Psystar Changes OpenMac to Open Computer -- Web Site Back Up
by , 4:30 AM EDT, April 15th, 2008
Psystar has changed the name of its OpenMac computer to Open Computer, and the Web site is once again accessible after having been offline for most of Monday, April 14th. The company announced a computer it calls Mac-compatible on Monday under the name of OpenMac, but has since changed the name to Open Computer: The Apple Alternative.
The company is still pitching Open Computer directly at potential Mac OS X users who want to buy their hardware at a lower price than Apple charges. Psystar extensively compares its product, which starts at US$399, to Apple's Mac mini, which starts at $599, those said comparisons never mention issues such as size.
Open Computer, being a tower, has room for slots and storage bays that can be filled with a better video card, bigger, faster hard drives, FireWire, or several other options. Psystar also stresses that it has a faster processor, more RAM, and a DVD +/- burner that it says is the equivalent of Apple's SuperDrive.
"The Open Computer is a PC that works just like a Mac with Apple's latest operating system OS X 10.5 a.k.a. Leopard, the company said on its Open Computer Web page. "With the Open Computer you can run OS X natively as if you had purchased an expensive Apple computer except that, while paying less, you receive more."
With the site going down almost immediately after OpenMac was first announced, there was much Internet-based speculation as to why, with arguments centering around the cause being either too much traffic or Apple's lawyers. For its part, Apple has not yet commented publicly on the issue, and Psystar's Web site is back up, and functioning...with the slight difference of a name change on the controversial product.
In the past, Apple has zealously protected both its brand and its intellectual property rights. The company has sued at least two companies that made computers fashioned after the original iMac, as well as digital media device makers that tried to copy the iPod.
In this case, form isn't likely to be an issue, and the new name of Open Computer also steers clear of Apple's trademarks. What's still at issue, however, is Apple's EULA, which specifies that users are only allowed to install Mac OS X on Apple-branded hardware, a stipulation that Psystar has said is irrelevant and anti-competitive.
"What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?" a company spokesperson toldInformationWeek. Adding, "What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?"
The spokesperson told InformationWeek that his company would fight Apple over the EULA if necessary. "We aren't breaking any laws," he reasoned.
CloseViewName:wilf53Posts: 34Joined: 18 Oct 2007 Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:57 amSubject: Not listening
Well, this is what Apple gets for not listening to its customers. They have improved in that aspect, but can still get better. What people want is a cheaper tower, which one can extend. Hopefully, there will come more attempts like this which will force Apple to act - and not only their lawyer-team!
Besides, what happens if the market share reaches 15-20 % worldwide? Can they deliver all the hardware required, supporting the high quality people expect? I doubt it and I should think they have a plan for it, as well.
But I support anything which will force them to give us cheaper alternatives. Computing should not be this expensive today.
Every now and then, a maschochistic company with a deathwish pops up and tries to offer a mac clone. Well, unfortunately for them, potential Apple fans are better than that. The typical Apple customer is not a cheapskate or philistine would makes foolish choices to save a penny or two while ignoring the art and grace of the entire Apple experience using an Apple-built PC. Plus, Apple users are intelligent enough to want expandability in the future. The OS just keeps getting better. No guarantee Pisstar will not break on the next update from Apple. One can almost be sure it will. Apple is going to kill these clowns, who are basically breaking the EULA and deserve a padlock across their entranceway. That is coming soon.
Come on, even though the typical Apple customer is not a cheapskate, you have to admit that there are many potential Apple customers who are cheapskates and would welcome this so-called pisstar.
I'm a college student, and I've been using my Powerbook G4 for the past 4 years. Alas, it doesn't have the hardware requirements to run Leopard. I've been wanting to upgrade, but I can't afford to get a new laptop right now. And a $399 machine that runs OS X sounds increasingly tempting.
Apple baby what are you doing?......let these guys keep the name,sell as many as they can,this will grab more market share over all for your system,and then buy them out in a year.If they wont sell,than drag them through the courts with your one ton lawyers until they cry uncle,and then sell....baby dolls,do I have to do all this thinking for you?
wilf53 wrote: Well, this is what Apple gets for not listening to its customers. They have improved in that aspect, but can still get better. What people want is a cheaper tower, which one can extend.
Maybe people do want something like this, but that is irrelevant to the main issue - Psystar is selling a copy of a product they do not own.
Apple invented the Mac. They designed it inside and out. Apple, not Psystar. Psystar is coming along hoping to make a quick buck in a growing Mac market. And the only reason they care at all about the Mac market is that almost no one can make money selling cheap hardware in the PC world - just ask Dell.
And when a user has an issue with the computer, who will they call? Apple, probably. Why should Apple incur support costs for a computer they do not make?
I can't imagine working for 24 years on a product (as Apple has done with the Mac since 1984), and then, after succeeding despite hoardes of naysayers, watch another company come in and try to leech off of my own hard work.
Apple made the Mac. They can decide what to do with it. Customers unhappy with that are free to go elsewhere.
Quote
wilf53 wrote: Computing should not be this expensive today.
Another statement that has nothing to do with whether or not Psystar should be selling an Apple clone!
But anyway, the price of computing is what the market supports. That's how it should be.
Sure, there are much "cheaper" alternatives than the Mac (although in my opinion, initial cash outlay is but one cost to consider). You as the consumer have to decide if the Mac is worth your hard-earned cash.
So they want to challenge the EULA. Well I wish them luck. I believe that some rulings have gone against the enforceability of click-through EULA terms.
That said however, I don't think they'll win. Apple will apply the full weight of their legal department and all the money they have in the bank (how many billions is is now?) to defend their EULA and stomp this company out of existence. Also I would expect support from other major software companies, Adobe, game companies, even Microsoft as they will want to defend analogous terms in their own EULAs. Console makers will also join in, remember how vigorously Sony went after Connectix for their PlayStation emulator.
I don't think Psystar has deep enough pockets to take on the whole software industry.
Quote:
Apple invented the Mac. They designed it inside and out. Apple, not Psystar.
Umm...last I knew Apple was using Intel components in their computers now. Which is why this computer works using off the shelf components. Apple might have designed the old Macs, but Apples are nothing but glorified PC boxes now.
I'm a huge apple fan, but I'm most certainly not a fanboy. I own a macbook, and it is the best computer I have ever had. I want a home system badly, and of course I want a Apple MacPro. But come on now, lets be realistic, the MacPro is not for the common man. It's super powerful, but incredibly expensive. I believe 100% that the Macpro is the best system on the planet, but i don't have 2.5g's to blow. I might be able to scrounge up 35% of that, and end up with what looks like a pretty meaty machine.
The drawbacks would be no Applecare. And possibly no support for the next os, but this computer would last me 5 years, and I'd be happy with that.
Can you imagine dual booting OSX / XP, on a powerful, reasonably priced machine. Apple is going to fight, but this company certainly has a admirable business model.
Well then by your logic people who by Apple also like to spend WAY too much money for the hardware that they are getting, with the exception that it is an 'All-in-one' unit.
The basic iMac starts at $1200 excluding additional costs. The price of these parts cost only $700 with shipping on newegg without a case, which only costs $20-40 for a normal one. Plus all the components in the built one are faster. Intel's new product lineup does not have a 2Ghz core2 anymore. But some people DO NOT want to spend $1200 for there first apple, such as me. I would love to buy an apple and try out the features plus being a network technician any experience is good. But I don't feel like shelling out $1200 minimum for an iMac for just a test system. Now thanks to 'Pisstar' I can now tryout the new OS X on updated hardware for less than Half the cost! But thats not all, Say i like the Mac OS and i decide that i want to make the computer a little more permanent. Now all i have to do is get on newegg or any site and i can now purchase a nice video card, one that could only be placed in a Mac Pro, and get way more performance out of my system. AND I STILL PAY LESS THAN $1200. This company is offering a great opportunity to people who want to try out a mac. Maybe if I really like the OS i may go out and buy an iMac or Mac Pro.
A kick for both Apple and the PC tinkerers who are resisting change from their antiquated Xp and Vista boxes. Apple will have to bring down their prices when they realise how many people they are able to reach out to (the PC tinkerers) with OSX through these Pyssters. Through the availability of these OpenComputers, those who have been resisting the seduction of Macs (and many of them have Apple branded iPods) can try OSX for themselves and realise how much more advanced OSX is. When it comes to upgrade time, and Apple disables the upgrades to non Apple machines, these tinkerers will have long forgotten Windows and will have the confidence to stay with the Mac. Apple has forgotten that its is the tinkerers who work at computer upgrade centres and promote wintel boxes, and based on the bare costs of these wintel boxes, companies usually stick with Windows. I have a feeling this will do more for Apple than against it in the long run. If Apple knows there is a market out there of Switchers and a big demand for cheaper Macs that will sell, the numbers will work out and they will be able to still make a profit on cheaper Macs. A vast majority of computer users choose a computer not based on the work they have to do but based on their hip pocket and the compatibility with others for leisure activities. Apple needs to know that these people need computers that are 30% cheaper than the Mac current prices.
Exactly! Mac is now just a PC with MacOSX. Which makes MacOSX just an OS.
What the EULA should read is "IF you install this OS on another system, you void any support for the product." Support includes inability to update or no guarantee any updates will work. This will leave the OpenMac with the responsibility to support any updates the machine may require. This alone could cause the OpenMac idea to head downhill. It would require a user to buy extended user update plans that could drive up the lifetime cost of the product. Support cost money (at least the good kind does).
This all would also result in confusion for those naive buyers who are misled to believe they are buying a real Mac and not knowing the real consequences of their purchase. Someone could buy an OpenMac and sell it as a real Mac for twice the cost (on ebay probably) to the naive buyer. And who is going to be responsible for this legal mess?
As long as Apple is a designer computer and accessories fashion company, they're not going to be any threat to Windows in spite of Microsoft's making Windows less and less desirable with Vista. I can still get way faster hardware for far less money by *not* buying a Mac.
Look for Linux to become more mainstream, as it is already starting to with Eee computers and HP's new 2133, not to mention that you can build or buy whatever you want and use Linux. OSX is locked to proprietary hardware and Vista demands too much power for what little you get out of it.
Ok "What's still at issue, however, is Apple's EULA, which specifies that users are only allowed to install Mac OS X on Apple-branded hardware"
Competition is good, it brings prices down to a reasonable level for everyone. Especially with the way the economy is today not everyone one can afford to dish out money. I have always been a windows user because I did not want to spend the money to "TRY" a mac. But now I would be willing to at a price like this.
Come on Apple open up your eyes, or are you afraid someone of a little competion...???
I can't imagine working for 24 years on a product (as Apple has done with the Mac since 1984), and then, after succeeding despite hoardes of naysayers, watch another company come in and try to leech off of my own hard work.
Are you talking about the hardware or the operating system that Apple stole from the open source linux community?
If a company wants to put out hardware that people can then install legally purchased copies of OSX on, nobody can stop them. Linux (err.. OSX) can run on a lot of equipment- there's no reason to buy Apple's overpriced hardware.
True, a typical Apple customer isn't a cheapskate. They're just morons for paying more for devices (Computers, iPods, AppleTV) that provide the same functionality & reliability as other products in the marketplace which cost much less.
This whole thing is precisely why I'll never own an Apple. Historically, the advantage of a Mac has been their multimedia applications. Well, I'm not a photojournalist, DJ, video editor, and have no real need for those applications. Don't get me wrong! Mac's are pretty, their OS is VERY impressive, and from my limited experience with them, the user experience beats just about everything out there. Bar none! But I'm not going to pay upwards of $1300 for a notebook to edit documents, surf the web, or check email.
Apple needs to reconsider its business model in light of current trends, such as cloud computing and the growth of Linux as an alternative mobile OS. I fear that they will soon get left behind.
Maybe people do want something like this, but that is irrelevant to the main issue - Psystar is selling a copy of a product they do not own.
Where do you think Psystar is getting there OS, they are buying it from apple so they do own it, the problem is that they don't have the rights to RESELL it. I'm all for them doing this because I would love a powerfull MAC but can't afford one that would be adequate for my needs. That is why I'm probaly switching to Linux. But the point is if Mac would take a page from Microsofts book, yes I know that's hard to read but I'm serious, Microsoft sells rights to PC makers, like DELL, and makes money on all the customers who can't build their own PC's. If apple would let people use the MAC OS on other machines they could make a lot more money. Apple should change there EULA, let these guys sell those computer using the MAC OS and make Psystar eat all the costs in troubleshooting for those customers.
Anonymous wrote: Are you talking about the hardware or the operating system that Apple stole from the open source linux community?
OS X is NOT Linux, It NEVER WAS Linux. It will probably NEVER BE Linux. It is a certified UNIX distribution based on BSD UNIX. Apple didn't steal anything.
I'm afraid there TOTALLY WRONG! They are breaking the law by distributing OSX for one. Secondly, Honda would void the warranty if you replaced there motor, third Apple has a EULA and the intellectual property rights to distribute and license OSX to whomever they see fit. Currently that license is only in the hands of Apple. They are breaking the law, and I really don't see them shipping any product anytime soon. There analogy if flawed in many ways. If EULA's didn't mean anything then people would be making X-Box clones, Playstation 3's, Honda clone cars, you name it. I seriously doubt any court will side with anyone but Apple on this one.
It's incredible; very few people here posted correct information; most seem to offer far-fetched opinions or semi-truth (Mac OS X is Linux!!???).
This Psystar is a Hackintosh. In other words, they are purposely deceiving customers in their advertising. The truth is burried in their FAQs. The OS cannot be properly updated through Apple Update. Forget about security patches, system updates and such; the only stuff you can get from System Update is your iTunes and iPhoto fix.
There are plenty of people out there who have ordinary PCs and have installed hacked Mac OS X (Leopard) on it. Some have it working well, some have problems with sound, Airport, Ethernet, webcam... This is no different.
Two years ago, some no-name Chinese company begun advertising "Macintosh G6". They started this as soon as Mac OS X (Tiger) was hacked to run on generic Intel hardware. They disappeared within a few weeks. Psystar is no different and they will disappear just as quickly.
Apple is in the business of building and selling computers. To sell hardware at premium, Apple is adding value by bundling with it superb OS and a unique software package, unparalleled in the computing world. Judging by the last several years, it seems to be working well for them. I am no Steve Jobs, but I have a feeling that since the business model seems to be working, there is no reason for them to change it.
And for those who can't spend $1100 for a laptop, you can always get a refurbished for $900 (same model, same warranty, same Apple support, including geniuses at the store). It's been debated everywhere, but trust me, you DO get your money's worth.
I have a single-user license on my iWork, but I will install it on all my office machines. There is nothing wrong in it. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only have one person using it?"
Despite what fanboys may say about the "Apple Experience(TM)", nobody benefits from vendor lock-in except the company doing it. The entire concept is a sham to take away customer freedom. Sure an open environment can lead to a ton of crap, but it can lead to plenty of diamonds, and the crap is easy to avoid.
I have nothing against Apple products, even though I've never had a reason to try them, but Apple is the one holding Apple back. Their biggest downside when it comes to their OS is compatibility and cost. With virtual desktops, they've gone a long way towards solving the former, and companies like Psystar can force Apple to fix the latter.
Also, I'll be happy to see a victory in the law books against license agreements that force you to give up all rights to your soul.
I am very confident that this company will either win, or most likely go silent with a hefty bribe from apple not to pursuit their product. Apple has no right whatsoever to deny use of their product on other systems. Just because it's in the EULA doesn't mean it's legally binding. This has been the case time and time again. Just look at Napster all those years ago.
I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing blows up in Apple's face and turns into an antitrust case, forcing Apple to remove the blocks that deliberately prevent their OS from running on generic systems, dispite the fact that it's perfectly capable of it.
Anonymous wrote: I have a single-user license on my iWork, but I will install it on all my office machines. There is nothing wrong in it. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only have one person using it?"
--Sumit
Actually, yes there is. You are violating a legal contract to which you agreed (the EULA). You are technically stealing. That is why Apple sells "family packs" with 5 licenses. The fact that you are installing it on office machines is even worse. It means your business is stealing, not just an individual. I'm sure the BSA would love to have a talk with you.
Anonymous wrote: Apple has no right whatsoever to deny use of their product on other systems.
Yes they do. Apple owns the product (the OS). You license the product from them. You do not buy it.
Quote
Just because it's in the EULA doesn't mean it's legally binding.
Currently, until it has been overturned in court, yes it does. Mainly because you must click "I Agree" in order to install the OS. By clicking that, you are saying that you agree to the terms. This is a "click-wrap" license. It has been upheld in court (see ProCD v. Zeidenberg).
Quote
This has been the case time and time again. Just look at Napster all those years ago.
Which cases? Are you referring to the Napster that no longer exists?
Actually there are some valid legal points in favor of Mac Clones. There is a line of thought, especially strong, in the EC that it is illegal to force people to use bundled hardware and software. Remember Microsoft used to force computer makers to sell computers with the label "This CPU licensed for Windows 2000 only" etc. The U.S. Copyright Office has ruled that hacking software to allow generic ink cartridges and phone SIMs to work is not a copyright violation. Thus I don't think this is an issue that is going away for Apple.
Anyone who buys this POS will get what they deserve. The minute there is a conflict between the OS and the bargain basement hardware, the customer will be stuck. Psystar will claim it is a software problem and Apple will turn their back on them for using the OS on non Apple approved hardware. Both companies will laugh at this poor sap.
Guest wrote: Apple has no right whatsoever to deny use of their product on other systems.
Yes they do. They developed the platform and can distribute it as they see fit.
Quote
Guest wrote: Just because it's in the EULA doesn't mean it's legally binding.
Yes it is. EULAs have actually held up "time and again", and the few instances of EULAs being quashed usually boil down to deceptive practices by the licensor.
Quote
Guest wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing blows up in Apple's face and turns into an antitrust case, forcing Apple to remove the blocks that deliberately prevent their OS from running on generic systems, dispite the fact that it's perfectly capable of it.
Neither would I. I believe Apple is well on its way to anti-trust litigation, but it won't be over this.
The analogy that there would be a big flare-up if Microsoft started selling Windows with only Dell PCs is flawed. Those are two completely separate companies. I don't see any computers with the brand "Microsoft" on them, they're in the business of making an OS and software.
Apple, on the other hand, owns the rights to their OS, AND they make the physical computers to run it on. They can sell the rights to their OS to whoever they want to (or don't want to).
If you do some research on the history of OS's you will know that Bill and Steve stole their OS from Xerox. Not Linux or Unix. But Mac now are more formed into a BSD Unix type os. What Windows needs to do is just make a Enviroment like KDE or Gnome for linux. Then get all the hardware vendors to follow. Then we can all get cheap hardware that works better than a APPLE or Windows machine.
They acquired the technology from Xerox when no one else wanted to take a chance on it and developed it into the Mac OS. Microsoft, on the other hand, reverse engineered what Apple had done without permission or acknowledgement of any kind to create Windows.
Anonymous wrote: I have a single-user license on my iWork, but I will install it on all my office machines. There is nothing wrong in it. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only have one person using it?"
Actually, yes there is. You are violating a legal contract to which you agreed (the EULA). You are technically stealing. That is why Apple sells "family packs" with 5 licenses. The fact that you are installing it on office machines is even worse. It means your business is stealing, not just an individual. I'm sure the BSA would love to have a talk with you.
Your car analogy makes absolutely no sense.
Ok bro! That was a mock of Psystar. That's what they would come up with next is what was being said. The car analogy certainly does not make any sense, but was put there in response to a senseless statement by the company spokesperson.
Can you imagine dual booting OSX / XP, on a powerful, reasonably priced machine.
Except that their FAQ suggests to NOT dual-boot into Windows. They indicate they use virtualization software to run Windows.
Personally, I'd be worried about the emulated EFI, emulated video drivers, etc. and how those might run if I apply updates to the OS. Will Psystar come out with updates in a timely manner to keep my system from bricking?
I think once the trademark issues are done with and they are clear on their website that Apple is not affiliated with them and will not support their systems, then they'll probably be left alone. And they will have to be extremely clear, because one other thing Apple is trying to avoid here is bad word of mouth from upset customers when they call Apple for help and Apple says, "No can do. You have a non-supported system."
I might consider purchasing one of these if I knew more and could ensure it would run what I needed to run. But I can tinker. I would not suggest one of these to my friends and family who don't know anything about the insides of a computer nor to my clients who rely on their systems 24/7.
)