We all know that Psystar is busy bleeding out in federal court, but that doesn’t mean the fun stops. We’ll be dissecting their glorious failure for quite some time. The most recent development: it seems their plan for taking a bite out of Apple’s sales was comically ambitious. How many clones do you think they sold in 2009? Somewhat under a thousand would be putting it kindly. And how many were they hoping to sell? Around a hundred times that.
This according to some recently released slides depicting Psystar’s pitch to venture capitalists — some of whom must have clearly wanted to be taken in, or else they would have called it the cock-and-bull story it certainly was. Now, to be fair, the 12m units figure cited in the headline was part of the “aggressive growth model.” 1.45m was the conservative estimate, which is technically not millions. For reference, Apple sold just over 10m Macs during 2009.
I suppose that these projections, which we may safely call optimistic, are based on geometric growth (unwarranted) from one year’s figures (essentially invent) and failed to take into account the patent illegality of their entire enterprise. Needless to say, these numbers were not met. Psystar sold a fraction of a fraction of what it promised investors, so even if it were to escape total destruction by Apple’s hands, it would simply be dismembered by its mysterious creditors.
I would have welcomed a Psystar laptop, the planned hardware which was to make up the bulk of their fantasy sales, since our own Psystar desktop worked perfectly well. For all I know, Biggs is still using it. I’m writing this on my MacBook Pro, but I know that I as well as many people I know would welcome a cheap, yet non-hackintosh, OS X laptop.
Oh well. This story held our interest because, deep within, we felt it betokened the inevitable confrontation between Apple lovers and the sternly limited Jobsian world they’ve come to live in. You can be sure that this isn’t the last we’ll hear from clone-makers, which seem, like domestic weeds, to continue to sprout in the areas you thought were clear and cultivated. In fact, the wild but unpredictable growth of dandelions like Psystar, PearC, and Power Computing (remember them?) will continue because, let’s be honest, if you could pay less for your Mac, you would. That’s called a market — and damn the EULAs.
No idea what psystar is and you didn’t explain!
Yeah. I didn’t get the back story. I suppose I could have Googled it . . .
http://www.traderbots.com
They sell PCs with Snow Leopard on them. Apple does not like that. You don’t get Apple mad…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar
Power Computing is sprouting up like a weed? Or can you not think of one other U.S. business besides Psystar (PearC is German).
And as to your claim that people would buy a cheaper Mac if they could, how come no one did (less than a thousand being a rounding error approaching zero)?
There are certainly other companies, I picked one I had written about and one from long before. I didn’t specify a country. In fact, international law is the playground for this sort of thing, as I wrote in the PearC post.
As for the demand for cheaper OS X machines, there is no way for me to prove it to your satisfaction; nevertheless it is there.
@TimF: In answer to your last question; from what I hear I think the answer is that the performance of a Psystar box was terrible when compared to the genuine Macs. OSX just wasn’t put together to work on a cheap clone.
I don’t own a Psystar box or a Mac, and I don’t know all the technical side of it – But Apple created OSX as a proprietary OS for use on an Apple-built computer; a Mac. – ONLY.
Psystar is destined for the pit of oblivion with massive debts by the looks of things. – But top marks for trying.
I don’t own a Psystar box or a Mac, and I don’t know all the technical side of it – But Apple created OSX as a proprietary OS for use on an Apple-built computer; a Mac. – ONLY.
Unfortunately, that’s simply not true. We had a Psystar and it seemed to work fine, and several of my friends used hackintoshes which, though there were some driver problems here and there (bluetooth didn’t work, for instance), worked just fine. You can’t really make an OS for a brand of computer, and at any rate Macs are no different from so-called PCs. Macs are just PCs running OS X.
“Unfortunately, that’s simply not true. We had a Psystar and it seemed to work fine, and several of my friends used hackintoshes which, though there were some driver problems here and there (bluetooth didn’t work, for instance), worked just fine. You can’t really make an OS for a brand of computer, and at any rate Macs are no different from so-called PCs. Macs are just PCs running OS X.”
How does one get a job as a tech journalist without knowing anything about technology? You are obviously an expert in that field. Heck, you could write a book on how to become a tech writer without knowing anything.
I’m sorry, but “works just fine” doesn’t include computers with driver problems. Or computers which have Bluetooth hardware, but it doesn’t work. Or computers that can not be upgraded with OS patches. Face it, Hackintoshes are feeble copies of the real thing and miss all of the important benefits of not messing around with drivers or worrying about whether a patch is going to brick your machine.
