This is brilliant. Apple will institute a contributory copyright infringement action against PsyStar, but if the user ultimately purchases Leopard from an Apple and installs it themselves on the clone, capitalize on "Fair Use" defenses. Boom indeed.

Psh, I sent this in too.

Here's the link I sent in... It's better than the link provided because this one isn't down. Lol.

[apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com]

If they had a $600 model that would give me dual-link DVI, I would be on it. I have a MacBook, but I'll be damned if I'll pay $2500 for a Mac Pro to switch my desktop just so my 30" Dell doesn't go to waste.

@NNTPgrip: I'm in the same position as you (Dell 30" collecting dust and prefer Mac) but have a more favorable view of the Mac Pro as being a relative bargain compared to other desktops on the market.

I'm sorry but how is opening up a platform a bad idea? How could anyone be against greater accessibility to the supposedly infallible OS/X at far more affordable prices on a greater selection of customisable hardware?

Commercialized Hackintosh? Nice try. Although I must say, my self-built Hackintosh is a smooth as silk. Kalyway FTW.

beacause the reason it is "infallible" is that it only runs on certain hardware configs that wont make it run poorly, doesnt have to work with "random graphics card from 1997", or "discontinued DVD burner" and also because Apples margins on hardware is what funds their software development.

4 rear ports? What were they thinking? Who looks in the rear????!?

I don't know about you guys, but those was dark days back in the Clone Era. And every publication (like MacWorld, etc.) was heralding the opening to clones as Apple's only way to survive, and why Wintel was so dominant.

An era best left forgotten. On the other hand, wish I'd bought more Apple stock in those days.

@PJK: If you're an Apple shareholder, you'd be against it. The Vista problems have opened the door for Apple to capitalize on it's supposedly rock solid OS X, and it will try like mad to ensure they monopolize the hardware market that runs OS X. Apple drafted the EULA to prevent this, but if PsyStar is smart, they will only sell the machine that "could" run Leopard, not actually sell it with Leopard installed.

@PJK: It commoditizes the machines, overstimulating competition, driving price to be the ultimate point of differentiation between brands - which leads to massive cost-cutting on parts and labor and customer support in order to maintain company margins. How's Gateway doing these days?

apparently the infallibility of OSX is derived from the fact that it only runs on one type of machine and is regulated by one manufacturer. or at least that's what Apple says. To be honest I don't really know why OSX is so solid.

IMO this is a great idea that I wish had stayed around on it's first run all those years ago but to be able to run Leopard and the "good" adobe suite on a $400 computer sounds like a dream.

@PJK: In the end, OS X is Apple's construction of open-source technologies. They can't survive on the retail cost of OS X and a few meager licensees (do you really think that Microsoft would make this easy for them?)

@Samifumi: Unlikely. Unless I'm really missing my guess, Apple runs the same type of EULA's as most software manufacturers these days: the kind that says you don't actually own the software, and thus can't do whatever you want. You know, like the RIAA tried to prove with music? Licensing is a bitch. Depending on the exact wording in the EULA, I think Apple has a rock solid legal case. I expect this Hackintosh to die off REALLY soon if they sell pre-installed.

If they just sell a computer that "can" run Leopard, like you suggest, they won't get a lot of press, but Apple could legitimately shut users off of things like updates because the usage of the OS violates the EULA. In the end, no one wins. :(

This shows just how much of a margin Apple make on Macs.

Carry on.

any one know what case they are using there?

"Once upon a time, back when most Apple fanboys were still playing with Mr. Potato"

Wow, and I was producing radio spots on ProTools on a PowerComputing box around that time.

@scarbrtj: Ah... "the Clone Wars"... For over a thousand generations, the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the Old Republic. Before the dark times... before the Empire.

One thing to remember is that you do not get Leopard with $400. You need to pay aditional to get Leopard. Ditto with iLife. That approaches the Mac Mini price range. Better form factor and also legal support.
This product is for people who think they have modding skillz and want to customize their computer.

<-- Hugs my Hackintosh and kisses my Kalyway statue on my desk.

"This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."

This seems clear to me. Unless some legal eagle fancies laughing in the face of a C&D over the somewhat potentially vague meaning of "Apple-Labeled". I've got a mountain of Apple stickers gathered over the years.

wow if the site ever goes back up i'd buy one...

@CutePuppyz: Never go ass to mouth Randall!

@DaOtter: I doubt Apple would actually consider working on pinpointing clones to try to eliminate updates. If they did, I wonder what would happen to those people who upgrade the processors and other components in their G4 systems, like ones with Sonnet processor upgrades.

