AfterDawn: Tech news

Psystar had ambitious plans for their illegal Mac clones

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 28 Nov 2009 15:55 User comments (17)

Psystar had ambitious plans for their illegal Mac clones Psystar, the Mac clone maker that was taken down earlier this month, had some very ambitious plans it appears for their illegal Mac clones, suckering venture capitalists in with expectations that were overly bold.
According to slides Psystar showed off to potential investors, the company expected to sell 12 million systems in 2011 for their "aggressive growth model" or 1.45 million systems that year for their "conservative growth model."

Other predictions were as follows: "Under its conservative projections, Psystar told investors it would sell 70,000 computers in 2009, 470,000 systems in 2010 and 1.45 million machines in 2011. The firm’s aggressive growth model, however, put those numbers at 130,000, 1.87 million and 12 million during 2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively."

In comparison, Apple, selling legal Macs, sold only 10.4 million systems for the 12 months ended September 30, 2009.

For 2009, Psystar sold 768 computers, a joke compared even to their conservative 70,000 unit prediction.

Previous Next  

17 user comments

129.11.2009 1:43
crowy
Inactive

"For 2009, Psystar sold 768 computers",
That could make them collectors items?

229.11.2009 3:47

Quote:
In comparison, Apple, selling legal Macs, sold only 10.4 million systems for the 12 months ended September 30, 2009.

Well what's the price that a Psystar system was going to sell for? At a price that's way cheaper than a legal Mac I'm sure they would have sold some.

329.11.2009 4:00

768??? <insert Nelson laugh> Maybe too many people KNEW they were too shady to trust.

Well, I guess that's fewer refunds they'll have to give out when they can no longer support the saps who bought them. I'm mostly surprised a temporary injunction wasn't put into place until the final restitution hearing, since they still appear on Psystar's website. It could be nice to see the court take away Psystar's owner's personal money if the company doesn't have much.

Actually, the sell computers w/o Mac OS X too and the article says "768 computers"...not "768 computers with Mac OS X." I wonder if 768 is the TOTAL and maybe only 100 or less were Mac OS X ones???

429.11.2009 15:43
atomicxl
Inactive

Quote:
Well what's the price that a Psystar system was going to sell for? At a price that's way cheaper than a legal Mac I'm sure they would have sold some.
I agree with this. Almost everyone that I know wants a Mac but they don't have one. At the end of the day I think they see their PC doesn't crash to much, Macs now have the same hardware, so why pay 30%-40% more for negligible gains?

Price is probably the only thing that keeps macs selling poorly. It certainly isn't for a lack of advertising or no "cool factor."

529.11.2009 22:33

Quote:
Quote:
Well what's the price that a Psystar system was going to sell for? At a price that's way cheaper than a legal Mac I'm sure they would have sold some.
I agree with this. Almost everyone that I know wants a Mac but they don't have one. At the end of the day I think they see their PC doesn't crash to much, Macs now have the same hardware, so why pay 30%-40% more for negligible gains?

Price is probably the only thing that keeps macs selling poorly. It certainly isn't for a lack of advertising or no "cool factor."
Well of course the average consumer Isn't going to pay that much for something to surf the net, email and im. I would like a Mac but wont spend that kind of money for a hardly upgradeable proprietary machine.

629.11.2009 23:03

Quote:
Quote:
Well what's the price that a Psystar system was going to sell for? At a price that's way cheaper than a legal Mac I'm sure they would have sold some.
I agree with this. Almost everyone that I know wants a Mac but they don't have one. At the end of the day I think they see their PC doesn't crash to much, Macs now have the same hardware, so why pay 30%-40% more for negligible gains?

Price is probably the only thing that keeps macs selling poorly. It certainly isn't for a lack of advertising or no "cool factor."
Features also keep them down...they do not specialize and compete the way that PC OEMs such as Dell, Toshiba, HP, etc do. If apple had a $300 netbook with built-in 3G, it would probably sell better than the iPhone...but apple only makes 3 laptop series, the cheapest is $1000, has a core2duo, and a 13" screen! Their largest laptop screen is just 17", the laptop still has a core2duo, and it costs $2500...that is $1000 more than an Alienware laptop with an i7! The fact that they destroyed Psystar is proof that they do not intend to compete on a level playing field...if their product offering was not proof already.

730.11.2009 0:01

Some thoughts.

Psystar maybe able to claim against Anti-Trust/Anti-competitive laws, as Apple Sell the O/S Separately but only allow it to be run on "Apple" hardware. Fair use is a fail, but Anti-Trust maybe the way forward.

