First Customer Receives Psystar Mac Clone

[bobbleheadbob]

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?

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

 

[frankfurter]

For the love of God Apple will not be bricking the psystar's with a software update. Did nobody read the part where the psystar's can't do software updates?

I really hope they are successful.

So it can't do 'automatic' software updates. What's to stop Apple from including some kind of brick mechanism in the standalone (downloadable) updater? And then making basically anything in the future dependent on that upgrade?

 

[ZiggyPastorius]

I'm not completely opposed to the x86 project. My problem comes in when companies like Psystar break their contract for profit...Forget all this crap about it being enforcable, I don't think it's right...Trent Reznor allows all his tracks to be remixed openly, and makes the multi-tracks available for his music, but do you think if someone started a record company that only sold CDs consisting of Trent's remixes, with no profits going to him, he'd be very happy? I mean, his tracks are available for free after all, so he's just asking for people to steal his creative work...right? In all seriousness, though, say what you'd like, but I'm big on intellectual property, so if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go to Psystar and strike a business deal to sell burnt mix CDs.

 

[scaredpoet]

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?

Because they fall into one of three categories:

1. Tech-savvy modsters who know what they're getting into

2. Noobs who are cheap, and

3. Noobs who are uninformed.


I don't think there are enough of category #1 to keep Psystar profitable. But, there are categories 2 and 3, and enough of those people buy these clones, it may give Apple a temporary black eye. Imagine the hilarity that will ensue when something goes wrong with their OpenComputer, or they find they can't upate their software and are the victim of an exploit, and then they call Apple to bitch about it? After all, they are using a "Mac," right?

And I can't WAIT for the first guy to post on these forums complaining about how horrible Mac is because their Psystar keeps crashing, or because they can't install 10.5.3. I can see it now... "Mac sux worse than VISTA! I thought it was supposed to just work! But I can't even update! Blah blah blah..."

Don't think people like this exist? Take a look at your spam inbox and get back to me.

 

[BenRoethig]

Because they fall into one of three categories:

1. Tech-savvy modsters who know what they're getting into

2. Noobs who are cheap, and

3. Noobs who are uninformed.


I don't think there are enough of category #1 to keep Psystar profitable. But, there are categories 2 and 3, and enough of those people buy these clones, it may give Apple a temporary black eye. Imagine the hilarity that will ensue when something goes wrong with their OpenComputer, or they find they can't upate their software and are the victim of an exploit, and then they call Apple to bitch about it? After all, they are using a "Mac," right?

And I can't WAIT for the first guy to post on these forums complaining about how horrible Mac is because their Psystar keeps crashing, or because they can't install 10.5.3. I can see it now... "Mac sux worse than VISTA! I thought it was supposed to just work! Blah blah blah..."

Don't think people like this exist? Take a look at your spam inbox and get back to me.

4. PowerMac uses who got the rug pulled out from under them.

 

[ncbill]

Most EULAs consist largely of restating the developers rights under copyright law.

Outside of that, the developer's only recourse to enforce "whatever terms" in their EULA is to sue the end user.

While ProCD shows that courts won't tolerate criminal copyright infringement it doesn't mean they will enforce other restrictions a developer tries to impose in their EULA, whether or not those restrictions violate fair use provisions.

After purchase, you have purchased the ability to run that software legally, under whatever terms the copyright holder decides.

 

[displaced]

Apple's EULA completely forbids what you claim is "within fair use". So after all your defense of EULAs, you are openly stating that Apple's EULA violates the rights of the end-user. Which "you" am I supposed to believe?

Please - I've done nothing but interpret what I see as the present situation. I'm not standing on some dogmatic platform - I was trying to have an academic debate.

My points, on which I think I've been consistent throughout (and, if not, I hope I've explained what thoughts lead me to change my view):

1) EULAs are a valid and enforceable form of licence (as per jurisrudence)

2) Clauses of EULAs can be individually unfair (as per jurisprudence)

3) A common pitfall which EULAs fall in to is that they try to extend too much control over areas of private individual fair use (c.f. christian_k's mention of VHS 'EULA's). I believe this is the case with Apple's 'Our Hardware Only' policy. I think I've been consistent on that.

4) I belive that the very same modification which I'd see as allowable under fair use is a breach of copyright if it were redistributed (as in Psystar's case).

