RSSAfter the Psystar verdict: Send in the clones
By Carmi Levy | Published November 17, 2009, 2:57 AM
I feel a little sorry for Psystar. But only a little, because the Mac clone maker should have realized it couldn't rewrite history.
Its latest courtroom loss -- where a US District Court judge last week sided with Apple and said Psystar can no longer sell hardware based on hacked versions of Mac OS X -- will in all likelihood bring the whole concept of clones to an inglorious close. And none too soon.
Another case of history repeating itself
We've been down this road before. In 1982, when a fully tricked out Apple II Plus cost an order of magnitude more than a modern-day low-end PC or netbook, there was ample room in the market for knockoff hardware that offered the same user experience for less. If your choice was a relatively inexpensive clone or nothing at all because the name brand offerings were simply too rich for your budget, the choice almost made itself.
Franklin Computer, which introduced machines based on Apple's motherboard design, reverse-engineered ROMs and openly copied operating system, was an early and perhaps the best known example of the breed. Unfortunately, it also learned rather quickly just how aggressively Apple would protect its turf. Barely two months after Franklin's first machines hit the market, Apple sued the upstart clone maker. After a six-year, often-nasty legal battle, Apple forced Franklin out of the clone business for good.
Of course, Apple wasn't completely averse to the idea...except when it wasn't on its own terms. The company licensed Apple II ROMs to Bell & Howell and Tiger Electronics, and by the mid-90s had launched an official Mac clone program as well. This short-lived dalliance ended abruptly, however, when Steve Jobs returned to the fold in 1997. System 7-based machines from such companies as Power Computing, Motorola, and UMAX died a quick death after Jobs terminated the licensing deals forged during his absence. The company's message, then and since, has been clear: The only hardware that runs any Mac OS will be a Mac box designed and sold by Apple.
You'd think that Psystar would have gotten the message.
The not-so-hidden cost of cloning
Twenty-seven years after Apple first went postal on third party clone vendors, it's a safe bet that Mac clones are finally a dead business. While there will always be hackers perfectly willing to reverse-engineer any combination of hardware and software to allow anyone to run some flavor of Mac on non-Apple hardware, it's equally safe to assume that solutions like these will live on the fringe of the market. So-called "hackintoshes" make for fun conversation, of course, and there's doubtless a visceral thrill associated with running an Apple-sourced, partially modified OS on something as cheaply mundane as a netbook. But would you stake your business on such a solution? Probably not, and there's the rub.
Clones introduce a level of unpredictability into the user experience that makes them a ridiculous proposition for any kind of business use. When a vendor-forced system update, patch, or bug fix can easily break a hacked solution, it's difficult to understand the value proposition of saving a couple of hundred bucks on hardware. If you're building a spare machine in your basement on the weekend, by all means have at it. If you're buying a fleet of machines for your company, however, the risks of not going with something more mainstream will almost certainly result in your spending more time than normal keeping things functional.
And as you try to calculate the TCO of a clone-based solution, don't forget to attach a dollar figure to all those hours you and your IT folks will spend on your cheap-yet-unsanctioned hardware/software. That extra IT time quickly negates any up-front savings. The equation doesn't change much if your business is too small to justify a full-on IT department. Even if you're a company of one working from home, can you really afford to lose your system when the vendor of record decides to break the clones once and for all? Can you trust that every court proceeding from here on out will be decided in the clone vendor's favor? Platform stability, never a strong suit for clone makers, is a crucial component of proper IT-business strategy.
Living with Apple's choice
We can argue ad infinitum over how Microsoft's embrace of open availability of its OS on commodity hardware allowed it to build a much larger ecosystem than Apple's closed strategy that inextricably and permanently tied its hardware to its OS. Could Apple have sold more copies of its OS had it opened it up to a larger number of hardware vendors? Certainly. Would it have been as capable of defining and controlling the end-user experience? No.
And given how the end-user experience has always been at the very core of Apple's value proposition -- indeed the very basis of its ability to command the prices that it does -- it's easy to see why Apple would consistently protect its rights and move to shut down wannabe-clone vendors at every turn. It's a mindset that doesn't just stop with Macs: This culture continues to serve it well as it oversees the growth of the iPhone/iPod touch platform, and has almost certainly helped fuel Apple's brand value.
As we examine Apple's mobile experience, we can whine all we want about how tightly it controls how its devices run, how apps are submitted and approved, and even how they're installed and used. But like the Mac before it, the mobile landscape is Apple's to control.
