If you thought Psystar was the only company making Macintosh “clones”, then you are seriously mistaken. There is also German PearC, and the latest addition to the clone family is a Russian company called RussianMac, who debuted several Mac clones this week.
RussianMac offers a whole boatload of different Mac clone models, ranging from PowerMac-like machines to a tiny netbook model. They offer a multimedia/home theater model, the MiniBook, the Standart, the PRO, the Mini, and the Book. Specifications and prices are listed on this page, but note that the RussianMac/Apple comparisons made on that page are completely nuts. They are pretty cheap, though.
RussianMac joins US Psystar and German PearC, who also offer a number of machines with Mac OS X pre-installed. Psystar is currently entrenched in a legal battle with Apple, but PearC, who has been offering its machines for a while now as well, hasn’t been sued just yet. European laws are quite different from US ones on these matters, which may make it harder for Apple to act against clone makers in Europe. For instance, German law states that EULAs must be presented before purchase in order to be valid, and this is where PearC hides behind.
The situation in Russia could prove to be even more difficult for Apple. Russia has become increasingly more protective over its own market and companies, and a big American firm suing a small Russian company might not go down well with the courts in Russia. RussianMac does use several Apple product names though, so that could certainly be a problem for them.
As time progresses, it becomes more and more unlikely that Apple will be able to put a stop to this. The Psystar case is by no means a sure win for Apple, despite America’s fairly strict laws on the matter, and possible cases in Europe and Russia will only be tougher cases to crack for the Cupertino company.
Apple will have to individually sue each clone maker to put a stop to the practice, and with every country having different laws on copyright, IP, and consumer protection, this sure looks like “dweilen met de kraan open” voor Apple (‘mopping the floor while the tap’s still running’).
All this is also interesting in the light of Apple’s conspiracy theories concerning Psystar. The Cupertino PC maker claims that Psystar is being funded by super-secret third parties out solely to hurt Apple, so the question is: are PearC and RussianMac part of the conspiracy as well?
Time will tell.
This will only lead to more draconian lockdowns by Apple. I think they would have tolerated the hackintosh market, but now they will have to either serialize their clients or only allow purchases online to qualified hardware owners.
This argument is made by Apple people and is presumably what is motivating Apple in its lawsuit against Psystar. Though one notices that there is no suit against PearC so far.
However, is it correct, and if so why?
Anyone buying an Apple branded PC will know he or she is getting something with the company standing behind it. They will know, if they buy from another retailer, that this is not so. So its hard to see why the brand will be affected one way or the other.
The deeper question is why it is attractive to people to buy non-Macs to run OSX, and what commercial effects it will have if they are left alone to do that.
They do it because of gaps in the Mac range. The Mac range does not have all the hardware choices that people think they want, particularly in the mid-range. People seem to want a standard matx box with no screen bolted on, with desktop components, a decent processor and graphics, some expanability, for around or under 1,000 Euros.
What Apple offers them is the overpriced and underpowered Mini, which sacrificies price and performance to the ability, useless to almost everyone, to carry it around in a briefcase. Or the iMac, which has a monitor which most people do not need bolted on to it, and which is also overpriced. Or they can move into the stratosphere on pricing and get the floor standers.
The wide availability of OSX on non-Macs would mean this would have to change. Apple would have to get its costs down and lower its margins and start supplying a range of hardware that people want to buy, instead of as now, a range of hardware that people will put up with so as to get the OS.
But this would probably be good for Apple. If you think about it like an economist, there is some premium to be extracted from OSX. What Apple does at the moment is take this in the form of margin on hardware. This is a very expensive way of realizing it. It would be far more cost effective to price OSX a little higher, take the margin that is now coming from hardware on sales of OSX, and not incur all the expenses of supplying the hardware. You could still sell hardware to everyone who wants it, though you might sell less than now. Its just that you would have another way of monetizing the value of OSX. It would probably be very good for Apple.
