Slashdot Mirror
First Psystar Mac Clones Ship
An anonymous reader writes "According to Gizmodo, Psystar has begun shipping its Macintosh clones, thus proving that the company is not a hoax. Initial impressions seem to be positive, though Software Update does not work."
...but do they work?
I think that honestly if Software Update doesn't work, the machine can't be considered to be a successful model. If you downloaded windows or Linux and could never update, would you consider it a successful install?
Looks like a noisy piece of crap PC, but if it goads Apple into releasing something with a similar form factor, then I'm all for it.
On when Apples lawyers come crashing down on Psystar. I'm going to hazard a guess that since they are supplying a legal copy (according to their website) of the OS install disks, that there is not much Apple can do about it.
On the other hand, the EFI bootloader they are using from netkas, thats another story...
I actually have OSX running on my Dell Vostro 1500, and while everything in the base model works perfectly with OSX, my customized model, the intel wireless card does not work.. *sigh*
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
... cloning abilities were in the specs...
I'm waiting for Apple's lawyers to arrive with the attitude of a school of hungry piranha any time now...
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
No software update means no fixes for any security vulnerabilities that turn up. Lovely.
Best Slashdot Co
I wouldn't be surprised if Psystar had Apple's blessing behind the curtain on this..
It would be perfect for Apple if this caches up, yet safe way out if not.
Yikes! Who brought the vacuum cleaner to the party! Wow, that video is loud!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
They shipped. Thats only step one though. Next, they have to function just as well as a real Mac, which according to the article isn't quite right.
Plus, they have another hurdle - Apple C&D letters should be rolling in by now, if they haven't already.
It should be an interesting court battle. Yet another challenge for intellectual property in relation to software. Lets hope this one goes the way be all want.
Am I the only one who thinks it would be hilarious if every model they shipped out contained a faulty motherboard, with signals rerouted to hide the fact everything is running from a Mac Mini stashed in the "powersupply"?
That would be great.
I've got to say, for a scam they are really committed.
At first, I thought this was all interesting and going to have an interesting legal battle attached to it. Then it was clear this was a scam and there would be no fun to watch. Now I'm starting to wonder if I'll get to see the legal fight after all. Maybe it's not a scam?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
That movie can be extremely easy to create, it's probably a fake.
He films the normal PC in the back with the cable and so on, everything is fine...
When the turns to the front of the screen someone takes out the VGA cable, puts it in a display switcher or something, while the monitor is still turned off, and connects a Mac laptop to that display switch.
Then the dude turns on the PC, starts recording the screen, waits until the windows starts showing and the other guy switches the signal to the laptop. This was his hand with the camera remains in the same position and it's easy to cut out the transition.. especially since the eyes of the people are focused on the flash where the mac screen is shown.
So the movie for me it says nothing, it can be so easily faked i could do it myself if i had a fake.
The motherboard is also a Gigabyte based on the "setup-q-flash" message shown on the screen... i don't know if gigabyte would agree to make a Mac clone...
Just my two cents
This was his hand with - > this way his hand with
i could do it myself if i had a mac.
sorry for the typos
That way if I need to reinstall, which does happen now and then, I don't need to download again.
There's no serial number check on manual downloads, but I expect that soon we'll be seeing the Apple version of Windows Genuine Advantage.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Oh please oh please let someone release one of these into the wild...
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
I haven't seen an explanation yet. If, as claimed, you can load an "actual Leopard retail package with genuine installation disc..." then why wouldn't it load the next version of the actual Leopard retail package? If it runs the next version, then what's the difference between loading it from a disc and making the same updates via Software Update?
If, in fact, it replaces parts of Leopard with custom-tailored substitutes for this specific hardware, then I don't think it's accurate to say it's really running retail Leopard.
Is there any technical reason for believing that whatever it is that prevents Software Update from working can't affect other software as well? Have the SQAed the product with iDVD, with Aperture, with Epson's printer drivers, etc.? If not, who has?
This sounds like one of those boring "99%-compatible" PC clones of the early 1980s... a friend of mine bought one for use ina a research laboratory, found that it wouldn't work with some Tecmar I/O card, called the company, and their response was to thank him for the information and say that they would be sure to add it to their list of products that was known to be incompatible.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I have to wonder why they have not tried to get a preliminary injunction to halt shipment pending legal matters. They probably could get that fairly easily.
So are all the people who've posted on slashdot how it had to be a hoax, and anyone who paid money for a pre-order was an idiot, are they going to admit they were wrong?
why they didn't invest in a quiet power supply and cpu cooler is beyond me! core 2 chips run so cool that it's laughably easy to build a silent pc these days...
Until I've seen one with my own eyes, and I've played with it, and I'm sober, nothing is proven.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I'm more worried about it not being able to update than how well it functions. The more people who pick this up, the more stories you'll hear about mac viruses and vulnerabilities. Apple will have to make a choice... if they choose not to sue Pystar into oblivion, they would need to decide if they should allow such systems to be updateable. Apple probably will not, the more systems they end up supporting, the less secure their os becomes overall.
If they choose to allow these hackintoshes to update, the more systems they end up supporting and the more money they would have to spend. Don't expect any support from Pystar or other such dealers. They run a risky business as it is. The best thing you can do when your Mac operating system becomes too unstable or too old is either buy an entirely new MacOS CD, install Windows, or install Linux.
Of course, guilty until proven not to be. Good show!
