First Customer Receives Psystar Mac Clone

arn said:
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
Click to expand...

Yes, and maybe even make them say, 'Damn this is better than Windows, I think I will go get a real one!" :)
 
VoodooDaddy said:
Every windows computer Ive ever used sounded like the one in that video. Every Mac that Ive used (mini, macbook, and iMac) are dead quiet.
Click to expand...
FYI, there have been Mac models that were very noisy. In fact, I have one of them.

Also, you can customize a PC to make if very quiet with a quiet power supply ( you can barely hear the fans with your ear next to them) along with other very quiet cooling fans. Of course, you can purchase a cheap PC and have noisy fans as well. It all depends on how much you want to pay for your power supply and cooling fans.
 
gnasher729 said:
What part of the "End User" in "End User License Agreement" is so hard to understand? Psystar is not an end user. They have no right at all to resell Leopard. And they have no right at all to induce their customers to breach a license in order to compete with Apple.
Click to expand...

I, like probably most people on this forum, am not a lawyer. But I don't think I agree with that blanket statement.

Consider a few scenarios. How far down the list can you get before you reach a point where it becomes morally or legally objectionable?

1) You purchase a retial box of Leopard, and six months down the road you decide that you like Tiger better - you remove Leopard entirely from your genuine Apple-branded Mac, and reinstall Tiger. Then you resell Leopard along with all of its original accessories and packaging.

2) You do all the same things as in (1), except by the time you decide to get rid of Leopard you've lost most of the original packaging. All you have left is the original DVD in a generic sleeve.

3) You purchased a retail box of Leopard, but never bothered installing it at all - you never even broke the shrinkwrap. Heck, with honest reflection, you can honestly say that you never even expected you'd ever install it yourself. Six months down the road you resell the whole thing.

4) You do everything you did in (3), except you don't bother waiting 6 months before doing so.

5) You install Leopard on an Apple-branded Mac, and some time later you resell the whole thing - computer, Leopard DVD, and all, to somebody else.

6) You do what was listed in (5), but before reselling everything, you make some customizations to OS in compliance with the provisions listed in clause 2D of the Leopard EULA. (Read it yourself if you want to.)

If Phystar were content to do only what is listed in (4), then would they really be any more in the wrong than any other private entity?

Of course, Psystar's actual situation is different, because they are starting off with something similar to (6), but going further with some potentially objectionable things, such as:
- making modifications to portions of the OS which may or may not be covered by clause 2d of the EULA. I'm not technically versed in exactly where the modifications were actually made in this case.
- installing the resultant modified software on a non-Apple-branded computer. (If any attempt were made to convince a court to rule just a single portion of the EULA invalid, this would likely be the portion that most people would want to target first.)

It seems to me that these two things where the problem really needs to be decided.
 
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!

Obviously this is just the building blocks of what may be to come. This is more about a direction as opposed to the 'right now'!
 
goosnarrggh said:
I, like probably most people on this forum, am not a lawyer. But I don't think I agree with that blanket statement.

Consider a few scenarios. How far down the list can you get before you reach a point where it becomes morally or legally objectionable?

1) You purchase a retial box of Leopard, and six months down the road you decide that you like Tiger better - you remove Leopard entirely from your genuine Apple-branded Mac, and reinstall Tiger. Then you resell Leopard along with all of its original accessories and packaging.

2) You do all the same things as in (1), except by the time you decide to get rid of Leopard you've lost most of the original packaging. All you have left is the original DVD in a generic sleeve.

3) You purchased a retail box of Leopard, but never bothered installing it at all - you never even broke the shrinkwrap. Heck, with honest reflection, you can honestly say that you never even expected you'd ever install it yourself. Six months down the road you resell the whole thing.

4) You do everything you did in (3), except you don't bother waiting 6 months before doing so.

5) You install Leopard on an Apple-branded Mac, and some time later you resell the whole thing - computer, Leopard DVD, and all, to somebody else.

6) You do what was listed in (5), but before reselling everything, you make some customizations to OS in compliance with the provisions listed in clause 2D of the Leopard EULA. (Read it yourself if you want to.)

If Phystar were content to do only what is listed in (4), then would they really be any more in the wrong than any other private entity?

