Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Psystar "Definitely Still Shipping" Mac Clones

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the everyone-deserves-a-hackintosh dept.

833

Preedit writes "Continuing its defiance of Apple, Psystar is reassuring customers that it is "definitely still shipping" its line of Mac clones. And, in a further nose-thumbing at Steve Jobs, Psystar this week said it's now making Leopard restore disks available to its customers, even as Apple insists that Mac clones sold to date be recalled. In its story on the latest developments, Infoweek is reporting that tiny Psystar apparently has no intention of backing down in its legal dispute with the much larger Apple."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well good for them (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24599685)

I for one am tired of Apple's Monopolistic business practices on their Mac range.

Re:Well good for them (5, Insightful)

nacturation (646836) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599791)

I for one am tired of Apple's Monopolistic business practices on their Mac range.

Isn't that like saying you're tired of Slashdot's monopolistic business practices on its Slashdot brand? By default, every company has a monopoly on its own products.
 

WRONG!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24599915)

Wrong! I can read /. on Firefox or any other browser. GP is right! Just that Apple fanbois will never see the wrong in it.

Re:WRONG!! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24599995)

If Psystar wins, then everybody and their grandmas will be running OSX.

Everybody will win: more folks will run a more secure OS than Windows and Apple will still get all the OS sales.

Most importantly, the fanbois will no longer be special and will find some other shiny, overpriced toy to validate their whiny, shallow, pseudo-intellectual, metrosexual, idiotic existance. They'd probably be much happer(and less whinier) if they spent their hard-earned money at the gay disco instead.

Re:WRONG!! (5, Insightful)

Lord_Frederick (642312) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600073)

Or Apple's reputation of "just working" will go down the tubes because they no longer have total control over the hardware.

If Apple starts trying to support every combination of 3rd party hardware out there, OSX will start having reliability problems just like Windows does.

Re:WRONG!! (2, Interesting)

jacquesm (154384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600129)

There's a chance of that, but arguably os/x's driver model is a bit more solid than windows'.

I'd hope for a very solid spec and verification program to keep things as reliable as they are today.

More choice = better. Simple, really.

Re:WRONG!! (3, Insightful)

orasio (188021) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600305)

More choice = better. Simple, really.

[Citation needed]

I don't like choice WRT Ethernet cables, or WIFI standards, or inter net protocols. I'm happy with IP having the monopoly of the internet.

Aside from that, Apple has no right to say what other manufacturer can build.

Of course, they can refuse to support OSX outside of Apple computers, that's their business choice.

Re:WRONG!! (1)

FireStormZ (1315639) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600387)

"but arguably os/x's driver model is a bit more solid than windows"

So is that of windows and BSD but the means one of two things:

1) Stability issues 'the drivers I got from ACME for my video card really affect the computers performance'
2) support issues 'whadda ya mean my acme video card does not have drivers on the OSX cd?

Re:WRONG!! (5, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600179)

That reputation may apply to their software, but it doesn't apply to their hardware. Even Apple fans acknowledge that the first generation of almost anything is rather likely to expose some pretty significant flaws that, for some reason, never revealed itself during testing prior to release. I recall the overheating MacBookPro line... That should have been pretty darned obvious. But not every Apple fan acknowledges this... I had a vice president in my company acknowledge that he waited more than 4 hours to get the 3G iPhone and he has been rather disappointed in various aspects of its performance since.

Re:WRONG!! (3, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600219)

It's the same for the software. Apparently no one thought of testing the procedure of upgrading Tiger to Leopard if you had File Vault enabled - if they had done, they'd have discovered that after the first reboot your home directory becomes unmountable (by Leopard - Tiger can still read it fine).

Re:WRONG!! (1)

Torinaga-Sama (189890) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600377)

Let's not forget about Broken Transport [wikipedia.org] while we are talking about Apple's software flubs.

Re:WRONG!! (2, Insightful)

pdusen (1146399) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600369)

Or perhaps Apple will simply continue supporting the hardware it does, while other companies support the hardware that they sell OS X on, and Apple will be forced to lower its over-the-top hardware prices in order to compete with other OS X machines.

Re:WRONG!! (0)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600435)

Who says Apple would try? They could probably push a "void your warranty/tech support" for running OS X on "nonsupported" hardware, if you had any in the first place. The problem is that Apple makes money on overpriced crap (hardware), so this would in many ways kill their business model. I love how on newegg, etc, "Apple" hard drives are a separate section, and they cost a LOT more

Re:WRONG!! (2, Funny)

fretburnr (933771) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600101)

They'd probably be much happer(and less whinier) if they spent their hard-earned money at the gay disco instead.