You also claim that buying OS X is "buying a license". That's totally ridiculous. NOWHERE on the packaging or advertising does it indicate I am buying anything except an operating system. And I am BUYING it. Not leasing it.

You cannot buy the operating system. You cannot buy the story in a book. You are buying a reproduction of the work, which is governed by copyright.

EDIT: Looking at the underside of my Leopard retail box:
"Important: use of this product is subject to acceptance of the software license agreement(s) included in this package. Don't steal software."

... clearly visible through the shrinkwrap.

Can you imagine paying for any other product and THEN being notified that you don't own the product, only a "license" to use the product, which still belongs to the company?

I buy a book. I don't own the story. I simply have a legal reproduction of the story printed on slices of dead tree. The author has simply licenced his work for reproduction under a particular set of terms. Books tend to keep with the 'default' rights ((c)<whoever>, All Rights Reserved) which prevent me from copying, modifying and reselling the book.

And yes, I do understand copyright law. My ownership of my car doesn't allow me to produce an exact copy and sell it for my own profit. That's why it's called "copy right" - the right to make copies.

Oh dear.

It's the 'right to make copies'... ONLY within the terms set forth by the Copyright Holder. The Copyright Holder may choose whatever terms they like. I could licence my book under the terms that no-one called Dave may receive it. That's the power Copyright gives me as an author.

Wikipedia:
Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other, related rights. It is an intellectual property form (like the patent, the trademark, and the trade secret) applicable to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.

 

[TechHistorian]

This is complete, total and utter nit-picking. When courts throw out particular provisions of a EULA, they are degrading the validity of the EULA as a whole. As more and more provisions are disregarded, the concept is more and more degraded. At some point, the core EULA provisions are will be/have been discarded. It doesn't have to happen all at once.

[snip]

Which is why no EULA will ever stand in court. A jury can see this in five minutes. Kids have been saying, "You can't go back on a deal" since they were six years old.

Buy a legitimate DVD. Then charge admission and show it publicly. You'll find yourself in receipt of a letter from the copyright holder ordering you to cease and desist and threatening criminal penalties. Remember those annoying FBI and Interpol warnings at the beginning of the DVD? There's your EULA for the DVD.

Another example. Buy a copy of The Hobbit. Film your own movie based on the work. Then try to sell it to a studio or charge admission. Tolkien's estate will sue you (just as they sued Gary Gygax for simply using the word "hobbit"). Strangely enough, there's no EULA on a book. But you still can't use the material in the book however you want -- as you will undoubtedly find if you infringe on copyright.

When you purchase a copyrighted product, you buy only the use authorized by the copyright holder. Period. This is black-letter law and not in dispute in any legal jurisdiction in the US or within any of the signatories to the various copyright treaties and agreements. Moreover, Apple has to actively defend its copyrights, trademarks, and patents -- it's a basic requirement of IP law. I have no doubt that as we discuss this, a team of Apple lawyers and programmers are either poring over the system software and bootloader shipped with the Psystar or waiting to get their hands on it to determine to what extent the Apple copyrighted code is modified to make this thing run.

 

[Kwill]

more like a wind tunnel MDD G4 lol

Ugly, PC-type connections, LOUD (read: leaf blower) fan, questionable future support, WhoCares instead of AppleCare: this only could appeal to desperate PC users drooling over Mac OS X. Compared with their current expectations, it will be an improvement, whereas an affront for any Mac user.

 

[SystemZERO]

Anyone else get the impression the guys that started this company are just a couple of OSX86 followers who bought a bunch of PC parts and started a company? I mean, besides the legal ramifications of dealing with Apple, they are also stealing the work of the guys who wrote the EFI mods and are making a profit from it.

 

[scaredpoet]

4. PowerMac uses who got the rug pulled out from under them.

I lump them with category 3. Sorry, but technology moves on. Just like your Psystar will be unsupported and useless, only much sooner.

 

[Roccondil Rínon]

The fanboyness here really is hysterical, and I'd like to see someone answer this... to help out, I figured I'd pose a few questions (with the assumed fanboy answer in parentheses).