The computers are sold without preinstalled OS.
So it is just a typical noname PCs with terrible design.
OS can be preinstalled for extra $180. Of course they have a links to pirate site, that charges only $5 for hackintosh distro =)
Edited 2009-05-19 17:58 UTC
The insides of a Mac are the same. Also, exactly what is so “terrible” about the design?
you have never looked inside a mac have you.
I’ve looked inside a macbook and it was no different than many other pc laptops.
Look inside a Tower or an iMac.
I looked inside a mac. It’s not elegant, it’s not special…
It’s just a laptop.
No… actually a powerMac and an iMac are not laptops.
A macbook is a mac…
It was a laptop, nothing special.
If it “just works”, why would the end-user need to look inside an iMac? Upgrading RAM and HDD isn’t something most people do; they pay someone else to do it.
A Power Mac or Mac Pro is aimed at power users, so yeah they’ll likely do their own upgrades. But most people can’t afford one.
I’ve looked inside a Mini, macbook, iMac, PowerMac, and MacPro.
The Mini is just laptop components crammed into a smaller case. The iMac is simply a laptop system stuck in the back portion of the screen, although it has a 3.5 rather than a 2.5 hd in most configurations. A Macbook… it’s a laptop, nothing special about that.
The latter two–the PowerMac and MacPro–are very different than a PC internally, not only in the use of server-grade hardware such as fully-buffered, ECC memory, but in case design. Just about everything in those cases is modular, and can be removed without touching any of the other components. They are some of the nicest systems I’ve had the pleasure to work with as far as the internals go. Remember that they are workstations, not your typical desktop.
So, out of all that… only the towers are significantly different in internal design than your typical PC-based machine. The rest of them are just standard laptop components in a different case, although with a 3.5 hd in the case of the iMac.
Move along folks, nothing to see… except in the towers, and most aren’t going to end up buying those anyway as they are overkill for most home users.
You have never explained exactly what is different between the insides of a Mac and the insides of a PC.
I think they’re referring to the internal layout of a mac pro, not the actual components themselves.
with that said, yes, they are amazingly well thought out on the interior, from the easy access to drives to the slide out risers for the ram.. its pretty spiffy
http://www.apple.com/macpro/design.html
I think that you are correct.
So, there is no dispute that the internal components of Macs are no better than those in found in PCs. Let’s officially declare this fact, so that we don’t have to keep arguing the point.
Thanks for the link.
Yes. That Mac Pro case is certainly spiffy — just as spiffy as all of the many fancy PC cases that have preceded the Mac Pro. However, the Mac Pro provides only half the number of the drive bays available in most PC full towers.
Why did it take Apple so long to offer:
– tool-less component retention?
– slide-in hard drives?
– slide-out/hinge-out motherboard trays (to ease changing of ram, cpu, jumpers, etc.)?
For me, I don’t really need a fancy case, nor do I value case “aesthetics.” However, I would love to have one of these: http://www.highspeedpc.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Catego…
This “case” would certainly make it easy to swap-out components!
There is an easy fix, if the Russian government decides not play ball. Don’t sell to Russia. Fairly simple, imo. Look all these companies are doing is shooting themselves in the foot. They are either going to force upon us some form of DRM from Apple, or they are going to degrade the brand they are rushing hand over foot to screw. What will they do if Apple decides only sell their software via downloads, or Apple can’t sustain its software because they aren’t making enough money on the hardware due to cheap knockoffs? What will they do if Apple really started charging real street prices for their software as opposed to implied dongle prices? Some people don’t seem to see past their own noses. Forcing Apple to do any of these things is not good for any fan of Apple software, or hardware. It will degrade the brand and with the brand the quality.
Apple will almost have to tolerate it. They can DRM all they want, and look how much good that’s done Microsoft when it comes to pirated Windows… no good whatsoever.
