Slashdot Mirror
Mac Cloner Psystar Ships First Service Pack
Preedit writes "Not only is Mac clone maker Psystar continuing to defy Apple's ban on third-party Leopard installations, it's supporting the hardware with updates. Psystar Mac clones shipped as of Monday will include a 'service pack' that features fixes for a range of problems, some of them inherent in Apple's own software, according to InformationWeek. The fixes address a range of troubles, from glitches in Apple's Time Machine backup feature to quirks in the Keyboard Viewer and Character Palette entries in Leopard's system preferences menu. There's also support for the latest version of Java and other updates. According to the story, by offering a full menu of support, Psystar appears to be daring Apple to attempt to enforce provisions in the Leopard license agreement that forbid third-party installations and sales." We've been discussing Psystar clones for a while.
More likely, they're hoping to grab a quick buzz, score some venture capital, and then run off into the sunset, cash in hand, before Apple legal pulls the plug on the party...
begun, the mac war has.
If people can get past, can they get future? Best way to confuse a stoner
Apple is unlikely to sue Psystar. Apple would probably lose; Apple's EULA is an "illegal tying arrangement" under antitrust law. Psystar is tiny, but a court loss would encourage bigger players to start making clones.
More likely, Apple will stop selling their OS as a boxed product.
I went through exactly this excercise the other day with someone. It turns out that Apple and Dell have very similar prices. The exception is with the MacBook Pro, in which Apple exceeds Dell by about 20% or so, but the closest Dell laptop is also larger by a fair margin.
:)
Dell doesn't sell a Mini competitor, and Apple doesn't sell a headless low or mid-end desktop tower, so those products were impossible to compare.
Apple's MacBook line, iMac line, and Pro line are all very comparable - even cheaper right after a refresh - to their Dell counterparts.
Go try it
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
This box is NOT a clone, it is a hackintosh . Please refer to it as such, but not a clone. A true clone would have EFI firmware, not EFI emulation. It would require no hacks to install OS X, it would cleanly install and be recognized by the OS.
I believe this would actually be a desirable system if it really were a clone... but with that fan noise problem and all, how many people would really want one?
You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right.
Just maybe Apple is allowing this to continue to test the waters for a PC version of OS/X
There is as much "perceived value" in style and interface as there is "perceived value" in genuine performance. A computer is a tool to do something, and for the vast majority of users not running servers, the interface contributes to the tool's usefulness as much as teh megahurtz.
Having used some truly horrible interfaces in my time, and having seen the real productivity improvements that come with superior design, I assign a pretty high value to usability. Just look at any recent Motorola phone *shudder*.
But at some point the people at Psystar must have clicked "I Agree", so they agreed to comply. This is the strongest contract in the entire software industry, even stronger than a "TOS" link at the bottom of a web-page
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
The mac market share isn't 4%. That's a dumb number that's used to make Windows appear much more dominant.
/. for a legitimate discussion about anti-trust.
Compare Dell's unit sales to HP's unit sales to Apple's unit sales for a given segment and you'll find Apple in the top-5 for sure on any given month. In laptops, Apple is #1 per unit and dollar and has been for a really, really long time.
Still, I doubt there's the expertise on
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
The funniest part of this whole thing is the guy who wrote the patch that allows Psystar to install Apple's OS X on their PC boxes is pissed because Psystar is using his "free software" to make tons of cash and they are not giving him any of the profit. What's ironic is the fact that he blatantly violated Apple's EULA, and is now surprised that Psystar is violating his EULA. LOL.
Hmm, desktop hard drive? Check. Standard laptop RAM? Check. Ability to replace the video card? Technically, check. It can be replaced as it's a separate module. Upgrading...well, you'd have to have a lower-end card and find a service provider willing to order/install the better one for you. However, it's kind of a moot point. You know why? BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE DON'T GIVE A SHIT. Geeks need to get that through their obstinate skulls. The vast majority of the buying public doesn't give a shit about upgrading their video card. They just want a computer that works so they can check their email, do word processing, and organize their photos. Upgrade-happy geeks are a tiny sliver of the overall market.
