Slashdot Mirror
Mac Clone Maker Psystar Files For Bankruptcy
StikyPad was one of several readers letting us know that Psystar has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. We've discussed the Mac clone maker's battles with Apple extensively. The company apparently has over $250,000US in debt, and states that it cannot turn a profit in the current economy. "The Chapter 11 filing will temporarily suspend Apple's copyright infringement suit against Psystar, which is currently before the US District Court of Northern California. But once the bankruptcy protection is sorted out, the copyright case will resume." And PC Mag is reporting that, on the other side of the Atlantic, two new clone companies are just getting started. Like PsyStar, FreedomPC and RussianMac promise to deliver PCs with OS X preloaded.
The company apparently has over $250,000US in debt.
That must be a typo - could they mean $ 250 million USD ? Most companies would not
choke on $ 250,000 worth of debt.
Why would anyone want to run Mac OS on unsupported hardware? It's going to be unstable, missing features, and chances are that getting updates from Apple to install with or without hosing your installation is going to be a bitch.
If you want OS X that bad why not just buy a Mac?
Until out of chapter 11.
. . . if I owe a bank $250 million, the bank has a problem.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
I dunno. The "Apple suing them in the face" problem was a pretty serious one, and is probably what did them in in the end; but their business model is by no means a certain failure.
PC assembly is a fairly low margin business; but there are plenty of companies, large and small, that make a living at it. Psystar had the advantage of massive word-of-mouth and R&D done for them by the hackintosh enthusiasts. Were it not for the legal trouble, I would assume that (barring specific incompetence) they could have carried on for a fair while.
This is a point worth considering. A similarly important point, where is the money coming from for the non-U.S.clones?
The most simple explanation is $250,000 in debt happens very quickly once the lawyers bills start hitting the books
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I dunno. The "Apple suing them in the face" problem was a pretty serious one, and is probably what did them in in the end; but their business model is by no means a certain failure.
I don't understand this opinion. So let's say in the best case, most realistic scenario Pystar and these other companies get the relevant provisions of Apple's OS X licensing declared unenforceable and they are removed from the license. They are now in the business of competing with Apple to sell hardware, while having to buy the OS from Apple. If they become moderately successful, what is there to stop Apple from no longer selling boxed copies of their OS and thus killing them?
Seriously. Selling boxed copies of OS X is a small part of Apple's business. They could switch to online distribution for upgrades and use DRM to prevent them from installing. End result, Pystar and their ilk die and Apple's customers are inconvenienced with DRM. Gee, thanks guys.
Or, Apple could go a more drastic route. They could simply ditch selling new versions of OS X and provide them free of charge to all Mac owners. It would barely dent their profits and lower their support and development costs considerably. Or they could take a middle road and sell a yearly service like their ".mac" service and include in that service upgrades to the OS and network services like e-mail, but provide no other upgrade path for individual licensors. Either way Pystar dies and Apple moves on without worrying about being undercut.
The way I see it, if Pystar and the like succeed, all they do is drive Apple to change policy enough to kill them. Any business model built upon being successful but not too successful lest the company you rely entirely upon kill you, is a doomed business model.
"Macs are over priced, but people pay that premium because they want an Apple product."
Your statement seems to contradict itself. If something were overpriced then it would cost more than the market would pay for it, slowly leading to the demise of the manufacturer. But as you note, Apple products seem sell reasonably well, even at a perceived price premium. That would lead me to conclude that, from a market perspective, their products are not truly overpriced.
If a company offers a product that the market percieves as superior, people will pay more for it. This applies to everything from dairy products to automobiles to consumer electronics. The fact that Apple is able to sell products for a reasonable profit isn't really much of an argument against them or their products.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to drive my over-priced Honda home and watch my trendy, over-priced and fashionable Sony HDTV. (no, not really)
I can certainly understand that you want an expandable machine, and want to run OS X, and want it to be under $1500 -- those are pretty reasonable desires from a power-user computer owner. But I'm not sure you outrage is justified as an investor -- Apple seems to be doing pretty well selling non-expandable machines in the mid-range, and they have been for years. If Apple was primarily in the market for budget-oriented power-users it would be silly to not offer a cheaper tower, but they're not, and it's probably not a great business strategy for them to try; there's a very real chance it would hurt their sales and confuse their marketing in the other, well-established, successful market segments where the currently operate.
Psystar had the advantage of massive word-of-mouth and R&D done for them by the hackintosh enthusiasts. Were it not for the legal trouble, I would assume that (barring specific incompetence) they could have carried on for a fair while.
I agree that they had major name recognition, but that recognition equated to them being labeled "the guys who are pissing off Apple by making clones" and not "the guys who are making awesome, cheap Mac clones that I want to buy". The members of the /. community that enjoy Macs do so because of the technical merits (UNIX underpinnings, efficient GUI, etc. [don't flame me]). The rest of the world likes Macs because they're "cool" and they don't necessarily define that "coolness" explicitly. So, if a /.er wants the technical advantages of having a Mac without the price, they go for a hackintosh. The problem there is that a /.er is probably just going to build that hackintosh him/herself rather than pay Psystar for one. Not only is it cheaper, but you get to learn something in the process. The rest of the world would see a Mac clone and say "that's not a Mac! It's not cool!" and move along.
When I hear "normal" people complain about Macs, what I hear consistently is "I wish Apple would make a cheaper Mac", not "I wish some other company would step in and compete with Apple to drive down the price." What I'm trying to say is that the market for pre-built hackintoshes is tiny. Of all the people I know, both technical and nontechnical, I can't imagine any of them buying one.
Apple would be violating anti-trust laws by not selling their operating system & upgrades separately, period.
I have two comments here. First, to be violating antitrust laws Apple would have to have a monopoly in one of the relevant markets. I suspect you know very little about antitrust laws, but on the off chance you are not clueless, what market do you think it is that Apple has monopolized? Second, writing the word "period" followed by the punctuation mark "." is redundant. I understand in speaking using this technique but it does not apply in written communication. Please stop it.
Psystar's case was legally winnable, but they didn't have the backers for winning in court.
Do you know what Pystar's case was about? Even if it was winnable, my post explains why it doesn't matter.
It might fair better for European clone makers since anti-trust laws will be enforced more correctly against non-European companies, i.e. Apple.
The EU antitrust laws are about the same as ours and I still don't see the monopoly you are predicating such action upon. Further, you specify non-European companies as though that makes a difference, which anyone with a clue knows is irrelevant. Please do a little research and see the hundreds of European companies the commission has taken action against before making such slanderously uninformed claims.