As much as clone vendors like Psystar have banked on the Robin Hood-esque notion of allowing those who could not otherwise afford a Mac to have some sort of access to the Apple experience, the apparently permanent truth is that Apple, whatever it's selling, has no intention of ever giving up its overarching control of the combined hardware and software environment that it created. And whether we like it or not, this is the business model that the company has chosen in its pursuit of profit. Don't like it? Buy something else, because the era of pretending to be something we're not is finally drawing to a close.
Carmi Levy is a Canadian-based independent technology analyst and journalist still trying to live down his past life leading help desks and managing projects for large financial services organizations. He comments extensively in a wide range of media, and works closely with clients to help them leverage technology and social media tools and processes to drive their business.
Google: Apple clones Europe
#1) RussianMac Joins List of Apple Clone Makers
#4) The next Psystar: PearC sells Mac clones in Europe
#5) German company sells Mac clones in Europe | Desktop | Macworld
This US ruling is hardly the death knell for the Apple clone market.
Score: 1
|Long time ago... I believe during the 90's. If you didn't purchased a name brand computer called IBM, Compaq and etc. They were called clones. Anything that wasn't labeled a name brand was called a clone system. We now call this custom build computers. Give it time before Apple clones hit the market or custome build computers.
Score: 1
|did you read the article? the apple clones (pystar) has been removed from the market.
Score: -2
|And did you read what I said... Give it "time" before Apples clones hit the market. Didn't say, I can't wait to go out and purchase an Apple clone now.
Score: 1
|In the Eighties, even the Compaq was called a clone! There were the IBM PC and XT and there were clones. Nothing in between.
Score: 0
|"What I really find ridiculous about this case is that the judge said Apple has a right to exclusivity with their software. This is BS."
So you find it ridiculous that a company is allowed to benefit from something it created? When the company creates something, it should be required to provide it to anyone who wants it?
Sorry, but our intellectual property laws are based on the premise that when you create something, you own it and have the right to do with it what you will. You can sell it, keep it, or bury it in a box in your back yard and no one has the right to tell you what to do with it. This case merely affirmed that basic premise of IP law.
Hint: Communism didn't work.
Score: -1
|This is ridiculous. The only Apple created hardware being used today is the case. The other hardware inside is not exclusive to Apple. This means that according to Apple's license all I have to do is stick my motherboard in an Apple branded case and I'm legal.
Score: 1
|"This is ridiculous. The only Apple created hardware being used today is the case. "
So? An artist uses oil paints that are purchased off the shelf. A writer uses a word processor and printer ink that can be bought at Wal-mart. Why in the world would that affect their intellectual property rights?
Oh, and btw, you're wrong. The motherboard is also proprietary to apple. Not to mention Mac OS X. Apple couldn't care less if you build a system with the non-proprietary parts. They DO care if you try to use their proprietary Mac OS X to sell systems - as they should.
Score: -1
|Apple took a printed circuit board and put non proprietary parts on it. The CPU and chipset for example are not exclusive to Apple. If a company wants to sell software to the general public for an open platform then the public has the right to run the software on any computer that uses the same parts as Apple.
Score: 1
|"Apple's closed strategy that inextricably and permanently tied its hardware to its OS"
Inextricably? They're a hardware company. They make the majority of their money on hardware. How is that difficult to understand?
In the mid-1990s, we saw what happened when Apple had licensed clones. They almost went out of business.
Now, this case was concerning Leopard but the case concerning Snow Leopard is in Floriduh and, as someone who lived in Floriduh too long, it would be more likely to be decided in Psystar's favour.
Score: -2
|"Floriduh"
Don't be shy, tell us how you really feel about that state.
Score: 0
|Inextricable is not a synonym for what I presume you think is inexplicable. Look it up.
Score: 0
|That word does not mean what he think it means? Inconceivable!
Score: 2
|Re: "When a vendor-forced system update, patch, or bug fix can easily break a hacked solution..."
Can you cite any examples of Apple having actually done this? Even critical security updates can be declined. For those running OS X on Hackintosh netbooks, though 10.6.2 drops support for Atom, those parties can still run 10.6.1.
I agree that the Hackintosh route just isn't worth it, expect for novelty and experimentation, but I can't really envision anything Apple could do that would force a working system to suddenly stop working. You just might be stuck at a particular OS version for a while (or forever).