As for ‘Macs are no different than so-called PCs’, that’s a tautology. Macs ARE PCs – and no one with any knowledge has denied it. That’s like saying that BMWs are no different than so-called cars.
Macs do differ from other brands of PCs, though. They consistently rate at the very top in hardware reliability. They have an OS which is orders of magnitude better than anything else out there (at one point, customer satisfaction with Mac OS X was in the 90+% range while Vista was in the 7% range).
Your hysterical tone is unwarranted.
If my friends were satisfied with their hackintoshes – after all, it did 90% of the things a Mac does – then it works fine. The limitations are simply limitations. I wouldn’t say they’re feeble at all.
And “Macs are no different from so-called PCs” is not a tautology. So-called is in there for a reason; people think of non-mac computers as being fundamentally different, when obviously that’s not the case. The person I was responded to had asserted otherwise.
“Your hysterical tone is unwarranted.
So logic is another thing you’re deficient in. There’s nothing hysterical in my tone at all. I simply don’t consider a computer that does 90% of the things a Mac does to be ‘works just fine’. You may be happy with junk, but that doesn’t mean the rest of the world is.
Furthermore, I happen to dislike criminal activity. If you read the court ruling, it is clear that the Psystar computer you’re so happy with and clearly wish would be more widely available is illegal.
Please don’t post comments about topics you don’t know…. There is such thing as Apple built computer. FYI: They are all made by Intel these days.
There seems very little point in posting a comment if I don’t know anything about what I’m commenting on: However, if the information I know is both partially incorrect, as it seemingly was in this case, (I did say it was based on hearsay rather than experience.) and also badly presented, again as it was in this case, then I have committed the greivous unforgivable error of being wrong; which quite obviously you have never been and never will be.
If the above statement about you isn’t true then please stop being so bloody egotistical and jumping down people’s throats simply because they got something wrong. – That’s part of what makes us human: You’ll learn that as you grow up.
“Please don’t post comments about topics you don’t know…. There is such thing as Apple built computer. FYI: They are all made by Intel these days.”
ROTFLMAO. You shouldn’t criticize other people for posting about topics YOU don’t know about.
Intel doesn’t make Apple computers. Intel makes just the CPU (and possibly a few support chips). Your comment is akin to saying “Buick doesn’t make cars – they are all made by Michelin these days.”
If you want to nit-pick, Apple doesn’t make computers, they are made by Foxconn and others, but in reality, Apple designs them and contracts other companies to make them under a toll manufacturing agreement, so the distinction is not particularly relevant for most purposes.
I think the lack of demand for Psystar computers is not because of the performance issues, but because if you asked 100 people on the street who Psystar was, 95 of them would simply stare blankly back at you.
I was going to buy a psystar computer as soon as they began selling laptops. But they never sold them, so I didn’t buy.
I’d LOVE to get my hands on this fabled Powerpoint presentation! I wonder if they got any VC bites from the slide show?
Go to Groklaw.com and download it from one of the links.
Also, @Devin, a Shyster is a “hackintosh” on a mass scale, if you didn’t understand what they were doing.
Not sure I understand what you’re saying RE Shyster, could you elaborate?
Yah, I’ve not located a link in any of their last three stories or Phrystar’s doc pages on Groklaw.
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=Psystar
Indeed, if I could pay less for my Mac, I would. But that’s not the point. Frankly, I wouldn’t pay much more for a Psystar than I would for an electric kettle.
You are so innocent it makes me smile. Of course they will say: we only sold less than 100 PCs, since they will have to pay for each one they sold (now that they lost one of two cases)… This company sold many many PCs in the USA and abroad. From comments I hear, they were awesome machines because as everyone knows the brain is what makes the body (unless you are a teen)…
Anyway, it is worth mentioning they fought for a long time and are still defending themselves in Florida. Apple, the american darling had a hard time winning this case, and the funny thing is that they did not win over snow-leopard so they now sell everything with snow leopard… Furthermore, there is little “the man” can do against EFI software. Law is a funny idea, it usually favors the powerful, and the common people will usually cheer for the poor even is he is not right. In this case, of course they were right, but who cares, as soon as apple starts fighting the clones, it will be digging it’s own whole, just like MS did with Vista security features, or like traveling by air these days. The more they react, the harder they will fall. Go with flow man, just go with flow, if you can’t against them, use them! : )
I should mention that apple has been playing the weak guy long enough, they are monster just like MS, so Job’s fans wake-up, he is just a name in the universe.