On what grounds? Psystar is installing a retail boxed product of MacOS X on Psystar hardware. There's no copyright violation, so none of the extreme remedies in the Copyright Act apply. Any legal restriction Apple seeks to impose that their software can only be run on their hardware runs afoul of "tying" restrictions in antitrust law. Apple would have to win an antitrust case before they could get a cease and desist order.
What we'll probably see is heavily restrictive DRM in future Macs to prevent this. Or an end to retail sales of MacOS.
LOL. My Hackintosh supports software updates from Apple. Can't they at least install PC EFI? They're a fuckin integrator, they could BUY EFI boards. Morons.
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
To some extent, this looks like when the first clone PCs appeared in the market. IBM claimed their hardware was better... at the end cloned pcs won the battle.
Here are the instructions to make your own.
Acquire Mac Mini, PC case, screwdriver. You might need some extension cables too.
Open case. Put Mac Mini inside.
Close case.
Profit!! Err, I mean loss!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
How do you clone a ship? You can do it with a Mac?
What?
Innocent until proven guilty is (was? seems to be out of fashion these days) a necessary legal concept.
However, for consumers, it is a very dangerous approach when dealing with questionable businesses. Caveat emptor and all that.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
The people commenting on the linked paged are idiots. This is not a typical "Hackintosh." They claim to have EFI emulated so that there is no need to hack your copy of OSX. You are able to install right from the Leopard CD. This isn't using OSx86.
Out of curiosity, what exactly would you put in those PCI slots if Apple made such a consumer machine?
What I would want to put in it would depend on what it starts with. Since I don't expect them to build my ideal machine, I just want to be able to make something that's got what I need without having to pay 3 times as much as I can afford for a bunch of stuff I don't need.
If it had intel integrated video, I'd definitely need a video card.
I need at least one 3.5" drive bay.
I'd want two 3.5" drive bays, so I can run RAID-1 internal.
I want to be able to upgrade the internal CDROM.
It would be nice to be able to add eSATA... it's got less latency than Firewire. That's not a requirement but it's something I'd be likely to add if it was an option.
Adequate cooling is a must. That's a big drawback on the mini.
What I *don't* need: I don't need the Mac Pro's 8 cores. Two cores is plenty. Two cores socketed so I could upgrade to four later on would be more than ample.
What I don't even want: integrated display. I have a perfectly good display already... and a KVM.
Alternatives that would make my happy: a "Mini pro" with two 3.5" drive bays and a decent GPU, or an "iSwitch", an iMac with an internal KVM so I can toggle between it and my wintendo, or maybe a networked window system that virtualized OpenGL ove the network so I could get decent video performance over the network from the Mac. Screen scrapers like VNC and RDP need not apply.
Apple legal isn't going to let this stand. Even IF everything is legit, they won't have the money to defend themselves against Apple.
...if everyone goes out & buys one of these, what will the "official" fanbois all move to in order to remain in an exclusive little elitist club?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
...it wants it "IBM compatible"-PC back... Seriously, if something like this was released during the personal computer wars, we might've cared.
You sure about the sober thing? I find Apple's visual effects much more entertaining when I'm not sober.
Your ad here.
I think I just heard the sound of an iChair being thrown against a wall....
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
That's easy:
Girlfriend looked at new computer. "That's not a Mac," she commented.
Later that night, while asleep on the couch, he dreamed of marketing slogans.
Ahem! OS X (=sold by Apple) is built on a BSD core (=other people's work).
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Not only that but if something doesn't work, who are you going to turn to.
Hardware? Psystar. Software? Probably Psystar or the OSx86 community. People who buy these machines know what they're getting into. And the point is not to save money; the point is to have a machine running OSx86 that breaks Steve's matrix.
+++ATH0
I would mod you up if I could. The real reason to run a Hackintosh is that Apple's product matrix is left with an intentional hole in it to force people to buy up to an insanely-specced, insanely-priced Mac Pro, or something that doesn't really fit their needs (iMac) to satisfy Jobs' ego about how wonderful AIO is.
+++ATH0
at least users of these machines won't reboot after every damn download of iTunes and such.
I wish I were kidding.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I wonder how many of them are due to ship to #1 Infinite Loop?
Who's leg do I have to hump to get a dry martini around here?
The Mac OS license does not allow that (as they are entitled to do by the BSD license). And lets face it, Mac OS isn't exactly a few patches on top of BSD.
1) "In Soviet Russia, ship clones Mac"?
2) "Mac clones ship"?! That's not news
C'mon! One of these has gotta hit...let's hear some laughs out there...You think I like doing this??
BTW I just upgraded to 9.22... a REAL Mac OS... not one of those phonies with unix underwear... on a real Mac... with no fan... so it's dead quiet... except for the CRT... they all got that horrible squeal they make... ok, and the occasional popping noises... should I be concerned about that?
What?
When I needed needed to replace my Wifes computer I looked at the options and well - I did not like the idea of Vista at all, and I waited to the Linux break theue for don't know how many years. In the end I bougth an iMac for her. And damm it - best decision I ever made (computer wise) - ad she just loves the box.
Point of the little story is: May be it's time for a 2nd run on the "personal computer wars" - maybe it's time to replace Windows.
And while I probably replace my Linux system with a MacPro when time is due I welcome the options that those less coin on there hand might get a change on a better OS as well.
Martin
PS: As for Linux as alternative: I use SuSE since V.5.1 - but I now come to the conclusion that it still takes to much quality time to configure and maintain. As does Windows - configuring my Wifes new iMac was an eye opener.