Also Psystar could offer the Mac OS for free when a Computer is bought, therefore they are not re-selling Apple Software, they could then charge an installation service.

830.11.2009 0:22

Originally posted by mitchst:
Some thoughts.

Psystar maybe able to claim against Anti-Trust/Anti-competitive laws, as Apple Sell the O/S Separately but only allow it to be run on "Apple" hardware. Fair use is a fail, but Anti-Trust maybe the way forward.

Also Psystar could offer the Mac OS for free when a Computer is bought, therefore they are not re-selling Apple Software, they could then charge an installation service.

Psystar did use some of those argument and FAILED. It's hard for Apple to do anything to the Hackintosh community (except for illegal distribution of Mac OS X or components, which could eliminate the more casual users) even though what they do violates the EULA. No company can legally do what Psystar did. Microsoft would sue WinPC makers if they sold systems w/ hacked copies of Windows too.

930.11.2009 1:04

Originally posted by xnonsuchx:
Originally posted by mitchst:
Some thoughts.

Psystar maybe able to claim against Anti-Trust/Anti-competitive laws, as Apple Sell the O/S Separately but only allow it to be run on "Apple" hardware. Fair use is a fail, but Anti-Trust maybe the way forward.

Also Psystar could offer the Mac OS for free when a Computer is bought, therefore they are not re-selling Apple Software, they could then charge an installation service.

Psystar did use some of those argument and FAILED. It's hard for Apple to do anything to the Hackintosh community (except for illegal distribution of Mac OS X or components, which could eliminate the more casual users) even though what they do violates the EULA. No company can legally do what Psystar did. Microsoft would sue WinPC makers if they sold systems w/ hacked copies of Windows too.
Actualy, they don't sue when someone adapts windows to another kind of PC...they just consider it to be more market share potential. If MACos was as good as they claim it is, then Apple would be happy to see it on every platform, as they would make more money selling the operating system than they make selling the MAC. Microsoft is a greedy, monopolistic bastard of a company...but at least they don't act as dumb as apple does.


1030.11.2009 1:39

Quote:
Originally posted by mitchst:
Some thoughts.

Psystar maybe able to claim against Anti-Trust/Anti-competitive laws, as Apple Sell the O/S Separately but only allow it to be run on "Apple" hardware. Fair use is a fail, but Anti-Trust maybe the way forward.

Also Psystar could offer the Mac OS for free when a Computer is bought, therefore they are not re-selling Apple Software, they could then charge an installation service.

Psystar did use some of those argument and FAILED. It's hard for Apple to do anything to the Hackintosh community (except for illegal distribution of Mac OS X or components, which could eliminate the more casual users) even though what they do violates the EULA. No company can legally do what Psystar did. Microsoft would sue WinPC makers if they sold systems w/ hacked copies of Windows too.
I understand, but if the EULA is illegal it's void, just like any other contract. my point is OS X should not be in a state whereby it it's only possible to run on Apple hardware AND for public sale. They should either allow it to be run on other hardware OR not sell it to the public. i can understand why Apple are so concerned over their Mac OS it's the only component that sells the (now standardised) hardware.

Apple could be really smart here and create some great propriety hardware features for there machines which would be really difficult to replicate on a PC and then allow the EU to install Mac OS on any machine, Profit from software + Profit from unique hardware = Win win for Apple, Plus People who buy Mac OS for PC then deceied they want that great hardware feature = Win win win. as proven by Microsoft, Software is far more profitable.

Mac OS is the only unique thing Apple has, and IMO it's pure lazyness on Apples part, Apple needs to create some great new hardware features for there Desktops and laptops to maintain there uniqueness.

If this court case get wide enough press (outside us techies and the Hackintosh community) and the public realise they can run OS X on a PC with a little help from "Building a MAC OS Computer for Dummies" that can only be bad news for Apple.

I apologise for the bad grammar is 6:30am here thank Firefox for spell check 'eh?
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 30 Nov 2009 @ 1:40

1130.11.2009 1:57

Quote:
Quote:
Well what's the price that a Psystar system was going to sell for? At a price that's way cheaper than a legal Mac I'm sure they would have sold some.
I agree with this. Almost everyone that I know wants a Mac but they don't have one. At the end of the day I think they see their PC doesn't crash to much, Macs now have the same hardware, so why pay 30%-40% more for negligible gains?