Disco Stu's workin' pro bono!

Re:WRONG!! (5, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600267)

Everybody will win: more folks will run a more secure OS than Windows and Apple will still get all the OS sales.

Uhh. OSX is not very secure. IIRC a month or so back a windows, an OSX and a Linux machine were set up and the OSX machine went down first. Even before the Windows machine. OSX is secure cause nobody attacks it. As soon as more people run it you will see its shortcommings.

Re:WRONG!! (1)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600417)

Ah, our good old friend, security by obscurity. Bruce Schneier would not be amused.

Re:WRONG!! (2, Insightful)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600013)

How does Apple have a monopoly? They are hardly the only OS or PC vendor on the market. This is like saying that Dell has a monopoly on Dell computers.

Re:WRONG!! (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600099)

Original poster wrote "Apple's Monopolistic business practices" - not the same thing as saying "Apple is a monopoly".

Re:WRONG!! (2, Insightful)

wattrlz (1162603) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600121)

It's not so much about monopolies, but perceived monopolies. Most people believe Apple has a monopoly on computers that run osX. Many people believe Apple has a monopoly on computers that will run media editing programs. Far too many people believe Apple has a monopoly on computers that, "just work"(tm).

Exactly (0)

numbsafari (139135) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600383)

There is a huge difference between Apple and Microsoft from a monopoly perspective.

Microsoft was using strong-arm, anti-competitive tactics to ensure that all desktop PC systems were using their operating system.

Remember how hard it was for people to try and get these companies to ship Linux on a PC? Remember how MS had them all tied up in licensing agreements that said that they couldn't ship a different OS?

And then, because Microsoft had all the desktop PC vendors locked up it was able to force them to ship it's web browser and have it set as the default?

That's completely different than Apple. Apple makes their own desktop PCs and they make the OS that runs on it. They aren't forcing Dell to adopt OSX. They aren't forcing HP to adopt OSX. They're saying... you guys use whatever OS you want, we are using our own, home-grown OS on our own hardware. We're selling an integrated system. You're selling a composite of mostly off-the-shelf parts bundled with support.

It'd be like saying Ford is exploiting their monopoly on Ford engine's because GM starts selling GM cars with Ford engines and labeling them as "Ford Clones". Because GM is using sub-standard parts or parts for which the Ford engine was never designed to support people are going to start buying the GM "Ford clone" and having problems... and will possibly blame Ford for incompatabilities, thus tarnishing Ford's brand.

I don't understand how people are confused about this. If Psystar wins this will pretty much destroy a lot more than the computer industry.

Re:WRONG!! (1)

pdusen (1146399) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600397)

They are monopolistic, not a monopoly. If we suddenly found Apple to have a 90% market share tomorrow, they would be just as much of a monopoly as Microsoft (perhaps moreso, in some respects).

It's simply the Mac business model (2, Insightful)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600091)

Apple has always held a tight grip on their hardware and software standards. If you don't approve, you don't have to buy their stuff. That is what ~95% (though rapidly decreasing) of people choose to do.

But it is precisely that total control that lets Apple deliver such a relatively high quality product. I'll admit that Leopard is not up to Apple standards... but overall, their products are vastly superior to Windows, despite the huge resources and community working on the Windows environment compared to the Mac world.

The control of hardware and software allows Apple to not have to adapt to the whims of a thousand hardware makers, and it lets them produce a computer like the iPhone (which is mostly just a little Mac), which clearly people love as compared to other "smart" phones. Why do people love it? Because the crushing grip Apple keeps on their standards results in a relatively easy experience for the end-user.

Does this qualify as fanboy bullshit? Why? I'm just saying if you don't like it, don't use it. But the facts speak for themselves. People hate Vista, the average Joe can't/won't figure out linux, and people generally enjoy the Apple experience.

Re:It's simply the Mac business model (5, Informative)

Harold Halloway (1047486) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600299)

Does this qualify as fanboy bullshit? Why? I'm just saying if you don't like it, don't use it. But the facts speak for themselves. People hate Vista, the average Joe can't/won't figure out linux, and people generally enjoy the Apple experience.

Those opinions you express are not facts. They are, as you accurately phrase it, 'fanboy bullshit'.

Re:It's simply the Mac business model (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600445)

That is what ~95% (though rapidly decreasing) of people choose to do.

For certain values of rapid. They gain a few percentage points a year, which means they're only 20 years from dominance!

