First Customer Receives Psystar Mac Clone

[danbob]

How can this end good for Psystar?

I really cannot see how this all can end well for Psystar, no matter what happens.

Say Apple does nothing about Psystar, and lets them continue to do their thing. Basically, that would imply Psystar is quite legally able to do what they are doing. So, in this scenario, what would stop other companies from starting up to do the same? Nothing. So suddenly you have a flood of start-up comapines all toting different Mac Clones, and diluting the market. One of these companies falls over through lack of sales, starts giving the others a bad name, sales to the other companies dry up, they all go out of business... end game for Psystar. Or, under this scenario, what's to stop Dell or any other big brand computer seller/manufacturer from offering OS X on their machines? So then, who would you rather buy from - Dell, who are still going to be around a year from now, or some small company that might go under any second? End game for Psystar again. But most importantly, can Apple afford to let the likes of Dell sell OS X on their computers?

Apple won't buy Psystar out to make the problem go away. Ain't gonna happen, otherwise other companies will spring to life, toting the same sorts of products Psystar are selling and expecting to be also bought out by Apple. Apple aren't going to want to spend money buying up all these companies, and buying Psystar and not the others means we're back to square one - the same probelm is still there, except Apple has spent money on buying a company from which it gains nothing.

So, realistically, that means Apple have to do something if they don't want OS X out there on any PC (and lets face it, they'd hardly go to the trouble they have with OS X if they were happy to let OS X be on any PC machine). And realistically, that means crushing Psystar - even if Apple have no actual legal grounds to stop Psystar as some of you claim, that doesn't stop Apple from being able to bring a legal case against Psystar and dragging it out. What you need to remember about the Legal System is that it only matters if you are in the right if you have the money to prove it. Somehow I don't see Psystar having the monetary stamina to see it through - more likely they will end up bankrupted. Which would send a clear signal out to anyone else who tries to attempt the same that they shouldn't, and they won't. End Game for Psystar once again.

If Apple let them do their thing, they lose. If Apple try and stop them, they lose. I suppose those of you who seem desperate to have a mid-range tower Mac (which lets face it, you're a minority, no matter how much you want it) better get a Psystar machine while you still can. Because they're not going to be around forever.

 

[Eric S.]

I really cannot see how this all can end well for Psystar, no matter what happens.

Say Apple does nothing about Psystar, and lets them continue to do their thing. Basically, that would imply Psystar is quite legally able to do what they are doing.

Not necessarily. It could simply imply that Apple sees no justifiable benefit in pursuing the matter, at least not yet.

So, in this scenario, what would stop other companies from starting up to do the same? Nothing. . . . Or, under this scenario, what's to stop Dell or any other big brand computer seller/manufacturer from offering OS X on their machines?

One, a company like Dell might not see a large enough market to make the investment. Two, they could be worried about the support issue. Psystar appears to be in slash and burn mode, not much concerned about whether their customers can upgrade or get support for these machines. Dell, on the other hand, might feel more of an obligation to protect its reputation in that area.

Apple won't buy Psystar out to make the problem go away.

Of course not. Psystar has nothing of value for Apple.

So, realistically, that means Apple have to do something if they don't want OS X out there on any PC (and lets face it, they'd hardly go to the trouble they have with OS X if they were happy to let OS X be on any PC machine). And realistically, that means crushing Psystar

I believe they may think that it's not worth it to go after Psystar. A win doesn't get them that much, and they *might* lose. So the risk is more than the expected gain.

you who seem desperate to have a mid-range tower Mac (which lets face it, you're a minority, no matter how much you want it) better get a Psystar machine while you still can. Because they're not going to be around forever.

Well, just because the people who want it are in the minority doesn't make it bad or wrong. After all, Mac users are in the minority to start with.

 

[stevegmu]

Sounds like a Vacuum.

There's no way a computer can be that loud. Someone must be vacuuming in the background.

 

[ReanimationLP]

There's no way a computer can be that loud. Someone must be vacuuming in the background.

Either that or they really did something wrong in the building process.

I mean, some PCs sound like that for the first second, then slow down the fans immensely. But yikes.

My gaming PC is no where near that loud, and I have the Antec 900 with 10 fans inside, all running at high.