They don't have a consumer desktop line, which is what a whole lot of people and companies want. Their Mac Pros are good for the money if and only if you actually need all the high end hardware they mandate. The entry level Mac Pro is $2800 with no monitor. Now that's no surprising as it features things like dual quad core Xeons. Ok, fine, but there are very, very, very few apps that can use 8 cores. There are, in fact, very few that can use 4 cores. So for most people it, like much of the other high end hardware you have to get (ECC RAM, for example) is a waste of money. Consider that MPC (our supplier at work) will happily sell me a single quad core desktop for just under $1000.
Thus it is overpriced if you don't need the hardware they are trying to push. They don't have a mid range tower at all.
You can go down to their all in ones, but of course those come with their own problems. A big one would be why do I want to get a nice monitor, if I am going to have to get rid of it when the computer attached to it is obsolete? Monitors last longer than computers, particularly nice ones. You get a nice 24" IPS LCD, man, that's a keeper for a long time. However, the computer is going to get outdated at the same rate all computers do, which is to say fairly quickly. So if you buy the all in ones, you have to get a monitor every time you want a computer upgrade.
That's a waste of money to most of us. Pretty much everyone I know keeps their monitors well past their computers. Either they buy cheap monitors, in which case they generally keep them until they break because they don't want to spend any more money on a display than they have to, or they buy good monitors, and they keep them because the monitor is still a good monitor and works for many years.
I have a nice 26" IPS panel that I plan on keeping probably until it fails. Hell, first thing to go out on it will be the backlight, and I can and most likely will buy new tubes and a new ballast and replace it. It's a great display and when the day comes that I retire it from my primary system, it'll work very nicely on my guest system. No reason to throw it away in a couple years. However if it were tied to my computer, well that's what would happen. I upgrade my system very regularly. My monitor though, that lasts.
So that's where the complaints against Apple's price tend to come from. It isn't that they are necessarily bad if you do a straight 1:1 comparison. It is that they don't offer many choices, and one of the choices they exclude is one of the most popular choices: consumer desktop/tower and separate monitor. People like that choice, and businesses REALLY like that choice. If you want a separate monitor, you either have to get a very low end system, with no upgradability (mini) or an amazingly powerful workstation (pro). Nothing in the middle range. Thus for most people, the pro is what they'd look at and it is expensive.
Show me a mac tower with a single dual core processor and regular DDR2 RAM and then we can talk. Until then the choices are a system that isn't powerful or expandable enough or a system that is overpriced.
I think Steve's blade may be a bit dull trying to cut through all the red tape set forth in their own EULA.
from: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:yZd3DfSTe6cJ:www.engadget.com/2008/04/15/psystar-says-rumors-of-its-demise-are-greatly-exaggerated-still/comments/11642842/+leopard+eula+unenforceable&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
Psystar/Open Computing is reselling a full (read: fully-licesned) copy of MacOSX Leopard. They are then preinstalling it onto the system, telling you that they do modifications, and telling you that the copy is no longer under warranty. In addition, the courts have been moving in the direction of saying EULA's are not necessarily contractual, because of the low barrier of people to click "I Accept", weakening any potential Apple case.
To be fair, DMCA is vague on modifying software for personal use, and violating license, but only from the perspective of "taking away revenue". In this case, Apple is getting attributed as creating the software, and sells a retail copy of Leopard every time Psystar/Open Computing sells one to buyers.
from: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:dIo9yM9-QvMJ:timmorton.blogspot.com/2008/04/apple-vs-psystar-clone-mac-era.html+leopard+eula+unenforceable&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7&gl=us
What it boils down to is that running Leopard on a machine that Apple did not make violates the EULA. EULA's are largely NOT legally enforceable, and in those states where they are the degree to which they are varies widely. EULA's are not active contracts, and are largely invalid because you cannot read them in entirety (or at all usually) on the packaging before making your purchase, leaving you vulnerable to stipulations that were unknown at the time of purchase. EULA's are legally weak, all but entirely unenforceable, and would be outrageously expensive to attempt to enforce on any type of broad scale.
Basically I think Apple really would have to pay to play this game that it might lose. EULA's are largely flawed and usually unenforceable. Will be interesting to see what Apple does, if not nothing.