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.
Windows just isn't ready for the desktop yet. It may be ready for the coasters that you nerds use to sit your colas on, but the average computer user isn't going to spend hours in the dos cli configuring irq numbers and io addresses, dealing with constant crashes and manually installing networking support just so they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with, especially not when they already have a free alternative that works perfectly well and is backed by major corporations like Redhat and Canonical, as opposed to Windows which is only supported by Microsoft. The last thing I want is a chair-flinging gorilla (haha) providing me my OS.
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?
Clearly they only have one chance left to survive. They must clone Steve Jobs!
Until out of chapter 11.
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?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Basically it boils down to this (As a prepare to build my hackintosh, parts in the mail),
I can get a great tower computer with lots of expandability for $1100 (Includes the cost of the OS). To get an equally expandable tower from apple (with room for more than 1 hard drive) would cost me $2500. The larger and growing larger hole in the mac lineup is the tower. as an apple investor I find it inexcusable.
For me its this or a windows box, both have the tools for my photography and programming.
.
. . . 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!
Mac clone companies will never make it. Macs are over priced, but people pay that premium because they want an Apple product. Apple and it's products are in line with the Fashion industry. They are stylish to have.
To have a clone Mac is like someone buying a watch (or hand bag) off the street vendors in New York, except you don't even get the Mac logo that tells everyone how cool you are because you own a Mac. :D
It will be interesting to see if the Microsoft, etc. conspiracy rumors around Psystar are validated.
Why would Microsoft be funding Psystar? How would weakening the effectiveness of software EULAs help Microsoft?
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
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).
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
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.
Or they simply won't sell retail copies of OS X, which is how Psystar was doing this.
Which will leave only the people who are violating their copyrights, something far more easily pursued (if they sell in Europe, the US, or Japan.)
Or Apple could take advantage of the TPM chip that's been present in Macs since almost immediately after they moved to the x86 platform.
They've also built their fortune on making an OS you can install across x86 hardware (and even some other platforms).
It's not so much the EULA as a whole that's in question here as much as it is a specific clause of the EULA - the clause that states the OS may only be installed on a specific manufacturer's hardware. That is not Microsoft's business model so they would have absolutely no interest in helping their arch enemy protect it.
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.
Lets do ignore that the last time they allowed clones, they got their lunch eaten.
I agree, stability would be an excellent reason. But the pure truth of the matter is, even with the change to Intel, Mac's are priced more on brand name than the cost of the parts that go into them.
Apple can't compete against a company that can produce cheaper products because Apple considers one of it's strengths to be it's "Designer Computer" status.
Apple will never (in it's current incarnation and under Steve) allow anyone but Apple sell Apple computers. Period. They can talk all they want about how in the future we'll have jetpacks and a "Dell Mac" on every desk. But when it comes down to the brass tacks, it'll never happen and they certainly are not basing their business plans on the idea that it could.
The larger and growing larger hole in the mac lineup is the tower. as an apple investor I find it inexcusable.
The tower is in its last days as a mass market product. Too much space. Too much power. Too much weight.
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.
Lies. They've never used the TPM chip. They've always relied on modern computers having EFI disabled. (Most computers ship with the Framework, which is EFI based, but EFI support is complete disabled and only the BIOS compatibility mode is used. Source: http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/
Or Apple could take advantage of the TPM chip that's been present in Macs since almost immediately after they moved to the x86 platform.
As I understand it they stopped including a TPM chip after a short time citing cost and lack of interest from developers. A quick Google search finds this: Tom's Hardware Article provide a source for such a claim (end of the first paragraph). Another response to your post claims Apple uses TPM to lock down OS X, but I've never heard any knowledgeable source make such a claim. Here's a detailed article explaining about Apple's use of TPM as a tool for cryptography and how it has never been used as DRM on OS X.
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.
So you expect them to just give up on the rather lucrative sales of OSX to all their old macs? I bought leopard for my 3 year old macbook along with a new hard drive. Thats $150.00 of almost pure profit for Apple, that they wouldnt have gotten from me otherwise, I had restore CD's, I could have used them, but I wanted expose and spaces and time machine. I highly doubt they'd give up that second sale just to spite another company.
All Apple's software sales together make up about 6% of their profits. That includes iWork and all their professional software. OS X is probably less than 1%. It is fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. They can eat the cost. They can raise the cost of Macs ever so slightly and people will pay it, especially if the value of macs goes up by having free OS upgrades. Or they can incorporate the sales into the .mac service thus increasing profits by getting people to subscribe to a yearly service when they mostly just want on OS update. Or, as per my first suggestion, they can move to all online sales and lock it down with DRM.