 

[synth3tik]

I saw nothing that shows this to be an "open computer". A box or something. Also if these guys are building these things themselves I doubt they would have gone out and bought "intel inside" case stickers.


I call shenanigans

 

[Eric S.]

I saw nothing that shows this to be an "open computer". A box or something.

You expect an open computer to actually have its internals exposed?

Also if these guys are building these things themselves I doubt they would have gone out and bought "intel inside" case stickers.

Why not? Doesn't Intel pay a big chunk of the cost on ads for systems displaying those stickers? I'm just glad Apple doesn't use them.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Also, why is everyone so giddy and confident about Apple pursuing litigation with the company?

Instead of answering as to how they're dealing with the fact they were dead wrong in the previous threads about it being a real company that's actually selling something and not just some phishing scam, they'd rather jump to their next claim that it's 'too loud' or 'Apple will hit them with a lawsuit any day no' type responses. I mean you can't win with a fanboy because they always have to be right and they always have to agree with Apple even when Apple hasn't said anything at all.... Heaven forbid this could lead to cheaper (or at least better versions in the case of MacMini) Macs and more Mac users in general.

Frankly, if I had it to do all over again (to put together a server/internet machine for my whole house audio system based off iTunes talking to AppleTV and Airport Express units being controlled by an iPod Touch and Signal and Remote buddy), I'd rather buy a $399 clone and throw in a couple of extra hard drives than upgrade an old PowerMac for a total price of around $1100 when all was said and done that still only runs at 1.8GHz 7448 G4 (i.e. the $399 clone would run circles around it and the clone could also take an 8600GS card and play Mac games better than the most iMacs). But I already upgraded the PowerMac and its doing its job as an iTunes server and Internet terminal just fine.

 

[wheelhot]

Honestly, what Psystar do is wrong, I already explained this in earlier post so lets take this from a normal user who wants to buy a cheap PC but want to run OSX.

From my opinion, its better to build your own by buying a Dell which you can get better spec then Psystar at the same price. Why build your own? Cause by doing the whole hackintosh stuff yourself, you will gain experience and knowledge in what to do if something goes wrong with your hackintosh.

So, what happen if that person buy Psystar instead of going through the hassle of converting his PC to hackintosh? Its likely he wont be able to fix anything and he will call Psystar customer support (If they have it though), and its most likely Psystar would be able to answer all of the questions. Also take note that the developers of OSX86 is against Psystar for using their code without paying them any compensation or even asking for their permisson.

I believe since this people managed to go through a lot of trouble into making a normal PC into a hackintosh, they can find a way to block Psystar PC from using their upgrades. So ended up people who use Psystar wont be able to upgrade to the latest version.

I dont care about people who build their own hackintosh cause they know how to fix it and the real situation but normal people dont know as much as the people who make their own hackintosh and will end up flooding the forum with very noobie question which makes it annoying to answer them.

 

[slamcrank]

Wow. My year and a half old Mac Mini boots faster than that "MAC PRO"... sheesh!!

And the boot screen/bios at the beginning reminds me of the Fly-A-Kite OSX that was around for PC... it essentially put the PC into a window-blinds mode where everything was skinned to look like OS X. And, predictably, it ran like a POS Dell, because it was.

I suspect the same out of this hobby box of Psystar. Not the skinning so much as the running like a POS. If it took that long to boot, and was that loud, and was impossible to update... that's a pretty expensive door-stop!

 

[sushi]

Huh. That's correct, it's a free drop-in-disc.

I assumed it was the same disc as the normal store bought one (would make a lot of sense, IMO...).

It's not. I have one for my MBP. Different than the standalone install disc.

The drop in one requires a previous version of Mac OX X to be installed.

My G5 has been known to go into Jet Engine mode as well.

With afterburners on I bet!

I believe you are misunderstanding his point. Yes, you can buy a copy. Yes, it can be installed on a blank drive with no proof of prior version.

BUT -- the license requires a previous version of the OS. I don't know if it's legally enforceable, but it's there.

Since Macs all come with the Mac OS, having a prior version is a given.

Hardware wise, there are two Leopard install disks:

- One is the stand alone. The intent is to be able to install Leopard on any Mac that will support the Leopard hardware requirements.