Price is probably the only thing that keeps macs selling poorly. It certainly isn't for a lack of advertising or no "cool factor."
My dads in the market for a new computer. All he does is surf the internet and check emails. He wants to also take all of our old home movies and "edit them", but I think what he really means is he just wants to digitize those VHS tapes before they stop working. Anyways he always bitches about all of the cords and crap behind his desk. His pc seems to require a reformatting every 6 months, and he refuses just to wipe the hd clean and install a fresh copy of windows. Instead he just has to use to manufacturers restore cd. Since he has an extra HD and a different graphics card than what came with his computer when he bought it in 2002, he has to pull out the computer and take out those components, and then insert the old ones, then do the factory restore, then put in the new components again, then go through the process of getting those to work, then he has to reinstall all the programs he uses all the time.

Anyways, that was a long paragraph, but what I'm getting at is at least I figure with an imac he wouldn't have the issue with having the cables everywhere. I'm not too sure but I've heard the OSX system was a little bit harder for people to screw up, so I figure this way he wouldn't have to reformat and reinstall everything 6 months. So he is looking at buying one, but he wants to have that 27inch screen and those start at $1600, which is "too much money". In his words of course, because he could easily afford one. He couldn't decide between the 21 or the 27in screen. I told him he's probably going to have this imac for a good 5+ years, and that it's best to go with the screen he wants because you really can't change it.

I've been trying to talk him into just going with the mac mini since it's noticeably cheaper, but he wants that stupid imac. What will probably end up happening is that he'll spend $1,100 on a PC system. He'll be happy cause he saved $500 but miserable because of all the issues he's having.

1230.11.2009 2:16

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well what's the price that a Psystar system was going to sell for? At a price that's way cheaper than a legal Mac I'm sure they would have sold some.
I agree with this. Almost everyone that I know wants a Mac but they don't have one. At the end of the day I think they see their PC doesn't crash to much, Macs now have the same hardware, so why pay 30%-40% more for negligible gains?

Price is probably the only thing that keeps macs selling poorly. It certainly isn't for a lack of advertising or no "cool factor."
My dads in the market for a new computer. All he does is surf the internet and check emails. He wants to also take all of our old home movies and "edit them", but I think what he really means is he just wants to digitize those VHS tapes before they stop working. Anyways he always bitches about all of the cords and crap behind his desk. His pc seems to require a reformatting every 6 months, and he refuses just to wipe the hd clean and install a fresh copy of windows. Instead he just has to use to manufacturers restore cd. Since he has an extra HD and a different graphics card than what came with his computer when he bought it in 2002, he has to pull out the computer and take out those components, and then insert the old ones, then do the factory restore, then put in the new components again, then go through the process of getting those to work, then he has to reinstall all the programs he uses all the time.

Anyways, that was a long paragraph, but what I'm getting at is at least I figure with an imac he wouldn't have the issue with having the cables everywhere. I'm not too sure but I've heard the OSX system was a little bit harder for people to screw up, so I figure this way he wouldn't have to reformat and reinstall everything 6 months. So he is looking at buying one, but he wants to have that 27inch screen and those start at $1600, which is "too much money". In his words of course, because he could easily afford one. He couldn't decide between the 21 or the 27in screen. I told him he's probably going to have this imac for a good 5+ years, and that it's best to go with the screen he wants because you really can't change it.

I've been trying to talk him into just going with the mac mini since it's noticeably cheaper, but he wants that stupid imac. What will probably end up happening is that he'll spend $1,100 on a PC system. He'll be happy cause he saved $500 but miserable because of all the issues he's having.
There's a site that sells Mac OS on a PC if he's looking to save a few $$$ can't remember what it's called... Psy-something

Instead of all that, Use Norton Ghost works quite well for a Norton product.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 30 Nov 2009 @ 2:18

1330.11.2009 4:35

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well what's the price that a Psystar system was going to sell for? At a price that's way cheaper than a legal Mac I'm sure they would have sold some.
I agree with this. Almost everyone that I know wants a Mac but they don't have one. At the end of the day I think they see their PC doesn't crash to much, Macs now have the same hardware, so why pay 30%-40% more for negligible gains?

Price is probably the only thing that keeps macs selling poorly. It certainly isn't for a lack of advertising or no "cool factor."
My dads in the market for a new computer. All he does is surf the internet and check emails. He wants to also take all of our old home movies and "edit them", but I think what he really means is he just wants to digitize those VHS tapes before they stop working. Anyways he always bitches about all of the cords and crap behind his desk. His pc seems to require a reformatting every 6 months, and he refuses just to wipe the hd clean and install a fresh copy of windows. Instead he just has to use to manufacturers restore cd. Since he has an extra HD and a different graphics card than what came with his computer when he bought it in 2002, he has to pull out the computer and take out those components, and then insert the old ones, then do the factory restore, then put in the new components again, then go through the process of getting those to work, then he has to reinstall all the programs he uses all the time.

