A year on, Psystar still defying Apple
One year ago, an otherwise sleepy April in the Apple universe was turned upside down by a tiny company from Southern Florida, kicking off a real-world Clone War between Apple and Psystar.
It's been a year since Psystar began selling Mac clones in defiance of Apple.
(Credit: Psystar)Today, the essential question regarding Psystar is unchanged: does the company have the right to sell computers with Apple's Mac OS X Leopard preinstalled, as it has been doing since April 14, 2008? Psystar set off shock waves through the Apple world that week, as an army of journalists, bloggers, fanboys, and detractors set off on a manic search for anything and everything related to the company and its desktops.
Psystar emerged a year ago as a small independent system builder, the likes of which can be found in any medium-size town in the U.S. What provoked the interest and ire of the Mac community was Psystar's decision to ship so-called "white box" systems with Mac OS preinstalled alongside systems with Windows Vista and Linux, in defiance of Apple's licensing policies for that operating system.
Psystar recently updated its flagship product, the Open Computer, and CEO Rudy Pedraza promises that more products are yet to come.
In an interview, Pedraza acknowledged that the past year has been quite a challenge, but he's glad that at least so far, Psystar has been able to provide an alternative to Apple. "(Our customers) are people who would otherwise be unable to afford an Apple computer, and they are just happy about it."
Whether or not Psystar sees another anniversary will depend in large part on legal wrangling in Northern California, far from Psystar's Doral, Fla., headquarters. The litigation between Apple and Psystar appears to be in a bit of a lull as the one-year anniversary passes, with lawyers immersed in the discovery phase of the trial following months of lawsuits and countersuits from both companies.
Apple's stance is pretty clear: the end-user licensing agreement that comes with Leopard forbids the user from installing that operating system on anything other than an Apple-labeled computer. Psystar, on the other hand, is attempting to argue that Apple is abusing its copyright on Mac OS X in requiring the operating system to run on Apple hardware after Psystar unsuccessfully tried to lodge an antitrust defense.
Little has changed on the legal front in recent months, but it seems worthwhile to take a step back and look at how Psystar has, and hasn't, changed the nature of the computer business. First off, Psystar does not appear to have made a huge dent in Apple's Mac business.
I've been using one of the original Psystar Open Computers for almost a year.
(Credit: James Martin/CNET)Mac desktop shipments have indeed slipped since March 2008, from 856,000 units in the quarter ended March 2008 to 728,000 units in the quarter ended December 2008. But Apple and analysts attributed that decline to three main factors: an aging iMac lineup (refreshed in March 2009), the ongoing shift in consumer preferences from desktops to notebooks (Apple's notebook shipments increased 17 percent over that time span), and the general slump in the economy that took hold in the second half of 2008.
Psystar will not release sales figures, but Pedraza said that sales have exceeded his expectations to date. Pedraza said the company is still planning to release a notebook, but hinted that it might be something more along the lines of a Netbook rather than a full-sized notebook.
What Psystar has accomplished is to prove that a Mac OS computer that was not designed by Apple can deliver a satisfactory experience. CNET was one of the first to order an Open Computer in April 2008, and I've been using that machine as my primary work system ever since with few issues.
It's certainly not perfect: while I've been able to download every update to Leopard released since last April, I have not always been able to download and install updates for Apple application software through Software Update, such as iTunes and iLife. If something goes wrong with the OS, I'll have to venture down a complicated restore process involving a second installation CD that likely contains the magic files Psystar needs to bypass Apple's restrictions on where Leopard can be installed. And needless to say, the Open Computer is not the sort of thing that makes an IT department all giddy.
Still, the Open Computer is otherwise an almost identical Mac experience to the MacBook Pro I use at home. When it comes to reliability and service, Psystar may not be able to compete with Apple, but for people who know their way around a computer, the Open Computer is a Mac.
And that could have huge ramifications for the software industry if Psystar is able to overturn Apple's end-user licensing agreement, which could usher in another Mac clone era just when the operating system's popularity is arguably at an all-time high. The first Mac clone era did not go well for Apple, and it's not hard to see similar problems occurring if the perception of Mac OS X as stable and reliable start to wane as it is forced to interact with hardware for which it was not designed. Already, Psystar imitators such as PearC are trying their hand at the market.