Re:Well good for them (5, Insightful)

OptimusPaul (940627) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600317)

I'd have to say you are mislead. Apple is doing much the same thing that many of manufacturers do. So Apple makes computers and the operating system, and doesn't allow that operating system to run on other makes of computers. Let's just change a few things around. Ford makes cars and the operating software for the cars computer and doesn't allow that software to be used on other makes of cars. Would it make sense for ford to sell their cars computer code to say Toyota? Not at all. Toyota also makes cars, and it is possible that the software is compatible, but it isn't in fords interests to make it compatible. Maybe ford is being monopolistic, but I don't think so. That's just good business.

Futile (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599709)

While I don't consider Psystar to be doing anything wrong, I'm pretty sure that given the way copyright law is at the moment, Apple's lawsuit is going to render them a smoking crater in fairly short order.

Re:Futile (4, Insightful)

Intron (870560) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599885)

Apple is stuck retrying a case [cornell.edu] it won in 1984. Clone makers copying its OS. Apple probably spends 5 times as much on software development as hardware, while the clone makers spend 0.

Re:Futile (3, Informative)

toleraen (831634) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600171)

Oh come on, the clone makers spent at least a few bucks paying someone to read the osx86 project website...

Re:Futile (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600385)

It's an entirely different case. In the case you cited, Formula were distributing a hacked copy of the Apple II software without a license. In the Pystar case, Pystar are buying a copy of OS X from Apple for every computer they sell. Apple are getting their $129 for every sale.

The first case is pure copyright infringement - you can't just take a copy of someone else's copyright work and distribute (modified or unmodified) copies without falling foul of copyright law.

The second case is about violation of the EULA. If copyright law regards installing, modifying, and running a computer program as non-infringing use (which it ought to, since a computer program you can't do any of this with is pretty useless) then a EULA is invalid because you don't need any rights from the copyright holder than copyright law grants. More likely, given the broken state of IP law in the US, it will be found that you do need to agree to a license, but whether the terms imposed by Apple are legal remains to be seen.

In the worst case, Apple will win on the basis that their EULA prevents this. In the best case, Apple will lose because EULAs are not required for computer software and this will set a precedent that no EULA is valid (distribution licenses, like any Free Software license, would be unaffected since these grant you rights beyond what copyright law gives). In the middle case, the validity of EULAs in general will be upheld but the restrictions in question (no installing it on non-Apple hardware) will be deemed unreasonable and unenforceable.

Re:Futile (2, Informative)

megaditto (982598) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600437)

As I understand it, they are not actually pirating OS X, they merely install retail copies of Apple OS on unblessed hardware, albeit breaking the TOS.

Re:Futile (1)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600483)

Apple probably spends 5 times as much on software development as hardware, while the clone makers spend 0.

Bring that statement to its logical conclusion: with clones in the wild, Apple will have spent a lot on software development, but will still make 100% of the profit licensing that software.

Realistically, time and investment are irrelevant to the conversation, though I'm sure both will get mentions in court. What really matters, though, is the legality surrounding the licensing. Each clone can run OS X, and OS X is mostly proprietary, requiring a valid license from Apple. What is likely to help Apple's case is Pystar's distribution of the OS, which may be a license violation even if Apple gets their $129. It remains to be seen if license restrictions requiring an approved piece of hardware are enforceable.

On an tangential note, I don't think a clone market would necessarily hurt Apple, but even if it did, that wouldn't necessarily make clones ilegall.

Re:Futile (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599955)

It can't be a surprise to Pystar that Apple reacted this way. They must have expected this from the start, and got a legal opionion that they were satisfied with. They must have had their defence strategy planned before Apple even knew they existed.

Follow the money (5, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599723)

Where are Psystar getting the money from for all this? Because defending a case of this nature is going to be damn expensive and if they're such a small startup the last thing they want to be doing is spending all their money on legal bills.

Re:Follow the money (1, Insightful)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599739)

Its easy. DONT GO TO COURT.

Hide in a corner doing whatever they do is their best option, and when the legal hounds come a'knockin they be a runnin.

Re:Follow the money (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24600045)

If you had read the article you'd see that they hired what it seems to suggest is a high profile law firm which has dealt with Apple before. I don't think they're "hiding", or skipping court.

Re:Follow the money (1)

Have Blue (616) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600069)

You can't just ignore legal proceedings. If they don't show up in court, they lose. And since they manufacture a physical product, they can't just disappear into the net like a torrent site or anyone else whose disputed deeds consist purely of information.

Re:Follow the money (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24600139)

Exactly. Launder the money, create fake invoices for fake bills. When brought before a judge, hire the cheapest lawyer to stand before him and do everything he can to lose the case as quickly as possible. Judge kills company, orders money to be paid to apple. Oh, look we spent all of our money on "research and development" and property on mars, but you can have the folding chairs we used in the office and the remaining non dairy creamer. Which we will deliver tomorrow, instead of fleeing to Russia.

