• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Psystar in Trouble

T

Tim

Supreme [H]ardness
2FA
Joined
May 4, 2000
Messages
5,176
Psystar, the little company making huge claims about open Macs, appears to have gone in over their heads. After announcing the availability of cheap computers running MacOS X, the company has been beset by numerous problems. Whether this is due to fraud or just being a small startup that got too much publicity too fast, remains to be seen.

It's not hard to find all kinds of coverage this week suggesting that Psystar is an out-and-out scam, but there is little proof to support that conclusion. Absence of detail is not proof of wrongdoing, though it does (and should) raise suspicions.
Click to expand...

Contrary to what the article states, as of this news post, the site is up and running. Buy at your own risk.
 
Until Psystar presents a viable product and has multiple, legitimate reviews to back-up their claims, they should be avoided like the plague. That is my opinion.
 
This company can't even supply a legitimate address,I'd say that's a pretty good reason to keep your money in your wallet and out their hands!
 
i just avoid all mac stuff :). see no reason as macs for me have the same issues as pc's. i'll just stick with what is familar though ;)
 
Mac Clone Maker Psystar Starts Shipping Computers
A Miami system integrator that's selling an unauthorized Mac clone has begun shipping orders, according to the company's Web site on Monday.

"Orders placed the week of April 7th are currently being shipped," Psystar said in a note posted on its site.
Click to expand...
Either they don't know how to run a scam (string along buyers for weeks and ship nothing), or *shockingly* it's not a scam. :p

I don't understand why there was so much doubt. There are plenty of guides online and Psystar even described the whole process of running OS X on generic hardware. BTW, the EFI bootloader is good for even more than Hackintoshes. I have Vista x64 running on a GUID partition on my laptop using that bootloader just to see if it worked. It does. ;)
 
I was just wondering last night if this company was still around or if they have been proven to be a scam or if they had been sued by Apple. Looks like I have my answer. Yes there were still around, and yes they were finally sued.
 
Well, it looks like Psystar went from back alley boutique Mac cloner to being a defendant in a lawsuit in no time. Hopefully the cloner dudes spent their money on good lawers because, say what you will about Apple, one thing they do very well is sue people.

"We take it very seriously when we believe people have stolen our intellectual property," said an Apple spokeswoman on Tuesday. The spokeswoman said she was not immediately able to state what Apple is seeking from Psystar in terms of damages and penalties.
Click to expand...
 
None. Apple is claiming that Psystar isn't good enough to sell computers that can run OS X (I'm not kidding) and that Psystar is breaking the EULA by installing OS X on non-Apple hardware.
 
pxc said:
None. Apple is claiming that Psystar isn't good enough to sell computers that can run OS X (I'm not kidding) and that Psystar is breaking the EULA by installing OS X on non-Apple hardware.
Click to expand...

That sounds about right... If it's stated in the EULA which I bet it was... Then they do have a case again Psystar...
 
pxc said:
None. Apple is claiming that Psystar isn't good enough to sell computers that can run OS X (I'm not kidding) and that Psystar is breaking the EULA by installing OS X on non-Apple hardware.
Click to expand...

They dont think anyone should sell it other than them.

The problem is the EULA that you mentioned. When you install the OS you agree that you will not install the OS on any nonapple machine. Meaning that you are not allowed to make your own apple machine. Weither or not this can hold up in court who knows. But this is what you agree to when you install the OS. Thus they are breaking the EULA by making their own machines and selling them. By doing so they are making apple lose out on the hardware sell they would have got alone with the buyers copy of the OS to run it.
 
So what they need to do is sell a machine that's "OSX Ready" (I can just see stickers now like the Vista ones), sell OSX in a box shrinkwrapped and never opened along with the machine, and throw in a CD with the EFI installer and explicit and detailed idiot proof (fat chance of that, yeah, I know) on how to make it all work. ;)

If Apple does proceed, and this makes it into a courtroom, then the only basis Apple really has against them is the "breaking" of the terms of the EULA. You have to read the EULA to understand just what that entails: it says OSX is only to be installed on Apple-labeled hardware, not non-Apple hardware. That's a HUGE FUCKING DISTINCTION there and if pressed into court this will most likely be the first time an End User Licensing Agreement is put on the spot.

Big difference between an Apple manufactured product and just an Apple-labeled piece of hardware. It'll be interesting to see how Apple wants that specific clause defined for use and how a court might choose to define it.