1) Is it OK to run OSX on a Mac Pro? (YES)
2) Is it OK to run OSX on a Mac Pro if I had to swap out the ram, hard drive, and graphics card? (MAYBE)
3) Is it OK to run OSX on a Mac Pro if I had to swap out the motherboard/processors with something faster than it shipped with? (NO)
4) What if I pulled everything out, but still kept the Mac Pro case? (NO)
5) You mean it still isn't an "Apple branded" computer as specified in the EULA? (I DON'T KNOW!!! LEAVE ME ALONE!!!)

In all seriousness, I'd love to see you all answer these questions.

I'll meet your challenge.

1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Yes, unless by doing so you inevitably render it a different computer, thus breaking the OS and having to hack it like a Hackintosh. I don't know enough details to know whether this is the case.
4) No.
5) That's right. An Apple computer is one sold by Apple. Pulling everything out but keeping the case amounts to casemodding a regular PC with a Mac Pro case.

This is what we in the Philosophy department like to call the "Ship of Theseus" scenario. Theseus has a ship of wooden planks. Every single plank, over the lifetime of the ship, is replaced, but only ever one at a time. At what point is it no longer the same ship?

Answer: It is always the same ship.

Objection: But what if someone saves all the planks that have been replaced, and rebuilds the ship to the same plans with every plank in exactly the same position? Doesn't this ship have as much claim to be the "original" Ship of Theseus as the one from which its parts come?

Answer: No. A ship is not merely the sum of its parts; it is also their functionality.

The same applies to a computer. If an individual computer part (I'm talking functional parts here, not the case) is replaced, but the computer runs basically the same, it is of course the same computer. (Changes to specifications don't matter; they're like using a different timber in the ship example.) The computer retains the same functional identity. If every part is replaced at once, it does not have the same functional identity, because you are either replacing it with the entire innards of another Mac or you are forced to hack it in order to run OS X. You wouldn't say "Theseus is replacing every part in his ship at once, but it's the same ship" — you would say "Theseus has a new ship".

Putting a different computer's insides into a Mac Pro case does not an Apple computer make. If Theseus sells his old ship, buys a new one, and gives it exactly the same paint job or markings on its sails, does this make it the same ship? Of course not. The case, or the paint job, are not functional components. This is why casemodding a Mac beyond all recognition does not rob it of its Machood, and putting a PC inside a Mac Pro case does not make it a Mac. If a PC is modded to fit inside a Commodore 64, is it then a Commodore 64? Of course not. What if it is equipped with an emulator? Nope, still not a C64. It is functionally equivalent to a C64, in that it can do anything a C64 can; but functional equivalence is not functional identity.

 

[BenRoethig]

I lump them with category 3. Sorry, but technology moves on. Just like your Psystar will be unsupported and useless, only much sooner.

Don't own one. I was naive enough to trust Apple that the iMac would be at least adequate despite some doubts. After owning one my reservations were well founded. The new 24" is a large step in the right direction though.

 

[displaced]

Putting a different computer's insides into a Mac Pro case does not an Apple computer make. If Theseus sells his old ship, buys a new one, and gives it exactly the same paint job or markings on its sails, does this make it the same ship? Of course not. The case, or the paint job, are not functional components. This is why casemodding a Mac beyond all recognition does not rob it of its Machood, and putting a PC inside a Mac Pro case does not make it a Mac. If a PC is modded to fit inside a Commodore 64, is it then a Commodore 64? Of course not. What if it is equipped with an emulator? Nope, still not a C64. It is functionally equivalent to a C64, in that it can do anything a C64 can; but functional equivalence is not functional identity.

Superb

 

[Sun Baked]

Well, if the first one has hit the streets ... Apple should have their first claim for damages from shipping copies of hacked/unlicensed Mac OS X.

Of course if Apple or the BSA files a criminal complaint, it could take a long time for the DOJ to shut them down.

 

[kingtj]

Who can really say what Apple will do, but ....

my opinion is, like much of the "casual piracy" out there, it probably generates more positive advertising/marketing for Apple than it hurts them in sales of anything.

A wise company will weigh the pros and cons before taking action. In this case, I'd say the "wise" move for Apple is to leave this Psystar stuff completely alone, and let them do their thing.

1. There are court cases that go either way when it comes to the legality of enforcing aspects of EULAs demanding you only buy a piece of software for use with specific hardware. If Apple pushes this in a court of law, there's no guarantee they'd win. Psystar *probably* can't REALLY afford to fight Apple in court, but who knows? If they did, and actually WON, then Apple would look pretty bad - losing to some 2-bit clone maker. You'd have a big "David beats Goliath!" spin to it in the mass media, and BIG vendors would feel like the road was paved for all of THEM to sell Apple clones too. Can you imagine a line of Dell systems running OS X? Ugh....

