed dozens of companies to create systems for Windows to run. i think that was a big part of what allowed Windows to become dominant (more than the anti-competitive stuff they did later). Wouldn't the MacOS run on more machines if there was competition in the market to build hardware to run it? If Psystar can build less expensive and less queefy looking boxes, Apple might lose money on hardware but sell more copies of the OS. Part of the fun of playing in Windows world is that i've got dozens of vendors that can sell me an assemble system, or i can buy the parts from hundreds of vendors/manufacturers and build it myself. That's another thing Apple seemed to miss.... The MS model created entirely new industries. Apple spawned a few companies that make things for hte iPod, but that's about it. From a previous /. conversation i learned that it is possible to home brew a mac, but it's very difficult and few people have the knowledge to do it.
Could someone more familiar with the history post on why they this is their business model?
Re:Plus ça change, plus c'est la même ch (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, the verb tenses are a little confused, but you know what I mean.
Screw the 'Underdog's' (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple sells the OS upgrades but that in no way actually covers the cost of developing the OS. I expect that we'd see a doubling, or possibly trippling of the OS upgrade cost. It would be perceived by the "IP Bad - Stealing Good!" crowd as Apple trying to penalyze Pystar, but in actuallity it would be absolutly necessary to keep being able to invest in improving the OS at the expense of Hardware sales.
Anecdotal as it is, I view my computer as a single device. The Hardware and the software together are "The Computer," and I don't appreciate this cretin endangering the one cohesive computing experience out there because he has an undeserved sense of entitlement to someone elses work. Anyone that actually purchases his computers is contributing to the "Windows-ification" of the Mac ecosystem.
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.
Re:It's simply the Mac business model (Score:3, Interesting)
You have hit on something here. The Mac users that I know are using them for one or both of two reasons: Reputation of 'just works' and Macs are seen as high end. Nobody wants to work on their Porsche themselves. When you get right down to it, there is no secure computing platform for the average joe. They all have problems.
Once you agree to that, it comes down to price and will it run the software that I want to run. Some folks use Mac for the software (artsy bastards). Some folks don't use Mac so they can run Linux. The great masses run whatever the sales boy tells them is the best they can get for their money.
Many I have worked with use a decision making process that goes something like this:
Does it work, or will I have to fuck with it all the time?
Will it run xyz program? Xyz is often email or web browsing.
How much does it cost?
What happens if it breaks? How do I get it fixed?
If the sales guy can answer those questions and throw in some good bells and whistle type stuff, the user buys.
I usually just toss an Ubuntu CD in and reboot their machine and show them a few basics. Because it runs better than windows did on their same machine there is not much selling to do. Now, If I had to tell them that for another $2500 they could get a Mac... well, it's a tough sell.
Mac users are sold before they buy. Same with the phones. People are buying a reputation, not a product. The best product that Apple owns is their reputation. It is for that reason alone that they do not want any clones, but they can hardly tell the world that is what they are doing.
BTW, for 'most' average joe users, Ubuntu gives a close-enough experience to Apple that it (linux) is no longer out of the question for them. You have to demo it to get them up to speed on the facts, whereas Mac has the reputation to do that for them. Other distributions can be as you describe, but not all. Linux is here to stay and is getting better. The sticker shock from an upgrade to a Mac is huge if you know that you can get similar experience from a zero dollar upgrade to Ubuntu.
Re:This company needs to be shut down (Score:1, Interesting)
No. Of course not.
