Slashdot Mirror
Psystar Offers $399 "OpenMac" Computer
mytrip writes to tell us that Psystar has announced a new line of Intel-based computers that promise to run an unmodified version of Mac OS X "Leopard". Unfortunately almost immediately after the launch their website went down and as of this story remains unaccessible. "Astute readers may well hear this news and ask themselves if it doesn't sound like a Mac clone, something whose time came -- during Gil Amelio's tenure at Apple -- and went shortly after current CEO Steve Jobs assumed the helm at the company. [...] It definitely defies the EULA for Mac OS X, which specifies that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install the operating system on an Apple-branded computer. If you buy the $399 OpenMac, you can check the EULA yourself if you also buy the pre-install option, as the company includes a retail copy of Leopard with your purchase."
I'm sure it's gonna take Apple seconds to upgrade their OS so that it refuses to work on these things.
..but if they do, public perception of Leopard might go
from 'just works' to 'upgrades may be fatal'. So no
wonder they may want these units to not ship at all
even if technically it would be trivial to render them
into regular PCs.
BTW, how hard would it to hack this "EFI V8 emulator" into any PC that uses the same parts?
So are they good and enforcable this week, or evil and unenforceable? Seeing as this pertains to Apple it's probably a coin toss. The fanbois will all chime in with how it's such a good thing that Apple restricts what hardware one can run OS X on, and how this company should be shut down. If this were about some MS EULA there would be a firestorm about how EULA's are bogus anyways and unenforceble.
If I buy OS X I'll damn well run it on any machine I want. In fact, one of my two OS X machines is *not* Appple Branded. That's right, it's a Hackintosh. Sue me, Jobs.
I predict 100 posts from people saying "Apple can do whatever they damn well want with their OS!" from the very same people who scream bloody murder if MS so much as includes a media player with their OS.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This is just reality calling Steve. Macs are PC clones now. Pretty, overpriced PC clones. Nobody as stopped cloned hardware before in the computing world for any length of time, Steve's reality distortion field has actually succeeded better than any realistic observer would have expected, but if this attempt fails more will follow.
Why? Follow the money. Macs carry anywhere between a 25% (the optimistic assertions from the Mac faithful) to 100% surcharge on the hardware compared to the prices for generic crap. That means there is enough margin for even good quality clones to undercut Apple's pricing. The big vendors have dominated the Windows PC world with their OEM pricing deals and at the same time would be terrified of tangling with Apple's legal goons. That leaves an opportunity for small offshore builders and where there is an opportunity for profit the Asian factories will sell products.
Democrat delenda est
First sale doctrine says you're free to do whatever you want with the physical disc; it doesn't say anything about the licensed content therein.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
(I.e. once you sell an operating system, are you really allowed to restrict it to your hardware? Ford can't restrict their cars to only running on Ford gas, and only being repaired with Genuine Ford Parts, for example.)
Could Apple legally say that no other O/S than OS-X is allowed to be run on their computers - just to ensure that you have to buy the O/S from them?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
You're absolutely correct, and it's a huge opportunity for Apple. All they need is a cut-down Mac Pro, call it a Mac Pro Mini. One (not four) hard drive bays, one (not two) optical bays, two (not eight) RAM slots, one slot for a graphics, and maybe one other slot. They can't sell that for $999 and make a profit? Or sell it for $799 and use it to storm the gates of corporate America.
One more comment, not mentioned so far: Psystar is doomed if for no other reason than that they are selling a computer with "Mac" in the name. Talk about painting a bull's eye on yourself for Apple's lawyers!
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
You obviously don't understand what's involved in releasing an update to an operating system. For starters, they're not going to recall existing copies off of the shelves. They might try to kill it through Apple Update, and then tell the purchaser that it's not their fault that their operating system doesn't run on approved hardware any longer. They might not have a quick fix at all that doesn't break too much existing gear.
Of course that's outright TERRIBLE PR for Apple themselves since if any of these people had intended to buy Apple branded hardware they would have done so in the first place.
More likely they'll try to kill it through the courts, or make the Leopard successor attempt to detect Apple Genuine Advantage Hardware properly.
All this does is prove how overpriced Apple gear really is.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If TFA is right, the $399 includes Leopard.
TFA is wrong. they sell it as a $150 install add on, or you can do it yourself for $125.And, as I keep pointing out whenever I hear this "bundling is great when Apple does it" argument: the whole point is I don't want half of the crap that a mac makes me pay for, anyways.
Well this comes down to philosophy. On most mac's i've owned there's been some feature I did not use. e.g. PC card, or a scsi port or bluetooth. that's true.But what I have noticed is too things. First, developers can target more fully featured software because they can assume high level features will be installed. For example, who can foreget the old nightmare days if configuring soundcards or interupts on PCs and the difficulty of finding software that worked with your card. Macs all had (somewhat) high end sound cards from very early days and the driver's for them in the OS distro. So developers could assume they existed.
As a result even though I might not actually need some cheerful toon in some piece of software I bought, the developer just threw it in because they could have no fear it would work.