Per the OSX 10.5 EULA:

2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.

A. Single Use. 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. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.
Click to expand...

That last tidbit about "to enable others to do so." was added with the 10.4.4 edition of OSX and kept in because people had been using what's known as OSx86 (a version of OSX that is modified to be able to be installed and used on non-Apple manufactured machines). It was supposed to be a legal back door that provided Apple some protection if they chose to go after people using or distributing OSX on machines Apple didn't build and sell, even giving them some traction if they went after people that decided to modify OSX for the benefit of others. That's pretty far reaching stuff.

All this is a wash however as it's just an EULA. I seriously doubt Apple will try to hold the EULA up in court and use it as the basis for the lawsuit. They'd probably focus more on the copyright issues or something similar. I just can't see this going that far, however...

Old inmate: "Hey, you, fish, yeah you, what're you in for?"

New inmate: "I broke an EULA..."

Old inmate winces in pain, a trickle of fluid appears at the bottom of his pants leg, saturating his boot and forming a pool on the concrete floor. A hush falls over the cellblock as the new inmate snickers and goes back to rewiring the payphone to make free calls.

Nah... just can't see it going that far. :p

Just as a sidenote, what really gives me a good laugh everytime I read it is the following from the same EULA:

(same subsection, different clause)
F. <legalese here that leads into> THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.
Click to expand...

Geez, for "the world's best operating system," Apple sure is mighty concerned about it failing, ain't they? And yes, it's in CAPS in the EULA, I didn't do that for effect. I find it ironic that they love advertising it as being so tight, so perfect, so stable and so damned good yet they wouldn't dare have it in use where such characteristics would be welcome. Anyone else find that a bit odd? Ever seen such a statement in an EULA before?
 
maxius said:
what ip did they infringe on exactly is what i want to know!
Click to expand...

What they are getting Psystar on is modifying and redistributing the 10.5.4 update from their website for profit. That is clear-cut copyright infringement, and they will certainly win for that. I also think this is why Apple has been quiet for so long - they were waiting for Psystar to make the first blunder. They want to keep the EULA bit hush-hush, as many believe it's a monopolistic trick that would get them in trouble if it ever came to court.
 
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.

A. Single Use. 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. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.
Click to expand...

/me puts Apple sticker from iPod box on my eeepc

Guess its Apple-labeled now! :p
 
Exavior said:
They dont think anyone should sell it other than them.

The problem is the EULA that you mentioned. When you install the OS you agree that you will not install the OS on any nonapple machine. Meaning that you are not allowed to make your own apple machine. Weither or not this can hold up in court who knows. But this is what you agree to when you install the OS. Thus they are breaking the EULA by making their own machines and selling them. By doing so they are making apple lose out on the hardware sell they would have got alone with the buyers copy of the OS to run it.
Click to expand...

If I was arguing for Psystar, I would claim that since Apple doesn't create their own components, if the Psystar uses the same manufactured components its technically the same.
 
InorganicMatter said:
What they are getting Psystar on is modifying and redistributing the 10.5.4 update from their website for profit. That is clear-cut copyright infringement, and they will certainly win for that. I also think this is why Apple has been quiet for so long - they were waiting for Psystar to make the first blunder. They want to keep the EULA bit hush-hush, as many believe it's a monopolistic trick that would get them in trouble if it ever came to court.
Click to expand...

Id think it would be the 10.5.3 update that was the problem. The 10.5.4 didn't need modification to install on the HW Psystar is using. Core2Duos with EFI bootloaders and Vanilla kernels can run 10.5.4 right from Apple Update.
 
markt435 said:
/me puts Apple sticker from iPod box on my eeepc

Guess its Apple-labeled now! :p
Click to expand...

*LOL* that describes both of my PCs (labeled with ipod Apple stickers) - should have used the ones that came with Leopard (really no difference, I think they're the same stickers); funny thing is the wording of the EULA, and the fact that they INCLUDE 2 Apple labels (almost like they WANT you to make an 'Apple Labeled' PC). Still, the consensus over on insanelymac.com is the wording of the EULA would hold up in court because 'Apple Labeled' implies 'Apple Branded'; i myself am not so sure this is the case.
 
InorganicMatter said:
There's people that do it, believe it or not. I personally didn't want to spoil my beautiful Antec P180B.
Click to expand...