This was inevitable the moment they switched to standard PC architecture. They can put one cloner down and another will rise in its place, and eventually Apple will need to stop throwing money wrecklessly at their legal department and adapt. If they don’t adapt, they will fall and that would be a very bad thing.
Pirated software is a whole different bag of tea… I would imagine it’d be much easier for Apple Legal to shut down any business selling illegal copies of their software. If Apple loses this case, they will simply change the methods the OS is obtained to make it impossible for companies like Pystar to exist.
That won’t work. They’ll just use a Polish front company (or some other former eastern bloc nation) to buy OSX copies. And in regard to quality, what quality are you talking about? Apple buys their hardware from the same Pacific rim manufacturers as all the other hardware dealers out there. The only difference is the EFI module. Apple is a PC hardware vendor just like any other. Only difference is that OSX is one big hunk of DRM. Otherwise you’d never be able to run XP, Vista or Windows 7 on their systems….which we all know that we can.
Yup, one big hunk of DRM that doesn’t require product keys, activation and doesn’t have a protected media path.
well…. you need a dvd or a pen drive to install it! Clear lockin…
The DRM is the fact that they only support a handful of configurations. You can’t blame Apple for that.
It’s only a matter of time until the first non-Apple hardware drivers, aka .kexts, appear. Netbooks are currently moving from Intel GMA950 to Intel GMA500, both of which come with open source drivers. It isn’t trivial to craft a .kext from a Linux driver, but it undoubtly can be done.
this is inevitable, in my opinion:
http://dougitdesign.com/blogs/blog_1_07_09_Mac-OS-X-for-PC.html
Going against common thought, I think this is in the very best interest of Apple, Inc.
Perhaps Apple will move to a proprietary chip of its own.
I don’t think they have to, because Apple controls the whole stack, they could actually build the “ultimate DRM-device” if they like, the processor (from Intel) supports TPM/cpuid and the BIOS or firmware was desgined by Intel and Microsoft as trusted-software (Apple computers come with EMI right ?) and they obviously control the software as well. Then again XBOX is also still broken.
Am I the only one that thinks this is great? This more than anything will force Apple to be more competitive in their prices and designs. If any ol’ person can buy a copy of Mac OSX and stick it on their EFI enabled PC, then that will force Apple to create a hardware combination that is superior than your typical beige box system (which they pretty much do now) but it means they’ll need to sell it at a better price (I would argue as AlienWare does, but their computers are just as overpriced for what you get as Apple’s hardware)
They were complete idiots if they didn’t foresee this happening. If they had wanted to keep their platform as proprietary as it was, they’d have stuck with using the POWER processors and simply upgraded to the Cell based platform.
There is of course some irony in this. Apple switched to Intel’s Architecture due to thinking the PPC was a dead end. Whereas Amiga think PPC is the future, and well… look where that’s gotten them. If they had done as many suggested back when Gateway owned them and had switched to Intel, with a 68k emulation layer, where would the computer landscape be like today? Well, for that matter if the Amiga had any affordable hardware to begin with… they are just as bad as Apple is with the Sam 440 Flex boards. At least they have an excuse though that the boards are more expensive due to lower demand for the hardware. Apple has no such excuse for charging so much more for their hardware.
The reason there isn’t an Apple Netbook yet is because part of the Netbook craze is that they are cheap. Apple just can’t think of a way to sell one but still make people pay at least 1.5x-3x the amount for the same Linux / Windows based machine.
You won’t think its go great when Apple locks down OS X and makes it a PITA to activate.
Here is what you don’t seem to get, Apple’s cost more because they pay people to design their computers, research new technology and do R&D on their hardware.
This is where things like the Magsafe adapters, glass multi-touch trackpads, and unibody enclosures come from.
Apple makes the vast majority of profit from hardware not software, which is why Mac users get their software so cheap.
How much do you think OS X would cost if MS were to sell it? $200-$300?
How about iWork? Another couple hundred.
