Comments on: A year on, Psystar still defying Apple

Psystar rocked the Mac world a year ago by selling Open Computers with Mac OS preinstalled. The legal war with Apple is well underway, but it's otherwise business as usual for Psystar.

[jaycustom]

i can see where Apple is coming from with their EULA, but at the same time I hope Psystar wins and keeps putting out PCs with OSX. They should just come to an agreement where Apple doesn't have to include PCs in their software, and Psystar would just have to make OSX work if they wanna use it. All this means I can go buy one for a lower price than a real Mac, because I'm not paying for the "Logo"

[Zoobie]

You aren't paying for a logo--you're paying for the initial software. If Apple want's to sell a full retail version of the OS, then it will be comparable to a full retail version of windows. Windows XP Pro SP3 is $452 for a full-retail version and $153 for the upgrade over at CDW today. OSx is $114 for the upgrade--no full retail version is available because you bought that with the hardware.

[pithenumber]

when did XP Pro SP3 get that pricy?
WinVista Ultimate retail costs $270 over at Newegg

[kcotham]

@jaycustom
If you want Mac OS X, buy a Macintosh. The hardware is very similar to a Wintel machine, but it is not the same. No one buys a computer because of the logo as you alleged. That's just stupid. Apple builds better cases, uses high-end components instead of mid-level or entry-level, and is a leader in the industry in customer support.

If you are too cheap to buy a Macintosh, go download a distro of Linux. It's no where near as refined or as easy to use as Mac OS X, but Linux's UNIX-like OS will be much more stable than Windows. And Linux is free, which is great for cheapskates trying to get something for nothing. Otherwise, buy a Macintosh.

[kcotham]

@Zoobie
Mac OS X Leopard costs $129 at the Apple Store online. It is the full version, not an upgrade. If one has Tiger on the machine, then it will 'upgrade' it to Leopard when installing. But you can wipe the hard drive and put a full installation of Leopard on it as well.

But you were right in another post saying that the cost of developing the software is probably offset by the price of the machines themselves.

[pithenumber]

@kcotham
Apple isn't using very high end parts
[-]The MacBook Pro's processor isn't high end, its still a normal mobile C2D processor that is common in many other notebooks. now if Apple included a mobile C2Q and kept the price the same, I'd be at the Apple store in no time.
[-]the Mac Pro has an upgrade to a Radeon HD 4870. It is is an impressive card indeed, but at the price it comes at ($300 for the upgrade kit I think), it competes with the Radeon HD 4890, 4850X2, GTX285, and many other even faster cards.
[-]the P series Core 2 Duos found in the MacBook aren't high end, its normal, you can find it in many sub 1k notebooks nowadays
[-]now for a truly entry level part: DDR3 1066, the second slowest type of DDR3 and its found in Apple's highest end notebook, the MacBook Pro

I second that some of the added hardware cost goes into software development though

[seven7dust]

@pithenumber
doesn't matter those componets are only a small part of the computer and dell & co don't use them either !
there's also the Aluminum casing, the thinness, the LED Screen, the Battery life,nifty extras like Magsafe iSight etc
you basically put everything together and the Macbook Pro suddenly Doesn't seem that much more expensive

[kcotham]

@pithenumber
The parts are high-end in comparison to what other manufacturers use in lower priced machines.

As an example, in Intel's chart, the processor class in my 1 year old MacBook is second from the top, a T class (T8300 to be precise) When making comparisons to this machine, at the time, the competition was not using processors of that grade.

The Mac Pro comes with a NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 standard, nothing to sneeze at. And yes, the ATI Radeon HD 4870 is available. It's a very high-end graphics card and as such, you will pay more for it. No surprise there.

What other machines are using the P7350 or P8600 at this time (the chips used in the aluminium MacBook)?
The MacBook Pro is using either the P8600 or T9550 in the 15" model and the T9550 or T9800 in the 17" model. (I mention these so you can make an informed comparison)

DDR3-1066 is NOT the slowest, DDR3-800 is. And what laptop computer is using DDR3-1333 or DDR3-1600? If you find one, I ask: how much does it cost, how long is it's battery life?

How many other manufacturers make a laptop out of a solid block of aluminium? A quad core chip in a laptop is a rarity indeed. I can't name one off the top of my head. The power requirements would be quite high, limiting battery life. Then there would be the heat problems. It's doable, but would it be profitable? Most people wanting that sort of power, usually go with desktop machines.

[KOSHPATEL756]

Psystar should NOT be allowed to sell computers running OSX as it is a clear violation of Apple's copyright. OSX is made to be run on very specific hardware (yes a lot of it is also similar to windows components one may buy) but since apple develops the software I believe they have a right to say how it should be used. I know a couple people who have bought stuff from psystar and they have told me while they did function they had several large faults such as the machines at times were a certain processor speed overclocked to match the advertised speed ie a 2.8ghz processor overclocked to 3.2 ghz. Also i think its illegal for a company like psystar to use apple's operating system against apples wishes to make a profit. I personally have not used a psystar computer but I did own a hackintosh and I know that it is not the same experience you get from an authentic mac computer (as i also own a 17 in macbook pro which i bought because i loved apples OS but hated the way the hackintosh crippled it).

For those claiming that apple has a monopoly over OSX, idk how that can be argued as much because it is their own product and it is not a heavily unique product from a windows computer (its just a better operating system on hardware the OS was designed for) if you claim anything about Apple having a monopoly I fail to see the logic there as OSX competes windows systems. And apples unwillingness to license out its software to other manufacturers is fine to me because even though profit is one angle of this there is also the angle that by using not fully supported components the user experience suffers (much as it did with vista for those on the lower end of the specs spectrum)

I hope apple wins this and psystar closes. (i also hope apple continues defending their property and working to constantly improve it)

call me an apple fanboy if u like. I own 3 macs and 2 pcs and have extensively used every version of windows, as well as osx since panther. My personal experience is where my opinion comes from. (btw for the higher work station grade computers ie a 2.93ghz x 2 xeon mac pro with 6 gb ram is actually cheaper then its windows competitors)

[RichardMid]

The sticking point here is Psystar's preinstallation of OS X. If they had sold the boxes without OS X, yet fully designed and optimized to run OS X, they might have strengthened their legal position (though perhaps also, arguably, selling fewer units overall because of the greater burden on users to install the OS themselves).

They might even have been able to create a (updatable) firmware/BIOS-type set of hacks that provides the workarounds necessary for stable OS X operation on their system. Given the Compaq precedent, such workarounds might be viewed more favorably by the courts (not by Apple) than simply preinstalling OS X on unauthorized hardware.

Given Apple's past experiences and subsequent remarks re. clones, asking them to tweak OS X to run on other systems is unrealistic. However, OS X can be bought off the shelf, and be made to run on (I would guess), many more hardware configurations than might be assumed. Hacks and workarounds would be required, of course. Let others who care about such things do the hacking themselves -- Apple won't do it.

And since, as others have already pointed out, a Psystar is a relatively risky purchase (no Apple support for such an installation), it's probably not undertaken by the "average" consumer wanting a cheaper Mac, but by someone with enough tech ability to mess around "under the hood."

Psystar's true "innovation" (if you can call it that), is to design and sell a non-Apple system designed specifically to run Mac OS X. That may be a legally defensible - and financially sustainable - business model. But I doubt that breaking Apple's EULA will turn out to be either.

[DMBoricua]

HAHAHAHA, HAHAHHAHA, BWUAHAHAHAHAHAA. Oh how I love this company. Psystar. Keep up the awesome work!!!! This company needs to be heard more. This company does prove that Mac OS X can be installed on another computer with better hardware specs for A LOT LOWER PRICE, and be completely confident to sell it to people out there. I hate how Apple has complete control of their computers and think they can only sell their systems on their specially made hardware for their little precious special OS they call Macintosh.

[kcotham]

"I hate how Apple has complete control of their computers and think they can only sell their systems on their specially made hardware for their little precious special OS they call Macintosh."

Why would you hate that a company is selling their product with their product? They created it, they can say what can be done with it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or, if you, as an individual, want to break the EULA, go right ahead, that's your issue with Apple. But when a company starts selling computers with Apple's product on it, making a profit doing so (I imagine), then that's a whole new level of dishonesty. Very short-sighted, narrow view there DMBoricua.

[cdaniels75]

I like Apple and Mac computers but I actually think this issue is pretty clear cut If you apply what Apple is doing to Microsoft, there is no way this would even be a question. If Microsoft were to manufacture a line of computers and only authorize Windows to be installed only on those genuine Microsoft hardware and using its vast corporate resources (i.e. army of lawyers) to sue upstart companies violating those restrictions, people would scream bloody murder. And Microsoft would be fined into oblivion for antitrust violations...

[seven7dust]

yr missing the point !
Microsoft's strategy was to be a monopoly in computer operating systems
the only way this was possible was to leave the hardware part to vendors and support everything
thats how Bill built the Company a Very Cunning yet effective strategy

Apple OTOH hand have no such interest they just want to sell computers by maintaining quality thats it !
Do people complain about BMW not licensing its' engines ? So why is Apple different ?
just because they don't follow MS's strategy doesn't make it unfair ! just Different !

[danielszabo1981]

i just wanted to see how long it would take to scroll to the bottom of this page.

[runswithscissorsXX]

since os.x is based on unix, can anything in the unix user-rights agreement override the apple agreement?

[kcotham]

Darwin, the underpinnings of Mac OS X is largely based on FreeBSD. Those parts you can use for free. You used to be able to download Darwin for free from Apple's web site, I don't know if you still can. But with each new version of Darwin and Mac OS X, Apple has added lots of new code, proprietary code. The one thing that is and always has been protected is the GUI on top of Darwin, Aqua. So, to answer your question in short, "no".

[gsw01]

I am a PC and i think Apple should have a right to protect its Intellectual property. However if apple wins does Microsoft have a right to change its EULA on office and windows? NO windows and office for mac? NO doc , xls, ppt, wmv, etc on Mac. Maybe make office $800+ and windows $500+ for mac users.
More importantly for Pc fans what if they say NO firefox on windows machines because they don.t allow it in EULA.

I think apple needs to settle with Psystar and just charge them same high prices they charge their customers. People still buy a $3000 mac with no blueray,

[seven7dust]

First both iWork and open Office are way beter than Ms crapware{office}
so I would hope they do stop Oficie for the Mac cause it just plain sux
and no Windows on the Mac would mean no Windows on Intel Processors !

[kcotham]

Psystar deserves nothing, not one dime. In fact, they should be paying Apple's court costs and legal fees, at a minimum.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of what you said, but I will comment on this. Yes, Microsoft has a right to change any future EULA they want. That's their right and it's the right of any company.

[monkeyfun14]

@seven

iWork and OpenOffice better then Office? The consumers don't think so.

[Quarkys]

Where are Psystar purchasing their copies of Leopard from? Would this not be a simple way of Apple closing down their cloning plant. Take away their OS!
I'm in agreement with Apple, after years of Microsoft Windows, I switched to Apple and OS X 18 months ago and haven't looked back. I want a software/hardware designed system that works out of the box.

[kcotham]

That would be the simplest way, yes, but Mac OS X is available from third-party vendors as well as Apple directly. So, it's not practical. I thought of this as well. Just quit selling them retail copies. And if they continue to put it on new machines without new retail copies, then they are pirating the software, period. Is there a nice boxed copy of Mac OS X included with every machine? If not, they may well be illegally copying Mac OS X. In that case sue the pants off of them.

[pithenumber]

you forgot, Mac users need those retail copies too
unless you guys want to be stuck with the same OS for the life of the computer

[kcotham]

@pithenumber
I said, if you had actually read what I wrote, that they can't cut off the supply of retail copies to Psystar because there are third-party vendors that also sell it. Although, it would be a nice easy way to stop Psystar if Apple were the only vendor for Mac OS X. And if they aren't careful, that's exactly what'll happen, Apple will quit selling it outside of Apple stores. I highly doubt that they'll do that, but they would be within their rights to do so.

[gecko21]

@ Angmarr

If they sue too soon, all Apple will get is an injunction. If they want damages, Psystar needs to make a profit. So your claim that Apple hasn't been able to do anything so far is actually a good legal play on Apple's part.

[kcotham]

Apple filed suit last year. And then Psystar counter sued. But the judge threw out the counter-suit.

[Maccess]

I've been following the Psystar story and how they're rumored to have the backing of a large technology interest group. Now, I wouldn't be surprised if that group wasn't Apple itself.

A ruling in Psystar's favor--that anyone buying a retail box of Mac OS X (or any software for that matter) may install it on any hardware of his choice with the caveat that it will be unsupported by the publisher, provides a way for Apple to get its software on HPs, and Dells, without committing itself into having to support them.

[ashuva]

I think the key to this case is how the term "end user" is defined. Dictionary.com defines end user as "the ultimate user for whom a machine, as a computer, or product, as a computer program, is designed." If that is the definition Psystar can get the court to go by then they may when the case because Psystar is clearly not the end user and Apple's EULA states that an end user cannot install OS X on any hardware other than Apple - not a PC manufacturer. However, I haven't read the EULA so I don't know what it says about (if anything) other hardware manufacturers using their software. So I do think Psystar has a legal leg to stand on although I think they are exploiting a loophole that shouldn't be there. My biggest question is where they are purchasing OS X from. If they are purchasing it at retail then I think Apple would have a fair argument that Psystar is not authorized to resell it's products. I'm also curious to know if (and maybe you Psystar owners can answer this) the person that purchases the machine has to agree to Apple's EULA when they turn the machine on for the first time? I'm just wondering that because I know if I buy a Dell with Windows on it, I have to agree to their EULA.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. As a note I'm a long time Windows/Linux user. Windows because I'm too poor (my Desktop and laptop were both gifts) and Linux because if's free and I'm an IT student in college (which is also why I am poor). I have never used a Mac, but recently got an iPhone and I love it so much it has made me really want a Mac. So to that end if any of you feel like helping out a struggling IT student get his first Mac (hoping for a Macbook Pro) please send pay pal donations to [e-mail]!!! All you Mac people can send me email telling me why I should get a Mac too, if you are so inclined.

Just as a note I'm not a fanboi of any operating system or hardware for that matter. I say, whatever the user likes and can make do what they want it to do is the right thing for them....but maybe I'm wrong - send those donations and lets find out!!!!!

[jman3001]

Apple has been ripping me off for years with computers that lasted no longer than a PC, but I paid a lot more for the privilege. Most of my Macs had to be replaced within 3 years, simply because the OS changed dramatically or the machine was simply too slow. Apple's EULA is rubbish. Apple has never prosecuted anyone running OS X on a PC, until Psystar came along. Of course, Psystar is in the business to make a profit. If Apple is worried about Psystar, then why sell them the OS? Psystar is NOT the end user the buyer is, and the buyer gets the OS X package as part of the sale.

Once you get past the US borders, the EULA has very little teeth. So, Apple can close Psystar if the Courts decide to go there, but the US Courts and Apple have no jurisdiction over 100s of countries that can build PCs running the Mac OS. Apple would do themselves a favor by finding a solution to selling their OS, rather than chasing their tail for another 50 years.

[ANTSCNET]

So I just went to Psystar's website thinking I'd find an inexpensive box to run OS X. What do I find? A bare bones mini-pc (the Open(3)), similarly equipped to the base Mac Mini for exactly the same price as a base Mac Mini - what's the big deal?

[kcotham]

Oh! And there you have it.

[jman3001]

Answer: 2.5Ghz Core 2 Duo processor instead of 2.0Ghz (inexpensive upgrades to a faster processor than Apple), 2 gigs of RAM instead of 1 Gig (also less expensive to upgrade your RAM than Apple), 500Gig HD instead of 120Gig HD (less expensive to upgrade than Apple), Better Video Card, Better DVD/CD DL, capability of adding PCIe Cards, Room for more RAM, more HDs, and an extra tray for addition DVD R or whatever.

It a desktop; not a little overheating Cube or Mini Box, whatever you want to call the Apple piece of crap!!

Big Differences!! And it runs OS X exactly like a Mac.

[ImperialOne]

The final ruling will shock people. Psystar will technically lose, but Apple MacOSX EULA will be declared a monopoly, and Apple will be legally compelled to sell license their OS at a fair price.... thus opening their precious OS X to sale by on-Apple vendors.

Apple would certainly appeal, but legal precedent would have beens set (and is HARD) to overturn.

Psystar might last longer than Apple at this rate, since Apple has lost nearly 45% of value compared to one year ago. When Jobs dies, so will Apple. M$ should just put it out of its misery and buy it.

[donsms]

The fanboys are all upset over this one too just as the MS ad got em goin.I`m gonna sit back and enjoy this!

[donsms]

Nice try Ashuva,you really think the fanboys are that dumb do ya?

Isn't this really about where these user agreements are enforceable? I don't see this as a monopoly issue.

[shycelticwitch]

Wow. That was a lot of reading. But nobody is really getting the message here... It's kind of like selling someone a car that looks like a Mercedes, but was built by Fisher-Price. It's about quality control. Even Mr. Kravitz admits to issues with Open PC that do not occur on Macs. For me?after 15 years of flawless use of Apple OS and equipment, ANY non-function issue is unacceptable. So again, it's all a matter of preference. I prefer uninterrupted workflow. It's very profitable these days.

[adamk1101]

Don't see why Apple has their panties up in a bunch over this. Even if Psystar wins and people can buy the equivalent of a $3000 desktop for ~$1000, idiots will still go out and buy the $3000 one for the name and bragging rights, just as they do now.

I think what scares Apple the most is that they wouldn't be able to handle all the driver updates and such. Even with the minimal amount of hardware configs possible for Macs right now, I find that OSX has it's fair share of bugs. I've always believed that Mac OS should be a MUCH BETTER operating system than what it is considering the very controlled hardware environment in which it's designed to run in.

If you figure that Windows and Linux distros are designed to run on thousands of hardware combinations, then that tells you that they are overall better-designed operating systems.

If Apple can't handle firmware for the 10 machines they have now...

[AppleSuxLeo]

Shares of Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Palm gained 25 cents, or 3 percent, to $8.67.

In a client note, Deutsche Bank analyst Jonathan Goldberg kept his "Buy" rating and increased his price target by $2 to $12. That price target implies upside of 42.5 percent from the stock's closing price Tuesday of $8.42.

The analyst said checks still indicate the Pre will be released on time, and said Palm and Sprint Nextel Corp. ? which will be the first wireless carrier to offer the device ? might ship it earlier than June 30.

"We also confirmed earlier checks and vague hints on their recent call that the company is working on other form factors which we could see in the market sooner than expected," Goldberg said.

In addition, he thinks European wireless carriers' interest in the Pre "remains strong" and said checks with developers indicate that the new operating system that Palm is rolling out on the device ? Palm webOS ? could lead to the growth of a "meaningful application ecosystem."