Of course, Psystar's actual situation is different, because they are starting off with something similar to (6), but going further with some potentially objectionable things, such as:
- making modifications to portions of the OS which may or may not be covered by clause 2d of the EULA. I'm not technically versed in exactly where the modifications were actually made in this case.
- installing the resultant modified software on a non-Apple-branded computer. (If any attempt were made to convince a court to rule just a single portion of the EULA invalid, this would likely be the portion that most people would want to target first.)

It seems to me that these two things where the problem really needs to be decided.
Click to expand...


One thing which is very simple to understand even without all the EULA arguments, they are not an authorized Apple reseller. Having been one I can tell you it is not an easy status to get. Selling your own Mac and OS is one thing. Setting up in business to resell anything branded by Apple is another.
 
steviem said:
They won't damage Apple's sales enough for Jobs to care. The upgradable tower seems to be a very niche area of what is already a niche in the IT world.
Click to expand...

True, and I agree about apples sales not being damaged. However, this does make for some interesting thoughts about the future in terms of OS X and its compatibility. Apple's been getting a beating lately for its lack of video card support.....
 
Digitalclips said:
One thing which is very simple to understand even without all the EULA arguments, they are not an authorized Apple reseller. Having been one I can tell you it is not an easy status to get. Selling your own Mac and OS is one thing. Setting up in business to resell anything branded by Apple is another.
Click to expand...

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?
 
ungraphic said:
Doesnt that kind of tell you something about the overall pricing of a mac?
Click to expand...

Makes no sense, would cost more because Apple would have to ensure that their software is compatible with numerous operating systems, drivers, graphics cards, etc. etc.

It would cost more to produce, hence a higher price. Their OS is pretty damn cheap when you think about it.

But you actually have to think.
 
DO NOT BUY PSYSTAR!!!, why?

The OSX86 community is against Psystar, the EFI hack which Psycrap is using is illegal, it has violate the owner license of EFI Hack by using his code for commercial use, I hope other OSX86 developers will develop a code which doesn't allow Psystar users to use their updates(OSX86 developers).

Boo Psystar! Boo!!!. Selling peoples work, its like repackaging Firefox + Thunderbird and selling it into a single client. How would you feel if a code which you spend time developing for free non commercial use ended up for commercial use?

Boo! Bad practice! Dont buy Psystar! Psystar makers = unethical, greedy, ignorant people!


Oh yeah, why Mac hardware always lower specced then PC compared at the same price? Cause Apple did R&D on their design, look at the MBP design, of course its hot (and have some issues), but do you see how detail Apple design the notebook? From the keystroke till the ventilation. It all costs money.

And if you see how Leopard OS is cheap with what feature it has, because part of the profit they get from their hardware goes into the development of the next OS X. See how crappy Vista is? You want the next OS X to be like Vista?.

Lets make it simple, Apple overpriced their hardwares because of the R&D for the design, R&D for the next generation OS X, payment for a job well done to the programmers.
 
Roccondil Rínon said:
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.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your analogy, but my question remains: At what point is a Mac Pro no longer an "apple branded computer", and therefor in violation of the EULA?

Most of the other responses I read stated that the motherboard is what makes a Mac a Mac.
 
oban14 said:
I appreciate your analogy, but my question remains: At what point is a Mac Pro no longer an "apple branded computer", and therefor in violation of the EULA?

Most of the other responses I read stated that the motherboard is what makes a Mac a Mac.
Click to expand...

And the motherboard is stock intel 5400.
 
wheelhot said:
DO NOT BUY PSYSTAR!!!, why?

The OSX86 community is against Psystar, the EFI hack which Psycrap is using is illegal, it has violate the owner license of EFI Hack by using his code for commercial use, I hope other OSX86 developers will develop a code which doesn't allow Psystar users to use their updates(OSX86 developers).

Boo Psystar! Boo!!!. Selling peoples work, its like repackaging Firefox + Thunderbird and selling it into a single client. How would you feel if a code which you spend time developing for free non commercial use ended up for commercial use?

Boo! Bad practice! Dont buy Psystar! Psystar makers = unethical, greedy, ignorant people!
Click to expand...

Actually, my understanding of the GPL is that it's perfectly legal to repackage firefox and thunderbird and sell them as a single client. You just have to provide all the source code and offer free downloads as well.

mrrydogg said:
Makes no sense, would cost more because Apple would have to ensure that their software is compatible with numerous operating systems, drivers, graphics cards, etc. etc.

