First Customer Receives Psystar Mac Clone

[BenRoethig]

We're going to have to agree to strongly disagree here... but a lot of it depends on what aspect of fanboyism irks you. I've seen them all.

1) Microsoft fanboys are pretty mild. They have the most market share and spend most of their breath defending Vista, stating that it isn't as bad as it's made out to be. They're mostly right. They tend to help you when you look for help, and they may have some blinders on when it comes to Microsoft's problems. But overall, they're OK.

2) Linux fanboys should really be broken out by distro. Ubuntu fanboys are easily the most supportive and helpful of the bunch. The more esoteric/difficult the distro is the more likely you'll get some RTFM comments.

3) Apple fanboys have a few problems. First is the blind allegiance to Apple, the reality distortion field that Steve has created has somehow spread into their brains. Every release from Apple becomes amazing, ground breaking and brilliant. Everything Apple does is great and must be defended viciously. Secondly, Part of the problem is that some have great technical expertise, but many know about as much about their computers as they do about their televisions. Third, and what I find the most depressing, is that their attitudes are a complete smack in the face of the tradition of hacking that founded Apple and the entire industry. Comments along the lines of "Anyone who tries to build their own Mac from spare parts is going to get a miserable experience and should be sued for breaking the law" are really depressing to anyone who knows the California spirit that started the whole revolution. If the Apple fanboys had their way, Woz and Jobs would still be in jail for selling blueboxes back in the seventies.

4) OpenBSD fanboys can be helpful, but are more like the Linux peeps you talked about in your original post.

5) FreeBSD types are helpful, but they also think people should read a book or two on FreeBSD before tackling it.

Most of them are ground breaking and amazing. You're just not permitted to speak out about either the few that aren't or if Apple's missing something. A lot of it comes the desire for some kind of over inflated self image. If Apple is fallible, so are they.

 

[EagerDragon]

If this is true, then I give it 4 days before Psystar receives their first legal document from Apple, titled cease and desist

You need them to keep a single physical address for at least a couple of days to get one of those and the place needs be occupied by humans.

 

[skoorbevad]

Umm, so what exactly has this company done wrong that would cause the great Steve Jobs to decend from his throne and swing the mighty litigation-hammer to liberate all those who have faithfully purchased Apple-branded hardware?

They aren't providing the OS, they're simply saying that it can be installed by the consumer if they choose. The consumer would choose to violate the (somewhat ridiculous) EULA.

I could market a toaster oven with the same claim.

Maybe the EFI-emulation software license is being broken if they are indeed including it, but I don't know about that. If it's released under something like the GPL, though, that doesn't explicitly deny using the product for a commercial purpose, so long as the source code is provided as well. It would certainly have nothing to do with Apple.

 

[milo]

Psystar appears to buy a Mac OS X Leopard for each machine they pre-install. They charge you for Leopard separately.

Since the user is paying for a copy of Leopard, do they include it in the box? I know you can't install from that disk, but I'd still want to have it since I paid for it.

I can't imagine why anyone would actually buy this since they provide zero support for OSX and you can't do any software updates. I don't get why Software Update doesn't show up, did they disable it or something? I thought hackintoshes would at least see the updates, even if they wouldn't necessarily work.

Um, no, its clearly NOT a lot of hassle if the guy got OS X straightup after buying the computer. Thats what the seller is for, making the hackintosh hassle-free. Duh.

How is it hassle free if they provide no support for OSX and it can't be updated? You really don't think losing support and the ability to update is a hassle?

If Psystar is paying Apple for the copy of OS X they install on their hardware then no piracy is happening and no amount of prayer to your EULA gods is going to stop them.

And what exactly makes you an expert able to make this statement definitively?

I don't think anyone here knows for sure if the EULA will hold up in this case. It may not, but it seems a bit presumptive to say that any company can start installing OSX as long as they buy Leopard disks, and there's nothing apple can do about it.

I think the reason apple hasn't responded is because they probably think that this company will fail on their own and that any response would just add more publicity and even credibility. And I think they're right.

This isn't a legitimate example, unless you're trying to demonstrate why PsyStar is flooded with orders. A shoddy company with amateur PR, amateur practices, yet flooded with orders.