“Apple, the american darling had a hard time winning this case”
You really ought to read the decision. Apple cleaned their clock on just about every single issue. It was as one-sided decision as I’ve seen in a copyright case for a long time.
The rest of your comments are equally wrong. The number of systems sold was verified by Apple’s experts. You can be sure that if there were ANY reason to believe that more than 768 systems were sold, Apple would have uncovered evidence. Of the 768 sold, it appears that about 1/2 were sold to web sites like this one who wanted to try it out.
Snow Leopard was not included IN DISCOVERY because it did not exist in commercial form at the time of discovery and Apple didn’t want to open discovery to a beta product. The decision simply says “Mac OS X” so Snow Leopard is covered.
The Florida case is still open, but will be closed within weeks. A federal court in FL is not going to overrule a federal court in CA when the issues are identical and the decision was so incredibly harsh.
As for the Apple not being able to stop the ‘little guy’, that’s an inane comment. Walmart can’t stop shoplifters, either, so should they just give up and have the courts declare shoplifting to be legal? As a matter of law (read Alsup’s decision), even an individual hackintosh maker is guilty of DMCA and copyright violations. Whether Apple goes after them or not is a matter of practicality, not law.
Can we say…. PSYCHE!
Cheaper Mac machine = mac mini.
Get one of those if you’re desperate for a cheap machine.
“You are so innocent it makes me smile. Of course they will say: we only sold less than 100 PCs, since they will have to pay for each one they sold (now that they lost one of two cases)… This company sold many many PCs in the USA and abroad.”
Psystar did not do any fudging of the numbers of computers shipped, although they did destroy records and fail to produce accurate records.
The number of machines Psystar sold was determined by an independent, expert forensic economist. He examined Psystar’s testimony and the pre-trial discovery of records. Based on reconstruction of partial company records of parts purchased and shipping invoices, he calculated that 768 Open Computers plus 279 restore disks with portions of OS X installed on them had been shipped by Psystar since they opened their doors.
Also, the California case will be all that there will be. It will be inclusive of Snow Leopard because the decision was for infringement of OS X… all versions.
Apple provided expert proof to Judge Alsup that OS X Snow Leopard included copyrighted portions of OS X Leopard and therefor his findings that Psystar infringed Leopard means that Psystar is also infringing Snow Leopard by inclusion of those portions of Leopard. Apple has asked for an injunction on ALL infringements of current and future versions of Apple’s intellectual properties… as well as $2.2 million in statutory fines.
Since Psystar claimed they had under $50,000 in assets aside from their dubious claim of $3 million in intellectual property (their Rebel OS X decryption software) when they declared and then undeclared bankruptcy last Spring, and over $240,000 in liabilities (not counting any judgment from the Apple v. Psystar lawsuit), it is unlikely they could pay any such fines, Psystar will NOT survive to fight another day. . . nor, under the dismissal of the bankruptcy can they re-file bankruptcy. . .
The Pedraza Brothers are toast…
^
thanks, I was going to write a simpler version of this comment, but you did a much better job than I was going to do.
With so little sold how did they afford the top notch legal firms that they hired?
Psystar, Good bye and may I never see you again.
@Devin Coldewey
Stop whining about someone else’s property.
You don’t have a say. You buy a license and use it under license.
OS X is what OS X is, if a commercial infringement is ever allowed. Every interlectual property including books, music, movies and software will be at risk, not only Apple’s heavily guarded family jewel.
Certainly. You also buy a “license” when you buy a music CD, and no one knows or cares about that one. Intellectual property “rights,” in fact industry-established laws to protect their profits, are under revision. There’s no reason to think that pressure from the bottom won’t change Apple the way it has changed the music industry and is working on books.
I agree.
But Psystar and thepiratebay on the other hand have a snowball’s chance in hell to be legal.
The best Psystar have as a defense is fair use, but it is such a long stretch nobody really believed it not even the lawyers defending them (especially the lawyers defending them).
Then comes the EULA, and the subject under debate is “Do you or do you not have the right to resell a license you purchased from the vendor even the EULA specifically prohibit you from doing so?” I side with End User.