My Apple sticker looks real sharp on the front of my Gigabyte GZ-X1. I do understand not wanting to put stickers on your case though, they can be a bitch to fully remove.
 
Chombo said:
If I was arguing for Psystar, I would claim that since Apple doesn't create their own components, if the Psystar uses the same manufactured components its technically the same.
Click to expand...

But apple doesn't give people the hardware at cost, they are still making a profit off of it. For the record, I don't agree with the practice by any means. I think that just like any other OS, if the hardware supports it you should be able to install the OS on it. I think it is bullshit that apple try to keep you using their stuff and their stuff only.
 
Exavior said:
But apple doesn't give people the hardware at cost, they are still making a profit off of it. For the record, I don't agree with the practice by any means. I think that just like any other OS, if the hardware supports it you should be able to install the OS on it. I think it is bullshit that apple try to keep you using their stuff and their stuff only.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right. It is BS. The real reason comes down to two things:

1. They don't want to deal with the headache of insuring a great deal of software and hardware configurations will work on there OS. Look at MS. People complain that their OS is broken, can't do this, this crashes, etc, without considering the amount of variables that MS programmers have to take into account with the OS.

2. Money. Plain and simple. An identical motherboard from Asus manufactured with one bios (normail PC) can be 110ish, and the IDENTICAL motherboard with the Apple bios is in the neighborhood of $500. So markup is key. It is a good business model really if you have good marketing (Apple does), and you can get people to buy into it.
 
operaman said:
You are absolutely right. It is BS. The real reason comes down to two things:

1. They don't want to deal with the headache of insuring a great deal of software and hardware configurations will work on there OS. Look at MS. People complain that their OS is broken, can't do this, this crashes, etc, without considering the amount of variables that MS programmers have to take into account with the OS.

2. Money. Plain and simple. An identical motherboard from Asus manufactured with one bios (normail PC) can be 110ish, and the IDENTICAL motherboard with the Apple bios is in the neighborhood of $500. So markup is key. It is a good business model really if you have good marketing (Apple does), and you can get people to buy into it.
Click to expand...

Wait...a business wants to make money, gosh darn them.
 
The way I see it, Apple failed to clarify their stance in the EULA. Apple labeled can be read in two ways: Labeled by Apple, or Label of an Apple. Apple is either an adjective or a noun. Since they didn't specify, maybe the judge will throw the case out. Add in the fact that EULA is not a law document, Apple has very flimsy grounds against Psystar. Stranger things have happened I suppose.
 
Azhar said:
The way I see it, Apple failed to clarify their stance in the EULA. Apple labeled can be read in two ways: Labeled by Apple, or Label of an Apple. Apple is either an adjective or a noun. Since they didn't specify, maybe the judge will throw the case out. Add in the fact that EULA is not a law document, Apple has very flimsy grounds against Psystar. Stranger things have happened I suppose.
Click to expand...


Have you read the entire EULA? I haven't but I'd assume somewhere near the beginning of the document it probably states something along the lines of 'Hereinto 'Apple' will refer to the first party <blah blah balhhhhh legal nonsense>' Could be wrong though.
 
DiabloAzul126 said:
Have you read the entire EULA? I haven't but I'd assume somewhere near the beginning of the document it probably states something along the lines of 'Hereinto 'Apple' will refer to the first party <blah blah balhhhhh legal nonsense>' Could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

What? Read an entire EULA? Be serious. :p
 
Exavior said:
But apple doesn't give people the hardware at cost, they are still making a profit off of it. For the record, I don't agree with the practice by any means. I think that just like any other OS, if the hardware supports it you should be able to install the OS on it. I think it is bullshit that apple try to keep you using their stuff and their stuff only.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... do you think if you took the guts out of a Mac and popped it into a new case the system would now be in violation?
 
their is legal precedent for this.

Apple Sued M$ back in 1984. Because of said lawsuit, the law on the books states...

"No software manufacturer may limit the hardware upon which said software is used."

Appled sued to get it on the books... and now they are going to eat it..
 
Well, they didn't exactly go to defendants in a lawsuit in no time Steve... They've been making waves about their clone machines in the media for a few months haven't they? I'd say Apple took their sweet time in suing! Though they probably weren't actually selling any systems all this time so I guess Apple just took it's time to do it right, so to speak.

Derfman said:
That sounds about right... If it's stated in the EULA which I bet it was... Then they do have a case again Psystar...
Click to expand...