An awful lot has to happen before Apple has to worry about anything like that. Psystar is a clear underdog against Apple, and the trial is not scheduled to begin until November.
But the Little Mac Cloner That Could is a year old this week, and is continuing to sell Open Computers under Apple's nose. How many more years does Psystar have?
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom. 
Marketshare just doesn't constitute a monopoly.
you definition
Sounds awfully similar to Microsofts Strategy
If you want to think about it in terms of market share, Psytar is basically trying to claim that Apple Computers holds 100% of the marketshare for Mac OSX. They argue that other computer companies are being unfairly prevented from entering the Mac OSX market, which in turn eliminates competition within the market of computers that run Mac OSX.
(monopoly) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price ..
Only one seller of Macs this would constitute Apple a monopoly of OSX
Literally hundreds of sellers of PC's around the world thousands if you count mom and pop custom rig shops.
So actually this would make Apple more of a monopoly then MS is because they really have no competition for OSX
A monopoly is not illegal. Apple doesn't stop other businesses from selling competing products
Psystar's argument doesn't hold water because a "market" isn't defined by a single product/provider unless there really is a monopoly (like power utility companies, for example, which are heavily regulated). It's not the "Mac OS X" market, or the "Dell" market, or the "Windows" market, it's the personal computer market which includes many options/producers of hardware, operating systems and application software, just like the automotive market has many producers and models.
Quote from Monkeyfun14: "...when you have a monopoly you can ask any price ..
Only one seller of Macs this would constitute Apple a monopoly of OSX
Literally hundreds of sellers of PC's around the world thousands if you count mom and pop custom rig shops.
So actually this would make Apple more of a monopoly then MS is because they really have no competition for OSX"
You are suggesting Apple is a monopoly and could charge whatever price they want because they have no competition for OS X. Microsoft's own ad campaigns would beg to differ, since they claim basically "you can do the same thing for less by buying a Windows machine." Apple's operating system does have competition (Windows, Linux). Apple's computer hardware has competition (Dell, HP, Gateway, Lenovo, Sony, and the thousands of others as you mentioned). If Apple charges too much for any of it's products, the consumer clearly has alternatives. Your claim that there is no competition for OS X is ridiculous.
""Only one seller of Macs this would constitute Apple a monopoly of OSX"
A monopoly is not illegal. Apple doesn't stop other businesses from selling competing products"
Uhmm......Didn't you read anything about the Apple vs. Psystar saga?
I think if what you said were true, then Apple wouldn't be suing Psystar for selling computers that run Mac OSX. Psystar is basically the only other company out there that competes directly with Apple computers (no other computer maker puts OSX on any machine they sell), and Apple is quite literally trying to put an end to Psystar's business.
considering how long they have gone so far, There is NO reason why they would/should stop now.
not if all goes well in the court case
Apple's EULA isn't going to hold up much longer [hopefully]
Although I will not share with you (and everyone else here) my financial status, I will say that neither I, nor my father are or ever were rich by any definition.
I would be willing to bet (if I had any money to risk) that I make less than you do.
If you want quality, you will save up for it. Not being a cheapskate does not automatically make someone rich.
no if you want quality you build it yourself, otherwise you don't have the intelligence to do that.
and a monopoly is not illegal, dismissal of competition is.
You must be thick. Apple isn't stifling competition. Psystar and anyone else, is perfectly free to put anything they want onto a Macintosh. They are perfectly free to come up with any operating system they want. But when you license software, you are bound to the EULA. And Psystar is bound to it, just as you or I would be. Apple is not a monopoly, they are not the only computer company out there and they certainly aren't the only maker of operating systems. Get it through your thick skulls!
I don't think anyone is arguing the fact that Psystar is the one violating Apple's EULA here. Psystar *has* proven or rather exposed Apple's myth of requiring only their hardware to run OS X. Their products perform and in some cases out perform the original Apple counterparts. It's not the 90's with cheap white boxes anymore. Now there is some serious horsepower under those hoods and being limited to only what Apple says you are permitted to use is stifling innovation and openess in the market for those users.
