Mac clone maker vows to test Apple on OS X licensing terms - Page 2

Originally Posted by Superbass

DELL:

PROCESSOR\tIntel® Core2 Q6700 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.66Hz,1066FSB)\tedit
OPERATING SYSTEM\tGenuine Windows Vista® Home Premium with Digital Cable Support\tedit
MEMORY\t4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 4 DIMMs\tedit
HARD DRIVE\t1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 32MB Cache\tedit
OPTICAL DRIVE\tSingle Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability\tedit
MONITORS\tNo Monitor\tedit
VIDEO CARD\tnVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB\tedit
SOUND CARD\tIntegrated 7.1 Channel Audio\tedit
SPEAKERS\tNo speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system)\tedit
KEYBOARD\tDell USB Keyboard\tedit
MOUSE\tDell Optical USB Mouse\tedit
FLOPPY & MEDIA READER\tNo Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included

$1958 including Office

Mac Pro
Part Number: Z0EM
One 16x SuperDrive
One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
Apple Mighty Mouse
iWork '08 preinstalled
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
4GB (4 x 1GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Accessory kit
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)
\t
$3428 including iWork (75% more expensive than the Dell...)

Dell doesn't offer Xenon "Octo"-core systems, instead they have Core2 Extreme, which is the overclocked gaming equivalent. It would cost $600 to upgrade to it on the dell, $500 to upgrade on the Mac. Also, Apple charges more for memory upgrades, video card upgrades, hard drives and displays, and Dell offers BluRay, which Apple doesn't...

Originally Posted by floccus

Have we all forgotten our computing history? The whole reason Microsoft became so successful was that they specifically allowed their OS to be used on multiple types of computers. Previous to that, the OS and hardware were almost always locked together (e.g., the original Macintosh). Also, Psystar would be aiding and abetting software piracy if they specifically marketed a machine for the purposes of allowing a purchaser to buy/install a copy of OSX in violation of the EULA.

Originally Posted by Abster2core

How do I eject a CD without an Apple keyboard? This is an issue that may come up from time-to-time when using your Open Computer with the OS X operating system. As you may know Apple keyboards have an eject button and that is what actually opens the drive tray. PC-based keyboards do not have this button. What PCs do have is an eject button on the drive trays, but Apple computers don't and consequently lock the drive and ignore this button like most Linux/BSD operating systems, requiring the drive to be unmounted first.
*
\t•\tPress and hold F-12
\t•\ttype the command 'drutil eject' in terminal

Can I run updates on my Open Computer? The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are safe. It's best to check the web for this information but when in doubt don't update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.

Will my software work? Psystar has tested our Open computers with standard OS X software. We have not found any software incompatibilities with the standard OS software but we cannot guarantee that any of the software on your computer will work in Leopard. In Windows everything should work just fine assuming you have the proper device drivers and in Ubuntu everything should, in theory, work fine but Linux applications often require dependencies and a bit of work on the user's part.

This has been widely written about many times over. If you compare the cost of a mac with specific components, to a PC from the major carriers with near the same specs, you will find the mac is a less expensive system...and in many ways better designed and built.

Originally Posted by Superbass

DELL:

PROCESSOR\tIntel® Core2 Q6700 Quad-Core (8MB L2 cache,2.66Hz,1066FSB)\tedit
OPERATING SYSTEM\tGenuine Windows Vista® Home Premium with Digital Cable Support\tedit
MEMORY\t4GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 4 DIMMs\tedit
HARD DRIVE\t1TB - 7200RPM, SATA 3.0Gb/s, 32MB Cache\tedit
OPTICAL DRIVE\tSingle Drive: 16X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) w/double layer write capability\tedit
MONITORS\tNo Monitor\tedit
VIDEO CARD\tnVidia GeForce 8800 GT 512MB\tedit
SOUND CARD\tIntegrated 7.1 Channel Audio\tedit
SPEAKERS\tNo speakers (Speakers are required to hear audio from your system)\tedit
KEYBOARD\tDell USB Keyboard\tedit
MOUSE\tDell Optical USB Mouse\tedit
FLOPPY & MEDIA READER\tNo Floppy Drive or Media Reader Included

$1958 including Office

Mac Pro
Part Number: Z0EM
One 16x SuperDrive
One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (quad-core)
Apple Mighty Mouse
iWork '08 preinstalled
Apple Keyboard (English) + Mac OS X
4GB (4 x 1GB)
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
Accessory kit
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB (Two dual-link DVI)
\t
$3428 including iWork (75% more expensive than the Dell...)