As a result, I actually tend to use the extras mac includes more often simply because software I buy happens for one purpose takes advantage of them.
The other thing I notice is that while I might not have used firewire on the first mac I bought I definitely started using it on later macs. And bought firewire disks. But then I noticed that my new hardware was backwards compatible with my old macs.
nice... this meant my macs had longer service lifetime because I was not going and trying to find comaptiblilty extensions and drivers. the old macs had them.
In the long run, specing at the high end and getting bundles that are quite cheap for what they include, seems to pay off even if you don't use all the features right away.
the only place where ala-carte specing seems to really pay off is on racks of servers or fleets of comuters (for say an office). There dropping something you know you won't need can save a few dollars.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
As a Mac User, and a Realist, I feel a sudden urge to express my opinions bluntly, without remorse, smuggly and wearing a turtleneck, yet my opinions are not irrational, bolsterous claims. And the turtleneck? Machine washable.
Apple likes to control the hardware, that's no secret. In fact, I believe if Microsoft only had to design an OS for two or three active production models at any given time, Windows might be far more reliable than I find it to be.
Apple also likes to control the software. As does Microsoft. Both companies are, understandably, against the piracy of their operating systems. It's Microsoft's bread-and-butter, and the main feature pushing Apple's hardware.
Apple is reaching a very crucial stage, where the demand for their product is extending outside of their intended production area. They want to sell both the hardware and the software, and this $399 OpenMac would be an incredible loss in sales.
It could also be a loss in integrity. OS X has not been evaluated on the OpenMac's configuration by anyone within Apple (that we know of) and therefore the stability of the operating system may not be what is expected of OS X on the Apple-branded hardware.
And if OS X isn't as reliable on the OpenMac as it is on an Apple-branded system, where will the fingers point? I doubt very much they'll point at the OpenMac team.
The blame may very well be put on Apple. "You can't make your software work on every computer! You won't let me install it whever I want! You don't let me use any piece of hardware I want!"
Apple has never claimed the above hypothetical comments, and for some reason, that's all I ever see expected of the operating system.
Apple's response may be to act against the OpenMac team as quickly as possible (as it may have already) and sweep this under the rug. Apple can also point to the EULA and say "Not authorized".
Or, Apple could say "Install at your own risk" and simply not offer any support for the operating system when installed on a non-approved PC. However, I feel that would be the worst possible decision, as the tech-world media would not only have a field day with that news, but the judge handling the inevitable class-action lawsuit as well.
Apple is trying to provide as solid a product as possible. They limit themselves to specific hardware models, and it is expensive. These prices are hidden before purchase, they're readily available. I weighed my options and used several PCs before I could finally afford my first iBook.
When I went shopping for a new car, I wanted the BMW Z3 that was sitting on the lot. I found the monthly payments to be outrageously expensive, and settled on a Mercury Sable. I didn't complain to BMW that they should make their car more affordable to everyone, or that they should allow just any other manufacturer produce the exact same car without asking for BMW seal of approval. I bit the bullet and took the cheaper option, which provided me the exact same functionality, without the pleasing but unnecessary asthetics.
If Apple branches out onto additional hardware, honestly that's all the operating system will boil down to: asthetics. The stability is in the hardware restrictions and the lack of options for expansion. And the stability is implied through the sale of a new PowerMac just as much as through the retail sale of a boxed-edition of Leopard. And if OS X doesn't live up to the hype on any other PC, it's Apple that will receive the backlash, not anyone else.
I'm sure an argument could spawn for years, back and forth about why Apple's business practices and the OS X EULA are hypocritical, unethical and flat-out wrong, but what's the point in arguing that?
My only question is this: if someone is so dissatisfied with the way a product is packaged why would they want to buy it and support that company at all?
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
That's not a delusion. The reason Apple makes so much money is because they sell high-end machines almost exclusively. Those high-end AIO machines have nice, fat profit margins. The huge majority of what Dell sells has razor-thin profit margins, that's why they're trying to move into high-end gaming machines. I personally would like to buy a $400 PC and install OS X, and dislike Apple because I can't, but it's a sound business decision. Mac software may be what's great from a user's point of view, but hardware is where they make their money.
Sounds familiar...
but realistically speaking, consumers LIKE apple's products! there's no force feeding involved! You can't really deny that.
You're missing the point - consumers who like the limited range of products Apple makes like Apple products. Apple could expand their product line into a big gaping VOID that currently exists and make even MORE people happy, and do so with a very nice profit margin considering the hardware that would be used. There's a giant stream of money flowing past Cupertino, and all they have to do is reach out and scoop some of it up, but they refuse to do so.
So what you're saying is that back in the day, there was actual competition propelling innovation and improvements in the industry, and Apple should put a stop to that right quick?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
When another company can make a profit selling a more powerful system for half the price, it's not trolling to point out the obvious that the more expensive one is likely overpriced. Only hyper-sensitive Apple FanBois (who did pay too much) can take offense at common sense.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."