- One is the upgrade. Must have a prior version of the Mac OS installed for it to work. The intent is to allow the user to have Leopard even though the install discs come with Tiger for that particular model.

As for the EULA, I have not read that in a while. Guess I should take a look at it again.

Similar to a boxed $129 Leopard installing on unlimited computers. Can it be done? Yes. Are you licensed for that? No.

With the single license, that is correct.

With the family pack, up to five Macs belonging to one family.

As to the topic at hand, it is going to be interesting to see how Apple handles this situation. I am sure other companies are waiting in the wings to follow suit if Apple does not try to stop the Psystar Mac Clone.

 

[jodelli]

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.

And Power Computing was sanctioned by Apple, pre 'Return Of The Jobs/i'.

This was an era when Apple was on the ropes, but it coincided with some of the most versatile Macs (including some legal Mac clones) ever made. Hell, they were some of the most versatile personal computers period.

To the uninitiated here's what I'm talking about:
Processors on daughtercards resulting in a legal third party upgrade market. You could upgrade a G1 to a G3 and a G2 to a G4 eventually. You'd be looking at at least a motherboard replacement to do the same with a typical PC.
(G1 and G2 designations unofficial to state the obvious.)

The 9500 could use up to 1.5 gigs of RAM, the 7500 1 gig. Doesn't sound like much now, but typical PCs (and Macs) would ship with about 8 to 16 Mb at the time. The 9500 was notorious for having to pull the motherboard to replace the ram, but it took me all of about 5-10 minutes.

The PCI bus allowed not only a choice of video card but also allowed eventual upgrades from the original SCSI to IDE or even faster SCSI, USB once it showed up, and early Firewire.

Big deal, right? Actually yes, it was a big deal 10-12 years ago.

But you can still get that versatility with a Mac Pro, right? Yes, but back then a versatile 7500 cost about a thousand dollars less than an even more versatile 9500. And there were the likes of Power Computing machines as well.
This seems to be resented by some newbie fanbois here. And they'll argue with some justification that Apple Corp was nearly going under at the time partly as a result of people not having to buy new Macs.

But I'm obviously not alone in fondly recalling the product line from around that time, if only from a user point of view. I still have a 7600 and 9500 sitting around, no longer plugged in but containing specs way beyond what they shipped with. Try that with an iMac or Mini with their sealed cases and their custom boards. IMHO a Mini could be useful, but structurally wise is essentially a crippled notebook(no keyboard, LCD, or battery).

Part of the fun to me is being a 'computer hobbyist'; I can't identify much with "Joseph Evian-Perrier", but I'm not completely 'Joe Six-pack' either.

That being said, I wouldn't buy a Psystar. It doesn't 'just work', but sort of does, and I can do that much on my own.

jodelli

 

[lindmar]

Wow. My year and a half old Mac Mini boots faster than that "MAC PRO"... sheesh!!

And the boot screen/bios at the beginning reminds me of the Fly-A-Kite OSX that was around for PC... it essentially put the PC into a window-blinds mode where everything was skinned to look like OS X. And, predictably, it ran like a POS Dell, because it was.

I suspect the same out of this hobby box of Psystar. Not the skinning so much as the running like a POS. If it took that long to boot, and was that loud, and was impossible to update... that's a pretty expensive door-stop!

And my q6600 8 gig of ram hackpro will run circles around your mac mini.

I built one for fun over Christmas. I have never bought a non-mac computer.
This thing has totally blown my mind.

 

[wnurse]

Better software on crippled hardware vs. crippled software on better hardware… I´d go the better software route anytime.

I'd go with better software on better hardware everytime. How is better software on crippled hardware better than crippled software on better hardware?. Are you one of those people who prefer to watch HD on a crappy screen (better software, crippled hardware) vs watching regular tv on a HDTV screen?. I can't imagine both conditions being enjoyable to any degree.

I think i'll stick to better software on better hardware.

 

[emulator]

And my q6600 8 gig of ram hackpro will run circles around your mac mini.

I built one for fun over Christmas. I have never bought a non-mac computer.
This thing has totally blown my mind.