Note, I am neither a lawyer nor a master criminal. As such an advice taken from this poor excuse at humor, may not be in your interest. And this posting should not be taken as an endorsement of any crimes or misdemeanors, but rather as a crudely constructed parody of such.

Re:Follow the money (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24599823)

It could be funded by a larger OEM manufacturer to use as a test case.

Of psystar fails, no effect to them. If it succeeds, they roll out their own line of Mac compatibles.

Re:Follow the money (0, Troll)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600241)

Considering how that little troll junk PC maker creates feedback on technical sites as there are even people seeing them as "heroes", this could be one gigantic companies "Sink Apple's image" operation too.

See what kind of a huge fight, boycott campaign Novell creates just by agreeing with Microsoft and how Linux desktop is being divided by "mono", "non mono" fight... Not related to my theory, just giving an example ;)

Re:Follow the money (5, Insightful)

redaction101 (1309783) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599843)

Two options: 1) Psystar backs down and stops producing Mac clones. Psystar goes out of business. Creditors lose out. 2) Psystar fights the good fight, gaining plenty of free publicity (Slashdot included) for taking on Goliath. If they lose, same scenario as 1. If they win, they (hopefully) have a larger customer base. Insolvency law usually ensures that the people taking the fall from a company's demise are the unsecured creditors. It is considerably easier to gamble with the money of others.

Re:Follow the money (2, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600015)

They're a 2-person company. No bank (especially today!) will give them a loan without them personally co-signing.

Re:Follow the money (2, Interesting)

cgfsd (1238866) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600439)

Psystar goes out of business in every scenario.

Psystar becomes another cheap PC maker. Market is over saturated, they have nothing special to offer, Psystar goes out of business.

If they capitulate to Apple, see above.

If they fight Apple and lose, see above.

If they fight Apple and win, then every manufacturer will start selling OSX for their systems, see above.

While I hope Psystar takes one for the team, I don't see them being in business in 3 years.

About the only scenario that would be a win for Psystar is if they were bought by a bigger company as a "Thank You" for helping everyone else out.

I would use the analogy of charging cannons. You know that the first rank is going to be slaughtered, but with enough people you can overcome the battery.

Good luck being cannon fodder Psystar!

Re:Follow the money (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599863)

I would assume Phystar is getting it from...selling mac clones? Just a rough guess?

Re:Follow the money (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599963)

In any company, you must also put "projected legal costs" to the price. For a company which will obviously get sued by Apple which is known to have very, very evil lawyers, the legal costs will be very high. They are making great loss right now.

Re:Follow the money (0)

Amouth (879122) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600213)

loseing money constantly hasn't stopped amazon yet

Re:Follow the money (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599991)

Follow the money? What? Are you trying to locate a terrorist organization here?

But looks like you have already chosen your side. At least don't just hang them without trial.

Anyways, what am I wishing? This is Apple - the angel v/s the evil story, right?

Re:Follow the money (2, Funny)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600103)

1. Sell Mac clones
2. Rake in profit
3. ???
4. Get sued, loose but all the money is already in your pocket and the company goes out of business

Good for them... (4, Insightful)

joelholdsworth (1095165) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599735)

...is what I say. It's nice to see the little guy stand up against big buisiness muscle. Apple is beginning to look more and more Microsoft-esque by the week.

Re:Good for them... (2, Insightful)

Calibax (151875) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599897)

But didn't Apple spend a whole ton of money to write and maintain Mac OS X? Don't they specifically state that it's only to be run on Apple hardware? On other words, isn't OS X a specific benefit of owning an Apple system and licensed as such?

Why is it OK to break Apple's license? Would you be saying "good for them" if the news article was about someone breaking the GPL?

IP Evil. (1)

BitterOldGUy (1330491) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599975)

Why is it OK to break Apple's license?

This is /.! IP is evil and satanic here! Geeze! With your low 6 figure userid you should know better, man!

Re:Good for them... (3, Insightful)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600049)

But didn't Apple spend a whole ton of money to write and maintain Mac OS X?

Ever heard of BSD?

Re:Good for them... (1)

numbsafari (139135) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600191)

Yes. Ever read the license?

And it's besides the point, Apple has invested a huge amount of effort on top of what it inherited from BSD... as did most of the other OS's we use today... including Linux.

Re:Good for them... (1, Interesting)

FireStormZ (1315639) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600197)

yea Ill go load a base bsd and see if the integration is anywhere *near* what OSX provides...

Seriously you, I and many others *can* make BDS and Linux look and feel like OSX but apple does it better and out of the box, there is more to OSX than just its BSD underpinnings

Re:Good for them... (5, Insightful)

joelholdsworth (1095165) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600149)

But didn't Apple spend a whole ton of money to write and maintain Mac OS X?

Yes they did, so if I wanted to buy a copy, I'd pay them for it. We're not talking about warez here, we're talking about the freedom to run software that I've paid for on whatever system I damn well like.

Re:Good for them... (4, Insightful)

Slippery Pete (941650) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600167)

I think it is because it is a silly part of the license. What would you think if you pulled into a gas station and the attendant said "I'm sorry, we can't put gas into cars like yours." They aren't saying the gas won't work, it is just their choice to sell it only to certain car owners.

I know this isn't the exact same situation but I can walk into an Apple store and buy a copy of OS X and go home and install on it on a system that isn't Apple. That should be my choice. I'm happy to give up whatever rights I have for support by doing this but it should be my choice. The same goes for all products. If I buy an iPhone, an EeePC, or a Dell, it should be my choice to mod it in anyway. I paid the money they asked for the product and now it becomes mine. They are willing to share their other software with my Windows machine (iTunes, Safari) so why not let us use their OS? We are paying for a license to use it.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:Good for them... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24600169)

Why?

1. The 'license' is not a signed contract.
2. The contract is completely one-sided, making it 'unfair'.
3. First sale doctrine.

Let's not forget that if Apple wanted to maintain complete control over their software they could have avoided selling it separately or forced people to sign actual contracts. They chose not to do this because it would be less profitable. But it's legally a bit gray, albeit less so now than in the past. One's heart hardly bleeds for the company that takes a gamble and suffers the consequences. (Cell phone companies have people sign contracts ALL THE TIME, it is not that difficult.)

Now, we can argue until we are blue in the face about any of these, but until Apple actually takes Psystar to court (and really, ultimately, the Supreme Court), we won't have any definitive answers. So one can hardly blame Psystar for taking a shot.

Re:Good for them... (2, Insightful)

milwcoder (1132835) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600175)

But didn't Apple spend a whole ton of money to write and maintain Mac OS X? Don't they specifically state that it's only to be run on Apple hardware? On other words, isn't OS X a specific benefit of owning an Apple system and licensed as such?

Why is it OK to break Apple's license? Would you be saying "good for them" if the news article was about someone breaking the GPL?

That's why Apple is Microsoft-esque, not by the week, but right from the beginning. There's nothing wrong with hoarding rights to your cash cow and IP (marketing efforts gone in packaging OSX and Mac's Intel based hardware). It is just standard big business practice.

Apple is just not that different from Microsoft.

Re:Good for them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24600189)

Why is it OK to break Apple's license? Would you be saying "good for them" if the news article was about someone breaking the GPL?

I would guess that Apple's EULA (like most EULAs, which often include ridiculous clauses) is not as enforceable as the GPL. For starters, the GPL is not an EULA, it grants permission to modify and redistribute code, not simply use it.

Re:Good for them... (2, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600335)

Psystar IS distributing modified Apple code. If that's not enforceable, the GPL is useless.

Re:Good for them... (2, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600051)

If it was 1990s which clones were legal, Apple wouldn't license Mac to Pystar company. If you look at the clone makers, they were very well established companies with years of experience in Macintosh market.

Apple founder believes software and hardware should be perfectly integrated just like your average household device. They even do same thing on iPhone. Why nobody thinks about the possibility of licensing iPhone OS to other handset manufacturers? Because they are phones? Well, for Apple, a computer should be like a phone which runs software perfectly. That includes OS X itself.

If you consider your nice little guys only help to OSXFree86 community was providing "realtek nic driver", you can get a very goood clue about the quality of those computers.

They are fraud, nothing else.

They are trying to get sued by Apple (5, Insightful)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599753)

I don't think any sane company will break Apple's agreements, licenses on USA soil.

Remember the company shipped "Apple G6 Desktop" and got sued big time? It wasn't based at USA and they weren't trying that hard to get sued. Some media guy browsing Alibaba found the machine, that is all.

For some reason we can't know, Pystar looks like they will be very, very happy if Apple sues them further or this thing becomes more complex.

Would you dare to mess with a gigantic company who even tried to sue State of New York for "Apple" logo? If you dare, would you start your business in USA? Some very big promises/guarantees by very big corporate powers must be given to Pystar. Don't get surprised if there is real IT media left and uncovers it.