Score: 1
|It's not coming to a close for me... heck, I've just gotten started with my Hackintosh. =)
Leo4All, iDeneb, Kalyway... these modified builds all work surprisingly great, on an AMD processor with an nForce chipset, no less.
I agree with PC_Tool on this one, though. Psystar should have sold the hardware without Mac OS X preinstalled.
I think everyone knew what the outcome of this was going to be, and they did it to themselves. I admire what Psystar was trying to do, and they seemed to be good at it... but apparently they're not too brilliant at researching Apple's litigation history.
Score: 0
|iDeneb ftw!
Running perfectly on my P5K-e mobo, Q6600, Geforce 8800GTS, 4gb Corsair XMS2... A power Mac for ~£600. A year ago. Think about it. It's in a Wavemaster case too, so it almost looks authentic :P
Runs Logic 9 like a dream :D
Score: 1
|What I really find ridiculous about this case is that the judge said Apple has a right to exclusivity with their software. This is BS. If a manufacturer is going to develop software for an open platform (Intel x86) then they have no right to decide which computers the software can be installed on. Now that Microsoft branded computers exist, imagine what would happen if Microsoft suddenly said you could only run Windows on their computers and did what Apple has done with Mac OS 10.6.2. Apple's practices are just as illegal as what I've just described.
Score: 0
|"If a manufacturer is going to develop software for an open platform (Intel x86) then they have no right to decide which computers the software can be installed on.'
GE Healthcare runs many of their medical systems (CAT/MRI/Ultrasound and ECG diagnostics/monitoring) on standard PC hardware. Are you arguing that customers should be allowed to just purchase the analysis/control software and run it on any hardware they wish. Who takes the responsibility when someone is harmed?
Apple spends a great deal of money every year for what is arguably (look at JD Power rankings year after year) the best customer support in the industry. What will happen to those rankings when Apple is flooded with calls from people running Mac OS on unsupported hardware? I suspect they'd start to look like every other second rate computer vendor.
As someone who depends heavily on the tools I use to do my job, I have no trouble with Apple's pricing. My time has value. I can't afford to use tools of lower quality.
Score: -1
|"Now that Microsoft branded computers exist, imagine what would happen if Microsoft suddenly said you could only run Windows on their computers and did what Apple has done with Mac OS 10.6.2. Apple's practices are just as illegal as what I've just described."
The only MS branded computer available is the Xbox, and they heavily guard it from hackers. In fact, they have just locked out one million users who have modified their boxes - to the point that these users can never use their service forever. Apple does not do that to the iPhone hackers - just reinstall the OS and you are back to normal.
Score: 0
|do you think the modified xbox users will be kicked out forever? i'm sure a freshly created gamertag should solve the problem :)(or new xbox)
Score: 1
|Psystar did it wrong from the get-go.
Sell the system with an OS-X disk and a boot-loader along with a simply glossy-sheet of instructions.
Make the bootloader do all the manual tweaking/labor (They control the hardware build, so standardizing it shouldn't be an issue), have the bootloader prompt for the Mac OS X disc.
Psystar isn't loading the OS, so Psystar wouldn't be liable.
They blew it from the beginning. Hopefully lessons are learned and someone else will pick up where they utterly failed.
Score: 3
|"Psystar did it wrong from the get-go.
Sell the system with an OS-X disk and a boot-loader along with a simply glossy-sheet of instructions.
Make the bootloader do all the manual tweaking/labor (They control the hardware build, so standardizing it shouldn't be an issue), have the bootloader prompt for the Mac OS X disc.
Psystar isn't loading the OS, so Psystar wouldn't be liable."
That is incorrect. Please refrain from posting about legal issues when you don't have any idea what you're talking about.
What you're describing is called 'contributory infringement' and that was one of the things the judge cited against Psystar. If they advertised their computer as being able to run OS X, they would clearly be guilty of that.
Score: -1
|"If they advertised their computer as being able to run OS X, they would clearly be guilty of that."
Didja get the ol' crystal ball out for that one? :)
The point was there are other ways, less culpable ways this could have been handled and Psystar chose the worst of them. If my suggestion wouldn't work, there are plenty of others that would.
Score: 1
|@jragosta When you quote someone, could you please make it so that we can tell the difference between the quote and your part? Thanks.
Score: 0
|David and Golaith stories are always interesting. I almost bought a desktop from pystar before I decided to get a mini from apple. I feel bad for them, but I agree with Carmi on this one.