Very true. I have similar rig with 4 GB memory, and everything is so smooth. Even the Attansic LAN on the Asus MB works flawlessly now.

It is just that Apple have to start offering upgradable config in the mid field. There is room between the Mac Pro and the laptop in an LCD.

 

[wnurse]

I find Apples silence about this rather freaky. It's almost as if they are planning to do something big to take them down.

*Awaiting anxiously for Apple to make a move*

I'm not. There are a lot of other things i am awaiting anxiously.

1. The results of the lottery to see if i am a millionaire
2. My performance review to see if i get a big bonus
3. Summer cause i hate the cold.
4. The election so that George Bush can finally leave office.

I'm sure there are more stuff i am anxiously awaiting. Apple making a move is not one of them. You really need to get a life..

5. Anxiously awaiting the next time to have sex and imagining all the computer geeks anxiously awaiting apple next move.

Ok, i am making fun of you "anxiously awaiting" apple move. It's ok to wait for apple next move but anxiously?. Get a life man, get a girlfriend, go to the movies, live life. I'm sure you will not miss when apple makes a move.

 

[milo]

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.

Publicity is nice, but if tons of people know about them but barely anyone buys one, that's not really success. For a business, success is generally defined as making profits, and I doubt they'll do much of that.

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.

Not to mention that PC had the cooperation of apple, meaning the OS was supported and they made sure it was compatible.

The issue isn't that this company can't build decent hardware. The issue is that even if their hardware is awesome, they don't provide any OSX support and they say it may not be completely compatible and may not be able to be updated.

 

[gnasher729]

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?

The way it looks, they are planning unlicensed distribution of Apple's software. They are inducing their customers to break a legal contract with Apple. This is then unlawful interference with Apple's business. There will probably be trademark violation if they as much as mention that their computers are compatible with Leopard or MacOS X without permission of Apple to use these words.

 

[gnasher729]

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.

One of the authors of the EFI emulation has already publicly stated that commercial distribution of his software is done without his permission and therefore illegal.

 

[williedigital]

There's one computer in Apple's entire product line which actually HAS a video card. And it costs over $2000.

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.

What about other dicey situations? Most mac video cards are "mac only" because of special firmware. In the past, you've been able to flash a handfull of off-the-shelf pc video cards with the "mac only" firmware to get the equivalent of the "mac only" card at a much lower price. Is the machine still a mac?

 

[gnasher729]

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.

Apple's EULA effectively means that you can only install Leopard on machines that have been bought with an earlier version of MacOS X already installed, and only on machines where Apple has already made some profit when the machine was purchased originally.

What if Apple removed the restriction, changed the price from $129 to $429, and added a $300 voucher to every Macintosh sold? (With a note on the voucher that it is only good for copies of the OS to be installed on the machine for which the voucher was given).

 

[Krevnik]

What about other dicey situations? Most mac video cards are "mac only" because of special firmware. In the past, you've been able to flash a handfull of off-the-shelf pc video cards with the "mac only" firmware to get the equivalent of the "mac only" card at a much lower price. Is the machine still a mac?

Honestly, if the graphics card industry was more willing to jump into the UGA world (which supports BIOS/EFI firmware on a single ROM) which Apple uses, you wouldn't even need to reflash it for the most part. Unfortunately, the Windows world is slow to adopt EFI/GPT/UGA on the desktop, even though Microsoft really would like to see it, because OEMs and other hardware manufacturers are reluctant to make the jump.

While the GPU didn't come from Apple, I don't see how it makes the machine not a Mac. As I have said in a previous post, it boils down (in technical terms) to the logic board + EFI firmware that Apple sells you.

 

[Eric S.]

Publicity is nice, but if tons of people know about them but barely anyone buys one, that's not really success. For a business, success is generally defined as making profits, and I doubt they'll do much of that.

They'll make at least as much profit as they would have by just setting up as a shop that just produced PC clones. How many people would even have heard of them then?

Not to mention that PC had the cooperation of apple, meaning the OS was supported and they made sure it was compatible.

The issue isn't that this company can't build decent hardware. The issue is that even if their hardware is awesome, they don't provide any OSX support and they say it may not be completely compatible and may not be able to be updated.