It would cost more to produce, hence a higher price. Their OS is pretty damn cheap when you think about it.

But you actually have to think.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Enough with the sound comments. Sure it's louder than a Mac, but it is not as loud as this video seems to make it.

Is this the first time some of you have noticed that when you use small mics with the gain turned up (like on a camcorder), the oddest sounds get amplified? I would be willing to bet that the noise level to the human ear is not nearly as loud as was amplified and recorded on this video.
 
A lot of handwringing here over something pretty minor in the grand scheme of things...

Practically speaking, this is really not a big deal at all. It's something that can already be done with off the shelf parts. Are a lot of people going to buy this? No. Is it a piece of crap? No, it's not much different than if you shopped around at Newegg.com yourself. It's an interesting exercise business-wise, but technically not a big deal.

The price advantage isn't that great over an iMac, once you configure one of these Psystar machines. The low starting price seems great, until you realize there's no wireless, etc. and small RAM/HD (IIRC). And while upgradeable graphics are nice, all I personally really want is a decent graphics card, because upgradeable or no I will probably want to upgrade the entire machine after 3-4 years anyway.

But it is definitely a PC box with all the pluses and minuses, and is much cheaper than a Mac Pro. Some people will buy it and like it (good for them!), most others will either just get a Mac or build their own Hackintosh.
 
Actually, my understanding of the GPL is that it's perfectly legal to repackage firefox and thunderbird and sell them as a single client. You just have to provide all the source code and offer free downloads as well.
Click to expand...
Okay, my mistake, I should get another example but it is true, the creator of the EFI hack that Psystar uses is not approved by the maker, so my other points is correct.

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.
Click to expand...
I still prefer Apple to monopolize their own product cause they are a hardware company and not a software company.
 
oban14 said:
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.
Click to expand...

True, but they will still have to build the support for it. I don't see them ever playing this game. They control the OS and the Hardware and they are content to do so.

Plus, imagine an open OS available to be installed on numerous systems....sounds great, but......then you open yourself up to the very corruption of your OS that you pride yourself on not being part of. Would it be financially profitable, for sure, but I don't think its worth it.
 
SystemZERO said:
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.
Click to expand...


One might think so by the clone factor, but a look at their sight shows way too many expensive non-PC products for that to be the case. If they've built or had built at least one of everything they sell it's a major commitment.
 
Apple is a hardware company

Apple is not a hardware company. If this is true, then so is dell, hp, toshiba.....
Click to expand...

Erm its a yes for Apple is a hardware company and yes for the second statement you made. Ever wondered why Apple are the ones to create trend setters? Cause those overpriced Mac that you are paying are generating money for their R&D.

Dont believe Apple is a hardware company? feel free to read through this article (The Article is called Apple is a hardware company, scroll down the page and you'll find it)
 
oban14 said:
Actually, my understanding of the GPL is that it's perfectly legal to repackage firefox and thunderbird and sell them as a single client. You just have to provide all the source code and offer free downloads as well.
Click to expand...

Mozilla software isn't released under the GPL. It's under the MPL (Mozilla Public Licence). Essentially, the rules governing the code are the same as the GPL. However, the 'Firefox' and other Mozilla brands are copyrighted and trademarked. Any non-Mozilla builds of the software must be named something else and use different artwork (icons, etc).
 
christian_k said:
You have that special "drop in disc" that customers got when they bought a Mac during the 10.4->10.5 transition. This really required a previous install of an old version. (But your system should include a Disc that can install 10.4 on an empty HD if you are in trouble).

10.5 Box Versions are different from that and can be installed on empty HDs. For most Macs the HD is a user serviceable part and Apple allows you to upgrade.

Christian
Click to expand...

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...).
 
Stomping Time Is Coming

Apple will stomp this company out of existence if they ship a number of these machines. Apple could simply bankrupt them in litigation and should be able to have a cease and desist order put together pretty quickly. I just wanted to be one of the one's who told you so.

Using hacked EFI software for commercial use is illegal. Not only does Psystar violate Apple's EULA, they violate the license of the EFI emulator software, all the while attempting to make a profit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top