Are they "flooded with orders"? Where did you get that info?

 

[mashny]

To sum up the whole Psystar thing: you get what you pay for.

Regarding "A Mac pro as a home desktop is like a Freightliner with a Pickup bed," I have a Mac Pro as a home computer and do lots of heavy-duty Photoshop with it. My guess is lots of home users who don't have Mac Pros are envious of those who do.

 

[BenRoethig]

To sum up the whole Psystar thing: you get what you pay for.

Regarding "A Mac pro as a home desktop is like a Freightliner with a Pickup bed," I have a Mac Pro as a home computer and do lots of heavy-duty Photoshop with it. My guess is lots of home users who don't have Mac Pros are envious of those who do.

Envious, no. More like less than pleased that I had to choose between either a $2500 workstation or an all in one to replace a $1500 PowerMac.

 

[Dale_Nx26]

I am going to side with the camp of "if you really want to do it, go ahead." It is essentially hacking a box to run an apple framework. And hacking isn't terrible, so long as the copy of the software you buy is legal and you are doing it merely for yourself.

There may be an EULA, but I think when it was established (much before the possibility of intel, I'm sure), it was really a formality. If apple wanted to do something, they probably would have eaten this company alive a while ago (via a buyout, or something).

I agree. I don't see anything negative coming out of this for Apple or the user, besides the inability to update.

 

[jzuena]

How is using the OS on a 'non-mac' any different from using it on a 'mac' ?? Its exactly the same experience.

If Pystar is using the same install images that I tried (for educational purposes only ) under Fusion, then it isn't the same experience. Rosetta is not included in the OSx86 images I've used, making any PPC app useless. I've been actively ridding my home and work Macs of PPC apps but some still persist. Office 2008 still has some PPC pieces in it, Fugu, GPG. I realize the requirements for Rosetta are waning, but its not gone yet.

 

[dukebound85]

To sum up the whole Psystar thing: you get what you pay for.

Regarding "A Mac pro as a home desktop is like a Freightliner with a Pickup bed," I have a Mac Pro as a home computer and do lots of heavy-duty Photoshop with it. My guess is lots of home users who don't have Mac Pros are envious of those who do.

what a load of bs. id rather pay for a computer that fits my needs than spend way too much to get a macpro that is overkill. do finances not matter to you at all when purchasing anything?

that said, it is understandable for those to want a mid range if they want to game or at least be able to upgrade parts as they become obsolete without spending a fortune while still wanting to use osx

i dont know why this is so difficult to understand

 

[Digitalclips]

But if a private citizen can buy a copy of OS X off any authorized retailer's shelf, and then turn around and sell it on the street five minutes later, then what would prevent any other entity from doing the exact same thing?

I am referring to the possibility (I do not know for sure) that this company is supplying OS X for a price with the machines they sell. That is becoming an unauthorized reseller by anyone's definition. One here or there as you mention is a different story. If they become successful they could ship many and who ever sells to them will be stopped if it is single sourced. If on the other hand they sell the machine and tell buyers to go buy their own copy of Leopard I am sure they are in the clear. The individual buyer in doing so may or may not breach the EULA by installing on a non Mac but who the heck would know.

 

[goosnarrggh]

I am referring to the possibility (I do not know for sure) that this company is supplying OS X for a price with the machines they sell. That is becoming an unauthorized reseller by anyone's definition.

You're still not directly answering my question though; I'm actually looking for tangible evidence to back up that very supposition.

If I go into Staples and pay the clerk full retail price to purchase a retail box of Leopard, then walk out on the street and sell it to an arbitrary passer-by for a mutually agreeable street price, have I broken the law?

If, in addition to all that, I also purchase a computer system simultaneously, and also sell that computer system to the same passer-by on the street, have I now committed a crime?

If an arbitrary passer-by on the street tells me that he'll repay me (possibly plus a little extra for my time) if I walk into Staples on his behalf to purchase a copy of Leopard and a computer system (ignoring how naively stupid I'd have to be to take the passer-by at face value with his promise that repayment will be waiting for me when I get out of the store), and I go along with it, have either of us broken any laws?

What would be tangibly different about the situation if you replace "I" and "me" with "a private corporate entity" in those cases?