What I believe is the larger issue is the EULA itself and how binding or enforcable that actually is. If it gets busted, then Apple (along with Microsoft, Adobe, Google, etc) have a lot ot lose and will need to scramble to make sure their own EULAs don't fall in the same manner. It has been speculated that hardware OEM like Dell or HP may actually be behind this and sponsoring Psystar behind the scenes, giving them the operating money and lawyer power to keep this going. Think about it- if Apple's EULA gets struck down, then Dell can produce a MacDell and Apple will lose a big chunk of their marketshare unless they drop their prices by a large percentage to compete.
THAT is the real issue at stake, I think.
A second small problem is that Compaq's battle was over hardware, not software, which are two different realms altogether.
IMHO, I actually have no problems with OSX clones being made and sold, so long as it is known and explicit that Apple does not warranty or support the clone configurations. A perfect ideal would be for Apple to license (and control, for quality purposes) a budget entry configuration - say, to Dell and/or HP for one or two lines of desktop (but not laptop) product. I doubt that this would eat into Apple's profits by much (basically we're replacing the Mac Mini with a Dell or HP equivalent here), and it would frighten Microsoft enough that perhaps they would stop resting on its laurels and produce a more valuable product themselves.
Or, perhaps Apple could produce a stripped version of OSX for hobbyist use and perhaps sell that, with (again) the caveat that there will be no support at all.
I doubt that either scenario would ever happen, but one can dream.
After one year and a million dollars, they were successfull.
I'm not saying I support Apple's position, as I would really like to see Psystar succeed. I just don't think the likelihood is all that great.
(I would have loved to have seen a world with more diversity in chip designs than we have now. Too bad Apple abandoned IBM and FreeScale.)
Instead of attacking Umbrae for their opinion, perhaps you could give some sort of foundation to your comments? It would be a more helpful and useful way to get your point across.
What was the previous case you are refering to? The decisions to date in this situation have been both pro and con for both sides. Could you clarify your comments a bit?
And certainly not "cool" :)
Speaking of Dell and Sony, a lot of people think that MicroSoft is the deep pocket funding Psystar, but I think it is one of the PC companies. We may find out if this goes to court.
I also think that opening OS X up to run on and support all kinds of hardware combinations presents real challenges for reliability and the overall user experience that Apple users have come to expect. A lot of Mac users don't necessarily know what a "driver" is . . . because they don't have to. Ultimately this is a business decision Apple has to make, but I for one would rather not compromise the user experience.
Where did you hear that farfetched rumor?...or are you just making things up as you go along? If your going to make stuff up at least try to be more creative.
Psystar is actually a front for a Tech Company run by the Loch-Ness monster and Bigfoot. They employ grey aliens to build the machines and are located on a hidden tropical island owned by Elvis Presley and his wife, Marilyn Monroe.
@Perry_Clease "Speaking of Dell and Sony, a lot of people think that MicroSoft is the deep pocket funding Psystar, but I think it is one of the PC companies. We may find out if this goes to court. "
Where did you hear that farfetched rumor?...or are you just making things up as you go along? If your going to make stuff up at least try to be more creative. "
I did NOT hear a far fetched rumor. It is MY opinion. Do you really think Psystar can afford the legal fees?
maybe they can afford the fees, and why would MS fund Psystar?
Not to mention you will put a serious dent in Apple's profitability. And that is bad for everyone. Because if Apple can't make a profit, they can't continue to develop Mac OS X or any other it's other innovative products. Then, we're back to square one, a monopoly of Microsoft.
It would serve your argument better if you claimed your opinions as such in the first place, instead of claiming that "a lot of people" think something when it's really just you.
@Perry_Clease
It would serve your argument better if you claimed your opinions as such in the first place, instead of claiming that "a lot of people" think something when it's really just you."
When this story broke last year there was a "lot" of posts saying that the deep pockets behind Psystar was MicroSoft, look them up you want.
