PsyStar introduced its Mac clone to much media attention back in April, causing many discussions about the company's legal status, the validity of the Mac OS X EULA, and even PsyStar's very existence. It soon turned out PsyStar was a real company, and was actually shipping the OpenComputer Mac Clone to its customers, to generally rather favourable reviews - not stellar of course, but acceptable, with the biggest downside being the inability to use the Software Update tool, forcing users to download OS updates straight from PsyStar's servers - to prevent updates from Apple hosing the OpenComputer. We're a few months later now, and a few things have changed.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-04-03
To determine if this is a bad thing for Apple or not we need to consider a number of things. Firstly in the article you talk about companies putting together off-the-shelf clones to run MacOS. This is true to a certain degree - but these clones still use the same chipset, graphics sets, etc that are available in current Macs. This may change, but for the moment that means that the suggestion that Apple's claims about how they keep the system stable being untrue is itself not quite correct.
Secondly, we need to consider how much Apple actually make from hardware. Due to the scales involved and type of materials used in Apple's manufacturing it is no doubt costing them a little more than the cost of your average clone to build a Mac, so the argument could be raised that they really make most of their "Mac" money from the OS and Apps - which they are still doing with the Pystar clones out there. So to some degree it would be more advantageous for these clones to exist.
Thirdly, I think we are missing something in this whole mix - Knowledge Navigator. That is where Apple want to be. Look at the concepts in that video then look at iPhone. They aren't there yet, but make no mistake they will be - maybe not exactly as per the original concept, but I believe that is the place Apple want to be. The desktop market the way we know it will ultimately die, so I don't believe this is as big a threat to Apple as hype would want us to believe. I don't think we will see Apple do anything about Pystar because I think its actually good for them.
Only time will tell...
Member since:2005-07-06
On the contrary - IMHO, it thoroughly torpedoes the argument that "Macs are less-problematic because Apple controls both the OS and the hardware". I do agree with the premise that Macs are less-problematic in terms of hardware-related problems, but it has nothing to do with Apple controlling the hardware and the software (if for no other reason that Apple actually doesn't have control over the hardware used in Macs - not beyond the choice of which third-party components to use, at least).
Member since:
2005-06-29
It doesn't HAVE to be bad for Apple... they just need to improve their business plans and start to actually sell the system... Several PC builders (such as Dell and probably HP and others) are really interested.
But still, the most important thing is that it would be MUCH better to costumers, who would be presented with choices and options to run from vendor lock-in.
(Apple reviewed their plans with iPhone, and instead of selling the hole gadget, and them, receive part of the network's income, they're just leaving the pricing to the networks and charging them a fixed price... Unfortunately it still a closed platform too, but maybe one day it may be not...)
Member since:
2006-09-15
The easy way for Apple to progress forward and benefit is to open up their platform to competition. Allow other vendors to sell their software and adhere to open standards with their software but make sure that these vendors adhere to guidlines that don't compromise the usability of Apples Software. We all know that now for Apple it is about the software which really differentiates them so why not capitalise on it.
I might even be able to present Apple as an alternative OS if this happens but I will not whilst they still insist on standards and hardware lock-in.
Member since:2007-09-17
The easy way for Apple to progress forward and benefit is to open up their platform to competition
You're right -- because they're doing so badly otherwise :-)
Seriously though, I don't get it when people say "Apple needs to do this" or "Apple should do that". As I understand it, the company is selling more Macs than ever, so there's no way that letting OS X loose on generic white-box hardware will happen.
Member since:2005-08-26
Member since:
2005-07-08
Member since:2008-04-10
Slightly off topic, but I'll say it anyway. If Apple's EULA was found to be legally invalid, imagine what that would do to other companies' EULAs. Sure, not all EULAs contain clauses that might be found illegal, but seeing one EULA invalidated would bring all of them into question. For example, how legal are the terms in the Windows XP EULA? The GNU GPL?
Member since:2005-11-11
Member since:2005-07-06
IANAL - but if the "can only be used on Apple-branded computers" clause of the OS X EULA were found to be unenforceable, then it would not be the "end of the EULA as we know it."
The legal precedent would only apply to other EULAs that attempt to stipulate what hardware can or can't be used to run a piece of software. Offhand, I can't think of any other software that would be effected.
Member since:2006-01-14
Unless of course the EULA itself is found to be illegal. Remember, many states have laws about how a contract (and thats really what the EULA is) can be entered into, what it can specify, and other such limitations. EULA's for the most part have never been tested. Frankly, its about time they are.
Edited 2008-06-24 03:21 UTC
Member since:2005-07-06
That's possible, but I don't think it's likely. Just from a financial point of view, I imagine that it would be cheaper to challenge specific stipulations of a particular contract - as opposed to challenging the legality of all contracts of a certain type.
Member since:2006-01-09
Agree.
I believe that Microsoft also discriminates whether their software is being run into a real machine or a virtual one but I don't know if the pricing is any different on either case. And if the prices are the same then it doesn't make any sense and it would probably be dragged into the same discussion in case Apple's clauses validity are raised in a court.
It would be at the very least interesting to see how things could unfold in that direction.
Member since:2005-10-12
Member since:2005-07-06
I'm not sure if that's directly comparable - but it certainly seems to be in the same spirit (using a license agreement to place artificial restrictions on how a piece of software can be used).
Member since:
2006-05-12
A friend of mine who ordered one loves it... However, as a Mac owner (A real one), I must say that it is much louder than a similarly equipped iMac. I like the fact that my iMac is completely silent (With a minor exception of intensive DVD operations)
But hey that's just me. Like I love to say "Whatever works for you".
Member since:2007-01-13
Member since:2006-03-27
Member since:
2007-01-27
Member since:2006-03-27
Member since:
2006-05-26
1. On Thom's part (I didn't see it in the cnet.com posting) there's mention of expanding the PyStar box to 16 TB RAM. 16 GB RAM for currently available hardware I can see, but 16 TB? Crack smoking is going on somewhere 
2. On PyStar's part, if they're actually modifying the Software Update utility as it seems to say in the article, is living dangerously from a legal standpoint by doing this. This goes outside the question of EULA's and straight into the question of copyrights. It'd at least be less risky if they merely provided instructions for how to do so, instead of actually selling it as part of the system.
I still remain convinced that it's only a matter of time before Apple terminates them either in a legal action method, or at least makes it too much of a hassle to get the latest OS versions for their hardware. It may be delayed by quite a bit, perhaps until the PR and legal costs are outweighed by the potential rewards or potential reduction of losses brought on by PyStar selling clones. I expect if they can do it by marginalizing the hardware's value via incompatible software updates, that'd be the cheapest for them, in all forms of reckoning, as it's likely to be much quieter, with only screaming coming from cheap geeks that wouldn't buy a regular Apple Mac anyway