 

[Tallest Skil]

What would be tangibly different about the situation if you replace "I" and "me" with "a private corporate entity" in those cases?

The fact that the private corporate entity has pseudoillegally put the hacked OS onto hardware for which it was not designed.

 

[ChrisA]

..I have a Mac Pro as a home computer and do lots of heavy-duty Photoshop with it. My guess is lots of home users who don't have Mac Pros are envious of those who do.

So you have either 3 or 7 of the CPU cores going to waste. What does PS do with an 8-core CPU? Some one who uses PS would be best off usig a desktop dual core machine with 8GB or RAM.

I'm not envious. You like many others were forced to choose between something more powerful (and expensive) than you need of a non-upgradable all-in-one that you may not want.

If you want to be envious I'll tell you I bounght the last 24" white iMac in the store for $999.85 (about 1/2 price) because it was the last one and they lost the box in came in.
My white imac was the mat screen. It is ideal for Photoshop except I'd prefoer it had more RAM.

 

[MacinDoc]

The Mac OS would only cost more for those that weren't upgrading. By virtue of the hardware/software tie-in that apple has with OS X, any boxed copy is technically an upgrade from whatever the machine came with.

If they were to keep the $129 pricing and come out with a "new user" license for $400 or whatever, that'd be fine with me.

That would require all the keys and copy protection and registration hassles that we hate about windows, not to mention the configuration problems etc.

 

[milo]

How is using the OS on a 'non-mac' any different from using it on a 'mac' ?? Its exactly the same experience.

Lack of software updates? That would be a deal breaker for me, especially since the company doesn't provide any support for OSX.

The company comes out and says that it may not work right, AND that they won't help you if it doesn't. You don't think that is a negative?

It's budget priced.. if you want a quiet computer you can just buy some new fans for little money. Updates are 'hacked' by the osx86 project or whatever shortly after Apple releases them and posted online to my knowledge. So updating really isn't a big deal. Not too sure about firmware updates though!

How exactly does a user get updates from osx86? Is the update as simple as the official one?

Umm, so what exactly has this company done wrong that would cause the great Steve Jobs to decend from his throne and swing the mighty litigation-hammer to liberate all those who have faithfully purchased Apple-branded hardware?

They aren't providing the OS, they're simply saying that it can be installed by the consumer if they choose. The consumer would choose to violate the (somewhat ridiculous) EULA.

I could market a toaster oven with the same claim.

Maybe the EFI-emulation software license is being broken if they are indeed including it, but I don't know about that. If it's released under something like the GPL, though, that doesn't explicitly deny using the product for a commercial purpose, so long as the source code is provided as well. It would certainly have nothing to do with Apple.

They ARE including the OS. They are shipping machines with OSX preinstalled. Have you read any of the news about this company?

You're still not directly answering my question though; I'm actually looking for tangible evidence to back up that very supposition.

If I go into Staples and pay the clerk full retail price to purchase a retail box of Leopard, then walk out on the street and sell it to an arbitrary passer-by for a mutually agreeable street price, have I broken the law?

My guess is that you'd be fine. But that's not what this company is doing.

EULA aside, they are distributing a *hacked* version of OSX. Does anyone seriously think you could take Vista, make changes to it, then resell the hacked version (whether you bought a copy of the original for each sold, or not)? Same goes for any intellectual property, could you take the latest Brittany Spears CD, mess with it in Garage Band, then resell it (even if you bought a copy of the original for each one you sold)? I don't think so.

 

[jbernie]

I can't imagine why anyone would actually buy this since they provide zero support for OSX and you can't do any software updates. I don't get why Software Update doesn't show up, did they disable it or something? I thought hackintoshes would at least see the updates, even if they wouldn't necessarily work.

Possibly they put in a host file entry for the update service of 127.0.0.1 or something that stops the updater from seeing the server.

The fact that the private corporate entity has pseudoillegally put the hacked OS onto hardware for which it was not designed.

Really? Whats the difference between Apple buying said hardware from vendors and someone else getting the same hardware? Other than maybe Apple getting a better price through volume purchases.

Unless Apple has an agreement with the vendors that prevents them from selling the hardware to anyone else or the part #s are different from what Apple uses then it is the same hardware with a different box.