@jackfrost132: I thought you weren't supposed to be here today?! o.0

@DaOtter: Should they sell them pre-installed with Leopard, yes, they would be defeated in court on a copyright infringement action easily. Should they sell them without any OS, and leave it to consumer which OS they will install, then you get into the realm of Fair Use defenses.

Should Apple get TOO oppressive, and fight PsyStar on a secondary liability theory (contributing to copyright infringement), there could be hell to pay with regards to antitrust litigation either here in the United States, AND/OR in Europe (where the money is these days). Apple has a very fine line to travel along at this point. They would be best served licensing out Leopard to partners like this, but limiting the features a bit to avoid looking like an oppressive juggernaut.

On another note:
I called the number on their website (google psystar and click the "cached" link next to the URL) and spoke to Mark. I asked if they were still for sale, they are, and also mentioned they may be releasing a new model today. I asked about Apple and he said they hadn't contacted them.

I also asked if I go pick one up (my family lives in Miami) and told me to email them because he wasn't sure.

@Kaiser-Machead: It would be tough, and a disaster PR move, IMO, but my only point is that by using such a computer, you would open yourself to such actions, and you'd have no legal recourse. Aside from upgradability, I don't see any benefits to this hack box.

Apple's market share went down when they started doing licensing because their licensees made better computers than them, and sold them for cheaper.

If Apple's business model hadn't been so dependent on high hardware margins, they would probably have been fine. As it is, they tend to have pretty affordable software, and charge a premium for hardware, which doesn't lend itself to cloning.

@PJK:

If they license out to third party companies to make Apple compatible computers that will eat away at Apples revenue. Because why would one buy a $2000 Apple branded computer when they can get a Mac compatible for $1000.

It's one of the main reasons why when Jobs came back, killed this business model and actually bought Power Computing (Mac clone maker) to shut it down.

Apple is a hardware and software company. That's why I could never understand the comparisons between Apple v. Microsoft. Microsoft only develops the operating system. (personal computer / mobile phone speaking).

href="#c5176592">Kaiser-Machead: I agree, it's a waste of time, and might create serious headaches for people running Silver Doors, Blue & Whites, or older systems.

@Sleeper_Service:

And of course making a profit as a company is a terrible crime against humanity......

If you can't see the difference between cheap-ass PC hardware and a Mac, then you should go visit a good optometrist.

@MINI Driver:

Hey, not criticising Apple. If you guys want to contribute to their profits that's your call.

However, the 'cheap ass' PC is a silly argument. We're not comparing Macs to Packard Bells here.

@Sleeper_Service: yeah cuz clearly it looks just like the Mac Mini it's specs mimic.

@eblack: actually, as someone being alive at the time and working at a place that had over 1000 macintosh desktops the reason the clones were so successful is because they shipped something. There were month long backlogs for Apple hardware, order a clone, it was there the next day. Order a PCI Power Mac like the 7200 or 7600 and it'd take months to get. That's why they hurt Apple, first and foremost, is cuz apple couldn't make/ship things at the time.

@Sleeper_Service:

No - we're comparing a Mac to a factory version of a home-brew system.

The quality is just there for everyone to see,,,,,,

@MINI Driver:

Interesting, so you've got your hands on one of these machines and can speak for the quality?

As for upgradeability, pshhh, who wants that? Silly PC users.....

Time to Google "I think we're a clone now."

hmmm,
Wasn't IBM's giant anti-trust loss because they controlled both the hardware and os?

Funny enough, I watched this over the weekend.

[www.archive.org]

reminds me of that pic of the Volkswagen Beetle with the Rolls Royce grid on it - interesting to look at, once - but would you really want to own one?

@trekkie:

Who really cares what it looks like? It's what it's made of that matters. I'd be interested to see the component brands used for the mobo and memory.

...and the site is down.

@alphanuderek1980: Macs can be upgraded indeed, if by 'upgrade' we think of what the vast majority of computers users think: increase memory and / or hard disk size, adding network or graphic cards...

You can do that to a Mac. You can't change yourself the motherboard or stuff like that, but, again, those are not average user capabilities, provided they even need it.

Regards.

@DaOtter: aside for upgradeability? ... isn't that the whole POINT of a computer? (okay, maybe not the whole point)

I like being able to buy a $150 hardware upgrade (videocard? hard drive? ram? whatever!) to my computer to keep it up to date - much better than having to spend $2500 on a new mac for newer hardware and be left with an old computer I don't need.

@MINI Driver: ... intel inside. for both. therefore, macs are only as good as PCs on the inside, where it counts.

@Sleeper_Service: LMAO "Packard Bells" hahaha I can't believe you brought them up!