Mac Clone Psystar Slams Steve Jobs

Its shenanigans but I'm glad someone actually did a interview and has story instead of the blogging gonecrazy around the rest of the web.

LAWL. Hilarity ensues...

if the machine is fully capable to run MacOS, the company can just sell it as "white box" like many PCs, using words like "compatible" "capable" "fully functional with xxx" etc. For customers who buy these machines, it's up to their choice to install whatever OS for example Windows or Linux (in this case, MacOS retail pack?). Apple can't just sue someone who made a machine being "compatible", right?

we want a benchmark, buy the open pc and open pro, and give us a review instead of gossiping about legal matters

I think Apple should be sued for monopolistic practices.
Why should I have to have an Apple-Labelled machine to run an os that is already compatible with x86 hardware?
This sounds like microsoft only the Jobs edition!
And Aplle putting propietary chips in their so called Apple-labelled machines is no different than the Microsoft scandal of yester year!
Come on Jobs get real! If your os is x86 compatible and people wanna buy it and install it than make it available for the mass markets and give Microsoft some much needed competition!
Cause if you don't someone out there one day will!

Just don't buy it, Steve will get the picture.

Meh...

Psystar's screwed up every way from the middle. They violated x86.orgs' GPL, and by offering to pre-install OSX have now got apple's lawyers all over their ass. Anyone can visit x86.org and get the information they need to do this.... So what exactly is Psyster offering?

They sound like a backyard or garage company if i ever came across one. Good luck to them... heh.

I love the smell of vaporware in the morning

lol internet

While I would love for Apple to sell lower priced towers again, I don't think this is the way to go about it. Psystar is pissing too many people off. I would imagine there will be a nice injunction to stop selling these computers by the week. A few years back, another company tried to sell white box macs.

As for Apple being a monopoly, I don't see the mac hardware/software tie-in as being any different than with PS3 or Xbox.

Ahhhhahahaha.
They already proved that the company doesn't exist. You cannot purchase this machine on their site.
In no way did they "slam" Steve Jobs.
Here is proof:
http://gizmodo.com/380488/psystar- [...] ike-a-hoax

Get a little more information before you post these biased articles.

Everything posted on Tom's Hardware is biased. Especially against Apple.

Maybe Apple should see this as a wake up call and start making more affordable Mac tower desktops. If they sold an actual tower desktop for $600, I would actually consider picking one up and running OSX.

The Gizmodo/Guardian reporting was crap. Like almost all reporting from the Mac community and their fanboys, the Guardian/Gizmodo article was just a FUD piece. They only checked with the Better Business Bureau and the Chamber of Commerce, which have nothing to do with registering or licensing businesses. The information on Psystar was where it should be, in the business registry, which Gizmodo/Guardian chose to omit to make Psystar look shady.

The fact is that Psystar looks like a small company with a great angle on selling computers, which didn't have the staff in place to handle the media frenzy that followed.

Good job Tom for doing better reporting than most of the rest of the media.

@n3dm, dude, rtfa. they r talking about psystar, not apple. how is the article bashing articl eif the editor wrote at the end it was written on apple laptop?

what's the big deal again? it can run mac os? that's not a major accomplishment if you ask me... I went to their web site, looked at the crap, it looks like a regular pc, it IS a regular pc, and you have an option of what os it comes with... just like you do any other time. I don't get the hype, it's no big deal. I think that they should get credit for offering Ubuntu as an option, not screwed over for offering macs os. Every other os can be offered... why not mac os? If they wanted to stay in their own little corner of the world they should not have started using intel procs. Idiots. Now consider the fact you can just go buy osx and put it on your pc for 130 bucks... what's the big deal? After having said all of that... paying further attention to this is pointless and depressing.

To quote a Ratt like Jobs and Gates, "What comes around goes around". I really want eMachines to create an eMac and stir the pot even more. Gates probably started this stupid Mac Clone Wars and now we get to waste our time yapping about it.

Who here would love to install Os X on a machine they built? I know I would, and kiss microsoft goodbye. I can't. Why? Because early on Jobs was greedy. Yes Jobs was greedy. Today everybody thinks of Gates as the greedy one but in the early days it was Jobs who was greedy. He didn't want to give any of the money to the hardware guys. He wanted it all for himself. He wanted total control. He thought that was the way to high market share. He was wrong. Gates had the correct business model. Sorry Mac diciples, I mean fans. That is the truth. Now Mac clings to 'quality' while insulting PC's and charging an absolute premium for their products. The cost of this of course is marketshare. Because the truth is while they are superior they aren't superior enough to justify the price premium. That is not me that is the market speaking. So the question is if they have a superior product why don't they release it for all harware manufacturers? I'd be first in line (and I'm not alone, It would be a long line) Hmmm. Let me think. They could release OS X for everybody and make gazillions but yet they don't. Why not? Simple - they can't. As much as they mock Microsoft they can't do what Microsoft does - that is make an OS that works with almost any hardware out there. So they can keep their expensive boxes until I can rationaly (rather than emotionaly) justify the huge premium for rather middle of the road performance and unability to tinker.

Remeber when IBM was the PC? remember when having an IBM was the shis and clones where ebil?....


hmmmn.. i wonder.. if history coudl repeat itself now that Mac's have become so elitist ...i wonder.... ;]

Rootin for you Pystar

Apple is a hardware vendor the same as Dell or HP. The only thing separating them from every other pc manufacturer is their operating system. The prices for their systems are fairly similar to equivalent systems. With the exception of the hard drive (which is a major flaw) the apple mac mini came out cheaper than the equivalent Inspiron 530s from dell (vista ultimate compared to leopard). The laptops were similar as well when I bought mine a little over a month ago.

Macpro=workstation (price out similar workstations not desktops). Equivalent price between roughly identical machines (dual 3gz quad core xeon 2 gig memory 800mhz, 320 gig hard drive, vista ultimate vs. leopard, identical video card 1.5GB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 5600, Dual Monitor DVI Capable). With 20 inch monitor (had to base on identical components as precision came with a monitor). Macpro 7297 dollars, Precision T7400 7273.

What apple, dell and hp do not try to do is entice the build it yourself people. They don't support hardware or software that you didn't buy from them. If you doubt me try to install a 3rd party card into the system and if it gives you trouble odds are they will tell you to remove it.

My only complaint about mac is most game developers do not support it.

A number of years ago Apple had licensed companies to produce clones. That lasted a very short time since due to pricing, the clones out sold Macs. Greed raised its head then and Apple has blocked use of its operating system since.

Apple is by far one of the most retarded companies out there. I have long been a windows fan and its because the mac os only runs on macs. Why in the world would I purchase an OS that I have to ALSO purchase a proprietary system with???

I think apple has its own market and there are plenty of people that love it. I am not one of those people. If apple ever decided to open its os up I would be one of the first in line to purchase it. I want to be able to build my own system, configure it how I want it and know that I can upgrade it how and when I want it. With apple, dell, hp anything like that those options are taken away because they want you to purchase another new computer rather than upgrade.

Apple is so greedy because not only does this apply to them as well but they (imo) put out the same junk as dell and hp. Its all proprietary and to me that = junk.

The only saving grace to a mac truely is the crazy stable os.

Actually, Apple probably can't do much about it. Which is why Apple has refused to comment. Here are several reasons why Apple would be reluctant to g to war on this one:

1. Concerning use of the EFI V* emulator, while Netkas was a prominent contributor to the OSX86 project, he was not the only one, and the EFI v8 emulator was originally released to the public domain for unrestricted distribution more than two years ago. Notwithstanding Netkas' questionable ownership (which he has yet to formally claim, btw) of any code in the emulator which may or may not possibly be copyrightable (and the EFI Emulator itself is built on much open source and public domain code), Netkas cannot under US law remove it from the public domain. The authors freely distributed it with no license for more than two years with the intent of unrestricted dissemination. Under U.S. law, that constitutes placing the code in the public domain. Once the code has been placed in the public domain, it cannot be later removed from the public domain. By placing the code in the public domain, the author irrevocably relinquishes all ownership and rights in the copyright. "[S]oftware released thus goes completely out of control of the author, who, even if he subsequently so desires, cannot impose any restriction on its use."

"Programs that are uncopyrighted because their authors intended to share them with everyone else are in the public domain. Programs in the public domain can be used without restriction as components of other programs."

The test of whether software has passed into the public domain is set out in Computer Associates Int'l v. Altai, 982 F.2d 693.This decision holds that computer software may enter the public domain through "freely accessible program exchanges and the like," or by becoming "commonplace in the computer industry." If the authors original intent was to distribute the code unrestricted and encourage the unrestricted distribution of the code, then the code falls into the public domain.

2. Apple may well be barred from taking action against Psystar by the doctrine of laches. Apple has allowed the OSX86 organization to very publicly post the code for the emulator with not so much as a warning letter or cease and desist. Not a single complaint from Apple in more than 2 years. Psystar has a very good argument that it has relied on Apples very public and very well known and obviously deliberate neglect to enforce the EULA over the last two years. I believe that this very concise definition is applicable: "In general, when a party has been guilty of laches in enforcing his right by great delay and lapse of time, this circumstance will at common law prejudice and sometimes operate in bar of a remedy which is discretionary for the court to afford. In courts of equity delay will also generally be prejudicial."

3. Neither the OSX86 project or Psystar are modifying any of Apple's proprietary code. The kernel of OSX is openBSD. This code is public domain and/or open source. Not only can anyone freely modify that portion of OSX, but in as far as the Open Source portions, Apple is REQUIRED under the terms of Open Source licenses to provide the non-proprietary source code to anyone that requests it. Apple acknowledges as much in its EULA:
"D. Certain components of the Apple Software, and third party open source programs included with the Apple Software, have been or may be made available by Apple on its Open Source web site
(http://www.opensource.apple.com/) (collectively the "Open-Sourced Components"). You may modify or replace only these Open-Sourced Components; provided that: (i) the resultant modified Apple Software is used, in place of the unmodified Apple Software, on a single Apple-labeled computer; and (ii) you otherwise comply with the terms of this License and any applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open-Sourced Components. Apple is not obligated to provide any updates, maintenance, warranty, technical or other support, or services for the resultant modified Apple Software.
You expressly acknowledge that if failure or damage to Apple hardware results from modification of the Open-Sourced Components of the Apple Software, such failure or damage is excluded from the terms of the Apple hardware warranty."

4. Many jurisdictions in the US and Europe do not recognize EULA's or severely restrict their application. In these so called "anti-UTICA" jurisdictions that have formally classified shrink-wrap software as goods subject to the UCC, the EULA provisions like the one in question are not enforceable, as those jurisdictions do not recognize software as licensed, but instead classify software as goods subject to consumer protection regulations and the laws governing the use of goods.

5. Psystar's claim that Apple is acting as a monopoly is not without some merit, and probably grounded in a judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth District in the case of DigiDyne Corp. Vs. Data General ( 734 F.2d 1336 (9th circuit, 1984)) which held that Data General’s refusal to license its copyrighted computer software to those who did not purchase its hardware was an unlawful tying arrangement, and this was not over-turned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Generally, these types of issues are decided on a case-by-case basis.

6. Even if Apple's EULA could be found enforceable, Apple's recourse is extremely limited by the EULA itself. . Liquidated damages can only be recovered if they are set out in the contract. Attorney fees and costs can only be recovered if they are set out in the contract. Punitive damages are generally not allowed in breach of contract cases. Compensatory damages are generally limited to direct actual monetary loss. Generally, courts have limited relief in breach of Contract suits to either specific performance or involuntary termination. Not even a reliance award would be applicable here, as Psystar has made no direct representations to Apple.

Apple would be better of accepting Dell's offer to pre-install OS-X as an alternative to Vista (which Jobs turned down). there are several Dell computers that can run the "Vanilla" OS-X kernel, and that can be priced comparable to Psystar's that Apple could "certify" as being OS-X compliant. Dell would force the small shops like Psystar out of the market, just like they did the small PC cloners. And Apple would sell a boatload of OS-X, just like Microsoft did with Windows.

Of course, we don?t need to tell you, were there?s a lawsuit, there?s several journalists sniffing around for a story.

--don't you mean "where" there's a lawsuit?