 

[Eric S.]

The EULA of OS X essentially states that OS X may only be installed on Apple branded (and, therefore, Apple-manufactured) hardware. I'm not going to pass judgement on that, other than to say if Apple spent the time, money and man-power to create OS X, they have the right to licence it with whatever terms they desire.

Really? If the license said that you had to give them your first-born child, do you think the courts would uphold that? Too far-fetched? OK, what if the license stipulated that use of this software implied that you agree only to buy Apple branded hardware in the future? The fact is that companies do not make laws; license agreements can claim anything they want, but until the courts hold them valid, it is only words.

I think it's likely that Apple will not pursue this in the courts. For one thing, a court might well rule that the EULA is unenforceable. And even if it is, Apple probably doesn't win much by shutting Psystar down.

All in all, PsyStar are going to have to go some to put up any meaningful challenge to Apple, considering Apple's most recent reports suggest they're shifting the best part of 250,000 Macs a week.

A meaningful challenge to Apple? They just want to rake some cash in from Leopard sales. And even if they were legally prevented from selling Leopard pre-installed, they have already scored a PR bonanza. Who would have heard of Psystar if not for this?

Anyone who buys one of these Psystar systems is taking a huge risk. They appear to have pretty much zilch for support, and future OS upgrades may not be compatible. Apple doesn't have to worry about losing sales to these guys; it's not like the (legal) clone manufacturers of a decade ago. Now if a real serious, high-volume outfit does the same thing, that could be a different story.

 

[jzuena]

Apple could make this incredibly easy, actually: Publish a list of hardware that is supported. It wouldn't be any different than what Microsoft is doing with Vista 64, where all drivers must be Microsoft certified.

Apple already does publish a list of hardware that is supported: Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor, 512MB of physical RAM, DVD drive for installation.
And as a hardware company, I can't see them ever wanting to change that supported list to drop the "Mac computer" part.

 

[milo]

Really? Whats the difference between Apple buying said hardware from vendors and someone else getting the same hardware? Other than maybe Apple getting a better price through volume purchases.

Unless Apple has an agreement with the vendors that prevents them from selling the hardware to anyone else or the part #s are different from what Apple uses then it is the same hardware with a different box.

It's mostly the same hardware, probably just the EFI is different. But that's not the issue, the problem would be installing a hacked version of OSX.

Really? If the license said that you had to give them your first-born child, do you think the courts would uphold that? Too far-fetched? OK, what if the license stipulated that use of this software implied that you agree only to buy Apple branded hardware in the future? The fact is that companies do not make laws; license agreements can claim anything they want, but until the courts hold them valid, it is only words.

The courts would uphold things that are supported by the appropriate laws, and reject things not supported. I don't think the notion that courts would take the side of NOT allowing reselling of a hacked version of an OS is that outlandish. My guess is that apple would win a court challenge, but they probably figure this company will crash and burn on their own before long.

 

[Eric S.]

I just don't get what the appeal of this is. Why would anyone want an unsupported clone when you can get a fully functioning, warrantied, updatable Mac instead?

Well, that's exactly the point, isn't it? You cannot buy a system like this from Apple, because Apple doesn't sell one. Apple refuses to sell one, and has consistently refused to sell one for years now.

If Apple offered an upgradable, PCI-expandable mid-range desktop system for a reasonable price, I would buy one today. And apparently, judging from the attention being paid to Psystar, so would a lot of other people.

I can't see this succeeding on any level -- as a business model, or on a legal basis.

That depends on your definition of success. From Psystar's point of view, this probably counts as a success already. They've gotten more free publicity in a couple of weeks than most companies get in a couple of years, if ever.

 

[displaced]

Really? If the license said that you had to give them your first-born child, do you think the courts would uphold that? Too far-fetched?

A little bit

OK, what if the license stipulated that use of this software implied that you agree only to buy Apple branded hardware in the future?

Note that I've always stated that copyright law allows the author of the work to decide under what terms the work may be distributed, along with which rights are granted to the receiver of the copy. That allowance is much too narrow to include clauses such as you suggest. What computers you purchase are of no concern to Apple. What computers you install their work on to is.

