Psystar Offers Non-Apple PC, with Leopard pre-installed.

[Redliner]

it's a Monday...somewhere there has to be new article!!!

[DiGiCiD@L]

Just read Apple's financial reports. They make most of their money with hardware. Else they would adopt the Microsoft model and get out of the hardware business. They have been milking the same iMac, Powerbook and mini design for 3 years now. They also make tons of money with the iPod hardware - not with iTunes. The MacOs and the HW esthetic design is the glue that sells Macs for Apple.

 

Steve Jobs started his career as a hacker selling little boxes to get free LD calls.

http://www.realgeek.com/apple-not-against-iphone-hackers/

I predict that you will see more and more Mac clones (without the OS installed) on the market.

This site is all about what this company is doing.

For the same reason, Microsoft will never be able to really kill XP.

 

Not sure if I'm reading financial reports incorrectly these days or not, but when I look at their total revenues reported in FY2007 - I come up with only a slight margin for all hardware... however, what I was referring to was the fact that there is a significant difference in their numbers due to the very EULA verbage that we're discussing here.

 

Based on the '07 numbers, if you take all COMPUTER HARDWARE sales versus software, services, and device hardware - the numbers are very close... $10.3B vs. $13.7B or if you include misc. hardware and peripherals in the Mac numbers as well... $11.6B vs. $12.4B.

 

In either case the net sales of Hardware are not greater than sales of software, services and portable devices. If you're including iPods in with your 'hardware' numbers then it's way lopsided, but no one was suggesting they stop making iPods or iPhones.

 

The other important point is that these are the net sales numbers... I couldn't find a pure profit by sector breakdown in their 10-K, and maybe the market has changed since I sold hardware, but I'm pretty sure it costs more to manufacture and store 100K iMacs than it does to press and store 100K copies of MacOS.

 

Source: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/071115/aapl10-k.html

 

However, even these numbers are diluted... as they include the price of MacOS in all of the Mac sales numbers... no matter how little it might be, a part of that $10+ billion is actually software sales - it's just included with the hardware. If Apple were to release an open-hardware version of MacOS - it would be reasonable to assume that the software/service/ipod/iphone side would significantly outstrip the hardware side... not to mention that there is a much greater actual cost in the hardware represented by inventory and manufacturing - that is not an obstacle to software and portable devices or services. But in either case, you can't use the current profit levels as a true indicator.

 

The real reason that Apple has not adopted a M$ business model is that they currently have a niche (albeit a booming one) that they do not want to dilute by having something as problematic as an open-hardware OS on the market. Their entire sales strategy is based on the fact that they sell a computer for the people that think PC's are 'ugly' or 'complicated'. They've almost entirely abandoned trying to say their hardware is better or faster (as they did in the G4/G5 days) and have moved to the 'It just works' and 'It's easy and doesn't get virii' marketing models.

 

Like it or hate it... Apple 'Just works' because they have to develop and test about .1% of the hardware and drivers with their OS. If they didn't - they would have the same kind of constant patching and update schedules (as well as user horror-stories) that MS has. I think they don't mind people building hackintoshes as long as they don't have to provide commercial support for those machines. Even if all of them don't actually buy a copy of the OS - those of us that did... that's just a bonus to their bottom line.

 

 

I do see your point, but I believe that the numbers disagree.

[cfhuk]

As far as I can see on their site, they are actually offering an official copy of OSX with their pcs, then installing a modded one. Anyway, the more people running OSX on macs or pcs the better, as long as their moving away from MS. I agree that if Psystar are offering up a non - official version of OSX for their own profit, then they should have their asses sued off, but if their hackintosh buyers are having to buy a full copy of Leo to get a free mod version, why the hell not.

 

It probably won't get far, hackintoshs need tlc by people who are passionate about them, not by mainstream consumers.

[~pcwiz]

I dunno if I'm the 1st to post this but look:

 

Can I update my Open/OpenPro with the Leopard OS using the Apple web site or the Leopard Automatic Update Feature?

We do not support that feature of the operating system. Supported updates will be listed under support on the Psystar website. Future operating system updates may cause severe system problems. Only install updates that have been tested and posted to the Psystar support website.

 

Instead of linking to InsanelyMac they tell you to watch the Psystar site.

[ Mysticus C*]

I dunno if I'm the 1st to post this but look:

 

 

 

Instead of linking to InsanelyMac they tell you to watch the Psystar site.

 

 

they change the story everyday i posted when i caught their web site was saying insanelymac for support... but they keep jumping from one place to another as their HQ pcs evolving from openmac to opencomputer

 

they are changing colors more than the original animals which changes their color less often...

