I don’t know whether this was exactly a smart move, but Psystar has begun selling a PC dubbed the Open Computer. It rolls in at a budget-priced $399, but what really makes it unique is that fact that you can have Leopard preinstalled on it for an additional $155. So for about $550 you can get a PC with decent specs that also runs Mac OS X Leopard. They’re claiming that you can “run Mac Pro equivalent hardware at Mac Mini prices.”
There is also the OpenPro Computer that comes in with much higher specs and a $999 price tag, but how are they able to offer computers with Mac OS X Leopard? Interestingly enough Psystar has decided to ignore Apple’s EULA and install the operating system on non-Apple hardware. Their website says that they are able to do this using an EFI emulator:
With the EFI V8 emulator it is possible to install Leopard’s kernel straight from the DVD that you purchased at the Apple store barring the addition of a few drivers to ensure that everything boots and runs smoothly.
They aren’t stopping there either. InformationWeek posted an article today stating that Psystar is calling out Apple as being a monopoly. They say that it would be similar to Microsoft only allowing Dell to install Windows on their computers, or Honda telling you what roads you can drive on with your car. I’m all about Apple letting third-party vendors create Leopard-compatible PC’s, but are those comparisons really accurate?
In the end Apple’s computers are really just consumer devices with an operating system, and are people going to force Apple to offer the iPod/iPhone OS for other devices as well? You might be thinking that Mac OS X is different since Apple sells it separately from the computers, but what if they didn’t? They are really only offering the OS separately so that existing Mac users can easily (and cheaply) upgrade without having to purchase a new computer. Don’t give Apple a reason to stop selling standalone copies of OS X.
I would love to see Mac OS X running on nearly any PC, but I think Apple has found value in selling computers that they can ensure work flawlessly with their operating system. This will definitely be a story to follow, and I wonder whether Psystar will be able to hold their own against Apple’s big-shot lawyers?
If Psystar proves that OS X runs on their machines, I am so there. I would love to have a Apple machines but I am not willing to play outrageous price.
I remember a time before Steve Jobs came back to Apple when they were allowing registered third parties to sell Mac Clones. It was great. However this will most likely get squashed by Apple’s legal department for now. However it is likely to show the interestest there is in clones which may ultimately bring about some deals for third parties to legally bring out Mac clones yet again. Although Apple has been pretty vocal about not allowing this to happen so it will be interesting to see what happens in the long run.
all i have to say is ‘bravo’!! while i’m not too fond of microsoft, i’ve always found it interesting that they keep getting sued for their business practices (ie bundling internet explorer with the os, etc) and yet apple can make their stuff as bundled as you can possibly get, software AND hardware but no one seems to complain. perhaps you can use the argument that they are selling consumer electronics with an os attached, or whatever, but then you’d better get rid of the now annoying, and false, “leopard is better than vista” advertising. after all, if they aren’t the same thing, then they cannot compare….can they? or are they the same thing, and you can compare them? but then perhaps they’re a monopoly after all? i think apple’s pretty damned good at twisting things so that they don’t smell quite as bad as they really are.
i guess this is where i boost the linux figures eh? well, i run a computer with 2 separate drives…one’s vista ultimate which i have no complaints about, and the other is kubuntu 8.04, hardy heron, beta…that i’m just learning…and i’m going to add opensuse 10.3 to that. i have vista on my wife’s computer as well. i like vista, but there are a couple probs i have with creative labs.
enough blah blah blah…hopefully i didn’t ruin my point.
Short answer to “are those comparisons really accurate?” is YES! The only way they could get away with this is to not sell the OS upgrades. If they are selling the OS as part of the machine, i.e. the OS of PS3 or Xbox 360, then they would be free to lock the OS to the machine. They are selling both products together and separate, which violates this. Also, they should be sued about 10 times over for iLife because it claims to have more stuff in it than Windows comes with, and Windows is sued for the stuff it has. Mac has had a monopoly for a long time and it needs to stop.
I think it’s great that someone is coming out and accusing Apple of being a monopoly. I’m not too fond of many of their products but I always found it strange that you couldn’t install their OS on other PCs.
Maybe this will finally make people realise that the only reason OSX is any good is because its meant to run on a single hardware config – I can guarantee it won’t be nearly as stable on PC hardware, especially if you upgrade the thing or add other devices. Maybe if that happens Apple can stop playing the cool card and admit that what Microsoft tries to do is damned hard.
With M$ being sued for their “monopoly” it’s about time Apple faces the same pressure. Wonder how all this will play out.
I think a lot of people feel the same way. I’m still a bit of a skeptic myself though, and I would love to hear a review from someone that actually receives one of these.
What I’m left wondering is whether these clones could successfully exist as long as they don’t preinstall OS X for the user. What if the user purchased the machine as “OS X compatible” and then went to the store to buy their own copy? Sure they would still be breaking the license, but would they have a flawless experience?
Apple can definitely twist a lot of stuff to make it sound wonderful. I whole heartily agree with that, but then again almost every company tries to do that.
So if Apple decided not to sell it separately then it would be okay? What if they offered the upgrade as a download much like a firmware update, and charged for it like they did for the recent iPod Touch update? I don’t think that’s really any different.
That’s one of the reasons that I can’t wait for real reviews on this computer to start surfacing. I wonder just how good it is.
Lawyers love the world we live in…
Does sony have a monopoly because you can’t run the PS3 operating system on other hardware? The answer is no, because you buy the whole package, I guess we’d call that an “consumer product” not an OS. Apple is doing the same thing, they sell an apple computer product. Just because the non-apple pc market is focused on individual hardware kits and oses doesn’t make Apple an monopoly. If you’re not willing to pay apple prices then you don’t buy apple computers, it’s like anything else. Even though of course everyone technical would like to have a go at it. Just wanting it doesn’t make it reality though. That’s what I think anyway.
if they are putting out a consumer product like the sony ps3, then have their commercials compare themselves to the ps3. not microsoft. what makes them so special that if someone calls bs on them for being a monopolizing os or computer manufacturer or whatever they can say “hey, we’re not an os, we’re a consumer electronics company” or “hey, we’re not a consumer electronics company, we’re a software and os creating company”. compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges….but don’t throw me a banana on monday and call it an apple and on tuesday an orange.
I think as long as the hardware meets Apple’s specs I would expect a comparable user experience with clone hardware. Apple hardware is not really anything special, they just standardize one 1 or 2 hardware platforms at a time so it is easy to support with little need to support every possible configuration of PC the way Microsoft does. What I would be curious about is what happens if you upgrade to a better graphics card like the 9800GTX or 3870 instead of the 8800GT or 2600XT that Apple uses? Having a clone with upgraded graphics cards might be very useful for graphics professionals. Besides I have always found Apples hardware a bit too expensive for my tastes. Selling them with Linux but also with the possibility to install Apple OS X on your own if you buy it separately would probably be a better way to keep Apple legal away.
I’m equally curious about that. I’m guessing that it would work, but maybe the system wouldn’t take full advantage of the advanced graphics card?
Even though most of the ATI and Nvidia drivers are universal these days on Windows I’m not sure about that on a Mac. If there were to be a stability issue I would think the graphics driver would be a likely cause. However if it works and the driver works with both cards it could be quite interesting. As for taking full advantage, it would really depend on the graphics driver and that is a big wild card. Still if you have the money to spend and don’t mind experimenting with what may end up a Windows or Linux box if Mac OS X does not work right then it might be a worthwhile experiment. Better yet if they would lend one to a press writer it would be good exposure and at the same time alleviate a lot of anxiety one might have in buying one of these.