The fact is that companies do not make laws; license agreements can claim anything they want, but until the courts hold them valid, it is only words.

They are not making laws by stipulating terms in an EULA. The only law which applies is copyright law and its provision for allowing an author of a work to decide what rights are conferred upon receivers of copies -- like I've said consistently.

I think it's likely that Apple will not pursue this in the courts. For one thing, a court might well rule that the EULA is unenforceable. And even if it is, Apple probably doesn't win much by shutting Psystar down.

A point of interest (again, I've mentioned this before in this thread) is that the EULA as a concept has had its validity upheld several times in court. Now, simply on the 'modification and re-sale' aspect, I'd expect Apple to win the case - without even needing to look at what hardware it's being installed on. But yeah, it'll be interesting to see what Apple do!

So far, I like the attitude they've taken with the OSX86 project. Let individuals do what they like with the software as private individuals. Tweaking and modification of software is something I'd hope corporations would consider fair use (and for the most part, they do). It's the modification and resale (with the lesser issue of what hardware is targeted) which might cause Apple to move against Psystar. But time will tell!

A meaningful challenge to Apple? They just want to rake some cash in from Leopard sales. And even if they were legally prevented from selling Leopard pre-installed, they have already scored a PR bonanza. Who would have heard of Psystar if not for this?

Yeah - there were tones in that bit of my post which sounded like I thought Psystar were aiming rather high. Bad phrasing -- that's not what I reckon. I agree with your assessment there. But (again, putting the issue of the hardware aside) - you don't go around appropriating community-developed software, commercialising it without asking the author of that work, then altering a commercial OS with the express intent of resale and profit without raising a few legal eyebrows. Shaky ground, I'd reckon

Anyone who buys one of these Psystar systems is taking a huge risk. They appear to have pretty much zilch for support, and future OS upgrades may not be compatible. Apple doesn't have to worry about losing sales to these guys; it's not like the (legal) clone manufacturers of a decade ago. Now if a real serious, high-volume outfit does the same thing, that could be a different story.

Agreed. I'm increasingly thinking that the EULA/machine type question is secondary to the modification-and-resale issue. Apple clearly aren't going to be financially hurt by this, but also I don't know how much beyond this Psystar can go without Apple deciding to act on their copyright.

 

[Eric S.]

Actually lots of people do. Back when there were legal Mac clones in the late '90s, I still bought Apple hardware, and so did most Mac users. Apple has the highest QA in the industry and their hardware is well designed.

I bought a clone from Power Computing (see signature). It's a great machine - I still have it twelve years later and it runs OS 8.6 just fine. Apple is not the only company that can build decent hardware.

That said, Power Computing was a substantial company with good financial backing. I wouldn't take a flyer on a Psystar box at this point. But I also wouldn't be opposed to a proven clone product especially, as I said earlier, in this product space where Apple refuses to offer anything.

 

[dejo]

We're going to have to agree to strongly disagree here... but a lot of it depends on what aspect of fanboyism irks you. I've seen them all.

snip

Wow, you don't over-generalize much, do ya?

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

I don't think there is going to be lawsuit here. What could gain from one?

Now if Apple's computer sales start declining while there is a corresponding increase then we'll see some action taken. All in all though, while this is a story it's not a lawsuit.

Entrepreneurship, try and fail, it's what this country is built on isn't it? Can't fault Psystar for trying.

As long as Psystar is filling niche's maybe they'll do the 12" Powerbook replacement, everyone wants.

 

[bitWrangler]

I bought a clone from Power Computing (see signature). It's a great machine - I still have it twelve years later and it runs OS 8.6 just fine. Apple is not the only company that can build decent hardware.

That said, Power Computing was a substantial company with good financial backing. I wouldn't take a flyer on a Psystar box at this point. But I also wouldn't be opposed to a proven clone product especially, as I said earlier, in this product space where Apple refuses to offer anything.

Note that Apple themselves had a hand in helping Power Computing engineer their systems (not to mention the fact that Apple provided the reference boards for many of the other clone makers).

What I'm a bit skeptical of is why anyone with the technical know-how would bother to order from these guys when they probably have the smarts to put a system together themselves and dispense with the middle man (and the associated risk).