OpenMac

[KTrain]

From Cult of Mac (http://cultofmac.com) for those of you seeking an alternative to the PC but don't want to pay the Mac price. Get it while you can...


A company called Psystar is advertising a $399 pseudo-Mac called the “OpenMac,” which it claims is made from standard PC parts and is compatible with OS X Leopard.

Based in Miami, Florida, Psystar is courting a legal smackdown from Apple, which ended its official “clone” program in 1997 after Steve Jobs returned to run the company. Intended to grow the Mac platform, the clones instead took market share from Apple, seriously impacting its botttom-line.

Which is why Apple will likely pounce on Psystar: the Mac is Apple’s most profitable line, and the last thing Apple wants is a company producing low-cost knockoffs.

Apple will likely center on the use of Leopard: The operating system’s software license forbids it being installed on non-Apple hardware.

Psystar’s butt-ugly OpenMac claims to be a 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo machine with 2GB of RAM, a 250GB hard drive, integrated Intel graphics, a DVD burner and four USB Ports. Most of the components can be upgraded with better graphics or bigger hard drives. Psystar says:

[photon]

Originally Posted by KTrain

Apple will likely center on the use of Leopard: The operating system’s software license forbids it being installed on non-Apple hardware.

Maybe that's their out? Maybe they think that that part of the EULA is illegal, if Apple takes them to court wouldn't that have to be established?

[MarchHare]

I assume Psystar isn't selling these boxes pre-loaded with OS X, but rather customers would have to buy and install their own retail boxed copy. I can't see how Apple could claim Psystar is violating the OS X EULA by selling a computer that doesn't even come pre-loaded with that operating system.

Likely Apple will get them for unauthorized use of and/or cloning the Mac BIOS.

[photon]

http://gizmodo.com/379717/mac-clone-...ge-it-in-court

Psystar, who's just announced that they're going to sell a $399.99 Mac clone called Open Mac, doesn't care that Apple's EULA prohibits using OS X on any machine not made by Apple. In fact, they say that Apple's terms "violate U.S. monopoly laws", posing the example of Microsoft theoretically saying you could only install Windows on Dell machines.

[psicodude]

I think it will be nice to see Apple get a taste of what Microsoft has been chewing on for the last 10 years.

[Barnes]

Their argument is terribly flawed. Microsoft is a software company, Apple is a hardware company. Apple could face antitrust problems in the near future, but not for this.

And if your going to go toe to toe with Apple legal, you probably don't want to have the word 'Mac' in your computer name either.

[photon]

I would really like to see the whole "can only run on Apple hardware" thing challenged in court, so I hope they get somewhere with it.

Then again I want the whole DMCA to be overturned

Apple gets too easy a ride though, how many times do I have to turn down Safari? How much bad press does Microsoft get for doing the same kind of thing?

[psicodude]

Originally Posted by Barnes

Their argument is terribly flawed. Microsoft is a software company, Apple is a hardware company. Apple could face antitrust problems in the near future, but not for this.

And if your going to go toe to toe with Apple legal, you probably don't want to have the word 'Mac' in your computer name either.

I disagree. Apple develops and publishes tons of software, including an operating system. Some gray area, granted.

I agree with Photon. I would love to see this play out for curiosity sake at least.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by psicodude

I disagree. Apple develops and publishes tons of software, including an operating system. Some gray area, granted.

I agree with Photon. I would love to see this play out for curiosity sake at least.

And Microsoft makes hardware. Are they a hardware co? Jeep makes baby strollers. Are they a stroller company?

Challenging this in court is very dangerous for the entire industry. If a court decided that it was somehow an anti trust violation and the Apple computer brand that is software + hardware = trademarked product is a monopoly, where's the incentive for a company to innovate now.

I want a $75 Wii. Nintendo shouldn't have a monopoly on the ability to play Wii games.

Why can't I install Tomtom software on my $75 GPS?

I want iPhone OS X on my PSP.

I want Toyota engines in my Ford.

Go after Apple for the bad stuff they are doing like forcing Safari and tying iTunes to iPods or DRM in the music store, not for making a hardware/software+services product.

[photon]

The problem isn't that Apple makes software for their hardware, it's that it's supposedly illegal for you to do what you want with that software AFTER you buy said software. I'm not advocating compelling Apple to offer it through clones, though IMO that would be one way for Apple to truly compete with Microsoft.

So for your examples, if you wanted to put a toyota engine in your ford you totally could and it wouldn't be illegal, but if Toyota was doing what Apple does and putting an EULA on their engine, it WOULD be illegal. That's obviously stupid.

(You can install TomTom software on other GPS devices, smartphones and stuff anyway)

And what if someone came up with a Wii emulator that could run Wii games and sold that software for $75 so people could play Wii games on their computers.. should that be illegal? I don't think so, after I buy my Wii game it should be mine to do with as I see fit. Maybe Nintendo should then buy that company, or develop their own software, innovate to compete rather than use the laws as a blunt object to beat the competition off.

It comes down to how much protection should companies have, I would argue that too much protection discourages companies from innovating because they don't have to; they can sit back under the laws which give them ongoing rights to everything you buy from them to the point that you really don't own it, you just have permission to use it while they deem it ok. They could patch my Wii to make all current Wii games unplayable, and I'd have no recourse.

So rather than innovate, they spend their time enforcing EULAs and using the DMCA to crush anyone who does want to innovate.

[Barnes]

I don't see this as a DMCA issue. The section in the EULA has been around for much longer than the DMCA.

(The car analogy was poor and i didn't know about Tomtom. My bad.)

If Apple did not sell box copies of OSX, would this be an issue? Is that the answer?

This is not a good thing. Clones will and have hurt their business. They are a hardware company. They make software to sell hardware. It's a lost leader in a way.

With the appearance of clones, providing software for them at $129 does not make any business sense so, they either charge a lot more a la Microsoft, for a boxed copy or stop selling them all together, come up with a ridiculous key authoritative scheme a la Microsoft or sell OS X on some sort of proprietary SSD or move away from x86. Any of these things would be bad but necessary to protect themselves.

I don't consider any of these options terribly innovative nor do i see clones pushing apple to become more innovative. It would force Apple to drop prices, slimming margins, lowering stock prices, cutting back R&D budget == lower quality products.

This is not new BTW. Others have tried in the past and now they live in vans down by the river.

[photon]

It's not my fault if they base their business model on trying to restrict what I do with what I buy after I buy it... And it's not my fault that clones will hurt their business; it's supposedly a free market, that's the whole point is to promote a situation where one business can hurt another.

Not selling boxed copies of OSX might be a good way, though how that affects upgrades I'm not sure.

I don't totally disagree with you, I just don't agree with a company being able to control or limit what I do with a purchase after I make that purchase. Be it Apple, Microsoft or anything else that has DRMs and licenses and such.

If that means a non-upgrade OSX for $399, I think that's a GREAT idea, even for Apple. Imagine a world where there's a legitimate alternative to Windows without being tied to a single hardware vendor and their crazy pricing. The computing world would be better for it.

Clones may not push Apple to be more innovative, but it could push Apple to be more competitive. Or even if it doesn't, so what? Again, free market, no one gets special protection just because.

The question to me is should the OSX license be allowed to restrict people from installing the software on whatever they can manage to get it installed on. I say it shouldn't. I think your car analogy was perfect

[llama64]

The major problem I have with allowing OSX to be installed on random hardware is that it would seriously degrade the quality of the Mac platform. Currently, there are a very low number of configurations that Apple has to worry about. The drivers can be supported directly by the OS without worrying about conflicts.

Most of Vista's problems were from moronic device driver programmers who's incompetence created a major headache for Microsoft. Microsoft took a lot of heat for what is arguably not really in their control. It's kinda hard to maintain a quality OS environment when the number of various hardware configurations borders on infinite.

That all said, I agree, no producer should be telling me how and where I can use a product once I purchase it. I hate (HATE) the concept of licensing software. And I'm a developer myself. Do I license my dining room table? My TV? My sofa? Why is software any different? And for that matter, how is a movie on a DVD/Blue-ray any different?

[photon]

They wouldn't have to take the for every possible device approach that MS does, Linux does pretty well without the driver issues, partially because the OS is robust enough to protect itself against bad drivers, so the same should apply to OSX right?

There's ways to address the quality problem without compromising the software I think. In the end I think Apple chooses not to do it because they don't actually want to be a true alternative in PC computing since that's hard; they're happy with taking the easy path and supporting only what they pick and choose to support, and make as much as they can that way. So I respect that from a business perspective, but from an engineering perspective I have no respect

[llama64]

I'd disagree that Linux does well. It's driver support is shoddy at best. It's got some decent generic drivers that work alright, but on the sound/video and especially wireless side of things, it's awful. Requiring 4-5 years to get a decent stable device from the community is not a good solution.

I suppose it's good to keep in mind that Apple is a hardware company. Their OS has never been the main focus of their products. It's occurred that OSX has finally (Tiger/Leopard) become a viable desktop operating system for mass consumption, but the fact that it's tailored entirely to Apple hardware is telling.

[photon]

Ah ok, I thought the linux driver situation was better than that.

I just want a good alternative to Microsoft, so I'm hoping more than I should I guess.

[Barnes]

Should you be able to do anything you want to something you buy, absolutely. The problem is you don't buy OS X, you license it.

You can buy a Honda and plop a Toyota engine in it. Will Honda provide you with engine brackets, transmission parts, service, warranty work, etc? Imagine what would happen if you leased a vehicle and tried this. Again, you don't own the goods, you lease it. Does this make them monopolistic?

Nope.

For some reason, people think that it's their God given rights to run OS X and that Apple should provide them with support for installing it on hardware that they have zero control over.

[photon]

Exactly, I want to see if that "you don't buy it, you license it" would hold up in court.

I don't think Apple should provide support in the situations you describe, and I don't think anyone in this thread has said that either have they? Many software only vendors only support their software on specific hardware platforms, that's not new.

Of course Honda's not going to support you with putting a Toyota engine in it, no one is asking for that. And if you leased a vehicle, you still have the right to put a toyota engine in it if you want because you do own it, you've just broken the clause that kicks in at the end where they agree to take it back at the end of the lease for x dollars, so you lose that option.

If I purchased a full version of OXS for $399, installed it on a clone, and then needed support I'd be SOL. Which is pretty much how all Microsoft users are anyway

[fredr123]

http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar-ex...ks-like-a-hoax

Psystar might not even exist. Could be a hoax. Seems dubious now. Save your doubloons.

[photon]

Thing is you can run OSX today on some generic hardware configs with the right gyrations, it's not that hard to do.

One thing I'd really like to be able to do is run OSX in a VM and I've never seen a guide how to do that, legit or otherwise. I want to do this so I can develop iPhone apps with their SDK without having to beg for my wife's Macbook Pro all the time.