If people want to buy OSX, Apple could require that they bring in the serial number from their old o/s, or they could require that the person email their serial number to Apple, and when Apple verifies it is a legit serial number, they send the customer an authorization number that must be presented to the merchant selling the new o/s.
This way no one could purchase OSX for any reason other than an upgrade from Apples previous o/s.
Apple is unwilling to take these simple setps to protect their policy that the o/s should only be on Apple hardware.
It still seems to me that more people would purchase the software if they could use it on any hardware. Perhaps the profits from that would surpass any losses they might take from selling less hardware.
And lets face it, it's not about "user experience" it's about profits pure and simple.
The software upgrade coupons that used to come with a Mac.
"It still seems to me that more people would purchase the software if they could use it on any hardware. Perhaps the profits from that would surpass any losses they might take from selling less hardware."
Apple is both a software and hardware company.
"And lets face it, it's not about "user experience" it's about profits pure and simple."
It can be about both.
Apple continuously keeps making Fun of ! why go through all the trouble
Clones/Hakintoshes are a threat but not a big one at that !
If Apple cared only about Marketshare
why haven't they released a cheap computer in the first place ! forget licensing
they don't ! simple as that !
they want to be a profitable niche
rather than a mainstream Dell{ look at the state they are in}
thats Apple philosophy ! and it's all about User experience and maintaining quality cause at the End of the Day if a customer is satisfied
that would lead to long term gain !
one word: haxxorz
hackers will always find a way through
shouldn't we have all learned that by now?
Just what we need, Apple to take a page out of Microsoft's book and enforce some draconian serial number scheme. For the love of God, no! BAD IDEA!
It's no longer a case of supporting 3rd party hardware (Apple opened that box when they started supporting PCI) but more an issue with an outdated revenue model. Apple's refusal to open the Mac OS to licensing is as rediculous as record labels demanding that CD's are the ONLY format available to the consumer (and we've all seen where that's taken us). CD's, like Apple hardware have a huge mark-up and the public knows it. If they lost their hardware monopoly, they'd have to *think differntly*. You dont have to have a majority market share to be considered monopolistic either.
New Mac's are gerneric x86 computers and the Mac OS is a generic xUX system; neither are proprietary any more. If OSX was as bad-a$$ as Apple claims, they'd port it to every platform they could.....like, say, BSD does?
This is something to give thanks for. Having been on the wrong end of Windows Activation false-positives and therefore spent time on the phone to Microsoft's call centre in India, I can safely say that I never want to see this sort of pointless rubbish on a Mac. It's always been a dumb idea and it will always remain one. DRM and the like only serves to punish the legitimate customer.
Let Mac OS be outside Apple and we'll see how many problems we face then !
Same story for iPhone, while Windows mobile, Android & Plam Pre can be on any phone.
In Apple's case, they bear the burden of developing the software and the hardwar. With less market share and fewer units sold, Apple has to charge more to get what they believe is a fair margin. You might disagree on the definition of "fair" margin, but unless you are a stakeholder in Apple, your opinion doesn't really matter to them.
Finally, a lot of people commenting seem to think that just because Apple and Microsoft compete, that they have to choose the same business strategy. How does that make any sense? Microsoft chose a model to license software and work with hardware manufacturers to distribute their software with any necessary drivers to let that software work on different hardware configurations. Apple's business model wants to provide a more integrated experience. Both are successful in different ways, and both should be allowed to operate how they see fit.
they are too caught up in Apple strategies at the moment
with Rubenstein heading the team and all
See how they are trying to create Buzz etc.
very Similar to Apple's approach in everything they are doing
they are basically a Apple clone company now
Apple is not a hardware company they actually make very few of the parts that go in their computers.
The Processor is intel
The Harddrives are western digital
Either Samsung or Crucial are making the ram.
And Ati and Nvidia are making the chipsets and gpus
I would call them a computer assembler to be honest with you.
Using your logic, Boeing isn't an airplane company, GM isn't a car company, and Beazer isn't a home builder because really all any of them do is final assembly from parts and raw materials that come from vendors and subcontractors. And I guess HP and Dell aren't hardware companies, either, more like, computer assemblers.
It is the end of an era for proprietary Operating Systems as we know it. Linux is making great headway, and M$ is wanting big business...their cash cow, to buy an new OpSys every 3-4 years at $300+ a box. Ain't gonna happen. Consumers AND businesses both big & small, want to stop the financial bleeding, as well as the vast security issues Windblows has to offer. Windows 7 might come out in December (maybe?!), but businesses have already decided to wait a year after its release to even consider upgrading to Win 7! In this dire economy, the best thing that Apple could do now, is to port Mac OS X to operate on all hardware, and sell it as a separate entity to all PC users, just like they have ported iTunes and Safari, with one exception...It would cost you. That would cause them to be more hardware competitive, Microsoft would have to come up with new ways to keep their OpSys from sinking, and Linux would get more attention from those who don't want to buy an OpSys every 6 months at $125+.
TA DAAAH! It's .......... gone.
Linux is a major part of your scheme. It's been out for a decade+. Why hasn't it done what you expect it to do, i.e. destroy Windows? Shouldn't the recession and Vista of all things forced businesses to look into Linux.
actually, many businesses are looking to Linux
and volume licenses are cheaper for large company than OEM
Apple is a company, not an operating system first and foremost. Secondly, Mac OS X is based on Darwin, which is based in turn on BSD, which is based on UNIX. The family tree does not cross lines with Linux in any shape or form. Where in the world did you get that idea?
A decent MAC price without paying the MAC price would mean you can save up to 800 to $900 per each high end pc.
"It's Mac not MAC"
To be fair, it's "Macintosh", not "Mac." :)
Of course the simple solution would be for Apple to get off their high horse and license out Mac OSX to other companies, maybe then we'll see some competitive pricing for Mac OSX compatible systems. But until then, it's basically a monopoly.
Apple fanboys love to twist the definition up to make sure it doesn't apply to their "perfect" Apple.
Apple fanboys love to twist the definition up to make sure it doesn't apply to their "perfect" Apple."
Once again a monopoly isn't illegal, and Apple isn't perfect
Monkeyfun14 didn't say a monopoly is illegal. So, why the 'once again'. Expecting people who ignored it the first time, to listen the second time?
The admonition stands because he said "Apple fanboys love to twist the definition up to make sure it doesn't apply to their "perfect" Apple."
Apple is a company! *sigh Mac OS X (proper way to type it), is the operating system.
Psystar's argument is NOT legitimate. When one purchases a piece of software, one is agreeing to it's terms of use, its EULA. It is clearly stated in Mac OS X's EULA that it is not to be installed on non-Apple hardware. There is no ambiguity to it at all, it's clear, in black and white. It's Apple's product, they can put whatever restrictions they want on it, assuming they break no laws. And so far, no court has said they are. If Apple had the majority of the computer business in the world, you MIGHT be able to argue that they have a monopoly. But they clearly don't have the majority of computer business in the world, and so , they don't have a monopoly. Psystar is just one in a long line of companies that is trying to get rich quick by reaping the benefits of another company's hard work (Apple in this case). They are thieves, leeches, pure and simple.
If Apple were to license Mac OS X again, it would probably be a repeat of that failed experiment back in the 1990s. Steve Jobs said that they will never, every do that again. So, saying that is what they need to do is not only short-sighted and ignorant of the past, but also moot. It isn't going to happen, end of story.
Sorry, I (obviously) meant "Apple's Mac OS X is the only operating system..." in my original post. Making that correction doesn't effect the rest of my post. (note: when I mentioned Apple later in the same post, I meant the company and not the OS; which should have been obvious as well)
The way I see Psystar's argument is, if you assume that the set of computers (hardware) that run Mac OS X (thanks for the correction on the spacing) constitutes its own market, then it is clear that Apple is unreasonably excluding other companies from entering the market (the market being the set of computers that run Mac OS X, as stated earlier). The hard part then becomes proving the assumption. (I'm not saying the assumption is true, just that the argument that follows makes sense under the assumption. I do not know enough about what legally constitutes a "market" to argue for or against the assumption.)