Heh, if Psystar had a really good lawyer and the bulk of Apple's case is based around a EULA this could turn into a circus really quickly... There's a lot of bogus EULA out there that companies actually believe they can legally enforce. I doubt that's the only grounds Apple has for forcing the company to go away though.

Joe Average said:
Geez, for "the world's best operating system," Apple sure is mighty concerned about it failing, ain't they? And yes, it's in CAPS in the EULA, I didn't do that for effect. I find it ironic that they love advertising it as being so tight, so perfect, so stable and so damned good yet they wouldn't dare have it in use where such characteristics would be welcome. Anyone else find that a bit odd? Ever seen such a statement in an EULA before?
Click to expand...

Seen weirder stuff, though that is pretty amusing... I'd imagine any sort of facility like that would use all their own original code wouldn't it? Well, at 'least in the case of a nuclear facility; ATC's systems are, in many cases, a royal outdated mess from what I've heard...
 
You would think that someone at Apple would look at the idea that Windows made it onto almost ever PC sold because it could be installed on just about anything.

You want OSX on more computers, then it has to be availible to install on more hardware. Heck, I would buy a copy.
 
Renegade_Azzy said:
You would think that someone at Apple would look at the idea that Windows made it onto almost ever PC sold because it could be installed on just about anything.

You want OSX on more computers, then it has to be availible to install on more hardware. Heck, I would buy a copy.
Click to expand...

Thats the whole thing. OSX works great because they're tailored to specific machines, whereas Windows were made to work on everything. It always amuses me when Apple zealots try to compare OSX and Windows and it's security and stablity and ignore the blatant fact that Windows' install base is infinitesimally larger than Apple's.

Job knows this.
 
Renegade_Azzy said:
You would think that someone at Apple would look at the idea that Windows made it onto almost ever PC sold because it could be installed on just about anything.

You want OSX on more computers, then it has to be availible to install on more hardware. Heck, I would buy a copy.
Click to expand...

Mac OS X is based on a BSD kernel that has been heavily modified. Said kernel has been refined, tweaked, and fine-tuned to run SPECIFICALLY Apple's hardware. Ever play around with the OSX86 project? It has about a 99% work rate, but that other 1% is simply unattainable due to the kernel being optimized for Apple hardware.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Mac OS X is based on a BSD kernel that has been heavily modified. Said kernel has been refined, tweaked, and fine-tuned to run SPECIFICALLY Apple's hardware. Ever play around with the OSX86 project? It has about a 99% work rate, but that other 1% is simply unattainable due to the kernel being optimized for Apple hardware.
Click to expand...

So sayeth the man with a Hackintosh in his sig... ;)

Nice to see part of the work I started in the summer of 2005 is still keeping people jumping. As for the "optimized for Apple hardware" myth, that's not quite true. Apple doesn't put anything unique in their machines, contrary to popular opinion. The days of them having hardware that might have been "designed" for Apple stuff (like video cards that were BIOS tied to Apple mobos, etc) are long past. Macs are PCs and as long as you match the hardware in a Mac (meaning you build a machine with the same CPU, the same mobo and chipset - entirely possible - and so on) you'll get the same results.

People have been doing this just a few weeks shy of 3 years now, and when I released the first generic OSx86 installation DVD that actually worked back in August of 2005, the rule then was the same as it is now: Intel hardware, matched as closely as you can if not exactly, you get the OS working. Throw in some errant hardware, choose AMD processors with Nvidia chipsets and VIA components, you're fucked.

In the long run this will come down to that fairly shoddily worded EULA - they'll end up having to restate it as something like "Apple manufactured hardware" or something, and even then it'll come back to bite them in the ass for the very same reasons: you can't tie a software product to specific hardware that way, at least that's how I understand it.
 
Renegade_Azzy said:
You would think that someone at Apple would look at the idea that Windows made it onto almost ever PC sold because it could be installed on just about anything.

You want OSX on more computers, then it has to be availible to install on more hardware. Heck, I would buy a copy.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, Apple doesn't want OS X on more computers, they want more people to buy Macs. OS X isn't their product, they just provide a way for people who already own the hardware to be up to date. Other than that, OS X has only one purpose: to sell Macs. Windows on the other hands is entirely different. It is the product. It has no purpose but to sell itself.
 
OS X, iTunes, the iPhone App store, it's all just a way for Apple to sell more overpriced hardware. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top