Score: 1
|"in all likelihood bring the whole concept of clones to an inglorious close. And none too soon." hate to be the one to burst your bubble, there were clones before, during and will be after Psystar
unless Apple really closes things off via added TPM software/chips, in which case screw em.
and everyone thinks Microsoft is some kind of consumer enemy?
Score: 3
|I have to agree with artfuldodga, @pple is no better then Micro$oft when it comes to trying to control the way people use their own computer hardware or the the user experience they have on them. We buy products with hard earned money and should be able to use them free of control of any corporation, after all we do own these products after we pay for them. What gives these people
the right to dictate how we use our property? @pple and Micro$oft both are monopolies and they have the money to get what they want in court and as long as the court system is corrupt we will never have true free enterprise. What has happened to this country and the constitution? I used to
be proud to be an American but I see now why the rest of the world hates us. We have become what we used to fight against.
Score: 0
|Owning and using our products when we buy them "however we like" stops at physical, tangible items unfortunately. Software, music, movies, any data - we don't technically 'own'; we may own the right to use them, but that's about it. Read any EULAs or TOS documents. That's just the way it is....data != hardware when it comes to what we can do with it, depending on whatever we agree to when we install or download them.
I'm not at all happy with the way Apple does things - but it's a working formula for them. They marry their software to their hardware, without that scenario they wouldn't enjoy the success they do. People would build machines and throw OSX on them. They'd get that $2400 Mac Pro for way less and Apple can't have that. I don't view any of these companies as monopolies because they're all optional. Of course, with Apple you have to buy their hardware as well. My problem with MS is their knack for charging out the wazoo for their OS - but what do you expect when you're selling your software as a product, naturally it's going to be higher.
And no, this has nothing to do with Americas negative perception. That's due to politics and our nuclear bombing - but I won't get into that.
I believe that TPM will be the next natural step for them, they actually already are rumored to have the hardware to support it, it simply takes a flip of the software switch, and it will be flipped, no doubt if ever there is a day when people buy the parts to make up hackintoshes and it causes any kind of dent in Apple's bottom line.
Score: 2
|Exactly... Given the way that Apple operates, they will probably end up putting in some sort of hardware binding into the OS. Which is fine for their purposes. However, I am still a firm believer that Apple's share (and reputation) in the market would increase 10 fold simply by working with clone makers rather than snubbing them out.
One of the many reasons (if not the biggest reason) that Microsoft has flourished so well is the open ecosystem that they created with Windows. The OS may be far from perfect, but the fact that it can run on pretty much any hardware combination automatically puts it in a totally different light than Apple. When I can be assured that almost any hardware combination that I need can run the OS that I need, that's the OS that I am going to choose.
Score: 2
|"One of the many reasons (if not the biggest reason) that Microsoft has flourished so well is the open ecosystem that they created with Windows"
And the downside of being so 'open' is that it is easy to write viruses for. Over 230,000 for Windows and Zero for Mac OS X. The theory is that Windows is so much bigger, it is a more lucative target for hackers. That theory doesn't hold much water, because Mac now has 10% of the market and so it should have up least 1% of the viruses, but it has ZERO.
Score: 0
|"That theory doesn't hold much water, because Mac now has 10% of the market and so it should have up least 1% of the viruses, but it has ZERO."
That theory doesn't hold much water, because Windows is still the most lucrative target. It's not about the ratio, it's about who has the most. Even if it was 70/30, they'd all still write for the 70. It's where the money is.
Score: 1
|Writing virusii has nothing to do with an open ecosystem. You can have a totally secure operating system and still allow for it to run on a multitude of hardware configurations (think Linux).
Secondly, "Over 230,000 for Windows and Zero for Mac OS X"... Um, no.
"6.10.2009 News
Apple has finally acknowledged that spyware and viruses are a threat for Mac OS X, as well as the latest operating system in the works, Snow Leopard. Snow Leopard will be adding new technology to help prevent against attacks such as sandboxing and anti-phishing features in Safari. This, however, is not a 100% solution to protect against malware." --> http://www.securemac.com/
http://blogs.paretologic...2009/10/26/mac-os-x-bot/
Seriously, when are people running Macs going to realise that even they are susceptible to viruses and hacks as much as any other computer user?
Score: 2
|"Writing virusii..."
Virii, perhaps? ;)
Score: 1
|