Most consumers simply don't need or want what you want.
First, I distinguished between "need" and "want". The desires you chose to ridicule were not in the "needs". You didn't ask what our "needs" were, you asked what we would do with expandability. If you asked "what do you need expandability for" you'd get a different answer.
So once you eliminate that straw man, what I need is an adequate GPU, an adequate hard drive, and no integrated display... and a consumer price. Maybe 40% over what Psystar is asking for their box? That would give Apple their usual markup.
The argument that "most consumers don't need" those features is a bit circular, since they're not available from Apple and haven't been available from Apple at a consumer price since Steve Jobs took over. On the other hand, they *are* available from Wintel box shippers, and most consumers are still buying Wintel boxes.
Don't assume you know all the reasons why they do that. I know I'm regularly surprised by people's answers to why they still use Windows after they express desire for my desktop.
And do consider that you'll never find out if you just ask Mac users, because that's a sample that's pre-selected to only include people for whom the current line of Macs is at least minimally acceptable.
these overpriced, unupgradable Apple computers... they don't even provide such an agreeable, reassuring, loneliness killing fan noise, heck!!
Apple legal isn't going to let this stand. Even IF everything is legit, they won't have the money to defend themselves against Apple.
If this one-man wonder of a company totally screws up, which is likely, it will just reinforce the notion in consumer's minds that the best purveyor of Macs is *drumroll* Apple.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
From the Psyster website: Sorry about being Quicktime-only but this was put together in OS X Leopard, using Final Cut Pro, on an Open Computer.
are you really not able to create non-quicktime video on an Apple?
Why not? He's not the government!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
... is there any proof this isn't just some guy's hackintosh? This could be a "we're legitimate, really!" stunt from Psystar. I'm hoping they're real, but this hasn't exactly convinced me yet. And as a side note, do these things come with a standard vacuuming attachment? =)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
But, if I remember correctly, their software is LICENSED and not sold -as is-.
This doesn't sound like a hack at all. It sounds like an interpretation to their software licensing agreement, in Psystar's favor. They have probably heavily studied that there is no binding agreement in that license that says they cannot do this. Otherwise, it's blatantly obvious that it's Court-worthy. I have not seen the terms of their license, personally.
Until I put my fingers into his wounds...
I don't require hands-on with every bit of hardware and software in the world. That why we have reviews.
I like this idea. As soon as I'm convinced this actually works, I'm checking one out. I'm hoping this hastens the day I can run Mac OS on my own hardware.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The thing doesn't come with the OS so add another $150 that mean for $50 more you could buy a real Mac Mini and have a supported machine that is also smaller, better looking, and duals boot any Intel OS you want. I don't think Psystar was thinking too clearly when they decided to kick Apple in the shins. But being just one more inexpensive PC on the market it is getting them some attention.
but even then, not clonnnig apple is still a good idea. Why not? There are a lot of us who would be thrilled to be able to run Mac OS (and for me, Logic) on our own hardware.
Maybe this will encourage Apple to rethink its strategy. It has happened before, you know.
You are welcome on my lawn.
BUT, Apple is still being paid for their OS, which is the only item that many people are interested in. Their EULA says that you can only install it on their hardware, but it's a clause that is QUITE likely to be shot down in court.
As to "profiting off someone else's work", EVERYBODY does that to some extent. ISP's are "profiting" off of Google, Ebay, etc because people buy internet access because of those items. Gas stations are profiting off of car manufaturers because they supply fuel for something that someone else made. Paper companies profit from fax/copier manufacturers because they generate a need for their product.
The bottom line is that Apple sells an operating system. They have a legally questionable clause in there stating that when you buy it you can't install it except on computers that they deem appropriate (namely, ones they made themselves). If that clause is successfully shot down, things will likely return to a semblance of fairness: people who purchase software from a company can install it wherever and on whatever they want to.
I mean seriously: if Microsoft came out with EULA stipulations tomorrow that stated that regardless of how well it worked, you couldn't install MS Office (even a legally purchased copy) on a WINE-equipped Linux machine, Slashdot would shit a jagged brick coated in hot sauce. Apple does the same though and it's reasonable behavior.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I just had to add a hard disk for Mac OS X and some more ram (upped to 4GB or corsair 800 mhz) and off I went. I used a Gigabyte P35-DS3L and a Core 2 Duo e6750 processor, evga Nvidia 8800 GT graphics for the gaming rig and the Kalyway installer to put it on the new 500 GB western digital hard disk.
It is fast fast fast fast fast.
Only few things I have to put up with.
1. You have to turn on AHCI in the BIOS or you will kernel panic randomly. This makes the machine sit for about 20-30 seconds probing SATA ports and whatnot until it finally launches into the OS bootloader. This is a bios/board problem, not an OS X problem. Annoying at worst.
2. Machine will sleep (using kernel patch) but upon wake, I have to manually assign an IP then go back to DHCP to get the machine to go back online.
3. If I boot into windows and want to go back to Mac OS, I have to turn off the computer, unplug it and wait 15 seconds before plugging in and starting back up. If I don't, after the white screen with the apple, the graphics card will shut down and I can't see. Must be some flag in the card or board that windows sets that the drivers I'm using isn't resetting.
4. Switching resolution can cause a blue screen where you can't see anything. Rebooting will take care of it.
5. Some 3D apps won't work. Second Life is one example.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
Don't assume you know all the reasons why they do that. I know I'm regularly surprised by people's answers to why they still use Windows after they express desire for my desktop.