Re:They are trying to get sued by Apple (2, Interesting)

GiovanniZero (1006365) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599879)

Its probably a good strategy actually. Their company is small enough that if they get sued into oblivion it won't really matter all that much but the media exposure they'll get will be huge. If they can hold their ground they will be sky rocketed into the mainstream and people that want Macs without the price will flock to them in droves.

Re:They are trying to get sued by Apple (2, Insightful)

urcreepyneighbor (1171755) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600165)

Would you dare to mess with a gigantic company who even tried to sue State of New York for "Apple" logo?

Depends. If I don't have a family to support, a respectable cushion fund, and can represent myself... why not?

Even if I make a complete fool of myself, the experience alone would be worth it. If, by some freak occurrence, I actually won.... Well, let's just say I'd like that fact engraved on my grave.

If you dare, would you start your business in USA?

Since the US legal system is the only one I have even a basic knowledge of, yes. :)

Re:They are trying to get sued by Apple (4, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600229)

If they win, they will have invsestors beating down their door. And they will break into the market of the fastest growing personal computer manufacturer. Plus, it will resolve a long standing legal question as to the validity of EULAs. I see no down side here for them at all.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose (4, Interesting)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599757)

Anybody remember when IBM (which was mightier than Apple can ever hope to be) failed at utterly crushing tiny Compaq?

Re:Plus ça change, plus c'est la même ch (3, Informative)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599861)

I think Compaq had Microsoft and some part of Government/Corporate scene who is very afraid of IBM monopoly behind them.

Microsoft was allowed to license MS-DOS to _anyone which wants_ from the beginning. It is part of their agreement with IBM and it is why BillG and Ballmer are called "visionary". There is no such thing on OS X. Apple believes in integrated hardware/software combination from the very beginning.

Having reports like "I pressed power button but my Mac slept 10 secs later, it must be broken" is very common on Apple scene. It is nothing on a PC running Windows or Clone OS X.

What those idiots did is also convincing Apple that clones/licensed machines was always a bad idea. They ship JUNK PC.

Re:Plus ça change, plus c'est la même ch (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599999)

The issue between Compaq and IBM wasn't DOS... It was the PC BIOS.

However, Compaq implemented their version of the PC BIOS from scratch. Psystar didn't implement their own OSX clone from scratch.

Re:Plus ça change, plus c'est la même ch (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600145)

Another funny thing is, Apple kept shipping Darwin ISO binaries freely to x86 Machines and nobody got interested. Some clever people figured they may also have a Quicktime server that way (which perfectly performs) but that is all.

IMHO you can have a very advanced OS X experience (minus Adobe/iTools) via installing FreeBSD 6 and running WindowMaker on top of it. Games? Well, even after Intel switch, scene doesn't look that bright anyway :)

Re:Plus c,a change, plus c'est la meme chose (3, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600043)

Compaq did a clean-room implementation of the IBM BIOS. Psystar didn't do a clean-room implementation of OS X.

Re:Plus ça change, plus c'est la même ch (1)

darkmeridian (119044) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600283)

The law was different back then. Intellectual property protections are now much, much stronger in the United States.

So what? Isn't competition good? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24599765)

Isn't competition good? Isn't this like "net neutrality" or the Justice Department's efforts to let software companies provide alternatives to microsoft or "common carrier" issues? If Steve Jobs doesn't like, he can become more efficient and charge less and undercut Psystar.

I admire their gall (5, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599767)

I have to say that I admire their gall. They're paying a rather dangerous game*. Unless they have some really kick ass lawyers who can convince a judge of the unenforcability of Apple's licensing terms, I don't see anything happening except Psystar getting smacked down HARD. As in, take all their assets + punitive damages hard.

Of course, this could be a situation like General Computer Corporation. (The Namco & Atari partner who created Ms. Pac Man.) They were just a bunch of college kids having fun, and they didn't have money anyway. When they got sued, their reaction was: "Cool, we get to go to court!" Sometimes it's nice not having anything to lose.;-)

Re:I admire their gall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24600249)

What reference does the asterisk point to?

Re:I admire their gall (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600327)

What reference does the asterisk point to?

It was originally going to point to the second paragraph, but I changed the format and forgot to remove the asterisk. Sorry about the confusion.

I can't stand Apple anymore... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24599825)

...so I think I'm going to buy one of these just to piss them off. Maybe we should all pitch in and buy Steve one for Christmas too.