[badeavasile]

1. @DiGiCiD@L

 

I think you're amazingly close to the truth Thx for your diggin'

 

2. Standing the risk to be amiss, I believe no lawsuit concerning today's Mac clones & EULA's legitimacy won't worth as much as the content of this thread! Many of us are accepting the computer tech. progress fractionally depend upon hacking, but one's not ready to pay the price for it, on the grounds of morality... I assume no osx86 developer looks for money refund and "Apple's Legal Hammer" won't touch osx86 community... because of (... & ... & ...)

 

In this respect, osx86 and other related web communities might unintentionally be THE "jury" of this "so-questionable-moral-lawsuit". If so, I must grant I have the jim-jams lookin' fwd to whatever verdict... "Great power comes with great responsability", as we all know...

 

And... I suppose this isn't just a Psy-case as far as aircrafts were designed in the past by using legally Mac clones;

 

and God knows what comes next...

[Maxintosh]

they change the story everyday

They are obviously reading this thread

 

I'm sure Apple is too, so I'd like to take this opportunity to say "Hi Steve" and ask (cough) when are the Mac minis going to be updated?

[i_am...me]

They are moving again...

oh dear...

 

hmmm?

[Neilis]

Darn. I'm getting into the thread late (was on vacation all weekend ).

 

Personally, this is shades of Compaq vs IBM all over again. IBM got bit in the butt HARD because they chose to build their PC from commodity parts with the only proprietary part being the BIOS which was legally reverse engineered by Compaq. Legally, they couldn't do anything.

 

So yeah, Apple will likely sue this company in a hearbeat. The question is, can they win? At this point the issue is not whether Apple will "let" OS X be run on any other hardware - it's whether or not they can legally disallow it. Previous precedent is stands against them. Traditionally, when a manufacturer is tried to limit software to running only on their own hardware, it's been ruled invalid when challenged in court.

 

So, regardless of what you think of Psystar, this was pretty much GOING to happen eventually. As soon as Apple went to commodity hardware, it was just a matter of time. If Apple looses, then they have a few options:

 

1. Continually change the OS so that it won't boot on this hacked hardware. Not really a good change at all. If the machines are ruled legal by a court, then they'll be pissing off a ton of customers (THEIR customers from the software end) if they keep breaking the setup. This would generate a ton a negative publicity that would not be good for the company.

 

2. Change architectures. This is kinda shakey here. For one, they just switched fairly recently. Another switch is going to unsettle their users a bit. Also, besides that fact, the x86 series is the fastest solution for the price right now, so they'd either have to seriously raise their prices (even more), or live with being a few generations back in performance. Also, just as with the previous switch, they'd have to maintain compatibility with the old architecture (virtually all software coming out will still work on my PPC based Mac for example). Based on point 1 I don't see them breaking the old systems - so if they switch then the new versions would likely still have to work with the still updated x86 platform that would still be capable of running OS X.

 

3. Accept the situation and offer a licensing program to clones that would allow support services for the OS as well as a verified level of quality on the systems.

 

I'm sure many of you will chime in that #3 was already tried and Apple stopped it, but remember that was without a legal challenge. If Apple is legally prevented from interferring with the sales of OS X compatible machines, then it has a different issue on it's hands.

 

Naturally, if they won such a suit then it would be back to business as usual. Time will tell, but I wouldn't assume this an open and shut case for either side.

[xeongx]

If apple allows osx86 and make it %100 compatible with x86 it would be soo cool

Many people would move to OSX then

[DP User]

Darn. I'm getting into the thread late (was on vacation all weekend ).

 

Personally, this is shades of Compaq vs IBM all over again. IBM got bit in the butt HARD because they chose to build their PC from commodity parts with the only proprietary part being the BIOS which was legally reverse engineered by Compaq. Legally, they couldn't do anything.

 

OS and Bios are 2 different things. Microsoft owned DOS (MS-DOS) and they owned Windows. Mmot point here.

 

1. Continually change the OS so that it won't boot on this hacked hardware. Not really a good change at all. If the machines are ruled legal by a court, then they'll be pissing off a ton of customers (THEIR customers from the software end) if they keep breaking the setup. This would generate a ton a negative publicity that would not be good for the company.

 

If they have no plans to license it. Please do so. After all Psystar isnt offering to License it. Just offering to build a cheap PC and use community hacks to get it up and running. As long as they are Legally purchasing OS X ... Who cares I say. Just give the proper respect to those who have invested counteless hours getting OSX to run on anything but apple hardware.

 

3. Accept the situation and offer a licensing program to clones that would allow support services for the OS as well as a verified level of quality on the systems.

 

Then we are back to the windows mess of a billion different motherboards and drivers. Just look at what we endure to get it running here... If thats the case and you relegate apple to supporting every body and their mothers parts and pieces, then they need to up the price of OSX....$300 any one?

 

As a note. Someone mentioned the hardware software sales on the sec filings (or whatever report it was)

 

They rightly concluded that a bulk of OS X sales that are listed are the ones bundled with the hardware sold. Honestly you can count those numbers, but it distorts the SOFTWARE ONLY sales from the combined software/hardware sales figures.

 

As an example. Prince went platinum on a CD he GAVE AWAY at his concert dates. He was able to LEGALLY state that he SOLD over a million CD's because people bought tickets to the concerts and he pkg'd the CD as a part of the concert bundle. Get the picture....

Apple makes it's money off Hardware. Bottom Line.

[~pcwiz]

Again, not sure if this has been posted before but look what I found:

 

http://www.psystar.com/open_source.html

 

Psystar embraces the Open Source community. We're all about open computing and the idea that software should be customizable, portable, and available. We use Open Source software in the Open Computers like PC EFI by Netkas, the GRUB bootloader, Ubuntu Linux, and many other Open Source efforts out there. We use Open software in our PsyStor SAN by Sun and IBM. We use the Linux kernel in the Psystar Gateway Router. Psystar will promote Open Source projects in every way possible. To the Open Source community: thank you.

 

Dunno if it was there before or whether it got added when we criticized them for not crediting the devs, but its there now.

[DP User]

Again, not sure if this has been posted before but look what I found:

 

http://www.psystar.com/open_source.html

 

 

 

Dunno if it was there before or whether it got added when we criticized them for not crediting the devs, but its there now.

 

Thats not crediting, thats acknowledging. LOL. Give me credit and my bank account increases. LOL. They are making money off the back of others. They arent just selling a computer, they are selling an assembled machine with the PROMISE of it runniing OS X courtesy of the open source communities hacks. They are MARKETING THE OSC to get their machines sold.

 

If they pulled all of that out and developed their own hacks... I'd be gravy with them... But that JUST ISNT the case.

[carbo]

OS and Bios are 2 different things. Microsoft owned DOS (MS-DOS) and they owned Windows. Mmot point here.

 

If they have no plans to license it. Please do so. After all Psystar isnt offering to License it. Just offering to build a cheap PC and use community hacks to get it up and running. As long as they are Legally purchasing OS X ... Who cares I say. Just give the proper respect to those who have invested counteless hours getting OSX to run on anything but apple hardware.

 

Then we are back to the windows mess of a billion different motherboards and drivers. Just look at what we endure to get it running here... If thats the case and you relegate apple to supporting every body and their mothers parts and pieces, then they need to up the price of OSX....$300 any one?

 

Apple makes it's money off Hardware. Bottom Line.

 

I don't understand why Apple need to up the price of Mac OS if they plans to license for normal PC user.

If Apple need to write billion different hardware's drivers and test them by Apple themselves.

Yes, it costs much.

 

But we can back to see what's PC does, the hardware company make a new hardware,

they write the driver themselves and "pay money" for MS to test and get MS ready certificated.

 

As the same way Apple can get huge money from the billion different hardware.

If manufacture want their products to use in Mac, they have provide the drivers and money to get Mac ready certificate.

 

Also why Mac OS need to support all the hardwares?

They only need to say Mac OS is only support for Mac ready certificated hardware.

If costumer wants to use Mac in their own PC smoothly,

buy Mac ready certificated hardwares.

 

 

How about the Apple's own Mac hardwares?

 

Yes, Apple makes it's money off Hardware. Bottom Line.

We all know Apple is a symbol of fashion and quality.

What's the different between Designed by apple in California, Assembled in China

and Made in Japan or Made in USA?

 

Will customers happy to pay much and buy a Rolex which is not Swiss Made?

 

If Apple Open the license for normal pc to install Mac OS.

Why not Apple just made their computer in USA or Japan factories,

so Mac fans who want to buy original Apple made Mac instead the Mac ready certificated PC will pay happier.

[badeavasile]

What's the different between Designed by apple in California, Assembled in China

and Made in Japan or Made in USA?

 

Will customers happy to pay much and buy a Rolex which is not Swiss Made?

 

If Apple Open the license for normal pc to install Mac OS.

Why not Apple just made their computer in USA or Japan factories,

so Mac fans who want to buy original Apple made Mac instead the Mac ready certificated PC will pay happier.

 

No Japanese buy Apple made in China. That's for sure And if they do, they commit harakiri soon after...

[hanzoh]

I think releasing OS X for every X86 machine would be its downfall. I think OS X is protected by its small percentage on the market. If everyone can install OS X officially, without the "crack" and "stolen" hassle, every freak would start hacking the {censored} out of it.

[badeavasile]

I think releasing OS X for every X86 machine would be its downfall. I think OS X is protected by its small percentage on the market. If everyone can install OS X officially, without the "crack" and "stolen" hassle, every freak would start hacking the {censored} out of it.

 

Who wanna see osx on every lousy config? Personally I'd like to see it on several good pcs...

[scousi]

Darn. I'm getting into the thread late (was on vacation all weekend ).

 

Personally, this is shades of Compaq vs IBM all over again. IBM got bit in the butt HARD because they chose to build their PC from commodity parts with the only proprietary part being the BIOS which was legally reverse engineered by Compaq. Legally, they couldn't do anything.

 

So yeah, Apple will likely sue this company in a hearbeat. The question is, can they win? At this point the issue is not whether Apple will "let" OS X be run on any other hardware - it's whether or not they can legally disallow it. Previous precedent is stands against them. Traditionally, when a manufacturer is tried to limit software to running only on their own hardware, it's been ruled invalid when challenged in court.

 

So, regardless of what you think of Psystar, this was pretty much GOING to happen eventually. As soon as Apple went to commodity hardware, it was just a matter of time. If Apple looses, then they have a few options:

 

1. Continually change the OS so that it won't boot on this hacked hardware. Not really a good change at all. If the machines are ruled legal by a court, then they'll be pissing off a ton of customers (THEIR customers from the software end) if they keep breaking the setup. This would generate a ton a negative publicity that would not be good for the company.

 

2. Change architectures. This is kinda shakey here. For one, they just switched fairly recently. Another switch is going to unsettle their users a bit. Also, besides that fact, the x86 series is the fastest solution for the price right now, so they'd either have to seriously raise their prices (even more), or live with being a few generations back in performance. Also, just as with the previous switch, they'd have to maintain compatibility with the old architecture (virtually all software coming out will still work on my PPC based Mac for example). Based on point 1 I don't see them breaking the old systems - so if they switch then the new versions would likely still have to work with the still updated x86 platform that would still be capable of running OS X.

 

3. Accept the situation and offer a licensing program to clones that would allow support services for the OS as well as a verified level of quality on the systems.

 

I'm sure many of you will chime in that #3 was already tried and Apple stopped it, but remember that was without a legal challenge. If Apple is legally prevented from interferring with the sales of OS X compatible machines, then it has a different issue on it's hands.

 

Naturally, if they won such a suit then it would be back to business as usual. Time will tell, but I wouldn't assume this an open and shut case for either side.

 

The only legal fight they may win is the DCMA and the encrypted part of OSX86. However, this is only a law in the US.

 

They could fight simply by offering better value.

 

I have a feeling that Psystar is secrectly backed by big money trying to challenge Apple through the back door.

 

Psystar's stratgey is pretty goog since Apple is still theoretically making money out of this.

[idividebyzero]

have any sites gotten one yet?

[Alessandro17]

I think releasing OS X for every X86 machine would be its downfall. I think OS X is protected by its small percentage on the market. If everyone can install OS X officially, without the "crack" and "stolen" hassle, every freak would start hacking the {censored} out of it.

 

Who wanna see osx on every lousy config? Personally I'd like to see it on several good pcs...

 

I lost interest in this matter (whether it should be possible to install OS X on any computer) a long time ago, but I used to say in the past that Apple could sell OS X bundled with a motherboard, at a premium price, with a list of compatible hardware and with a strong warning about issues which might arise.

It wouldn't bring less money than the Mini, after all.

 

Another consideration. Has anybody ever thought that the only "value for money" computer Apple manufactures is the Mac Pro? (that is, if you don't start adding extras). I wonder why. But on the other hand the Mac Pro is probably the least sold.

[pmudesign]

http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/04/24/psystar.offers.proof/

[Maxintosh]

If the system crashes and you have to re-install 10.5 you have to send the computer back to them. You cannot do this on your own. This is per their tech support...

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

No Japanese buy Apple made in China. That's for sure And if they do, they commit harakiri soon after...

haha, true.The Japanese don't really have high regards for Apple computers, because it's assembled in China, as my step-mom tells me - and the fact that they would rather support their own country's companies (Sony, Toshiba)

Another consideration. Has anybody ever thought that the only "value for money" computer Apple manufactures is the Mac Pro? (that is, if you don't start adding extras). I wonder why. But on the other hand the Mac Pro is probably the least sold.

It's over-kill for the vast majority of the world.Most people don't even need Core2Duos (given today's productivity and internet apps).

[Maxintosh]

It's over-kill for the vast majority of the world.

Red herring.

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

Red herring.

He asked why the Mac Pro was the least sold, even though it's the most bang for the buck. It's still a $2000 computer. The point is you can get a Dell (or Psystar, in this scenario) for $400. Grandma can surf the net the same way on her $400 psystar as she could on the Mac Pro, so is it really more value to her to buy Mac Pro?