And do consider that you'll never find out if you just ask Mac users, because that's a sample that's pre-selected to only include people for whom the current line of Macs is at least minimally acceptable. Very, very well worded post. It's so tiring to argue with fanatics sometimes who claim (rather obviously) that the current Macs meet the needs of Mac users (duh), and then resort to the idiotic argument that Apple doesn't want your business if you're not satified with what they currently make.
I'm sure if a month before the MacBook Air was announced you argued for a light noteboook in the same way, they'd argue "You should just buy a Sony Vaio. Apple doesn't want to cater to your niche. They don't want you as a customer.". The truth is that Apple, like any company, wants to make as much money as possible, and that usually includes acquiring as many customers as they can.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Would not be surprised.
These aren't clones. They're Hackintoshes done for you and then shipped out. The OS isn't legit, iLife isn't legit, and you're dumping entirely too much money on the hardware that they're shipping out as there's no software cost at all.
I've got to wonder why Software Update isn't working on them, even though they've admitted to using the EFI loader hack. In my experience, only OS updates (ie 10.5.1->10.5.2) are potentially dangerous anymore, and I managed to update from 10.5.1 to 10.5.2 without issue on an oldish Shuttle AMD barebones box here after patching EFI/Vanilla kernel.
It's almost trivial to get a vanilla kernel up & running on an Intel hackintosh now, only slightly more difficult on an AMD box -- there are even several quite good pre-packaged installers now with 10.5.2 that do everything for you if you don't like to get your hands dirty.
All that said, it's going to be funny when all of the people duped into buying these can't update to 10.5.4 or whatever and end up with a bricked box. At least if you do it yourself, you develop the skillset to boot into single user mode, disable kexts, remove caches etc.
Maintaining a functioning, stable, up-to-date Hackintosh (with Quartz Extreme running properly etc) is a lot like keeping a '60s Volkswagen running. Not particularly difficult, but you build up the skills over time and it takes quite a bit of patience. I think there are going to be a lot of pissed off people once they realize what they've bought into.
Having watched the video, could that computer BE any louder?
This sounds an awful lot like the early days of home computing with PC-compatible hardware. Maybe this is the year for Tandy to make a comeback.
If (and only if) Psystar preinstalls the OS for the customer (as previous articles have claimed they plan to do), then it would be copyright infringement.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I agree, imagine if Apple licensed OSX in OEM form to the following companies:
IBM/Lenovolo You'd have IBM Thinkpads that could be called Macpads.
Dell, you'd have iDells being sold over the Internet.
Compaq already has the iPaq so it would be called the MacPaq.
Apple can finally settle with eMachines and the eOne ripping off the original iMac, and call their machines the iPC or iMachines iOne.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I still find it amusing that so many people think that if you put OSX on a OC you'll get the same experience as you do on Mac hardware... You folks know that if Mac ran on anything it would be just a buggy and fucked up as windows right? The only reason it runs smoothly now is because Apple controls the hardware. The day you can run it on any machine in the world will be the day that Mac zealots finally shut the fuck up about how superior their shit ass OS is. The world will one day learn that Linux is the true way through. Until then clever marketing will sell hunks of shit, and create a cult around them. iFag.
What Psystar is doing is not much different than the sketchy PC vendors that preinstall an upgrade copy of Windows. The main difference is Psystar most likely is not paying for the OS at all, since it is doubtful that Apple would allow it.
Part of the high price of a Mac is the OS. The $129 pricing of the standalone MacOS is really more of an upgrade price, since you need to own a Mac in the first place, and you can't get the hardware without the OS so normally you'd have already tithed.
The only thing Psystar is doing is using components that are known to work decently with the hacked OS, and then preloading the OS. It is legal in the USA ? Hell no. Does it make business sense ? Probably not.
Who is more likely to buy a Psystar hackintosh ? The power user who has the time and patience to dabble with hacks and unsupported software ? No. He/she is more likely to build their own hackintosh from scratch.
What about the non-techy users who just want a cheap Mac ? No, they wouldn't want a Psystar, because they need vendor support and they'd be better off with a true low-end Mac.
So what are we to do, as tech fiends ? I think we should ignore Psystar. They have already gotten far more attention that they deserve, for what amounts to little more than a trendy piracy scheme. The moment the hardware starts shipping, someone from Apple is going to get their hands on one and lawsuits will fly.
Who's to say the next Mac app you install isn't going to brick your Psystar ? All it needs to do is detect the unofficial hardware, blank out the BIOS EEPROM and call it a day. Hell, they could even replace the BIOS with a tiny script and image saying "The computer you are running is a fake Mac and is not licensed to run Mac OS. FOAD! - The Management"
-Billco, Fnarg.com
I remember hearing about an open-source Mac OS operating system in the late 1990s or early 2000s, but the company making the operating system got sued out of existence....
The G5 series had a lot of loud fan problems, where a problem caused the variable-speed fans to all run at full blast. It was nearly as loud as the Psystar effect.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Then, instead of just breaking the EULA, they will be breaking Trademark Law.
I agree. It's the same reason your game console doesn't crash very often. Limiting what hardware you are running on greatly reduces the complexity of your code, and makes everything much easier to support.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
You also need to verify that you're not a character in "Total Recall", "The Matrix" or some other nothing-is-real movie.
In other words, it's not a hoax, but it is an ineptly implemented, poorly supported, piece of crap. That will show all the naysayers!</sarcasm>
This whole episode is a reminder of Hanson's Law: Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity!