I say Apple should license Mac OS X because it would increase the competition in the market of computers that run Mac OS X, increased competition would force the price of Apple computers down, and that would be a good thing for consumers who want to use Apple software, but can't afford an Apple computer.
Now I, just like everyone else, would like to see the price of a Macintosh drop. And I don't want to start a discussion on comparing hardware or quality, but the simple matter is, that the total cost of ownership of a Macintosh is on par (or less) than that of a generic personal computer running Windows. It's all a question of whether you shell out the money up front, or do you spread it out down the road? With a Macintosh, you shell it out at the store. With generic Wintel computers, you get nickeled and dimed down the road.
I've lived on a student's income (or not much more) my entire adult life. And I've always been able to afford a Macintosh. It's a matter of getting past that initial sticker shock and thinking about the long haul.
See internet Explorer Live Search DirectX activeX etc etc.
all being pushed by the Windows Monopoly
Microsft is nothing but a monopolist abusing it's power
For all who try to prove me wrong ! see the ongoing EU case
So you Win Drones need to stop with the Apple is a monopoly crap
even if they are they aren't mis-using their position Like Microsoft !
~~~~~~~~~
Hardware company? They don't even make the hardware all of the hardware they put in those computers can be picked up from newegg.. So how exactly are they a hardware company because they make the cases?
The EU cases are protectionist propaganda. Opera (third rate browser on the desktop, pretty decent for embedded). Read and understand the entire suit, and think beyond the headlines.
As Operating systems have evolved, more and more capabilities which were previously only available through third party software have become integrated (regardless of the OS vendor) into the operating system. The GUI, Hard Drive support and Disk Operating systems, file browsers, file compression, and now media players and web browsers. This is the nature of the evolving operating system.
If you read the lawsuites in detail, you will find that by the reasoning and definitions of the EU suit that Apple and most Linux distributions are also monopolies because they bundle a web browser or other software.
Apple was onve viewed as an underdog with a niche market. They are increasingly being viewed as elitist, and the cheap seats don't care for that.
It's so funny that the Hippie company is being exposed as bunch of capitalists interested in control and profit. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think you may have Apple confused with another company. Aside from the fact that it was created after the 1960s and the hippy movement, Apple has always been about making money. How can you expose something that wasn't covered to begin with?
http://dougitdesign.com/blogs/blog_1_07_09_Mac-OS-X-for-PC.html
DON'T KILL THE GOOSE!
Exactly Mac OS can not handle compatibility and it can not handle marketshare the same crap you rag Windows on would be exposed in OSX if it was more widely distributed. So basically the lock in is only to hide flaws within the OS.
It's not to "hide" anything, it's to "ensure" that one gets a reliable computing experience.
Hide , Ensure, Same thing in this case.
My opinion is that if Apple doesn't want you to install the software on anything other than a Mac, then they shouldn't sell the software at retail AT ALL. They charge enough mark-up on new macs that the Apple fans shouldn't have to continually pay for upgrades to the OS (upgrades that usually include less features than a free windows service pack.)
Sorry, what innovation would it be that Apple is stifling? When was the last time that the PC industry produced anything "innovative"?
And, I'm sorry, but hardware manufacturers make their own software all the time to run their products. Are you trying to suggest that this should be illegal?
Apple hardly innovates it self they mainly take ideas from others and buy them out.
Coverflow is a good example.
<a href="http://www.findmyloanonline.com">Joe from California</a>
- by Sourdust April 15, 2009 1:50 PM PDT
- Apple is under no obligation to support this system with future software releases so this is a risky purchase.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by pithenumber April 15, 2009 3:16 PM PDT
- huh?
-
-
- by Sourdust April 15, 2009 3:25 PM PDT
- That's my point. Psystar systems are compatible with the current OS relaese but are going to have to constantly hack every future OS release. And if Apple tweaks iTunes, etc Psystar may have to hack that also. Apple can make it very difficult and expensive for Psystar to keep their systems compatible with all their software.
-
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (196 Comments)Apple doesn't support the current systems
Psystar hacked OS X onto their machines so, if they are in business when snow leopard comes out, they'll hack that onto their machines