Dell doesn't offer Xenon "Octo"-core systems, instead they have Core2 Extreme, which is the overclocked gaming equivalent. It would cost $600 to upgrade to it on the dell, $500 to upgrade on the Mac. Also, Apple charges more for memory upgrades, video card upgrades, hard drives and displays, and Dell offers BluRay, which Apple doesn't...

Originally Posted by Dave_M

I've just been on the Psystar site and that $400 doesn't even include OS X.
That will cost you an extra $155!

Originally Posted by radwansk

This has been widely written about many times over. If you compare the cost of a mac with specific components, to a PC from the major carriers with near the same specs, you will find the mac is a less expensive system...and in many ways better designed and built.

However when you go below $1000, you find there are many systems less expensive on the PC side. But you have to watch the specs, many times they are using AMD or Hypersonic processors or a lesser video card, which aren't a good point of comparison. If you compare a mac, and a pc, with x HD by brand y, xvideo card by brand y, Xram by brand y, usually the mac is cheaper. Why? I would have to guess that is the uplift for Windows licenses.

Originally Posted by frugality

Right now, Apple has a monopoly on OS-X-running computers.

Originally Posted by EagerDragon

Specially the kids putting their money together to get a Mac and then see this opportunity, they jump and get hurt. I don't like kids getting hurt.

Originally Posted by tink

Monopolies are not illegal. Anti-competitive behavior in the market is illegal.

Many companies control software and hardware.. One example is gaming hardware i.e. Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo are similar to Apple in that they write proprietary OS's for the hardware they don't licence. So each has a monopoly for their platform in the gaming market, but it's not illegal.

They will need to make a distinction between the "Computer Market" and the "Mac Market". In the "computer market" Apple cannot be considered a monopoly. In the Mac market obviously they have a monopoly in the hardware, just like the Playstation has a hardware lock on the Playstation Market.

And since the Justice department hand slapped Microsoft wich was found egregious unlawful in multiple instances I think and an anti trust suit is a PR stunt.

Originally Posted by fraklinc

This is good & everything but Psystar should just STFU and keep making $$$ while it last. Apple could put them out of business with a simple patch throw a software update & they know it, so STFU before apple starts imbedding all kinds of security into Leopard to check for real macs

Originally Posted by BrisbaneDigital

While many of the issues raised in the replies to this post are all valid, perhaps the threshold issue on this subject is through what mechanism and how much is Psystar paying Apple for a licensing fee for OSX. Since Apple does not have an OEM program, the only (arguably) legal mechanism that Psystar has to legally acquire the OS, is to purchase retail versions. This coupled with the cost of components and packaging, is likely drive the Cost of Goods to at least $400, if not higher (that doesn't take into account other costs such as product design, testing, assembly, distribution, marketing, etc... (Of course, we can't forget Legal! ).

The other question raised is, who has the legal duty to support the customers of these systems? Even if Apple wanted to, there is no way that they can provide support without knowing the precise configurations of these systems and the specific components used.


This sounds more like a publicity stunt rather than a legitimate attempt to enter the OSX clone business.

Just my two cents....


(actually, given my hourly rate, that is my $46.

Originally Posted by minderbinder

APPLE DOES NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY.

Originally Posted by ljocampo

I remember buying a Mac clone. It was from Power Computing and the problems I had with compatibility almost drove me to buy a Windows machine. I did buy a real Mac directly Apple and I couldn't get over the difference in stability. All the driver and device issues vanished with having the real thing. So from my prospective, I think bringing back Mac clones is a bad idea.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?," he said. "What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"

Originally Posted by shawnathan

oh christ, here comes the onslaught of mac wannabe's.. well everyone.. i guess we've enjoyed our niche for long enough..

Originally Posted by ljocampo

It had better specs than a real Apple at the time, but software conflicts drove me insane.

.

Originally Posted by tink

There is no competition in the Mac market and that is not illegal.

Originally Posted by minderbinder

Wouldn't apple be trying to do it already since people are doing their own hackintoshes?

Originally Posted by tink

Apple has a monopoly in the Mac market. There is nothing wrong with that.

Monopoly
"A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition."

There is no competition in the Mac market and that is not illegal.

Originally Posted by frankiilacomposer

Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.

Originally Posted by minderbinder

Where did you get 155? List price is $129 and many places have it cheaper.

Originally Posted by minderbinder

I'm sure Tiger is probably an option as well.

Originally Posted by fraklinc

Well buy announcing the App store apple pretty much kill jailbreaking already if that's what you mean, most of the good games & good apps have disappear from app tap already, i guess since the app store is going to be available to more than 10 million people everyone is in a hurry to license the apps so they can get at least $1 per user

Originally Posted by zunx

It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good.

Originally Posted by frankiilacomposer

Personally, and I know this is such a lovely topic around here, I think that anything that has a better GPU is worth it and I say Hurrah, Hurrah for the OSX86 and companies like this.

Pro users DO not make up the base, its all iPods and iPhone users.
Mac Pro's and Macbook Pro's hardly move off the shelves in the apple stores compared to iMacs, Macbooks, Minis and especially iPhones.
For a few hundred, you can build a great machines, buy a dual DVI nvidia card and have a machine the romps a Mac Pro for a fraction of the cost.
Apple charges $600 for 4 GB of RAM, you can buy RAM at New Egg for $104 dollars and most memory will have a lifetime warranty so no worries should it fail in a year or so.

The whole notion that Apple is still on its high horse with graphic cards drives me nuts - they still think the PROS will flock to the cheap-o systems if they released a cheap machine with a $50 graphic card. So what if they do? They are such a small portion of the market. Personally, I don't think its a matter of "if" but a matter of "when" as Apple needs to get a grip.

While the machine is probably ugly, I think you're better of building your own machine for much cheaper.

Here is a link for a HACK for less than $800 and with the exception of one benchmark, it beats the Mac Pro -

http://lifehacker.com/software/bench...rks-322866.php

And to think as an Apple user I pat them on the back -

I think there is a group of us, PRO PC until Apple went X86 (as Steve used to FUDGE all the numbers), that are POST X86 Apple users, and those of us who are, are also savvy to INTEL say vs AMD and know what cost a GPU or MEMORY is, and how (APPLE) Intel used to operate until AMD came along with their first 1.0 GHZ Athlon. I think competition and seeing better machines cheaper may someday force Apple to wake up and release a overall decent machine thats not crippled in any department.

Right now, if you want to play any game at all that uses 3D, you have to get an iMac, however, if you want a laptop, you have NO CHOICE but to purchase a Macbook Pro.

Originally Posted by Booga

That leaves the sub-$1000 pro-sumer market wide open. It's a market Apple doesn't address at all. iMacs are too expensive and are bundled with what is for most people an unnecessary extra monitor. The mini doesn't have a graphics card and is severely underpowered for the price. That's why this clone is so interesting to so many people.

Originally Posted by Samnuva

Seriously, These guys have t be insane. Apple's software is Apple's software. Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by floccus

Have we all forgotten our computing history? The whole reason Microsoft became so successful was that they specifically allowed their OS to be used on multiple types of computers. Previous to that, the OS and hardware were almost always locked together (e.g., the original Macintosh). Also, Psystar would be aiding and abetting software piracy if they specifically marketed a machine for the purposes of allowing a purchaser to buy/install a copy of OSX in violation of the EULA.

Originally Posted by G_Warren

There are interesting competition law points here. If we assume that the relevant market is 'Computer hardware capable of running Mac OS X' then clearly Apple is in a dominant position with 100% market share. It is not completely unforseeable that Apple could be forced to licence OS X or remove the relevant paragraphs from the agreement.

Of course, one could argue that in that case, Nokia should be releasing its software so that Sony Ericsson users can use it etc.

A few complaints to national competition authorities might raise some interesting results.

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Idiots

If Microsoft wanted to write into their EULA that windows should only be installable on Dells they "could". It wouldn't be smart but they could if they wanted to.

"Robert" should be kept away from the press. What a moron. This company will soon be a footnote. I'm sure they have a legal departmen that matches Apple's in every way<sarcasm>

If Apple could shut down Thinksecret over rumors they're going to do a number on this little company that makes Thinksecret look like a love tap on the ass.

Originally Posted by zunx

It is not good that the Mac is a monopoly of Apple. Mac OS X should run on any Intel hardware, being made by Apple or others. Greed is never good. And we want a Mac miniTOWER that Apple does no make, but others can offer. And so on. Windows people can choose the hardware they want from a myriad of vendors. Mac users cannot. That is not good for the Mac community. And by Mac I mean Mac OS X, of course. Apple, move on!

Originally Posted by frugality

And Microsoft said that their software was their software, and they had the right to integrate Internet Explorer into their software.

At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?

The saving grace for Apple is that they're still a two-bit player, relatively speaking.

Originally Posted by Wiggin

Except it really doesn't work that way. The fact that Microsoft has a monopoly in Windows isn't what got them in trouble. What got them in trouble was that they used their monopoly in abusive ways. They used their monopoly in one area (operating systems) to illegally interfere with businesses in another area (web browsers and Netscape). Mac hardware and the Mac OS are not two seperate markets. They are a single market. MS also used their monopoly to force PC makers to include Windows on all of their computers, even if the customer didn't want it included. There probably would have been nothing illegal if they had told HP that they had to exclude Windows an certain models, but forcing them to include it and pay for it was an abuse of their monopoly.

Apple doesn't abuse their "monopoly" (and I use that term very loosely!) in OS X. They don't force other companies to buy it and include it with their hardware. If they chose not to license it to you, that's their [perfectly legal] choice.



In fact, MS's Vista license does actually preclude you from installing certain versions on virtual machines. I think they relaxed it a bit from the original version; but by license, you are not allowed to install the lower end versions of Vista on virtual PCs. So you could have a Dell running a fully license version of Vista. But if you then wanted to buy the retail version of the low-end Vista (whatever it's called...who can keep track!) and install it in a virtual machine running on that Dell, you would be in violation of the license agreement. It's MS's property that you are licensing, and they have decided that they don't want their product used in that way...perfectly legal!

Originally Posted by frugality

At issue is whether Apple's EULA is legal to be bound to a specific hardware. Microsoft's "EULA", in essence, was to force everyone to use IE if they wanted Windows. The federal anti-trust regulators here in the US and in Europe decided that Microsoft had too much of a monopoly in the browser department, and forced MS to 'play nice' with other software makers. Why shouldn't Apple be told to 'play nice' with other hardware makers?

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

Build me an equivalent Dual Xeon DELL System.

Originally Posted by mstone

Right now Apple depends only on the legal system to protect their software copyrights. There is a warning message buried in the OS code that discourages piracy, but that is about it. But way back in the early days they used a ROM chip to prevent others from running the OS on non-Apple computers. Since they are clearly capable of hardware locking their OS, if necessary, they could easily choose to go that route again. Either way you can depend on Apple protecting their brand.

Originally Posted by canucklehead

Macs and OSX are parts of Apple's brand. They created the systems. They own the brands. What do you not understand?

What you said is like saying there is no competition in the Civic market because only Honda makes Civics.

Get real.