Thing is, I bet most of us here on /. would run it w/o support from Apple... I mean, how many of us actually get any kind of support from Microsoft?
Additionally, there could be a "system check" disc like you could make for Windows NT that would probe all hardware and tell you if it was supported or not.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Microsoft already had clauses on what machines Windows could be installed on, if the vendors could sell other OSes or not, etc. Remember they got caught and punished for it? The same will happen with Apple. They may be told they cannot stop what hardware their OS is sold on.
Someone could have located the case used in the pictures on the website built a system inside it and then loaded a hacked copy of OSX on it. The company supposedly making these systems made all sorts of claims about the system. So why didn't they show that OpenGL worked, audio worked, ethernet worked etc?
Why does it take so long for the BIOS to come up after powering on? I counted ~14 seconds....I've NEVER seen a PC take that long to get from hitting the power button to just *showing* the BIOS. Wow....something funny going on??
All $399 gets you (or $999 for the "Pro" version) is a box full of generic PC components that are known to be more or less compatible with OSX. No monitor, no keyboard or mouse and *NO OPERATING SYSTEM*. An installed copy of OSX will cost you an extra $150. Since a genuine Apple Mac is really just a PC running OSX, it would make no sense for someone to buy a "Mac Clone" without OSX so I'm figuring that almost all the units Psystar sells will probably have OSX on them.
Does Psystar's installation of OSX violate Apple's EULA? Is Apple's EULA even legal? I have no idea, but Psystar is not the company who is going to spend millions slugging it out in court trying to get Apple's EULA declared invalid. This is a Fly-By-Night operation and Psystar's behaviour so far -- from the constantly changing addresses to the questionable background of its owners to the fact that they have built their entire business model on selling freely available OSX hacks -- tells me exactly what is going to happen next:
When Apple Apple sues -- and make no mistake, they will sue -- Psystar will fold and disappear. That's been the Psystar game plan all along. Take as many orders and collect as much money as possible before they get shut down. And if you happen to be one of the people waiting for delivery when Apple's lawyers attack, well, it sucks to be you.
I think this mostly comes down to fear that these clones might bankrupt the company based on Apple's past exeriences. Even if they don't, Mac OS X at $130 is probably subisdized by hardware hardware sales. Without that money Mac OS X could possibly suffer from lack of funding, losing the very gleam that made you want it in the first place...or be forced to jump to Windows Super Ultimate Edition price.
You can be right, and you can be DEAD right. And you can't always have your cake and eat it too.
Of course, Apple has diversified since it's last jaunt with clones...
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The choice should not be between "sensible hardware" and "good consumer operating system." That is a shitty, false binary choice that is imposed by Apple upon legions of people who want to run their platform.
+++ATH0
Gamers and geeks simply aren't their target consumer market.
And yet, with just a minimal amount of effort, they could easily serve the needs of these markets. All you have to do is hide a PCIe slot in there somewhere. You don't even have to advertise its existence; those who need it will know where to look.
+++ATH0
Comment removed based on user account deletion
For those that want lots of fast storage (Ie photographers), the 2.5 inch HDD in the mini is too slow and small. The processor in the mini can handle it.
A mini tower with 2x 3.5HDD for 1000$ would sell really well. (As a shareholder, I'm a little agravated that apple doesn't do this..)
A tower that apple used to offer started at a reasonable 1600$. I think entry level towers are currently in the 3000$ range.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
don't HAVE to be higher-margin than the machine you describe. The Mac Pro is, in fact, the best deal per-unit-hardware that Apple offers. Apple could make more margin on cheaper machines that do everything the Mac Pro does with very, very few exceptions.
The problem is that no one actually NEEDS a Mac Pro. Nothing takes advantage of 8 cores. Nothing takes advantage of Xeons. Nothing requires higher-latency FB-DIMM RAM.
+++ATH0
another Apple clone:
http://www.zweg.com/dump/photo/c5d72663e8.jpg
Why does the scenario you depict not happen with PC makers? No one blames Dell when they change something in their PC and it breaks. The people who are savvy enough to upgrade their own graphics are savvy enough to know that Shit Happens When You Open The Case Sometimes.
+++ATH0
When I clicked on the article "Psystar has begun shipping its Macintosh clones" site my copy of little snitch went crazy. Two automount processes showed up and an eject icon showed up next to my network icon. I took the mac directly into the local apple certified repair place.
They pulled a copy of the web page from cache. We watched the process repeat, they verfied that someone had taken control of my Mac from this site. I'm doing a clean instal of the OS and hoping for the best....
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
If they can't make a profit selling the OS for $130, then they should raise the price to one where they can make a profit. And if their OS is so expensive to make that the unsubsidized price is too high for customers to afford, well, I guess that takes care of the clone problem, right?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
You would be switching the problem around from being unsupported to being too expensive and likely be effectively in the same rutt. See the circle? Too expensive?
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
That is just a hypothesis (granted it's a very plausible and reasonable one). OSX already does run on a variety of hardware -- just not as big a variety as Windows. While you probably can't run OSX on just any PC, you could probably spec a system out for it specifically (as Psystar has apparently done). The most interesting thing about this company might be that it is a chance to see the hypothesis tested. Linux users are already quite willing to accept hardware limitations to avoid OS instability.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
It clones a whole ship? How does it handle the sails?
(ba-dum-bum).
Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
"They said I probly shouldn't fly with just one eye," "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
What I would be interested to see is your side of the argument proving that Apple suffers from the lack of a mid-range tower. They seem to be doing just fine without, and there is nothing circular about that logic. Surely people who want a mid-range tower might consider a mid-range Apple tower, but that, my friend, is circular logic to a capital T.
I am surprised they haven't gone after the emacs "operating system" by now.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
You don't RC. It requires an "Apple-labeled" computer.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
How? If they've paid for each and every copy they distribute, then there's no infringement.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
On what grounds? Psystar is installing a retail boxed product of MacOS X on Psystar hardware.
Correct.
There's no copyright violation so none of the extreme remedies in the Copyright Act apply.
Any legal restriction Apple seeks to impose that their software can only be run on their hardware runs afoul of "tying" restrictions in antitrust law. Apple would have to win an antitrust case before they could get a cease and desist order.
WRONG WRONG WRONG. Apple is not considered a monopoly, (remember them climbing to a whopping 5.6% marketshare in computers this past month?) and for anti-trust to apply, you have to be a monopoly. A case might be made for the MP3 player market, but not for the computer or OS market. They are clearly in the minority there. Tying is legal for a non-monopoly, because they do it to try to provide value and if they don't, the competitive market will provide better alternatives. It's illegal for a monopoly because instead of trying to tie value, they use their market dominance in a non competitive market to muscle in on new turf. That's illegal. If Apple wanted to go after these guys, the government cannot stop them on those grounds.
While it sucks, they might have a DCMA fight here, or have something one of those "look and feel" lawsuits. The Apple Lawyers are very crafty and aggressive. I'm surprised they haven't pounced yet, maybe they are just making sure their ducks are in a row, but I believe they will attack soon.
What we'll probably see is heavily restrictive DRM in future Macs to prevent this.
Correct.
Or an end to retail sales of MacOS.
Hardly, at least not in the foresable future. This is a small outfit hacking Dells and putting the Mac OS on it. The guy has to have an automated factory data cloning hard drives with data before he puts a dent in Apple sales, and even then he has to prove that they can provide all the normal functions. Note the software update doesn't work. So, what else doesn't work? If I had a spare dell I'd hack it myself to learn but no way am I buying one for my mother. I'd be on the hook to fix it or explain everything that didn't work to her and listen to her whine about it.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Well, the full price for Windows Vista Ultimate is $319. Let's suppose OS X ends up being even more expensive, somehow, and is priced at $500.
If you buy a compatible PC for $500 and the OS costs another $500, you're still only paying $1000 for an expandable Mac desktop, which is a bargain compared to the Mac Pro.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Everybody keeps talking about how Apple's lawyers are going to go after Psystar any second now. Let me remind all of you that Apple's legal team is not undefeated. They lost the lawsuit against Microsoft about the "Look and feel" of their operating system.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
If a company COULD make a geek-a-liciously delicious mid-range tower with the great looks of an Apple product, it would have been done already.
I'm sorry, I really don't understand what the HELL you mean by this.
(a) I'm not asking for a "mid-range tower". My original comment was that a mid-range tower is one of several possible solutions that would satisfy my requirements.
(b) How exactly do you imagine that Apple would be somehow incapable of making a plain old desktop Mac. They've done it before. They've even done one under Jobs.. they just screwed up by making the cube a middle-of-the-road desktop in capability but charged high end workstation prices for it.
(c) There are fewer engineering tradeoffs required for this product than anything else they make. It doesn't jave the size limitations of the mini or a laptop. It doesn't have the layout and size limitations of an iMac or a laptop. It doesn't have the noise problems of the Mac Pro or the head problems of the mini and the high-end laptops and the Pro.
(d) BMW does make an economy car. It's called (with no intention of irony... they bought an economy car company that made it already) the "mini". Unlike the BMW mini, which is actually a car (seats, trunk, options) the Mac mini is more like a BMW motorbike... it costs as much as a desktop, but drives like a settop.
(e) Who said anything about "low end"? Low end is around $300 these days. I'm sure Apple would charge a minimum of $800 for a "Mini pro" or over $1000 for a "Mini Tower". It's not the low end customers who are looking for this, it's everyone up to the edge of the professional workstation market. The entry level for Macs that fit the job we're talking about start at two grand.
But most of all, the idea that they couldn't make one is just bizarre. Seriously. What the hell does "if a company COULD make" it mean?
...would that make me a Mac fanboi?
clone of a Mac fanboi? Mac fanboi clone? fanboi clone Ma--
*head explodes
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
The article notes that it comes with Leopard installed but that YOU CANNOT REINSTALL it yourself from a leopard CD (Which comes with it). (and you presumably cannot install Lion or whatever the next OS is) So if You want to run mac OS then you have to pay them to install Mac OS of $150. it also lacks firewire, blue tooth, and wifi. They will add Firewire for $50.
Shipping is another $50 (macs ship free).
so the total price is $609 without wifi or blue tooth. compared to $599 for the mac. The cpu is a bit faster, the disk is bigger and faster.
You can buy the mac at macmall where they will upgrade your memory and and give you a "free" printer for the same price (provided you can stomach the "rebate" spanking machine).
so basically a mac is cheaper, smaller and quieter. Not to mention the mac comes with software updates and you can re-install the software.
----
the psystar's big brother, actually is cost competitive with the powermac however.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The FSF should sue Apple over the name of this eMac becuase it resembles emacs too much.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
is it possible to mod this insightful and troll at the same time?
http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
They've paid for each copy on the DVD. But if they preinstalled it, then there'd be an additional copy on the computer's hard drive. That's the copy that would be infringing to distribute.