The hardware in your Mac is completely the same as commodity hardware you can buy off the shelf. The only difference is the BIOS and the OS. If you're going to rant on about how Apple aren't playing the "lowest common denominator manufacturing" at least do yourself a favour and post as AC, because otherwise you just make yourself look like a fool.
cars (Score:3, Interesting)
We went through this with cars. The manufacturers, who had just as deep of pockets and just as many or more of lawyers as apple could possibly throw at this situation wanted to make it so you could only get and install bloated price OEM parts to go on their cars. They lost in court and now you can go to the parts store and get a variety of parts that don't come from the major manufactuers and have their stamp on them, but they will fit into place and work. You can get out your welder and mix and match for that matter, if you want a belchfire motor and an Acme transmission in a roadhog chassis, it is legal to do so. IOW you can get 50 buck starters that work just as good as the original 150 buck starters. Or engines or what have you. And they can't insist you only burn "their" brand of gasoline either, nor can the gasoline company insist you can only put it into approved brand cars. So there's your car analogy, hardware is the cars, software is the gasoline.
Now the car parts clone makers can't claim they are the original manufacturer, but they can still do it and the consumer is obviously better off by a wide margin. Apple is out to lunch, hope it makes it to the supreme court.
With that said, I don't want either a mac clone nor OSX, Linux works just fine on generic commodity hardware if you do just a bit of homework before you buy components or systems. But the *principle* is important. And if Apple throws a hissy fit about patents, that needs to go to the supreme court as well as to why if they can get a patent there is no warranty as to being suitable for purpose for software. That is such a blatantly glaring ripoff to the end user consumer it ain't funny. One or the other for software, copyright or a patent, but not both.
Re:WRONG!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows may have some pretty severe reliability problems. However, I haven't had any problems with hardware drivers since the Win9x days. Hardware drivers are not a major source of Windows' reliability problems.
There isn't a terribly wide selection of hardware currently in production that isn't already supported by OS X. We already have good drivers for Intel chipsets, ATI and nVidia graphics, and most commonly-used networking controllers.
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.
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.
Re:WRONG!! (Score:1, Interesting)
I think the point was that everybody wanted the Mac, so nobody even tried to crack either of the other machines until the Mac was claimed. As such, the relative times aren't useful for comparison purposes with respect to each other. For the numbers to be useful for comparison, you would have to explicitly have the same people attack one, then the next, then the next., then take the average of all of the teams' times for each platform or something.
Agreed on the Air. It is basically a full size notebook, just lighter, slower, and with fewer features. If you carry it around to meetings every day, it's a great laptop. However, if you're walking through an airport to see a client and have to carry an external HD for all the stuff that won't fit on the iPod-sized internal drive, an external optical drive for when the client wants to give you files to look at, a USB Ethernet adapter for hooking up in the hotel, a USB hub so that you don't have to choose which one of those to do at any given time, etc., the "lighter" feature turns out to be a net loss, and you'd be better off with a MacBook. There's a definite "executive laptop" market segment that the Air addresses well, but there's also a definite "frequent flier" and/or "traveling salesman/marketroid" market segment for subnotebooks that it doesn't address at all. I'm guessing you fit more into the latter group than the former.
Re:Good for them... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course I have. Ever hear of NeXTStep? Ever hear of Cocoa? Ever hear of Core Audio? Ever hear of a bullshit strawman rhetorical question posted on /.? Oh, of course you have — sorry to infringe on your business plan...
If Psystar were merely installing BSD UNIX — hell, if they were merely installing DARWIN, for that matter — I doubt Apple would bother acknowledging their existence.
Re:It's simply the Mac business model (Score:3, 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. Most probably know nothing about PalmOS or WindowsCE. Your remark is FUD, at best.
I used a Palm Smartphone for a year before I got my iPhone (in january) and I can say that the iPhone is a far better product in every way that I have used the two devices (and I troubleshoot professionally so this is not a "I don't know how to use it" issue).
The Palm device crashed regularly (both with third party software, and cleaned of everything) and then when it rebooted would reboot with the radio off (so I would miss calls when it crashed while I wasn't watching). I have had a few iPhone crashes, and it reboots with the radio on, so I don't have that issue.
There were a long list of issues with the UI and basic problems with the way the OS used the radio, like every time it transitioned back onto the network it would freeze for 5-10 seconds... when you are in the subway and are going in-and-out of coverage this translated into a mostly-frozen device that is burning through its battery fast.
I have also spent some time with Winodws CE devices (I was responcible for supporting them at one point). I never had one myself for longer than a couple of days, and it did feel better than a Palm in some ways. But I always felt like the UI was a crampt uncomfortable attempt to shoe-horn a desktop UI onto a device that was not ready for it.
Re:Good for them... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
No one's forcing them to sell boxed copies of OSX in stores. Move to an all-digital distribution method and that problem solves itself.
It also becomes big bloated mess like Windows (and Linux, sorry) because they have to support unlimited permutations of hardware.
Red herring. Why the hell would Apple test hardware that they're not selling their software with and that their hardware is not designed for?
Stupid from a security standpoint. (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple already sucks at delivering patches in a timely fashion (bind, anyone?), they're certainly not going to go out of their way to ensure their patches are installable on Pystar machines.
So while the idea of saying up yours to EULAs and non-enforcable clauses and arguing that point in court is entertaining, and tickles my "aww neat" spot, spending money on an unmaintainable, closed source, hacked, unlicensed piece of crap does not.
Also, I doubt Pystar did all the work to get OS X on their boxes. I can't vouch for this but I would not be surprised if they were simply making you pay for the stuff from osx86, which is even worse, in my book.
Bottom line, running a Hackintosh should probably be restricted to the hacking lab, or entertainement value, or for quick and dirty testing, not production use -- which is not what Pystar is implying.
So that's sad, but I probably won't shed any e-tears when Pystar crashes and burns.
Maybe Psystar IS Apple!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Well good for them (Score:2, Interesting)
Explain what is wrong with that argument? MacOS is part of the Mac as surely as the OS in a car like a Prius. It just so happens that Apple has made upgrades to that OS available to end users, where Toyota tightly controls distribution of their software so only the dealer can install it. Apple *could* do this, but making everyone bring in their Mac for an OS upgrade would be painful.
You just think there is something special about computer OS because generic distribution is the model employed by Windows and Linux. That's their choice, just as it's Apple's choice to market the Mac as more of an appliance rather than a generic white box PC.
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.
Re:Good for them... (Score:1, Interesting)
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?
Because Mr Jobs forgot where he came from, and wants to prevent any one else from doing what he did to start Apple in the first place. Stealing someone elses ideas (Xerox) and building your own boxes in your garage? How dare you! I guess he lives by a double standard...
Re:cars (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well good for them (Score:3, Interesting)
That part wasn't necessary, as IBM provided fully commented source for the BIOS in the PC Technical Reference Manual, which was available to anyone that wanted to fork over the cash for it. I still have a copy somewhere around here.
Re:Futile (Score:3, Interesting)
"The derived work argument is difficult to support."
It is not, because the law is very clear about it.
" you bought a copy of my book and replaced a page with one containing some better description, would you then be able to sell the modified copy?"
You would be entitled to sell _that_ copy because doing so would be a clear transference of ownership (you would not have your own copy anymore). You could not however make one or more copies of your altered version and distribute them, even if you included a legitimate original copy with them, because selling a legitimate copy does not give you the right to distribute a non-legitimate copy.
"Unfortunately, there was a case last year related to DVD censorship that might have set a relevant precedent here, where a manufacturer was selling DVDs edited to remove certain portions along with a copy of the original."
It didn't set any precedent, but was a clear case of ruling based on what copyright law says. First sale doctrine (which is enshrined in copyright law through fair use provisions) lets you do pretty much what you like with stuff you buy _within the law_, and in the case of copyrighted materials, the laws you have to be within say that you can make archival copies and derived works for your own purposes, but are prohibited from distributing them to third parties. The text of the act clearly says that any copies apart from the original _must be destroyed_ when transferring ownership to somebody else -- there is no provision for transferring ownership of any other copy except the original to a third party under any circumstances.