Their pro software is very inexpensive and could easily cost 2-3x as much.
You have no concept of VALUE only COST (and only one very narrow perception of that cost).
Really?!! And to think that I always understood that magsafe connectors were invented by a group of countertop appliance manufacturers, about five years before Apple: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/07/03/deep.fryers/
Likewise with the multi-touch track pads — Apple invented them, not Wacom nor Bill Buxton/Xerox PARC in 1992, as documented here: http://www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html
And using glass on a touchpad? Such a tremendously unique and advanced innovation could only come from Apple! (Of course, one must disregard the fact that 99.99% of all touchscreens produced since 1968 were made of glass, and one must also ignore the general consensus among inventors that merely changing the material of a device is obvious and not considered innovation.)
And just because the term “unibody” originated in the 1960s to describe unitized construction in automobiles, the prior existence of the idea and its implementation does not lessen the fact that Apple hyped… er, I mean “popularized” the concept in laptops! It doesn’t matter that almost all manufacturers (including computer makers) have used machined enclosures in prototyping and in small, pre-production runs (and even in special production runs), since the beginning of the industrial age.
Apple R&D has spent a lot of time, money and effort in discovering that one can machine a laptop enclosure! It must be a huge achievement, because Jony Ive is so serious and passionate about it!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzw6kT5cqL0
Yes. The ideas for all Mac components came from Apple, and each one is an amazingly masterful stroke of genius. It is important to really believe that.
And the wonderful thing about all these undoubtedly original Apple inventions… they just work! For instance, all of the problems reported about magsafe connectors catching fire are just made-up to get us angry:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rheauchyr/sets/72057594082940769/
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/laptops/magsafe-burning-not-isolated-183…
Besides, a third party has created a strain-relief device for the magsafe, break-away connector: http://www.macworld.com/article/135299/2008/08/macmagsaver.html?lsr…
Problem solved!
(Don’t think about the fact that a strain-relief device is needed for a break-away connector.)
Okay. So, a few of the glass trackpads have broken: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=594724 The point is that the Apple glass trackpads are “cutting edge!” Apple has “shattered” the trackpad world!!
Of course, a glass trackpad is so phenomenally easier to use than a non-glass trackpad!
In regards to “unibody” construction, nevermind that it is more expensive and time consuming to repair (see posts #19-#22): http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=335582&page=2
Also, it doesn’t matter that many non-unitized laptops are more rugged and resilient — especially laptops such as the Panasonic Toughbooks.
In addition, please pay no mind to the fact that machining enclosures is much more wasteful and significantly less environmentally sound than other forming or injection molding processes.
The important thing is to feel that Apple unibody construction superior to the competition!
The great thing about most Apple supporters is that they don’t resort to condescending personal attacks. Arguments from Mac people are almost always cool-headed and logical, and they often cite solid, detailed facts and link unbiased references in support of their assertions. An Apple user would never portray a vague, subjective and ill-conceived notion as an objective truth.
Thanks for setting us straight on the facts!
/s
Edited 2009-05-20 19:42 UTC
Wow, it really seems like you didn’t even read my post, and just did the knee-jerk reaction of “Do you know how much money Apple puts into R&D for their blah…”
Firstly, it’s software, they could sell it for 5 bucks and still make a profit. Sure they spent a lot to do the initial programming, and they do updates but their updates aren’t usually that major. Wouldn’t you think that all the development costs have now been paid for and each of that 180 bucks that people spend on the OS is pure profit.
I could just as easily say the same thing about Fedora or OpenSuse. They could charge 300 dollars for it… More because of all the applications that come with it, far more than any Mac OS X platform I’ve seen.
Software is a insubstantial thing. Software should be able to be ran on any computer / any OS. Why else do you think emulators are so popular?