Re:I can't stand Apple anymore... (3, Interesting)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600083)

They're kind of compelling, actually check this out one:

http://psystar.com/index.php?&option=com_virtuemart&page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_images.tpl&product_id=38&Itemid=72 [psystar.com]

Base Configuration

        * Mac OS X Leopard preinstalled
        * no keyboard, mouse, or monitor included
        * 2.0GHz Intel Dual-Core Pentium 2.0GHz Processor
        * 2GB of DDR2 800 memory
        * PCI-Express nVidia GeForce 7200GS 256MB
        * Dual Layer 20x DVD+/-RW SATA drive
        * Gigabit Ethernet
        * 4 rear USB Ports

$560...

The lowest-priced Mac I can find on http://store.apple.com/us [apple.com] is $599, and that's a Mini.

What am I missing?

Re:I can't stand Apple anymore... (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600119)

They're kind of compelling, actually check this out one

Sorry. Day dyslexic having am I.

Re:I can't stand Apple anymore... (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600259)

yeeeeeeesssss!

Yoda, you are.

Re:I can't stand Apple anymore... (0)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600477)

What am I missing?

Updates perhaps?

Re:I can't stand Apple anymore... (5, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600337)

Maybe we should all pitch in and buy Steve one for Christmas too.

Why, so he can throw it while screaming he's going to "fucking kill Apple"?

Oh... Steve Jobs... sorry.

Honest mistake.

Mac Compatible... (5, Interesting)

Sunshinerat (1114191) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599841)

While it may be shaky grounds to sell these machines as Mac Clones. There should be no reason not to sell those machines with a Linux Equivalent. The nice thing is that you -could- buy a Leopard disk and load it, that is your own choice.

This is no different as my Intel PC that runs Ubuntu, but -could- run Vista if I wanted to.

Re:Mac Compatible... (1)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600021)

I like that, and they could be a OS X reseller and sell the full dvd. I don't think there is anything that says you can't sell Mac OSX with another computer at the same time.

Its the restore disks that will be their downfall! (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599893)

If PsyStar were limiting themselves to shipping hardware and bundled unmodified OS X 10.5 retail disks, I really think why would have no legal issues at all. However, by the sound of it, not only are the PsyStar systems running a modified variant of the OS X operating system (including some modifications to get the system running on generic hardware, just like OSX86), but they intend to ship 'Restore disks' that sound suspiciously like modified OS X 10.5 install sets.

That's going to be their downfall in this - the derivative work.

Re:Its the restore disks that will be their downfa (1)

unfasten (1335957) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600453)

I keep reading about how PsyStar modified OS X, so I'm assuming they're not using EFI emulation. Would Apple still have case against them if they started using the EFI emulation? If they started using this they could probably even ship the computers without OS X preinstalled and just ship the boxed OS X, letting the end user install it when they receive it.

Even if they installed it at the factory, wouldn't this ruin Apple's case since OS X would then be unmodified (even being able to get updates straight from the Apple servers)?

Apple mini is also still over a YEAR OLD AT the sa (1, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599911)

Apple mini is also still over a YEAR OLD AT the same PRICE and hardware. $799.00 for a 2.00GHz cpu, 1gb of ram, dvdwr, 120GB hard drive, and gma 950. Also the chipset maxes out at 3gb of ram as well. Is a very big rip off as you can get a system with the e8400, 2-4gb of ram a mid-range video card, dvdrw, big and fast desktop HD, nice MB, firewire, and more. For $700 to $1000. uses up to date parts and chip sets unlike the mini.

I am the greatest (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24599937)

Ypsilanti bows before me. Waukegan strews roses before my feet. The Twin Cities are my bailiwick and offer up their finest virgins. Los Angeles can kiss my ass.

Watch carefully!! (4, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599953)

This is a VERY interesting case. Who is Psystar?

Seriously, out of nowhere, a tiny company starts to sell mac clones. It was so sketchy, we on slashdot originally called it a hoax.

Now, they got the guys who beat Apple once before representing them in the fight.

Curiouser and curiouser. It may be an intentionally staged dispute by various oems to create a Mac market for themselves. Vista is not moving boxes, but Mac compatible motherboards may be profitable.

The objective may be Apple's refusal to allow MacOS on non-Mac hardware. If they win, and Apple is not able to enforce this restriction, I can see a whole bunch of clones flooding the market.

This company needs to be shut down (-1, Troll)

fall3n_j0ker (1139401) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599969)

Seriously, they are doing the customer nor anyone any good. Apple does not play to the "lowest common denominator manufacturing" for good reason too, because there is no money in it and they could not survive. So what if they manage to make clones that are cheeper now what happens when they basically run Apple out of business or out of the computer business and we no longer have our systems that we love? So #$%#$%# what if you managed to save a few dollers on your next apple so you could feel better about yourself and thumb your nose. So you could say "because I want to and have the freedom to" oh bull, and when you turn around later on and we are back to only PC's as a choice. If they want to make PC's make bloody PC's, but I hope they get run into the ground where they belong.

Re:This company needs to be shut down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24600433)

fanboi much??

Not clones! (2, Informative)

Leomania (137289) | more than 6 years ago | (#24599997)

Psystar ships its own flavor of hackintosh... they are not clones. I don't get the persistence of the label. Is it just the desire of folks to have an actual clone as a choice to run OS X that keeps the term active in discussions?

When do we get a $99 PsiPhone? (2, Funny)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600033)

I bet it's the size of an office stapler and sounds like a jet plane at takeoff, but still ... maybe the 3G will actually work.

What exactly is so special about these systems? (3, Interesting)

Carbon016 (1129067) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600035)

Read TFA, googled a little. It seems like I'm missing something. It seems they simply charge outrageous markup on generic, mediocre Intel systems [psystar.com] . Throw in a moderately cheap-looking case and charge $155 [macworld.com] for the OS installation. What's new here?

If this was back when Apple was using PowerPC processors, maybe they'd have a point. But I don't see this as being a "clone" of a Mac, because clone implies hardware and this (and the Mac's) hardware is the same as everyone else's.

Re:What exactly is so special about these systems? (1)

kannibal_klown (531544) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600217)

The problem Apple has is with them putting OSX on the systems and selling them. Legal or not, their EULA prohibits this in multiple layers.

While they won't stop or sue Joe Sixpack for installing it on his Dell after some fidgeting, they do have a problem with a company making profit by selling systems with their product.

On top of which, I think that the version of OSX they're installing is a patched system so it can explicitly work on their generic rigs. And that brings about even more Eula and/or copyright questions. IE, what if you started selling a slipstream install of Vista with a bunch of modules installed?

And lastly, Apple is probably worried about 2 more thing:
1) IBM vs Clone market, and how it pretty much killed their desktop dept.
2) Brand control. Joe Sixpacks around the world might buy Psystars and call them Macs, and get annoyed when the patched systems don't work right. Then the FUD about unstable Macs start being spread.

Re:What exactly is so special about these systems? (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600413)

The thing about IBM allowing clones wasn't what killed their desktop department. There are lots of little contributors to the ultimate demise, but in actuality, it never got bad. It was just not good enough for IBM. Lenovo is making a pretty good success of it now that it's in their hands. So it's not the cloning nor the loss of developmental control or direction as much as they decided it wasn't worth what they were putting into it. Microsoft is predicted to try something similar in a short while, abandoning the desktop computing world in favor of "cloud computing."

It's not so much a death as much as a "moving on to other things" kind of thing.

More than just macs (1)

youngdev (1238812) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600055)

I would like to point out that psystar is doing more than just mac clones. They are a general purpose PC vendor. You can have linux on your box from them if you choose. I have been looking at their servers and I am quite impressed with specs vs price. I could build a server cheaper than they are selling but I can't argue with the specs (not sure about the guarantee). I will be considering them the next time I upgrade my server hardware.

Re:More than just macs (1)

Jellybob (597204) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600285)

I wouldn't be too sure about the guarantee either, seeing as how they're about to be made bankrupt by Apple.

In defense of Pystar (2, Interesting)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600065)

BSD developers should start building an OSX clone from some flavor of BSD specifically for Mac Clones like Pystar, plenty of desktop apps out there now for BSD flavors just take a look at PCBSD which uses KDE but other desktop environments would suffice too XFCE is a good one,,,

Re:In defense of Pystar (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600203)

GNUStep much?

Even if they win, they'll still lose (3, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600253)

Even if Psystar somehow manages a court victory that would allow them to purchase and sell copies of OS X installed on generic x86 boxes, all that Apple has to do is stop selling OS X to any retail outlet other than its own. If Psystar can't get legal copies of the software to put on the machines it sells, there isn't any legal way that they can stay in business at that point, other than going to Apple stores and purchasing copies of OS X at full retail price.

We're also heading towards a future of digital distribution. It started with music, has moved to movie rentals, and looks as though it can be expanded to anything in the near future. What's to stop Apple from selling you the newer versions of OS X online? In five years when everyone wants to upgrade to Puma or whatever else they end up calling it, you have the option of downloading the upgrade to your computer instead of having to go out and purchase any physical install media.

Does it really matter if the court rules that Psystar can do whatever they want with a copy of OS X once they already have it if Apple does everything that they possibly can in order to prevent Psystar from ever obtaining a copy of OS X?

Re:Even if they win, they'll still lose (2, Insightful)

phoenix321 (734987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24600473)

Then Psystar buys them in the Apple store and tries on the "first sale principle".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?