Note that I don't like the idea, or think that its the way things should be. But it is apparently how copyright law currently works. (This is why people say that EULAs are valid, too: you don't need a license to use the copy of the software on the disc it came on, but you need a license to get permission to copy it to your computer (i.e. install it).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You mean like Linux, which runs on loads of hardware and is just as buggy and fucked up as Windows? Oh, wait...
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
Hmmm... my linux boxes all run fine. Matter of fact the only real problem I've ever had was getting my old matrox dual head video card to work properly and that was in 2000. Other than that you'll have to expand upon these bugs you speak of. As far as the windows stuff goes... Yeah it's totally buggy, I agree. I work on that crap ass OS everyday of my life as an admin. I think the best part of this all was that it was my experiences as a windows admin that convinced me to run Linux. P.S. There is no such thing as a forward slash.
...And first Psystar ship clones Mac.
You said the same thing about vaginas.
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
Microsoft EULAs are much better in the original Klingon.
Not if they're sticking Official Apple Stickers on it. Such as those obtained with iPods.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
So, are you saying that Apple has "market power" in the market for Mac OS X? If the standard was whether a manufacturer has market power in their exact product (not its category), then there would NEVER be a question. So, obviously not. Instead, the question is whether Apple has market power with Mac OS X in the operating systems market. Anyone care to argue that they do? Didn't think so. I haven't even taken antitrust law (yet), and I could reason through that one. Furthermore, the link you gave (US DOJ) uses the example of Windows as having market power in the operating systems market, and thus contradicts your premise.
Lose essential liberties to get temporary safety = get only hassles and security theater.
The irony being that OSX doesn't run all that well on Apple hardware either.
Are you sure about the TPM part? AFAIK part of the OS are indeed encryptet, but the key is known so not much of an issue.
I didn't think sarcasm tags would be required for that one; that the "Oh, wait..." would suffice. I guess I was wrong.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
"Microsoft already had clauses on what machines Windows could be installed on, if the vendors could sell other OSes or not, etc. Remember they got caught and punished for it?"
They got caught and punished for abusing a monopoly. Those tactics would have been perfectly legal if Microsoft weren't deemed to have a monopoly on desktop operating systems.
"The same will happen with Apple"
The same will happen to Apple if they ever reach a position where Macs are deemed to have a monopoly of the desktop computer market.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
I'm not denying that the BSD license allows them to do it - but the core point of Apple selling the work of other people still stands.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
On another side, I've repaired my powerbook pro with another brand harddrive, non-apple-branded; ....
it's even smaller! did I void my lifestyle now? depressive
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
"I think this mostly comes down to fear that these clones might bankrupt the company based on Apple's past exeriences."
The only thing that nearly bankrupted Apple was Apple itself. The current Apple management team knows this, hence the fact that they're running a very different company from the one that existed before Jobs returned to the helm.
" Even if they don't, Mac OS X at $130 is probably subisdized by hardware hardware sales."
I doubt that the boxed set is in any way subsidised from hardware sales, although the ones bundled with Macs (and indeed a growing range of other hardware that uses it) obviously are, much as OEM versions of Windows are also subsidised from hardware sales (and cost a small fraction of what they sell boxed sets for). The fact of the matter is that OS X costs significantly less than Windows to develop (there are many reasons for this), and it doesn't have to act as a cash cow that finances other projects which bleed red ink for years, so Apple can afford to sell it for less while still making a tidy profit on each box.
"Of course, Apple has diversified since it's last jaunt with clones"
And as we've seen with the iPhone, iPod Touch, and AppleTV, OS X is a central part of their current diversification strategy. In fact, it would probably be fair to say that rather than hardware being used to subsidise OS X, it's now a case of OS X giving them the capability to develop new hardware far more cheaply and easily than would be possible if they didn't have a multi-platform, scalable, and highly modular operating system to use on it.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
If you have to replace hardware, it's bricked.
Best Slashdot Co
So... how is this any different from the Hackintosh I have running on an HP laptop at home? I have all hardware functionality, and my updates even work...
Apparently I now have the option of purchasing a less functional equivalent of what I built at home in a few hours time. Excellent, I can check that off the old wish list...
Just another ignorant American.
A company can't appease all needs and wants of every consumer in a single product line. If they COULD, they would.
And yes, I understand the argument that there is a "gap" in the product lines, with the omission of a mid-range tower, but...
What tends to happen here on slashdot is that people who feel "left out" of the current offerings swarm to the threads to say how Apple has left out the majority opinion of "we want a tower". Obviously, Apple thinks that an all-in-one model is a more cost-effective way to bolster the bottom-line. This doesn't mean Apple thinks they know better than you or me, it just means Apple is trying to make as much money as possible. If you don't like that, don't buy Apple products, or go start your own company.
In short, egocentrism on the slashdot community's behalf doesn't dictate what products Apple should build, because MOST people who buy computers aren't slashdotters. What I hear in this discussion is that Apple is losing SOOOO much business because they don't offer a tower, when that vision isn't quite the reality of the situation (unless you want to contend that Apple marketshare would be increasing in even MORE record-breaking bounds than it already is? I'd be interested in that theory.) People are making it sound like Apple are shooting themselves in the foot and losing huge market opportunities, but the numbers just don't support that notion.
Sorry mate, I'm used to being attacked whenever the M$ word comes up.
A company can't appease all needs and wants of every consumer in a single product line.
That's all the more true of they don't provide a product that can be significantly customized anywhere except at the extreme high end of one of their product lines.
What tends to happen here on slashdot is that people who feel "left out" of the current offerings swarm to the threads to say how Apple has left out the majority opinion of "we want a tower".
Please refrain from putting words into my mouth. I have not said that this is a "majority opinion" nor even that a mid-range tower is the product that I'd like to see added. In fact I've pointed out twice now that this is not what I'm saying.
If you want to pick a fight with someone who is actually arguing the point that you want to argue against, go ahead.
My point is that the gap in the product line is real, and Apple would penetrate a sizable as-yet-untapped market if they filled it. Whether that gap should be filled by the device you're talking about, or whether that is a "majority" market or just a large one... I'm not going there.
People are making it sound like Apple are shooting themselves in the foot and losing huge market opportunities, but the numbers just don't support that notion.
I haven't seen any numbers that even address this point. There's not even a suggestion of anything even vaguely like a controlled study as to the relative popularity of comparable all-in-one vs headless Macs running OS X. There can't be, because Apple hasn't had comparable products since before even OS 9 was shipped. Remember, the iMac first shipped with OS 8!
There are numbers indicating that apart from laptops all-in-one designs are currently unpopular in the market as a whole. About the only line of all-in-one desktops that's got any traction at all are Macs. People buying Windows-based boxes don't generally buy all-in-ones. People buying Macs have to buy all-in-ones.
Would Apple's market share be higher if they sold a conventional desktop? I believe so, obviously, though the fact is that I can only point to indirect numbers showing that. On the other hand, you can't point to any numbers indicating I'm wrong, because there simply are no relevant numbers for Macs running OS X.
The figures suggest that for Windows users the demand for all-in-one desktops is minuscule. For OS X users, as I noted, there's no comparable all-in-one desktop to compare against, so really all they show is that OS X on Intel is very popular. That's interesting, and for some viewers (particularly the Apple fanatics: a lot of the pro-Apple camp argued that this would be a stupid idea right up to the time Jobs announced it, and many anti-Apple fanatics kept that argument up long after the market showed otherwise) even surprising, but it's almost completely independent of the hardware line up.
So while it's possible that there is some fundamental difference between OS X users and Windows users (and I would be interested to read your arguments for this point), I find it hard to believe that Apple wouldn't sell more Macs and make more profit if they sold a "Mini Pro" (the beefed up Mini) or a "Mac Semi-pro" (the mid-range tower you're discussing).
One final note: the arguments against filling this gap right now are the same ones that were arrayed against the Mini itself right up to the time Jobs announced it. Apple sold a boatload of Minis, to a lot of people who never considered a Mac before, and it's been a real success. You've got your finger on the pulse of conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom isn't always right. Think about that.
I'm not sure what's going on here, but my comments aren't directed at YOU specifically, rather, as commentary to this entire thread.
I got that impression, yes. Wouldn't it have made more sense to post at the top level?
I would argue they aren't popular because the XP world isn't condusive to an all-in-one, integrated hardware/software solution like Apple can offer.
I'm not sure why you think the OS makes a big difference. It's not like Macs haven't historically had a variety of form factors, and I've had a variety of Macs with a variety of form factors, all the way back to the original 128k Mac. The thing that made the original Mac attractive for me is that it was totable. Back before laptops it was a pretty good equivalent... but since laptops came out that aspect of all-in-one hardware has really become irrelevant.
I held onto my old Beige G3 for years, upgrading it eventually to a G4/533, because it was the last conventional Desktop Apple made. And judging by the fact that people were still buying enough G4 upgrades for the G3s to keep OWC and Sonnet making new ones right up to the time the Mini came out kind of implies I wasn't the only one who thought so. In fact I bought a Radeon 9200 from OWC a couple of months before the Mini was announced, because people were making pretty convincing arguments... just like the one you're making now, that Apple wasn't going to come up with a headless Mac. No, the iMac and the all-in-one had reinvigorated Apple.
I'm pretty sure, however, that they don't purposely withhold a mid-range tower and cross their fingers in hopes people buy a Mac Pro.
Not just a Mac Pro. Apple has pretty good margins across the product line, so if people buy an iMac instead of a "Mini Pro" they're making more money, because they're netting 40% or $1200 instead of 40% of $800. That's likely the reason they crippled the intel Mini with an intel GPU, and why they do the same thing with a Macbook. It's not a "nefarious scheme", it's all part of product differentiation.
And it's still forcing a lot of people who want a Mac to buy a computer they wouldn't otherwise consider, and it's kept a number of people I know... NOT all geeks, either... from making the switch.
Which is why Apple will never do it, and some fly-by-night is trying to fill the niche.
Open Source Sushi
I could get almost as much done with either of those apps on a quad-core Q6600 box with 8GB of normal DDR2 or DDR3.
How many people need a machine to do Maya and Final Cut professionally?
How many people need a fast machine that they would like to be a Mac and want some level of future-proofing graphics-wise?
How many gamers and tech enthusiasts is Apple slamming the door on by telling them there's no computer for them?
+++ATH0
I think there's two things you need to keep in mind:
1. Companies make mistakes in product differentiation all the time. When someone is ranting about this, ask yourself "does this mean they think Apple is being nefarious, or do they think Apple is making a mistake?"...
2. The distinction between "product differentiation" and "nefarious scheme" is kind of moot when you can't do anything about it.