2. You still get what you pay for. I looked at the top-end Psystar offerings they claimed were "comparable to a Mac Pro", and it's laughable. They don't even include Xeon processors in it. It's nowhere NEAR a comparable system. Doesn't have nearly the expansion capabilities for internal hard drive storage OR system RAM, either. As the poster said below, the entry-level system at $399 might interest some computer hobbyists - but ultimately, you get a low-end generic PC clone running a hacked up version of OS X that may or may not even be upgradeable down the road. It's just not something that poses a real "threat" to Apple's target market at all.

Mostly I see PC hobbyists who want to play with a Mac OS X machine, might pick up the low end model ($399) to play around with.

"general" consumers should not try it.

arn

 

[elgarak]

I believe most people here overlook something that makes Psystar's actions illegal:

Apple does not sell standalone copies of Mac OS X.

Apple sells a pre-installed version of Max OS X with every computer they sell. They also sell updates. But they sell no standalone copies that can be installed on brand new, empty, hard drives. No one, either here or on other forums, seems to recognize that the discs you get when you bought Leopard was an UPDATE license. The installer program refuses to install itself when it does not find a hard drive with sufficient remnants of a previous or current version of Mac OS X.

Which makes everything Psystar does illegal in my book, because there is no legit way they could obtain a copy to use in the manner they do and sell it.

Nevertheless, I think Apple is choosing the right action by simply doing nothing. Psystar's attempt will die, with bad user expierences, sooner or later. Further, Apple's interpretation of their own EULA is pretty broad and user friendly. Some of Apple's recommendations regarding updating, backups and copies would be EULA violations in the Windows world. Trying to take legal actions against Psystar may result in a legal situation in which Apple has to disallow its user friendly policies.

 

[displaced]

No one, either here or on other forums, seems to recognize that the discs you get when you bought Leopard was an UPDATE license. The installer program refuses to install itself when it does not find a hard drive with sufficient remnants of a previous or current version of Mac OS X.

I don't think that's true.

I'm 99% sure I installed Leopard on my G4 Mac Mini after a reformat (and subsequent reboot -- essentially it was an empty drive).

 

[.:R2theT]

Two hands:

On the one hand, if there is any type of copyright violation Apple needs to step up and enforce it. If they don't try to enforce their copyright they risk losing it.

On the other hand, Apple has no obligation to provide any type of support for these machines...ever!

 

[.:R2theT]

I don't think that's true.

I'm 99% sure I installed Leopard on my G4 Mac Mini after a reformat (and subsequent reboot -- essentially it was an empty drive).

Without your original restore disc(s)?

 

[displaced]

Without your original restore disc(s)?

Just a fresh retail copy of Leopard. The original restore disc for that machine had (IIRC) 10.3.5 on it. So the restore disc hasn't been used for a long time!

 

[danny_w]

Just a fresh retail copy of Leopard.

Very true indeed.

 

[robanga]

The fan noise on that thing reminds me of my Xbox 360 at full throttle.

 

[MacInTO]

It is freaky. Perhaps the calm before the storm.

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*

 

[jland]

Nevertheless, I think Apple is choosing the right action by simply doing nothing. Psystar's attempt will die, with bad user expierences, sooner or later.

That's a good point. Apple has nothing to lose by waiting and in fact it's the only way to go. Either scenario of Psystar requires them to hold off. If the house of cards collapses when the machines are simply more trouble than they're worth then that's that. If they're successful they need to show Psystar has sold X amount of clones to have any figure to sue for damages in order for it to hurt them enough to close down if legally (EULA) they can stay in business.

It's not a money issue (as when someone steals your song but you're advised to wait until they have a gold record to sue), but Apple needs to prove they've been damaged (aside from the legality), and the charge of selling a hundred clones to geeks that weren't going to spring for a Mac in the first place won't get them to first base.

And while it's obvious they don't want their operating system pirated, I think they're kind of fascinated in this development, and figure why nip it in the bud just yet. As soon as they decide to squash it they'll squash it, and the fact that they haven't yet is interesting.