I highly doubt they'd give up that second sale just to spite another company.
Spite another company? I don't recall suggesting any such thing. They're protecting their market for PC's which is about half their income and at the same time preventing the Apple and OS X brands against dilution. They might not do it to stop a very small company, but the larger any such competitor grows the stronger the business case for such a move.
Imagine that you've upgraded both your software and hardware. The new hardware (perhaps a RAID card, or a video card) works fairly well with your new system, but not well at all with the system originally sold with your mac. Something goes wrong-- and your entire system has to be installed from scratch.
If you have to upgrade from the original system first, it's a real pain, and adds another hour or two. Now, I suppose Apple could just ask to validate the original system install disks after installing the new system, but the "10.1 upgrade" required an existing 10.0 system.
There's always the iMac... Quite frankly, Apple needs a Powermac G4 equivalent-- an Core i7 with a few slots. With USB 3.0 on the horizon, and games demanding better and better graphics cards, a cheapish PCI machine might just hold its value.
On the other hand, I have a late model PowerMac G4 with one additional IDE hard drive (for time machine), one USB 2.0 card (for an iPod), and very slightly upgraded graphics in the form of a Radeon 9600 Pro.
The hard drive was taken from a firewire chassis because the bridge chip turned out to be slightly incompatible with my system, and the videocard was taken from a G5, and modded down. Even the USB card was more than trivial to obtain-- most pci cards support only the other operating system.
Today Intel Macs have a hard time with most of the third party PCIe cards, because a BIOS is assumed.
I'm not sure Microsoft is really where it is because of lack of cheap alternatives else Linux, certainly since the later Ubuntu releases would be doing much better.
I think it comes down more to interoperability, businesses buy a machine, it has Windows on it, so they figure they'll just go with Windows server, then they figure they may as well develop with Visual Studio and use MS SQL for their database and so on.
I think it's more about lockin - sure people could get systems with Mac OS X cheaper, but would they really want it if it wouldn't run all the applications they've built in .NET at least without hassle? What about the fact Mac OS X server is a rather poor offering, they'd probably want to keep their Windows servers and how well would they integrate there? What about retraining their techies to deal with any problems that may arise with Macs?
Of course, one business sees their partner or customer business using Microsoft tech. so they use it to so they can interoperate with them easy, this carries on down the line is why so many businesses use MS software. I think the only way to deal with that is if a complete offering can be provided that is at least as good as Microsoft's or simply over time by pushing Microsoft to follow open standards and then building alternatives based on those standards so companies can migrate away one peice of software at a time. Whilst Mac OS X is indeed a fine OS, it's only a small part the puzzle, you'd still likely be running MS office on it and Mac OS X server leaves a lot (too much really) to be desired. For all Micrososft's faults, Visual Studio, .NET and C# really does offer the best combination of development speed, performance, application quality out there so Apple would really need to bolster up their development tools, provide a database offering that integrates as nicely with everything else in the network as MS SQL server does.
I think Microsoft just has their claws in too many markets for people to switch to a new OS regardless of price, even if many people see it as better than MS' OS, it's the whole package that Apple can't provide but Microsoft can. People are in general lazy and unwilling to take an ethical/moral/personal stand if it requires more effort and the full solution model of doing things just caters too well to that.
You're right. If you go out and buy those things without doing any research, they won't work on Linux. Of course, they won't work on a Macintosh either. So, I guess Macintosh isn't ready for the desktop yet as well?
I went to Best Buy.com and picked the first of each that came up. The printer (Epson PictureMate Dash) probably would have worked on a Mac and maybe would have worked on Ubuntu (the flavor of Linux I use). Without buying it, I can't tell for sure, but the information I found online seemed to show that it would. Neither the wifi card I chose or the TV tuner supported Linux, but then they didn't support Mac OSX either.
So because hardware manufacturers don't support Mac OSX it just isn't ready for the average user?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Apple is a business and will do what makes the most business sense. In the face of significant erosion of their Mac business to clone makers or to threats to their brand, that's probably to move away from their currently DRM free, trust the user, policy and towards a DRM lockdown.
Trust the user. You must be new to dealing with Apple.
Apple has been fucking over their users for years.
You're an idiot. It's perfectly legal to run a business so successfully you gain a monopoly. It's only illegal to abuse that monopoly by damaging other markets.
Tell that to Ma Bell. There are many issues involved in anti-monopoly law. The simplest is leveraging your monopoly to take over another market.
Try reading something other than than an Apple press release, you cock-smoking fanboi.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano