Psystar Offers $399 "OpenMac" Computer; Web Site Goes Down
by , 11:50 AM EDT, April 14th, 2008
Psystar announced Monday OpenMac, an Intel-based computer built from industry-standard parts that the company claims will run an unmodified version of Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard." The company achieves this by using a EFI V8 emulator that it said tricks a Leopard installer CD into thinking the OpenMac is a genuine Mac. Shortly after making its announcement, the company's Web site went down, and it remains inaccessible as of this writing.
"The highly extensible OpenMac is a configuration of PC hardware capable of running unmodified OS X Leopard kernels," the company said on its Web site. "If you purchase Leopard with your OpenMac we will not only include the actual Leopard retail package with genuine installation disc, but we also include a Psystar restore disc for your OpenMac and we will preinstall Leopard for free so you can begin to use your computer right out of the box."
Astute readers may well hear this news and ask themselves if it doesn't sound like a Mac clone, something whose time came -- during Gil Amelio's tenure at Apple -- and went shortly after current CEO Steve Jobs assumed the helm at the company.
Psystar's $399 "OpenMac"
The correct answer is yes, but the clear difference is that Psystar does not appear to be an Apple licensee, making their marketing approach of promising Mac compatibility, as well as the offer of pre-installing Leopard for you, of questionable legality.
It definitely defies the EULA for Mac OS X, which specifies that the purchaser of a legal copy of Leopard is entitled to install the operating system on an Apple-branded computer. If you buy the $399 OpenMac, you can check the EULA yourself if you also buy the pre-install option, as the company includes a retail copy of Leopard with your purchase.
Spec-wise, the computer compares well against Apple's own Mac mini, which retails for US$599. For your $399, you get a 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 Processo, 2GB of DDR2 667 memory, Integrated Intel GMA 950 Graphics, a 20x DVD+/-R SATA drive that is Lightscribe-capable, and four rear USB Ports.
In comparison, the Mac mini offers a 1.83GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 1GB memory, an 80GB hard drive, a FireWire port, all packed into a tiny case.
And then there are those who's entire business strategy is to paint a huge target on their b***.
My guess is that Apple hit them with a ton of Cease and Desist letters first thing this morning, as well they should have. Not only does this system push the end user to violate the OS-X EULA, the company will do it for you if you want.
This idea was doomed from the start, so much so that I rather wonder if they might have had an ulterior motive. Like letting Apple beat them up for publicity and then rolling out the same box in a month with LINUX on it
Guest wrote: This is certainly the 'type' of product that Apple sorely needs. Apple could make it smaller, charge $600 to $800 and they would sell in bunches.
Apple does not need this, for the same reason BWM does not need an equivalent to the Ford Festiva, and Starbuck's does not need a 50¢ cup of coffee.
Guest wrote: This is certainly the 'type' of product that Apple sorely needs. Apple could make it smaller, charge $600 to $800 and they would sell in bunches.
Apple does not need this, for the same reason BWM does not need an equivalent to the Ford Festiva, and Starbuck's does not need a 50¢ cup of coffee.
Agreed, but it does suggest that the Mini is a bit overpriced for what you get.
In case you missed the memo so to speak last week, Apple's doing just fine with the masses. So much so, that if you eliminate the business sector, which is slow to make ANY changes, Apple has now captured 21% of the retail computer market.
That's a far cry from the days a few years ago. Why? Because their products do in fact appeal to the masses and are selling very well in their retail stores and online. The pendulum has swung the other way for now. Try as they might, Microsoft is going to suffer a few years longer from the regime and market they built around Windows and face it, people are sick of it. Is Apple going to fare any better? No, but for now, it's what's new, novel, and NOT ticking people off more than with just minor annoyances. Face it, 75,000+ viruses for the PC platform, still not ONE for MacOSX in the wild after 8 years of the OS being released. Do the math...
"Mac" and "Macintosh" are Apple trademarks or registered trademarks. Using "OpenMac" to sell a computer that's not from Apple is a trademark violation, no matter what the status of the software terms or the claims of compatibility.
Apple cannot compete in a fair and open marketplace. Their Macs, iPods, iTV's, etc. all are closed and don't allow even media transfers. Proprietary and overpriced no matter what you macaholics think!
Apple=Garbage. If you want to run OSX, you have to buy an apple. Therefore OSX is garbage. How is this not seen as far more monopolistic than windows has ever been. I can build my own computer and put any software other than OSX on it legally.
I'd buy the clones in a heartbeat if they were legal. The ridiculous premium for Apple hardware has kept me from making the jump from MS for years. It's tough to justify if you are in a budget consious situation, where about 75 percent of PC users are likely to be.
This is great, but Apple has a track record of bricking modded devices which this essentially is. Someone who wants a Mac but can't afford it may consider this and end up getting burned in the end. If you want to play by Apple's rules and guarantee you computer won't stop working you have to use their hardware (over expensive). Apple will do the same thing Microsoft does and that's likely shut down the OS (MS disables features if you have registered the product or if you're product key ends up released to the world... Apple will likely do the same type of thing with an update just like they did with the iPhone).
The B sector is not adopting Macs becauase they are slow to adapt (business productivity apps and hardware go fast in Bland), but because they are more cost sensitive. Take out the pretty lights and Mac is not competitive for 99% of business use for the dollar -- the notable exception being users who need UNIX compatibility.
Blahblahblah microsoft haterz. But yea if they put that system out I would buy it...shoot, macs r just too expensive for ordinary people to go out and buy, not all of us can afford a $2000 piece of plastic that lets us play games and browse the net...well it cant play games that good anyways!
How many Americans had not a CLue what a free market means, and assume they have a right to whatever product they want at a price THEY consider reasonable, and cry like babies if they don't get it. Apple offers a product. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But saying it's overpriced means "it's overpriced for ME", not for the rest of the world.
How many Americans had not a CLue what a free market means, and assume they have a right to whatever product they want at a price THEY consider reasonable, and cry like babies if they don't get it. Apple offers a product. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But saying it's overpriced means "it's overpriced for ME", not for the rest of the world.
Lots of folks jump to defend Apple in this case; if Microsoft tried to tell anyone that they couldn't install Windows on "non-Microsoft branded software" they would be up in arms.
Btw, this seems like a great way to gain some market share if you ask me. What harm could come from allowing some of these evil clones infiltrate the market? Seems Apple still has a lot to learn from Microsoft's marketing tactics.
If you eliminate the business sector? And if you eliminate those who buy cars that aren't made by Ford, Ford has 100% market share!
[quote="Tiger"]In case you missed the memo so to speak last week, Apple's doing just fine with the masses. So much so, that if you eliminate the business sector, which is slow to make ANY changes, Apple has now captured 21% of the retail computer market.
Mac Sux....I would not accept a mac machine if they paid ME to take it from them. That is, unless I felt the need to smash something at that point in time, then maybe...
Agreed, but it does suggest that the Mini is a bit overpriced for what you get.
Not really, no. What people fail to mention is that you also need to buy Leopard and iLife for this machine and add that to the hardware cost listed in the article. That puts you pretty darn close to the price of a Mac Mini, and most of the rest of the price premium is spent on miniaturizing the hardware.
You lose the size advantage but gain upgradeability. Really, I think it's a trade-off and if anything shows that the price of the Mac Mini is about where it should be for what it is. I do agree, however, that it'd be nice for Apple to give us that choice in form factor.
I have several Macs and brought one in to the Apple store Saturday. They fixed it right there while I waited. That's worth a premium and I don't begrudge them their prices. The Apple stores are great.
But hardware and software are two different things and I'm surprised that Apple has been able to get away with this "bundling" -- demanding that OSX can only be used on Apple manufactured hardware -- considering the aggressive of the European Union on monopoly and antitrust.
I have several Macs and brought one in to the Apple store Saturday. They fixed it right there while I waited. That's worth a premium and I don't begrudge them their prices. The Apple stores are great.
But hardware and software are two different things and I'm surprised that Apple has been able to get away with this "bundling" -- demanding that OSX can only be used on Apple manufactured hardware -- considering the aggressiveness of the European Union on monopoly and antitrust.
Not true on the virus front. We have 250+ Macs in our enterprise and have had 3 viruses/hack attempts over the past year. Obviosuly nowhere near as pervasive, but they DO exist...
That said, these are rootkit exploits for Linux that MacOS runs on. So I guess one could argue that they are Linux viruses/vulnerabilities and not MacOS viruses.
As you said, they are still nowhere near the exploits on Windows. That said, I wonder how long it will take the AV vendors to realize they need to have their virus writers begin to start targeting the Mac given the increase market share and potential AV revenues to be had. LOL
I thought they had built an OSX clone... By loading a software that violates the EULA... it's a bad thing, but if they build their own off linux and use a translation program like Rosetta.. then it may fly.
But the way they saeem to be doing it... Is doomed.
Guest wrote: Lots of folks jump to defend Apple in this case; if Microsoft tried to tell anyone that they couldn't install Windows on "non-Microsoft branded software" they would be up in arms.
Btw, this seems like a great way to gain some market share if you ask me. What harm could come from allowing some of these evil clones infiltrate the market? Seems Apple still has a lot to learn from Microsoft's marketing tactics.
You make no sense. "if Microsoft tried to tell anyone that they couldn't install Windows on non-Microsoft branded software they would be up in arms." Are you suggesting installing windows on microsoft software? That might not work so well, usually software is used on HARDWARE. Apple make the harware and software, microsoft just makes the software.
For the business community, it's not just a problem with software compatibility (althought this is a serious problem). There is also a derth of hands-on local technical support. Whether you are talking about networking a small business, upgrading hardware, or (God forbid) repairing a server or workstation, it is very difficult and expensive to find an engineer to work on a MAC, most especially in a timely manner.
My experience as a Value Added Reseller of 13 years is that no one at Apple seems to understand that businesses do not keep spare computers laying around and cannot afford to have a computer down for days at a time.
If Apple gave the danged things away, many businesses still could not afford to put them into use for fear of the ramifications when a problem creeps up. Take almost any computer out of a business environment and you have seriouisly affected their productivity and, thereby, their profit.
And, for those who think you can discount the business community, most people want the same Operating System at home that they have at the office. Users do not want to leane two operating systems. So my guess is that when they deducted the business community, they forgot to also discount the number of people who have home systems that reflect what they use at the office.
I suggest that the Apple footpront in the market will not change significantly until they find a way of training those of us who interface with the busuiness community in a daily basis. I think the elusive answer is that until there is a MAC quailified engineer on every corner (like there is for IBM-clones), the number of Apple system implenetations will remain very limited.
Guest wrote: But hardware and software are two different things and I'm surprised that Apple has been able to get away with this "bundling" -- demanding that OSX can only be used on Apple manufactured hardware -- considering the aggressive of the European Union on monopoly and antitrust.
IMO I don't see that as bundling any more than Solaris only running on Sun hardware (not true any more but was so for many years). I see it more as akin to BMW engine management software not working on a Fiat.
MS got in trouble for forcing customers to buy IE and Windows media player with Windows when it was shown that one would run just fine without the other and blocking alternatives to either.
Guest wrote: This is great, but Apple has a track record of bricking modded devices which this essentially is. Someone who wants a Mac but can't afford it may consider this and end up getting burned in the end. If you want to play by Apple's rules and guarantee you computer won't stop working you have to use their hardware (over expensive). Apple will do the same thing Microsoft does and that's likely shut down the OS (MS disables features if you have registered the product or if you're product key ends up released to the world... Apple will likely do the same type of thing with an update just like they did with the iPhone).
Apple does not have a track record of bricking devices that are modified. Apple didn't brick any modified iPhones at all - the hacks made to some iPhones simply weren't compatible with the next software update from Apple (which wasn't pushed down to the phones - the user has to start and OK the update themselves). Apple didn't do anything specifically to brick the phones, they just didn't do anything to ensure that someone's modified device would still work with their new software... and most of the phones weren't even bricked as they could be returned to a working state just by restoring the unmodified Apple software. It's a bit like converting your car to run exclusively on vegetable oil and then being upset that Ford "bricked" you car because it didn't work properly when you decided to fill it up with regular gasoline.
Anonymous wrote: Lots of folks jump to defend Apple in this case; if Microsoft tried to tell anyone that they couldn't install Windows on "non-Microsoft branded software" they would be up in arms.
Btw, this seems like a great way to gain some market share if you ask me. What harm could come from allowing some of these evil clones infiltrate the market? Seems Apple still has a lot to learn from Microsoft's marketing tactics.
Since Microsoft doesn't make computers, this argument is a non-starter.
Look up the history of Apple and clones. The harm comes from the clones destroying Apple by undercutting. The clones don't do R&D, they just crank out cheap(er) hardware. Apple has to pay for the development of the OS and hardware design from the money they make on sales (they don't just slap together parts and call it a computer). That causes them to have higher costs than someone just cranking out hardware. Apple would suffer the same fate as IBM with regards to clones.
Please don't use Microsoft as a good example of marketing tactics.
Apple is a business not a charity and as such they must aggressively defend their products, the money that they put into R&D. Apple requiring OSX to run on Apple hardware is not a monopolistic practice, the consumer has a number of choices in operating systems and hardware. Apple provides a way for exporting documents, audio, video or whatever into cross platform file formats, you are not locked into .pages, .dvdproj or .aiff
The real business model seems to be for all of the PC users that love the Mac OS because it really is vastly superior to Vista, but scoff at paying double the price of much higher performance PCs. Because of this, Apple's business model has become entirely exploitative of uneducated customers who want the better OS but don't understand how screwed they are really getting on the hardware. In my opinion, by issuing C&D notices Apple is using anti-competitive business practices.
Apple has not gotten 21% of the market. They are moving upwards and grabbed 14% of the pc market in february. Just google "pc, mac, market share" and you can see the news articles yourself.
Did you know that 85% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Anonymous wrote: Blahblahblah microsoft haterz. But yea if they put that system out I would buy it...shoot, macs r just too expensive for ordinary people to go out and buy, not all of us can afford a $2000 piece of plastic that lets us play games and browse the net...well it cant play games that good anyways!
Maybe you could use it to hone your grammar skills.
