• On TechRepublic: Five super-secret features in Windows 7
April 16, 2008 1:16 PM PDT

Questions swirl around Mac clone maker Psystar

by Tom Krazit
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 132 comments
Psystar Open Computer

The Psystar Open Computer, the source of a huge Internet kerfuffle this week.

(Credit: Psystar)

The more we learn about Mac clone maker Psystar, the more questions arise.

For those of you who missed it, the interest of the Mac world this week swung from 3G iPhone rumor-mongering to South Florida, where a company called Psystar has put up a Web site selling a product called an Open Computer. The product is essentially a white-box Mac with Mac OS X Leopard preinstalled, and a violation of Apple's licensing agreement for Mac OS X.

The Guardian did a little digging Tuesday into some of the basics around Psystar, such as its exact location and ownership. The company's main business appears to be IT consulting for small and medium-size businesses, such as setting up networks and telecom equipment and providing technical support.

The psystar.com domain name was registered in 2000, according to a Whois search, but the site does not appear to have been active before this past weekend, when news of its existence flooded the Internet. The domain is registered to Rodolfo Pedraza of Miami, who is probably the Rudy Pedraza who spoke to Ars Technica about his company on Tuesday.

According to Florida business records (PDF), Psystar was registered as a company on July 6, 2007, at 10645 SW 112th Street in Miami, a residential neighborhood in the Olympia Heights (2:05pm - Sorry, wrong neighborhood) area south of the city center. That was the address listed on Psystar's contact page on Monday, but at some point on Tuesday, Psystar changed its official address to 10481 NW 28th Street, a commercial district near Miami International Airport.

Several Gizmodo readers went to both addresses on Wednesday, and found no trace of any company named Psystar. A CNET News.com reader wrote in Tuesday night pointing out that a screen-printing company called CottonImages.com lists their address as 10481 NW 28th Street.

A spokesman for Cottonimages.com denied any knowledge of Psystar to Computerworld on Wednesday, and said no company by that name was located at their address. UPDATED 1:30 p.m. PDT--Gizmodo notes that Psystar's address has changed again, this time to 10471 NW 28th Street. Maybe the 10481 address was just a typo, but it's not clear. UPDATED 4:25 pm--Believe it or not, they changed it again. Psystar is now located at 10475 NW 28th Street. This is really weird.

I tried to call Psystar executives Wednesday morning and was directed to submit any questions to an e-mail address at Psystar. The company doesn't appear to have been prepared for the onslaught of attention following the discovery of the Open Computer on its Web site, as its online store was briefly down Wednesday morning. It's now back up and taking orders.

Perhaps foolishly, once the Web store came back online I placed an order for an Open Computer with Leopard preinstalled. I got the basic model for $554.99, although they kill you on shipping with a $93.41 shipping and handling fee for UPS Three-Day Select.

A gentleman who answered the "sales" extension at Psystar's toll-free number told me there is a 7- to 8-day build time right now for the Open Computer. When I asked him what accounted for the delay, he said the company had received many orders in the past few days. He also said he had only started at the company a few days ago.

In other Psystar news, the developer who created the firmware emulator that allows the Open Computer to bypass Apple's restrictions on Mac OS X is peeved that the company is using his technology without his permission.

Netkas, who created the EFI v8 emulator, says he released the software under a strict noncommercial license. For a while, Psystar had not even acknowledged his contribution, but the company has added an "open source" section to its site noting his authorship of the EFI v8 emulator and saying, "Psystar will promote Open Source projects in every way possible."

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that the author of software that is designed to violate a company's licensing agreement is annoyed that another company is using that software in violation of his own licensing agreement?

Anyway, that's the latest with Psystar. I'll update this post later if I get a response to my e-mailed questions, or if anything else surfaces.

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.
Recent posts from Apple
Gates: Apple is 'a force in doing good things'
Judge rules for Apple in Psystar case
Apple fixes AirPort problems marring video playback on 27-inch iMacs
Apple banks on retail stores
Photos of Apple's fourth Manhattan store
Microsoft denies Windows 7 is based on Mac OS
Microsoft exec: Mac OS inspired Windows 7
Google plans Chrome Mac beta for December
Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 2 pages (132 Comments)
Domain Name
by jleemc44 April 16, 2008 1:37 PM PDT
So why does the domain name Registrant show:

Pedraza, Rodolfo

3401 SW 104 CT, Miami, FL 33165, US


Just corner lot home.
Reply to this comment
Let the lawsuits begin
by SystemsJunky April 16, 2008 1:41 PM PDT
Else

<DOS>
Lets see now...
by bobmarleypeople April 16, 2008 2:20 PM PDT
Lets put everything we know together.

1) the selling of OSX like this is against the EULA which will give the apfelsaft lawyers a field day.

2) the company is breaking another bloke's EULA for some open source software. More lawyers.

3) The actual location of this company is seeming to be more and more dubious as every day passes due to the constant WHOIS changes.

4) No one actually has one of these computers to verify their claims.

In all what do we have? Is it a hoax? Possibly. Is it someone who went "ooh! Why hasn't anyone tried making Apple compatible PCs yet? I want some of that!" and promptly makes all this without reading the small print on EVERYTHING (which is what you need to do when you even THINK about making a business to rival a gigantamonopopoly such as Apple).
I think it might be the latter, cos it certainly seems like the owner of this company has NO IDEA what the hell he's doing. I'd give it a month or so before they get the banhammer by apfelsaft.
Reply to this comment
Yeah well...
by LCHerd April 16, 2008 3:58 PM PDT
Think about it. Items #1 and #2 make item #3 a pretty smart idea in my book.

If no one knows where you are how can they serve a subpoena?

I'm very curious to see if anybody actually gets one delivered or even has their credit card charged. If this company hasn't actually taken anyone's money they're still in the "prank" zone as opposed to the "fraud" zone.

We'll see.
Hmmm...possible Pirated software?
by mikalg April 16, 2008 3:03 PM PDT
Possibly on the "open", but is it possible that the "service" side of this strange "business" sells/uses/distributes pirated copies of XP and Office?
Well, it makes me wonder.

I suppose we will be reading stories that this is indeed the case. I hope not; for their sake. Sounds more to me as if this "company" didn't expect national attention, and may very well wish they hadn't if what I suspect to be the case is TRUE.

I'll wait eagerly to see what develops.

Funny, these little "repair/IT" shops pop up all of the time, and end up making the same bone-headed mistakes time and again! Kind of makes you wonder...huh?
Reply to this comment
HMMMM - A little character assasination?
by chuckjuhl April 18, 2008 6:20 PM PDT
Your comments are extremely offensive in their baseless accusation. At least have the character and dignity to base such an inflammatory accusation on something other than your mere supposition.

You're either an Apple employee, or a real lowlife. Of course lately, the two seem to be synonoumous.
View reply
DOH! ROFLMAO
by Thomas, David April 16, 2008 3:55 PM PDT
All laughter aside. So many people, who never owned a Mac
clone (back in the day), forget that it IS the integration of the
software, and hardware that makes Macs unique.

Of course you can install Leopard on another type of branded
computer, or you can install the open project version of OSX.
However, in both cases, you end up with missing elements. The
Leopard version will expect certain things to be available to it
for current, and future use. The open version will not be the
actual Leopard system that contains proprietary interfaces.

Now back to the laughter. Someone had a bright idea, or so
they thought, and no real experience, or knowledge, on how to
proceed. Now they've violated the rights of at least two
entities. The idea probably came after setting up Leopard on a
custom computer for a client, or themselves, then thought they
could take it further. Live and learn.
Reply to this comment
An emulator violates a licensing agreement?
by kgsbca April 16, 2008 3:59 PM PDT
"Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that the author of software that is designed to violate a company's licensing agreement is annoyed that another company is using that software in violation of his own licensing agreement?"

Am I the only one who finds it absurd that companies are allowed to claim they are only licensing binary executables and not selling them? Is GM or Toyota going to say where and how we can drive their cars after we buy them?

Every manufacturer that sells products must invest in their design, whether they are creating a file of 1's and 0's, or a piece of hardware. The idea that an entity can control how people are allowed to use the product that they purchase is absurd. We're not talking about publishing copyrighted information, just using a product in a manner that the seller didn't intend. If you buy a book, you can use it for whatever purpose you want, as long as you don't publish its contents. Copyrighted software should infer no other restrictions upon its' use.

Once I buy a product, I can do whatever I want with it, if you don't like it, don't sell it to me. And this idea that a EULA is enforceable just because you use the product it is shipped with is absurd. If they want a binding agreement with their customers, they should be forced to obtain signed contracts with every individual one of their customers, and provide a contract signed by an executive of the selling company.

All EULAs that aren't signed by all relevant parties to a transaction should be declared invalid, and the software industry should stop acting as though they have special rights.
Reply to this comment
Intellectual Property Law
by Thomas, David April 16, 2008 5:17 PM PDT
Look it up, and why it exists.
View all 2 replies
Apple isn't
by Lee in San Diego April 16, 2008 7:58 PM PDT
"Am I the only one who finds it absurd that companies are
allowed to claim they are only licensing binary executables and
not selling them?"

No, there are others who also don't get it.

"Is GM or Toyota going to say where and how we can drive their
cars after we buy them?"

Apple isn't saying you can not drive on the information super
highway.

Apple isn't saying you can't
your slow..
by Draxon April 16, 2008 8:50 PM PDT
the person who released the emulater did it under a strict non comercial (but free) license. that means no one pays for it, but that can uise it for PERSONAL use only. no one is allowed to sell it.

Prystar theifs stole his work and are trying to make money off of his work work without his consent. they paid him NOTHING. It amazes me how dumb some people are.. even after all these years online someone like you post a comment thinking you have a clue when.. lets face it you don't even come close.
View all 3 replies
Another address change?
by jonathanweaver April 16, 2008 4:06 PM PDT
http://www.psystar.com/contact.html

'Contact' tab on the web page now gives yet a third address: 10475 NW 28th Street.

Could Rudy & Robert have invented a corporate-office transporter beam as well?
Reply to this comment
Just noted that
by Tom Krazit April 16, 2008 4:29 PM PDT
This is bizarre.
The Hoax claims have been killed
by PDX57 April 16, 2008 4:23 PM PDT
It is hilarious about the author of the software designed to violate a licensing agreement being annoyed that that someone is doing it to him.

I think if Psystar can work quickly to capitalize on all this free publicity they could be very successful.

The long term question is how will Apple respond to clones. I don't think they should try to stop the clones. I think Apple should look for a business model where they can make money on the OS.
Reply to this comment
prystar is a fraud
by Draxon April 16, 2008 8:52 PM PDT
They have no address, no contact numbers, 2 confirmed employees (scam artists) they will capitalize on all this free publicity than take all the money from orders and move away from the USA and all the suckers will be left crying, having never received their computer.
View reply
They already tried that
by Art Dir April 17, 2008 11:13 AM PDT
It didn't work and put the viability of Apple in peril.
hey jerry...
by rtbarry April 18, 2008 1:25 AM PDT
what's your affiliation with this hoax? you seem to be all over this
crap, defending this scam.

or do you just loathe apple so much that you praise anyone who is
doing something you perceive as possibly harmful to apple.
although that perception is laughable. a couple scammers in a
garage aren't likely to have much impact, especially when they'll
soon be busy stamping out license plates.
Mac clone.... It Could Happen
by Jma11 April 16, 2008 4:33 PM PDT
The personal computer industry was created in strange places by even stranger people. IBM's $4000 price for an AT in '85 forced a market condition that spawned hundreds, then thousands of companies making low priced clones.

When technology changes, old marketing strategies die. Psystar may go under tomorrow but the handwriting is on the wall for Apple. Charges, counter charges & law suits didn't stop the deluge of affordable equipment before and may not have much effect now. Apple's hardware pricing is so out of whack it may be time for history to repeat itself.
:).
Reply to this comment
Clones That Were legal
by Goodbye Helicopter April 16, 2008 4:38 PM PDT
IBM allowed the clones.
Apple is not allowing it.
Or maybe Apple is behind it to test the market...?
View all 2 replies
Let's all stop hyperventilating, shall we?
by jture April 16, 2008 4:44 PM PDT
Everyone take a deep breath. In ... out ... very good. Now let's all recite together the first rule of online shopping:

"If It Sounds Too Good To Be True, It Probably Is."

Whoever is behind "Psystar" probably has another famous maxim posted on their walls: "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute!"
Reply to this comment
Sounds familiar, better wait and see...
by gestaltent April 16, 2008 5:02 PM PDT
I don't know if anyone remembers CherryOS? That was supposedly a software emulator which could run OS X on a regular X86 Windows type PC. This came out before the Intel Macs and Bootcamp/Parallels. I remember because CherryOS was from my home state. There was the initial shock and crash of the website. Then there was some shell and pea game type tactics when an analysis of the software appeared to be a reengineered version of the open source
PearPC Mac on x86 emulation project. After a storm of controversy and confusion CherryOS vanished into the smoke and mirrors from whence it came.

Psystar could be another CherryOS. It's probably better to just wait and see. The last thing I wanna do is put up money and don't get anything out of it. Apple's legal team is probably in full mobilization mode right now.

Hey, if Mac compatibles under $500 are possible, I'm all for it but if not...oh well, there's always the used Mac market. Just as long as it's not a scam. Does smell fishy though.
Reply to this comment
Not gonna last...
by KevinDeluca1 April 16, 2008 6:48 PM PDT
there's no way Apple is ever going to let some b.s. company like
Psystar, which came into existence less than a week ago, take
their OS and sell it on non-apple branded machines. It's
madness! There has never been another company as protective
of its hardware/software, and how its being used. I think steve
would have a baby before he let some punk sell a mac clone and
get away with it. He had no problem turning what could have
been thousands of iPhones into iBricks, i don't see any reason
why he would feel any different. In fact this time someone else is
making profit that could have been in his pocket there's no way
this product will not come into an attack by Apple's Legal
department and Apple's software firmware updates. I had one
late last night and i didn't even bother reading what it was for so
i could assume it was a fix to the Psystar "bug"
Reply to this comment
Of Course Its Miami
by smccarthy945 April 16, 2008 7:42 PM PDT
What a suprise! A company in Miami doing something illegal. What a shock! Miami is full of a bunch of low lives and people who walked right off the inner tube and will do anything for a dollar. I live in South Florida and Miami is an embarrasement to the United States.
Reply to this comment
Their "Current" Address :)
by channelc April 16, 2008 8:05 PM PDT
Google the "10475 NW 28th St" address and you get:

Vipal Rubber Corp
10475 NW 28th St
Miami, FL , 33172-2152
Phone: 305-640-0330
FAX: 305-640-0310
Reply to this comment
Is Psystar pronounced shyster?
by fastpencil April 16, 2008 10:24 PM PDT
Sounds like this is a big scam. Can't wait to hear about your new purchase.
Reply to this comment
Why pay the additional UPS shipping bill ?
by orionmgomg April 17, 2008 3:09 AM PDT
Have you everbought anything that was shipped through UPS in the last 3 years???

Their standard Ground Service: 25.00 for shipping the open source computer is all you needed to pay.

UPS is so fast, unly unless you really needed before 3/5 days would you ever upgrade from the standard "grond."

Have you bough anything that shipped through UPS in the last 3 years? they are so fast, sometimes, even paying just ground, I get orders in one day! California company may have wareshouse in NJ, I'm in Brooklyn, but still - ONE DAY!!!

And for I.N. - two days, ground, Cali - 4 days. this is all Ground, WHY PAY EXTRA UNLESS YOU REALLY NEED IT?

And with a 10 day build time - uhm, your telling them - they goudged you - lol They'll ship it reall fast, next month! LOL
Reply to this comment
Apple brought this on themselves.
by EWhitaker April 17, 2008 7:51 AM PDT
Apple?s arguably brilliant marketing strategy has a fundamental flaw. If being in the minority and owning an Apple is a badge of coolness. Then what happens when the marketing works and Mac gains popularity? I suspect we will see virus?s o'plenty for Mac and clones out the wahzoo soon.
Reply to this comment
Then why...
by Gromit801 April 17, 2008 12:32 PM PDT
Then why aren't we seeing a plethora of UNIX viruses? After all,
that is the language of the internet and most larger server farms. I
would think a server farm of compromised servers would be far
more valuable to spammers and hackers.

Apple is UNIX based. It's a tough nut to crack without social
engineering.
Non-commercial
by mattflaschen April 17, 2008 8:05 AM PDT
Contrary to what Psystar seems to believe, Netkas's non-commercial license is not open source, and they do seem to be blatantly infringing.
Reply to this comment
Laws are not always correct
by mackenzie2881 April 17, 2008 8:43 AM PDT
I would never buy pirated or copied software as I want the updates and support. However I should be allowed to do with the software as I please - create patches etc. Comparing it to renting or leasing is not correct as these are rent or leasing contracts and I know that the flat or car does not belong to me. But when I buy a software CD or download it, that copy belongs to me and I should be able to do what I want with it. Just because something is the law does not make it correct.
Reply to this comment
License protects more than just right to reproduce.
by Art Dir April 17, 2008 11:09 AM PDT
I'm not a legal expert, but I believe Apple's intention behind their licensing practices is not only to get you to buy their machine. They are not selling an OS, or a computer, they are selling the integration of the two. Their reputation, corporate ID, and product recognition are built around the experience of using their OS and their machines as a stable platform that is so because they control the components, their quality, and optimize the machine to run with their OS and vice verse. They rightfully want to protect their brand by not allowing the "User Experience" to be diluted by having their OS run on a machine they do not control the quality of or it's integration with the OS which could result in the OS not being as stable or reliable as they want it to be, thereby damaging the consumers' perception of their brand.
Reply to this comment
Some posters should have license revoked!
by mikalg April 17, 2008 11:41 AM PDT
"License protects more than just right to reproduce."

I say some posters on this thread have their licensed right to reproduce revoked!!!

Sorry, couldn't help it....now back to more serious posts.
What's with the witch hunt?
by chuckjuhl April 17, 2008 11:58 AM PDT
What is with the witch hunt?

Apparently none of your readers are old enough to recall that Dell was started by a college dropout in his off-campus apartment. Michael Dell was marketing IBM clones in Popular Electronics magazines and computer shows well before he had a "Factory" or office - or even anything more than a mail drop! If Dell had been hounded like Psystar, it is unlikely the Michael Dell would have been anything but another college dropout, instead of the CEO of the most successful PC manufacturer in history.

As for Apple? Perhaps your readers are so uninformed as to not recall that Apple too was marketing its Apple I at computer shows and in Electronics magazines before they had a "real" office or factory - or any inventory for that matter. They too began in a garage.

Perhaps your readers are old enough, or at least informed enough to know of a little company called Google? Well, guess where Google was when it first started marketing itself as a commercial enterprise - in a GARAGE!!! A borrowed garage at that.
Reply to this comment
Showing 1 of 2 pages (132 Comments)
advertisement
Click Here

A CNET Conversation with Eric Schmidt

CNET's Tom Krazit and Molly Wood sit down with Google CEO Eric Schmidt to discuss the future of Android, the Chrome OS, the problem of real-time search indexing, and more.

Verizon tests sending RIAA copyright notices

The No. 2 phone company, known for its reluctance to intervene in antipiracy cases, strikes an agreement to forward copyright notices on behalf of the music industry.

About Apple

At the start of the 21st century, there's no tech outfit more influential than Apple. CNET News' Erica Ogg and other reporters will attempt to make sense of the rumors, hype, products, and people that will shape the future of the company. But Apple's not the only game in town, as the established cell phone companies and others strike back against the iPhone. E-mail Erica at erica.ogg@cnet.com.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Apple topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right