You took my statement out of context. It was a reply to someone who said they did not buy one of the legally licensed clones because Apple's hardware was superior.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

The way it looks, they are planning unlicensed distribution of Apple's software. They are inducing their customers to break a legal contract with Apple. This is then unlawful interference with Apple's business. There will probably be trademark violation if they as much as mention that their computers are compatible with Leopard or MacOS X without permission of Apple to use these words.

Why do you think we care? Maybe Apple's "business" is unlawful in that it seeks to be a trust and/or monopoly in that they are saying a general purpose computer OS can only be run on THEIR generic off-the-shelf PC hardware. This is artificially limiting (through a license agreement) distribution of software on a public platform. You believe it is OK, but it has not been challenged in court. Anyone can make any ridiculous legal agreement claim they want, but until tested and ruled upon in a court of a law, it is only Apple hanging out their good to fly in the wind so-to-speak. You can't seriously believe for a MOMENT that if Microsoft suddenly said that their next release of Vista could only run on such and such specific hardware that they are getting huge kickbacks from and everyone else is breaking their EULA to run it on generic clone hardware that this kind of behavior would POSSIBLY stand up in court. You might argue people could always go use Linux instead, but that doesn't fly because the world is dependent on Windows. What if Linux didn't exist? Go use a Mac? But Macs want full control over your every day life too. Sell your soul in order to run Photoshop?

What it comes down to is what people are willing to put up with. Governments such as the United States are SUPPOSED to be run FOR and BY the PEOPLE, not for and by BIG BUSINESS. If the people say we WANT MAC CLONES, the "Law" should be what the people want, not what Apple wants. If this is taken to court, the judges will have to rule on what's FAIR for the country, not what makes Apple the most money. Apple wrote their Eula, but it does not write the LAW. We have anti-trust laws in this country that can override any Eula someone might want to write that pretends it controls everything you do.

This sort of thing SHOULD go to court so it can be struck down once and for all. Eulas are getting out of hand and MOST people do not even READ them because they are long and usually written in "lawyer speak" and a pain in the butt when you just want to install something you PURCHASED. Eulas should be limited in the future to reasonable claims and not allowed to block whatever they feel like in small print near the lower bottom disguised in language a mathematician could barely comprehend.

What if I'm the public water utility and I made you sign a license agreement that you have to only use Moen plumbing fixtures in your house or your water supply will be cut off? Is that FAIR? Is that REASONABLE? Or is that license an impingement on your rights as a citizen of a free country? Think carefully when you answer.

 

[Eric S.]

One of the authors of the EFI emulation has already publicly stated that commercial distribution of his software is done without his permission and therefore illegal.

The problem with that seems to be that the EFI emulator was originally distributed with no license at all, so depending on when Psystar got it they may not be legally constrained by his current wishes.

But of course what Psystar is doing is morally dubious, if not actually illegal. I think there are better reasons not to buy this product than resorting to moral outrage, though.

 

[milo]

One of the authors of the EFI emulation has already publicly stated that commercial distribution of his software is done without his permission and therefore illegal.

But it has been reported that the "no commercial distribution" info with that software wasn't added until after Psystar's announcement. If it was distributed before that with no limitations listed, the osx86 guys may be screwed.

Apple's EULA effectively means that you can only install Leopard on machines that have been bought with an earlier version of MacOS X already installed, and only on machines where Apple has already made some profit when the machine was purchased originally.

Does the EULA actually say that? For that matter, is the Leopard EULA online anywhere, or somewhere on a mac with Leopard installed? I haven't been able to find it.

They'll make at least as much profit as they would have by just setting up as a shop that just produced PC clones. How many people would even have heard of them then?

Will they? At least on the windows side, they and microsoft both support the configuration. And even if they end up selling more OSX boxes than they would have sold windows boxes, that doesn't mean they'll sell enough to make any profit, they can still end up losing money (and going out of business). I don't get why people are so convinced that offering OSX is automatically going to mean they sell a bunch of these. Especially when they offer no support and tell users it probably won't work right ("We have not found any software incompatibilities with the standard OS software but we cannot guarantee that any of the software on your computer will work in Leopard."). And, their $399 price is with no OS, once you add Leopard the box is $549, only $45 less than the base mini.