Anyways, that was a long paragraph, but what I'm getting at is at least I figure with an imac he wouldn't have the issue with having the cables everywhere. I'm not too sure but I've heard the OSX system was a little bit harder for people to screw up, so I figure this way he wouldn't have to reformat and reinstall everything 6 months. So he is looking at buying one, but he wants to have that 27inch screen and those start at $1600, which is "too much money". In his words of course, because he could easily afford one. He couldn't decide between the 21 or the 27in screen. I told him he's probably going to have this imac for a good 5+ years, and that it's best to go with the screen he wants because you really can't change it.

I've been trying to talk him into just going with the mac mini since it's noticeably cheaper, but he wants that stupid imac. What will probably end up happening is that he'll spend $1,100 on a PC system. He'll be happy cause he saved $500 but miserable because of all the issues he's having.
OEMs should be blamed for this crap, not microsoft. Yeah, the OS needs to be constantly re-installed, but it was never installed correctly to begin with, and it has never been installed correctly, just overwritten over and over. If microsoft made computers, the component quality would be crap, but at least windows would be installed correctly. There realy is no excuse; I am little more than an average tech, yet I can do a windows install better than any of the big OEMs. Heck, just about anyone can do the install better considering they just do a basic install, and then follow it with a bunch of bloatware and spyware...some companies even include trojans!

1430.11.2009 9:33
jacklang0
Inactive

SPAM removed

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 30 Nov 2009 @ 9:45

1530.11.2009 10:52

The closed nature of the Mac platform is problematic for competition. Only one hardware manufacturer can make a Mac whereas a gazillion hardware manufacturers make IBM compatible PCs. Only one hardware manufacturer can install Mac OS X to their computers. The closed nature of the Mac is almost like a console (except thankfully you don't have to pay a licensing fee to Apple to make Mac software).

1630.11.2009 11:20
scum101
Inactive

99% of the hardware inside a mac is stock off the shelf chipset stuff.. nothing special at all.. what apple do is they change the eeprom information relating to that stock hardware with specific mac only revision/number versions.

getting down and dirty you have a couple of choices to deal with the proprietary shenannagins.. you can fool about with i2c tools and rewrite the eeprom numbers to the standard version for the chipsets, or you can munch about with the available *nix drivers for the same chipsets to recognise the mac revised numbering.

whichever way.. it's a dirty tactic they use to lock people in to using only their hardware and software together.. there is no reason any unix drivers will not work.. apart from the way they have messed with the hardware identification

(so says somebody who installed unsupported replacement hardware on a sun os.. another famous hardware/software lockin vendor)

pystar were just stupid anyway.. pick a rather poor proprietary unix implementation and attempt to steal it?.. why didn't they just build their own from one of the open source bsd's and skin it up to look the same.. most people would never know the difference.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 30 Nov 2009 @ 11:21

171.12.2009 1:28

Originally posted by scum101:
99% of the hardware inside a mac is stock off the shelf chipset stuff.. nothing special at all.. what apple do is they change the eeprom information relating to that stock hardware with specific mac only revision/number versions.

getting down and dirty you have a couple of choices to deal with the proprietary shenannagins.. you can fool about with i2c tools and rewrite the eeprom numbers to the standard version for the chipsets, or you can munch about with the available *nix drivers for the same chipsets to recognise the mac revised numbering.

whichever way.. it's a dirty tactic they use to lock people in to using only their hardware and software together.. there is no reason any unix drivers will not work.. apart from the way they have messed with the hardware identification

(so says somebody who installed unsupported replacement hardware on a sun os.. another famous hardware/software lockin vendor)

pystar were just stupid anyway.. pick a rather poor proprietary unix implementation and attempt to steal it?.. why didn't they just build their own from one of the open source bsd's and skin it up to look the same.. most people would never know the difference.
The thing is, they were not stealing anything. They purchased the software from apple...that is, Apple made money by selling the software to them, then sued them for installing that software. If they had simply made up a GUI to look just like Snow Leapord, then they would have been breaking lots of copywrite and patent laws, this is why they purchased the software legaly. Just goes to show you that you never realy own a modern operating system...it either belongs to the creators (Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Sun) or it is open source, so no one ones it (Linux).

Psystar should be able to install whatever software their customers want so long as they pay for it, and Apple should welcome any chance to grow their tiny market share. However, this is just logic and decency...and Apple does not have either of these. I guess the good news is that Apple is slowly killing the MAC, and moving to a business plan that focuses more on the iPhone and iPod...that bad news is that they are still making the MAC, the iPhone, and the iPod...and will continue to do so for years.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive