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."
These aren't the first people to try something like this. People used to post instructions on buying various 3rd party PPC boards to build your own Mac.
The interesting part of this is that they have vowed to challenge Apple's EULA in court if (he he he, "if") they get sued. The outcome of that battle will be interesting. I want to say I'm on Apple's side on this one (they should get to say "only on Macs"), but a big part of me hates all the crazy restrictions in EULAs and I'm sure if Apple wasn't in a minority position I'd be crying foul over that clause as monopolistic.
The somewhat sad part is that this could satisfy quite a bit of the complains I've seen on /. and other places asking for an upgradeable Mac that costs less than the Mac Pro. Yet the hobbled the default configuration with integrated graphics. I also enjoy the bits I've read about this where they recommend AGAINST installing OS X updates until they say it's OK because it could easily hose the system.
All and all, while I don't expect this to go anywhere, it will be amusing to watch.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Because Apple said so. They are allowed to put whatever restrictions in their license they want, as long as they are legal. They can put some really weird things in that and have each product have conflicting requirements.
The question here is: is that particular restriction legal (and thus valid) or illegal (and thus can be ignored)
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
And the first-sale doctrine states that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install it wherever he wants, EULA notwithstanding.
http://outcampaign.org/
So what does Apple care if you use their OS on a PC?
Very good point, so MS "forces" IE/MediaPlayer/Whathaveyou on you, Apple "forces" you to their hardware. Which is worse?
Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
Apple makes computers. Microsoft doesn't. World of difference.
In other words, all Microsoft has to do is open a hardware division of PCs they build that run Windows and they instantly have the moral high ground on more or less everything?
I doubt anyone would agree with that, but if that's not what you're saying, then I can't understand how what you are saying would make any sense.
Alright, to everyone posting the sarcastic comments wondering whether slashdot is Pro EULA or Anti EULA this week because it's apple and not microsoft, lets try to spell out things that hopefully everyone can agree on.
1. EULAs are pretty much unenforcable in what littel court cases have involved them to any degree.
2. Apple has every right to say that they won't support or vouch for the stability software that isn't running on hardware they approve of.
Beyond that, you can argue how you wish. However that's pretty much what this eula thing boils down to.
Apple makes it a point to ensure stability in their operating system, sometimes at the purported sacrifice of flexible code for hardware they don't sell. But if people want to try to get it working on other hardware, i really don't think apple will mind. If they do, the only reason i could think of it is they're worried about their image as the "cool" and "hip" computers getting tied in with people's hacked together junker computers running MacOS.
Apple cares about image, and it's image is "just works". They use an eula to spell it out, albeit in a nonbinding way.
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
the EULA for safari says 'only on apple branded hardware'
the EULA for OSX says 'only on apple branded hardware'
I don't see the difference EITHER... and apple is actively distributing safari to anyone with itunes, which includes a LOT of PCs.
the computer this compares to is the imac not the powermac. on that basis:
faster CPU: 1.8-2 Ghz versus 2.2 Hhz
more memory in base model: 1Gb versus 2
bigger hard drive in base mode: 80gb versus 200gb
I note that places like mac-mall already slightly discount the price of macs and give memory upgrades so the memory comparison is irrelevant.
what you give up:
size: the mac is teeny weenie. this thing is a full sized box
quiet: this is not really known, but it's a fair guess that you don't get a quiet fan on a budget machine.
other costly items:
software: buy a copy of leopard $125
other missing: bluetooth and wifi. not clear on GB ethernet or firewire.
thus this thing is not very welcome in the living room, nor even on your desktop. since it will go under the desk this means lots of coords and down on your knees crawling under the desk.
The main drawback is no software update. which is of course what you really are paying for when you buy the OS. having all your apple apps staying secure automatically is peace of mind. Their website says that software update will occasionaly be unsafe to use. One can bet this will quickly become defacto true.
other things: no apple support. this is really good service. if you have computer problems apple is very good to you.
$399 + 125, does not really seem like much of a bargain.
conversely this sort of shows that the "apple tax" may be a myth.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
"I think an etch-a-sketch with an ethernet port would beat IE7 in web standards compliance."
vanilla kernal on a hackintosh is really easy if the hardware specs are right... so I'm not sure why they had to modify the OS - maybe they just needed the EFI emulator, which starts up before OSX? *shrugs*
The catch with the "Mac Tax" is that while you can't configure a Mac to have less than the shipping hardware (integrated camera, gigabit ethernet, do-it-yourself RAM, firewire, etc.), when pricing against equivalent hardware, they usually are cost-equal or a hair less. In the case of the Mac Pro, the difference is almost 25% given the CPU horsepower with which the system ships. At release, it was impossible to find a four-way workstation within $1000 of Apple's hardware.
This isn't to say Apple's the value leader, quite the opposite. Their surcharge on disk and RAM borders on userous; the video choices, while current at release, are updated slowly and tend not to support the more advanced configurations (SLI). That said, I'll take Apple's build quality over almost anything else, and for me at least, OSX significantly improves my workflow over Windows. YMMV.
Apple will win this case without any problems whatsoever and (if you were to print out the decisions) probably more than a ton of case law on Apple's side. The license is perfectly clear, not even close to being unconscionable, 100% enforceable, ans Psystar knows this. Apple probably has not bothered suing home enthusiasts who mod the software by hand since a. it is a waste of money going after individuals who are not
making money; b. there is little to no chance of it causing problems with Apple brand perception. However, as soon as this goes from a wacky and semi-functional side-project into a money making business.
The funny thing is for all the people who think Psystar is somehow great, after doing this (assuming it's not just a prank) there is probably a GREATER chance that the hobbyists will get sued in the future since more publicity makes this more of a threat to Apple's image.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
I want the Mac Apple refuses to sell me: an upgradeable machine that doesn't have ridiculous components (Xeons, FB-DIMMS) that maybe 0.01% of the userbase actually needs.
Jobs refuses to sell it because he knows people will buy it. He fears this because he is in love with AIO and wants people to buy iMacs even when they aren't a fit for their needs. He also is under the delusion that creating a Mac upgradeable prosumer desktop will somehow "Dell-ize" Apple. The reality, which most Mac users understand, is that what is actually valuable about Macs is not their different-ness, but the fact that they run OS X, which is the best consumer operating system on the market. Mac hardware is not special. It got even less special after 2005. Mac SOFTWARE is what is special.
+++ATH0
I wouldn't count on that. Once you start putting "deliberately fail" code in your product (to deal with the customers whose money you don't want), you risk it getting triggered for the customers you did want. Every logic bomb that Apple adds to their product with the intention of crippling it for non-Apple-hardware customers, is a logic bomb that might go off unintentionally (e.g. when the user runs MacOS on Mac hardware with a virtualizer in between the OS and hardware).
You see this with DRM systems all the time, where the user isn't doing something the attacker really wanted to prevent, but stuff fails to "just work" anyway.
Apple might pull it off, but it's nontrivial.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
I doubt Apple has the slightest interest in suing individuals who try to put OS X on their PCs (as they haven't so far).
The EULA is so they can go after companies like this.
They could argue that the first sale doctrine allows them to modify and resell it.
To get around the EULA, they could bypass the "I agree to sell my soul" box by disassembling the installer program, and disabling the EULA dialog. So they never "Agree" to the license.
Of course installing the software necessarily involves making a copy, from the DVD media to the computer's memory and hard drive. While you might think a license would be needed to perform this copying, in fact Title 17, section 117 specifically exempts this copying: I don't think Psystar can win, but this is more a reflection of the power that the copyright cartels wield over the government. (BTW I like Apple and would not look forward to another clone war, but that's a different post).
Apple is going to lose this one. It's a illegal tying arrangement under the Clayton Act:
The basic requirements that must be met for tying to be per se illegal are as follows:
Apple would have to try to enforce their EULA in court against an antitrust claim that their EULA is an illegal tying arrangement, which, on its face, it is.
Apple was able to put the previous generation of clone-makers out of business because some key portions of the original MacOS were in ROM, shipped with the machine. So they could make copyright arguments against cloning the Mac ROMs. But for today's machines, the OS isn't built onto the motherboard, so there's no copyright claim.
IBM lost this issue a long time ago, when Compaq made the first PC clone. That's why there's a PC industry.
Apple could put DRM hardware in future Macs and encrypt future OS releases, like a game console. Not having done that, they're stuck.
Which is why I'm OSX-86'ing my girlfriend's crappy computer that she got for free through an internet subscription, instead of buying a mac mini...I've come to accept apple is a snobby, high end company, and even if they did make this box, I can make my own for cheaper XD