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.

5 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  2. And now litigation stops w/Apple by goffster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Until out of chapter 11.

  3. Re:$250 K ? Must be a typo by harryandthehenderson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That must be a typo - could they mean $ 250 million USD ?

    It's not a typo.

    Most companies would not choke on $ 250,000 worth of debt.

    Most large corporations might not choke on that much debt, but they don't constitute most businesses. Considering that Psystar probably has little to no revenue coming in and no real future it's not surprising that they will just cut their losses without taking on more debt.

  4. Re:because OSX is good, Apple hardware not so much by profplump · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Now,now, nothing to see here move along. by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.