Comments on: Psystar's Open Computer the alterna-Mac

After spending a month with Psystar's Open Computer, which runs Mac OS X in defiance of Apple's licensing policies, the question comes up: what makes a Mac a Mac?

[jezmondo]

Well yeah, this is all true - it's Mac OS that makes a Mac, a Mac. Just as a PC running Linux is a totally different beast as the same system running Windows.

But still, there is the issue of the EULA - you're breaking it. This might seem like some small legal point, and possibly today it is. But if this computer gains any kind of traction in the market Apple must act. Simply put their business model demands that Mac OS X only runs on their hardware. On that day your computer stops being a Mac.

This fact alone makes this a very poor alternative to the Mac.

[rumblestrut]

Wouldn't it be funny if Pystar was owned by Apple, and was actually being used as a way to test the waters for selling Mac OS X to mainstream hardware manufacturers?

I know, I know. It sounds far fetched. Apple would never deliberately mislead the public to mask an upcoming product announcement.

*cough* iPhone *cough*.

[applusr]

Sorry not going to happen, Apple has standards.

[flemingho]

So, if these guys can have a "Mac" at a lower price tag, why does Apple Mac's cost so much more? I'd like to get an Apple but not at the current prices.

[pjonesCET]

Mac cost so much more, Because unlike Most PC that put in what ever hard Drive or CD/DVD , power Supply or whatever they can lay their hands on that the cheapest for That day. Apple requires That any suppliers of Parts are certified to develiver products and certain specs and Quality.

Unles there is a a Paradigm shift in technology, could last as long as 10-15 years or more. Where typical PC might need replacement ever 3-5 years.

[groink_hi]

No computer company can beat Apple in quality of every single component they use to build a computer - right down to the screws. Every piece of metal is sanded (and won't cut you.) Every inch of cable is required and accounted for (clones tend to restrict air flow inside with un-fitted cabling.) I currently run a Power Mac 8600 with Mac OS 9.1, and right now it is about 12 years old. The interior and components are still original (even the ZIP drive still functions.) Any other PC - it would've either died by now or become heavily rusted inside (and probably give you rust poisoning when getting cut while tweaking with the innards.)

[bgulien]

R&D , Psystar doesn't do R&D to the extent of Apple.

[Penguinisto]

I actually have a home-built Mac and a real Mac... one difference is readily apparent: The real Mac has been pounding along for four years now, with no signs of slowing down. I can probably still get useful work out of it for the next four years if OSX continues to support PPC chips.

[sandor_f]

Price out comparable Apple Dell and HP machines. who wins in lowest price? Apple almost every single time, albeit they are all very competitive.

Apple's hardware prices aren't higher than the rest of the market (they havent been since the switched to Intel) but it is true they don't make a bargain basement PC =- only mid grade laptops (MacBook and high end desktops and laptops (iMac and MacBook Pro) and ultra high end workstations (MacPro)

[KeeganHill]

Groink-hi is obviously brain washed. Macs are given more attention in creation, but a Sony Vaio is given the same if not more love during production. It's just with well crafted machines (Macs, Sony, Thinkpads, Toughbooks) comes higher prices.

[SteveW928]

This will work until Apple makes an OS change that isn't compatible with the particular hardware they chose to use (or purposely makes a change which breaks it). The key to Apple's integration is just that... the tight integration. If Apple ever does open up just selling OSX... it will only be a matter of time until a Mac is no longer what we know as a Mac. I've built a number of Windows and Unix based machines... and the frustrating thing is always when problems start... which part is the problem? This doesn't exist in the Mac world for the most part (especially since most add-ins are now USB or Firewire, not cards, etc.). I really don't want this problem to ever be in the Mac world... this is largely WHY I use a Mac for my important work. It works... my Windows and Unix boxen aren't so reliable. I'll GLADLY pay a bit more for the hardware to get this reliability. The ONLY people who want a Mac clone type box are those who don't understand this. They haven't learned to value their time or add the real cost of problems into their equation.

[Galbrezu]

Honestly the only reason I will never own a Mac is not the operating system as so many people like to point out, it's the hardware. I'm really NOT interested in paying $500 more for a shiny white case, and that's the end of it nowadays. OS X is an excellent operating system Apple has just seemed to have decided to ignore part of the market segment, Psystar has met that demand and we act like it's news :\.

Looks like the free market at work to me.

[Penguinisto]

spec-for-spec, Macs are extremely competitive, often beating out the competition. Go ahead and price it sometime... you'd have a very tough time getting a Dell or HP at the equivalent specs for a better price.

[digbychicken]

"to get around Apple's restrictions and get Mac OS X up and running."

what you mean using Intel's EFS instead of the ancient BIOS, sure does sound like Apple's restriction

[sciontcya]

I find the funniest part of this article the fact that you had to call in a ticket for some IT guys to setup your Entourage profile!
How can you wrote about this when you can't even set that up?
Wowsers.

[Tom Krazit]

I had actually wanted to see if they would support an Open Computer that wasn't a real Mac. I'm sure it's not that hard to do, but they pay me to write, not to configure mail profiles.

[mnemonic]

No offense but you probably don't work in a corporate environment. I've never even seen a large company that allowed its users (employees) to configure their own email settings - it's ALWAYS done by IT for security purposes and streamlined IT support.

[groink_hi]

That took what - five seconds between thought, typing and clicking the submit button? One thing about the IT industry - you NEVER mess with someone else's territory. Even if you're capable of configuring software yourself, if your company hired an IT tech to do it, MAKE HIM DO IT! Every person in a company is hired to perform a list of tasks. Performing other people's tasks is not a cool thing to do.

[Penguinisto]

I'm a Sysadmin. I know lots of IT folks who would get very angry very fast if they saw users performing their own configurations on company equipment... it's tough enough for them to support homogeneous rigs as it is.

[Seaspray0]

Not necessarily a "wowsers", sciontcya. If the user does not have access to administrative permissions, they can't do software installations. Even if the user is fully capable of doing it properly, it's not allowed to protect the liabilities of a company. This is not uncommon in a corporate environment.

[kaprino]

maybe in the past Macs have more advance hardware options, but now it only the cosmetics. Please list the advance technologies on the Mac hardware compare to the best Dell? POwerPC..nah it's Intel inside. It only make sense if Apple considers partnering with onlyh the largest PC & laptop makers... ah Dell, HP, IBM, Sony, Leveno, and Acer to name a few. Than they will give MSFT and Windows a run for the the money and take a big chunk of the PC and corporate market share. Here's my 2 cents.

Cheers,
Kaprino

[b_baggins]

It's not just Intel Inside. The MacBook Air used an Intel chip specifically designed for that computer in cooperation with Intel.

Dell and IBM and HP don't use EFI, they still use 1970s BIOS technology.

One of the reasons Intel was so excited to get Apple on board is because Apple actually uses new technology because their business ISN'T commodity hardware. When you're a Dell, you count pennies. You use BIOS because it's a nickel cheaper and the only thing you are selling is that your machine costs less.

Apple sells to the midrange and top tier markets. That gives them room to put technologies in their machines that other computer makers don't. Like ambient light sensors and backlit keyboards. Like optical glass on their LCD displays.

So, no, they aren't the same inside.

[kaprino]

maybe in the past Macs have more advance hardware options, but now it only the cosmetics. Please list the advance technologies on the Mac hardware compare to the best Dell? POwerPC..nah it's Intel inside. It only make sense if Apple considers partnering with onlyh the largest PC & laptop makers... ah Dell, HP, IBM, Sony, Leveno, and Acer to name a few. Than they will give MSFT and Windows a run for the the money and take a big chunk of the PC and corporate market share. Here's my 2 cents.

Cheers,
Kaprino

[sciontcya]

Tom Krazit isn't an admin on his Mac?
Please.
It's just a point that so many "tech writers" these days are about as up on tech as my Mom is.
So much drivel in the "new media" "news" world.

[Michichael]

Even if he is an admin, not alot of IT departments broadcast what their exchange server is. I hardly expect every individual in our company have the foggiest idea of what our Exchange Server's IP or even domain name is.

[pjonesCET]

Apple May be deciding its not worth it to fight it. recent reports of OSX.6 is that it will no longer be known as Mac OSX it will simply be OSX. The fancy name will be "Snow Leopard". And supposedly al traces of PPC code will be ripped out. Out side feature will be unchanged, but components and systems under the "hood' will be different or new.

[Perry_Clease]

Remember a few weeks ago when Apple bought that chip design company? I am thinking that one of the reasons would be to have a chip on Mac motherboard that is required to run the Mac OS, Snow Leopard or whatever. The Intel chip would still be there for most of the OSX work and for those who want to run Windows, but it would be more than just violating an EULA that would hinder if not stop a cloner. I am by no means an engineer, I am just speculating on possibilities.

[frank bruce]

What makes a Macintosh a Macintosh?
The Intellectual Property!
OSX is BSD with a different skin and some additions and that mark the difference; a big difference in terms of user's experience.
Tom, I will answer your question with a simple answer, try the official update, and see how your generic box returns to be a generic box.
-Frank

[Mac OS XP]

flemingho: The reason the prices for Macs are higher is because they use so much superior hardware. For example, high quality materials like actual metal rather than silver paint; internal serge protectors; LED displays; nice innovations like the Apple Remote on a magnet, the magnetic MacBook power supply, or the latch-free MacBook close; multi-touchpads on some types of MacBooks; built-in monitors for iMacs; built-in webcams; built-in motion sensors to protect the hard-drive from movement; or longer-lasting Intel processors rather than the hot-running AMD ones. You want a computer that will last you two years, get a Psystar. Want one that will last a decade or one you could sell after a few years at near full price? Get one made by Apple.

[Penguinisto]

Tom - do me a favor... I had built one @ home, and I was wanting to do some comparisons. First off, pull open a terminal and type "top" - what's the load average of the thing at idle? (Mine sits a bit higher than I expected, mostly because the CPU it's running is emulating SSE3 - just want to confirm if that's the case or not). Also, there is at least oen somewhat demanding OSX app that you can grab for free off of your own download.com servers - DAZ|Studio (latest version). Give that a go and see if you notice any sluggishness in the UI (which isn't Cocoa, but rather Qt).

[Tom Krazit]

1. 0.06, 0.55, 0.47. That was measured at full idle, nothing open but the Terminal window, but i had my usual complement of apps running during the past 15 mins, and i also downloaded the DAZ software during that time. Shoot me an e-mail if you want to discuss further.

2. That's an, um, interesting application. It was definitely a big laggy/sluggish, but I'm running Intel Integrated Graphics on this, which is obviously pretty poor. If it's GPU-bound, that would explain a lot.

[Penguinisto]

Much thanks! It confirms that the prob I'm seeing is the SSE3 emulation (immediate load avg. is something like 0.40, which is a bit high. *sigh* I guess I'm going to have to spring for a Core Duo... :) ). DAZ|Studio is heavy in OpenGL (the viewport is OpenGL-bound, and one of the render options allows you to use just OpenGL to do it). That's probably why you're seeing the sluggishness (Current Intel integrated gfx chips suck mud when it comes to 3d acceleration). Disclosure: I was once a programmer on D|S back in its 1.0 days. Thx again for letting me know. :)

[donsmith]

Boy, you guys have such an agenda to make the Mac less relevant that you bypass the evidence for the bad deal the Psystar is. From MacWorld.com:

"I reluctantly pulled out the credit card, and the system shipped out to us a few days later. The system cost us $399.99, plus $50 for a FireWire card. Add in the $110 graphics card and the $155 OS installation, and the machine cost $714.99; shipping brought the price to $751.47."

What they got for their $751.47 is a machine that operated at a better speed than a Mac Mini, but at a speed that was less than an iMac. In addition, some functions don't work for OS X installed in the Psystar, such as updating. If your going to spend $751.47, get a Mac Mini or get a refurbished iMac and you too will learn what really makes a Mac.

[chris_d]

Target Disk Mode. One of the best things about a Mac. It's in the firmware and in many cases I've found it to be an indispensable tool. It's one thing I'd really miss with the Open Computer.

[inachu]

How can this be voiding the EULA?!?!?!?!?
OSX is Linux.......... If anything Apple needs to show the source and not charge anyone for it.

[steampoweredlawn]

@inachu

it's not linux, it's a bastardized BSD. Linux is licensed under the GNU GPL, which requires any changes to the source code of the used code itself be published if it is to be distributed, but not necessarily anything else (like aqua, quartz, etc). A BSD style open-source license is much less restrictive. Apple is well within their right to use it and not release any of their source code at all. In fact, they have actually released much of Darwin (the kernel)'s source code.

[KenJackson_US]

It took me so long to get registered that steampoweredlawn beat me to the answer.

But OTOH, I agree with your sentiment, inachu. I don't think it should be legal for any company to dictate what kind of hardware you choose to install your legally purchased (or licensed) software on. All they should be able to do is deny you support, which they surely will do.

[Penguinisto]

It's based on a BSD variant named Darwin. the source code for it can be had at www.apple.com/opensource, along with all the other open-source code they use.

[trevorbsmith]

The commentary in this article, the related video and the comments regarding the legality of selling these machines WITH Mac OS X seems incredibly off-base. Forget about violation of the EULA (which, it has been properly noted, is a contract, not a law), this appears to be a violation of copyright law (which is legislation and is hardly a grey area in the current case).

Simple fact:

Either Mac OS X is entirely open source or else it is (at least partially) proprietary code.

If parts of it are proprietary, then those parts are presumably private property and that property is owned by Apple Inc. If Psystar is a separate corporate entity from Apple and it sells a computer with that software installed, it has made available Apple's private property for use to 3rd parties. If this happens without Apple's permission, it is a copyright violation. Full stop.

So how can anyone be imagining that there is any ambiguity in this situation? There are only a few scenarios I can imagine that would make this NOT a violation of copyright law:

1. Apple has, in its embrace of open source, fallen into a trap whereby every piece of OS X has become fused with some open source code, causing every part of OS X to fall under some GPL type of license, forcing Apple to relinquish its rights to prevent others from redistributing OS X. This seems extremely unlikely.

2. Apple has granted a license to Psystar to resell/distribute OS X.

3. Psystar is purchasing a full Mac, including one copy of Mac OS X for every machine it sells, thereby purchasing one license per machine from Apple. Although this probably breaks the EULA, at least they would be be giving away Apple's property without paying for it. Clearly this is not possible since presumably there's not much margin in selling cheap computers if you have to add in x-hundred dollars for each unit (the price of a Mac Mini--the cheapest way that I know of to buy a copy of OS X).

3.a. Psystar is buying up broken Macs from eBay for cheap, just to get a license to Mac OS X--one copy for each machine they sell. But how many super cheap "dead" Macs can there really be for sale on eBay? And how long before the sellers catch on and the price climbs, taking us back to the unlikely scenario 3?

Otherwise, if Apple owns the property rights to OS X and Psystar has not received permission to sell or distribute it, they're breaking the law, and not in a small way. The entire scenario is dumbfounding.

[Penguinisto]

Err, the open-source bits that apple uses are published at www.apple.com/opensource/ - Apple probably doesn't want to bring a EULA case to court, lest EULA's be held as invalid (legally, they're shaky at best due to Fair Use and Doctrine of First Sale).

[paul_swansson]

So I live in Australia and maybe things are different here but normally we try to compare an apple to an apple (no pun intended). But still I went to Pystar's website and started to fill in the options section to see what I could get a mac computer for. As it turns out it would cost me $960US to get a mac clone without a monitor but with dedicated graphics, included bluetooth dongle and wifi (it also had double the hdd). For an iMac with similar specs I would have to pay $1499US. So for an extra $530 I get an all in one computer that will work for sure with updates from Apple, I get a fancy new keyboard and a mighty mouse which would have cost me an extra $100 AND i get a 20" monitor. That all sounds like a fair deal to me. So much for Apple being overpriced. Oh and I forgot. With a new mac I would also get iLife so there is another $79. So please can people start comparing the right stuff. Sure the Pystar is cheaper but are you really getting value for money?

[trevorbsmith]

I think you're basically right. I think $530 is a BIT too much for a 20" monitor + keyboard + mouse + iLife but (and this is a big but) I think it's a very fair price for:

a 20" monitor + keyboard + mouse + iLife
PLUS
Mac OS X.

That last bit is crucial because that's what you're likely not paying for with Psystar--OS X. They just can't take money for it unless they're buying it from Apple and that seems unbelievable. (Of course it also seems unbelievable that Apple is not suing them so...)