Apple shines in their hardware designs. They are sleek and sweet. To make a car analogy, most computers look / run like an old 80’s Buick, but the Macs look like a corvette. It’s the style and design that sells them almost as much as the OS. Apple’s third party developers would be very thrilled if the platform was more open to other hardware platforms. Apple themselves could sell more copies of Mac OS X and their other iCrap if more people could run the software.
So ultimately the only reason that Apple doesn’t want this to happen is GREED and support calls.
The problem with non-Apple hardware running Apple Software is the same problem with running Windows. Since it’s not custom built to be perfect, there are a lot of driver / hardware bugs that can cause issues. This is the thing that Apple is afraid of. Their reputation as being the shiny / somewhat bug free platform would be damaged by a bunch of people running Mac OS X and other Mac software on unstable hardware and they would get tons of Support calls.
Your ignorance is astounding.
Firstly, it’s software, they could sell it for 5 bucks and still make a profit. Sure they spent a lot to do the initial programming, and they do updates but their updates aren’t usually that major.
Tens of thousands of employees to write and update a major OS and they could make a PROFIT selling it for 5 dollars?!!!!!!! That does not consider the THOUSANDS more the would have to hire for it to work on the garbage hardware out there. 100 Meg + updates MINOR?!!!
What is the very first duty of a corporation?
Come on this is basic business 101.
TO MAKE A PROFIT!!!!!!!
I wrote it big for you could comprehend it.
I would respond to the rest of the dribble you’ve been wrinting but,alas, the effort would be wasted.
I’ll state it 1 last time. If you don’t want to use App[le products join the other 90% who find mediocre GOOD ENOUGH.
Look, nobody (Apple included probably) really gives a rats arse if anyone makes a Mac clone – I’m sure there are lots of manufacturers out there who make machines that can run OSX. My teenage son even built one from generic parts – who cares! As long as they don’t sell it pre-loaded with OSX.
Pystar wouldn’t be in court with Apple right now if they didn’t sell their boxes with OSX pre-installed thus contravening the license agreement. If they sold them as generic PC’s that they have “Verified to work with OSX” and provided a driver CD & download site and downloadable how-to there is nothing Apple could do about it. It would then be up to the individual if they decided to install OSX and contravene the license. Said companies could even quite legally sell full retail versions of OSX as Apple Resellers and not break any laws or licenses. The whole court case atm is about Pystar wanting to prove a point and Apple wanting to defend their position – its a pissing contest – nothing more.
What if the individual decides to hire a third party to do the installing for him/her? …such as one of the “said companies?” Should the installer be responsible for the user’s decision to “violate” the EULA?
Any entity can sell any unregulated product that has been legally purchased — including software, CDs, car engines, meteorites, etc. That is fair, and that is the law.
Psystar is not breaking any laws nor doing anything wrong by reselling legally purchased copies of OSX.
If you want a cheap worthless Operating system stay with Windblows and leave the mac alone. I find it funny that the company that has only 10% of the market causes so much angst among Windblows and Linsuxs users. If your happy with mediocre stay where your at, you richly deserve it, but please leave us, this small minority alone. I do not want to pay hundreds more for OS X because you morons can’t stand to pay Apple for hardware. PLEASE feel free to stay on the garbage that your on now. Windblows and Linsux welcomes you with open arms–STAY WITH THEM!!!!
Tubb forgot to mention that OSX is based on BSD, that is not R&D by Apple!
Why are some Apple-users aways so hotheaded and why do they always ignore facts? Even the designs from apple are often imitation from earlier designs, the article must be still on the internet.
Hey Janvl! — “Tubb” here!
You make an excellent point. The list of Apple items that were invented elsewhere seems endless. I could go on and on, but I was just addressing the three features that were portrayed in the parent post as Apple inventions.
By the way, is this the article you mentioned?: http://gizmodo.com/343641/1960s-braun-products-hold-the-secrets-to-…
I have always maintained that Apple enclosure designs are retro/derivative and fairly unexciting and bland, when compared to other designs out there.
Edited 2009-05-21 04:41 UTC