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.

Comments

The question is: how come

[guruevi]

That is the biggest question. They couldn't undercut Apple in the market segment which could mean that Apple's are well priced for what they have to offer? Too little people interested in non-Apple Mac products which could mean that they didn't offer the same service as Apple does or their products were of lower quality? Or did their management just drink all profits that should've been used to expand the company and pay for in-house lawyers?

Re:The question is: how come

[Ohio Calvinist]

I think the problem was that to the average consumer they were pretty obscure, had no retail presense, or brand-recognition, or brand-loyalty. For the informed, I'm sure a lot were fearful that if Apple won, the company would fold and support would disappear or an Apple update would cause system instability or worse. In addition, there are true apple "fans" that appreciate the products/service/support/buying experience. For the well informed, it isn't "overly" hard to build a Hackintosh if you're capable of following directions and have some initative, and can be done on hardware many have lying around. I think the first group and loyalists are by-and-large the vast majority... except maybe on /.

Re:$250 K ? Must be a typo

[rsborg]

That must be a typo - could they mean $ 250 million USD ? Most companies would not choke on $ 250,000 worth of debt.

Unless they wanted to choke... as stated earlier, an important side-effect of bankruptcy is the disruption of all outstanding litigation... Maybe Apple was getting too close to finding the money behind PsyStar?

Re:And now litigation stops w/Apple

[Sandbags]

actually, the bankruptcy filing will releav exactly who is funding them. In the pending court case, the investors could be protected, but in SEC investigations, and in bank records that are required to be made public durring a bankruptcy, this has to come to light.

Re:All fun and games till Apple goes trusted

[Sandbags]

Apple has promised there will not be chip level lockdowns in OS X, or any future apple OS. their OS runs on commodoty hardware, they only license it to run on Apple Brnaded systems (currently). It;s been rumored for years that Apple is partnering with dozens of vendors and plans to release an OS X approved spec and sell OS X on shelves opposite Windows (likely on a price tier competitive to Home Premium, but including iLife).

Apple has not released OS X for open systems for 1 primary reason: they don;t want to support your junk kit, and they don;t want to get the blame for OS X having stability issues. If manufacturers are allowed to be held to the same wishy washy standards as micsoft, then not only would OS X be seen to be just as unstable, but it would likely be sold on many systems that don't really meet the minimum specs of iLife, and would provide a lack-luster performance.

The hardware market has been shrinking (unified drivers, fewer verndors, better driver certification, open standards). In a couple of years, especially once dedicated GPUs become the norm across all systems, and when comodoty $500 PCs have significant specs, I expect to see Apple come pre-configured, OEM, on select systems, but by that point, Apple hardware should also be slightly more in line price-wise (on several systems, Apple is actually currently cheaper than the competition, especially in the pro and server lines, but on the low end there's still a premium for the design and software).

Re:$250 K ? Must be a typo

[rjhubs]

While I agree with the mods that the parent could definitely use some tact and probably deserves the moderation. The point raised is valid. The mystery money behind Psystar will be revealed in the bankruptcy hearings as anyone that has given Psystar money would be considered a creditor. As a creditor you have a vested interest in reclaiming as you can of Psystars remaining assets in court. Their identity can only remain secret if they decide not to reclaim any of their losses and not participate in the bankruptcy hearings. Also, GPs point is invalidated in the summary, whicg indicated Apple's lawsuit will resume one bankruptcy is over. So anything that was going to be revealed from that can still be revealed.

Nothing of value was lost...

[idiot900]

You can build a Hackintosh yourself. Bootloaders and such are out there - you can run Leopard on a regular PC, as long as you are careful to only use supported components. Amazingly enough, Apple has been remarkably nonchalant about this. So why do they have such a big problem with Psystar?

Running OSX on a white-box PC takes technical know-how and a willingness to put up with some level of brokenness. This is the polar opposite of 99.9% of Mac buyers, who want their computer to just work - that's why they bought a Mac in the first place. So Hackintoshes do not meaningfully decrease Mac sales - indeed, they might even (very) slightly increase Mac sales because they get people invested in the Mac ecosystem. (Once you've wrangled with getting OSX to run on your white-box PC, only to have to do it again for the next point update, the convenience of a real Mac starts looking like a pretty darn good upgrade.)

The problem with Psystar is that they were promising to make their white-box Mac clones easy to maintain, thus destroying the selling point of a real Mac.

Re:because OSX is good, Apple hardware not so much

[nsayer]

I'm an Apple investor too, and I'm not so appalled.

The differences between, say, the iMac and Mac Pro:

1. > 4GB of RAM
2. > 2 CPU cores, and they're faster
3. PCIe slots
4. 4 internal hard drives
5. Up to 2 internal optical drives

Now, I'm sure this is going to be controversial, but I'll pose the question anyway:

What would you really want to use those PCIe slots for that you couldn't find reasonably equivalent functionality via USB or Firewire? Bonus points if there are mac drivers available.

If the answer includes Gigabit Ethernet (note that we'd be talking about a *second* GigE port, since the iMac comes with one), Fiber Channel or RAID, then doesn't that imply that you'd be better served by either the Mac Pro or an XServe anyway?

What else is on the list?

SCSI? Really?

Fusion powered 3d graphics card? Are gamers really clambering to run awesome 3D games under OS X?

TV tuners and video capture? There are plenty of those for USB, FW or Ethernet.

What I'm saying is that the "mid tower" you describe *likely* doesn't differ significantly from the iMac except for not having a built-in display, those PCIe slots and extra optical and internal drive bays - and in the case of the optical and/or hard drive bays, FW800 is an alternative. And I am honestly struggling to think of why those PCIe slots are missed.