Pity Psystar is not a “End User” in the sense Dell is not a End User.
Apple have every right to conduct business in its own way, maybe the way it is choosing will be Apple’s undoing, I don’t know. But the bottom line is, should the law system force a certain business strategy on some certain company? Remember the monopoly arguement was already been thrown out. Apple is monopolistic in Mac computer just like J.K. Rowling is monopolistic in Harry Potter novels.
Are you trying to justify punishing Apple because its business practice in the personal computer industry is… unique?
Oh I certainly agree that both Psystar and TPB only had veneers of legality, if that. I’m not suggesting punishing Apple, but at the same time, I’m saying that they’re likely going to get punished one way or another if the demand is there.
@Devin Coldewey
Well, at least for now there is no sign indicating Apple’s losing grip anytime soon.
It is among the most profitable computer vendors and selling mor Macs than ever… in a recession… while maintaining much higher average retail price per unit.
Using the term “punish” loosely, you will find a lot of companies been punished by “demand” all the time, around the world. Like Microsoft is been punished by demand of a free windows in China since the beginning of time.
But surely you can see it is not always wise to concede to whatever “demand” claiming.
If, and that is a big if, there will be no place in the market for a tightly integrated personal computing solution like the Macintosh System in the future. I trust Steve Jobs or whoever in charge of Apple Inc. by then will make the leap. After all, leap of faith is kinda Apple’s schtick.
@TimF: Power Computing is sprouting up like a weed?
No connection between Power Computing Corp. (PCC) and the Psystar idiocy. PCC was a clone maker authorized by Apple and it paid royalties to Apple. PCC was, unlike Psystar, phenomenally successful. Apple did not sue PCC, it bought the company for $100 million.
Bloody hell, this is the _last_ click to crunchgear.com ever from me.
Apple makes Mac OS X and Mac computers. It can charge whatever the bloody hell it wants. It can charge $50,000 for a laptop if it chooses. No other commercial entity has any right whatsoever to those properties.
If you don’t like it fcukz off and buy some damn Winbox 7 junk instead. Just be glad Apple, Inc actually exists and makes the best software based gear on the planet (imagine being stuck with just Windows, Linux (KDE / Gnome?? ahh), and PC intel reassemblers loading junkware onto noisy bulky heat-laden creaky junk).
ps calling computers expensive in this day and age is a joke. They’re all cheap, except that Macs are the ones that have something called “value for money” (confirmed by resale). Be thankful you’re not paying $5000 for an Amstrad to run DOS. Fckuzing idiots.
OK… guess I’m the crazy one… I swim upstream. Quite the contrary, I’ve always wished I could load Ubuntu on my Mac Air. Never been a big fan of Mac OS, but certainly love the convenience of the Air. I’ve tried to find a thin replacement, but nothing comes close. The competition is cheap plastic junk IMO. But Mac OS is a kindergarten, Playschool OS to me. Still beats the hell out of Windows crap, though.
“Certainly. You also buy a “license” when you buy a music CD, and no one knows or cares about that one. Intellectual property “rights,” in fact industry-established laws to protect their profits, are under revision. There’s no reason to think that pressure from the bottom won’t change Apple the way it has changed the music industry and is working on books.”
What total childish BS…Apple has every right to choose the business model they have chosen. As do Sony, Nintendo & even Microsoft to run there gaming businesses in the same way. Apple has always been about software selling hardware. Nothing is wrong with that except it seems to bother people with no clue who think that Apple has or should have the same business model as MS…which is a software company.
They can choose the business model. The market decides whether that model is successful. If the market changes, so to does their success.
Your devotion to Apple’s method and the laws companies like Apple have caused to be made in order to protect their interests is very clear. But when Apple’s method and the laws change, as I am sure they must eventually, you will have to turn your back either on Apple or the laws you currently cleave to. But it’s saturday and I’ve had enough of this.
The World ends in 2012, and the law burst into flame with it.
Enjoy your Saturday.
“They can choose the business model. The market decides whether that model is successful. If the market changes, so to does their success.
Your devotion to Apple’s method and the laws companies like Apple have caused to be made in order to protect their interests is very clear. But when Apple’s method and the laws change, as I am sure they must eventually, you will have to turn your back either on Apple or the laws you currently cleave to. But it’s saturday and I’ve had enough of this.”
ROTFLMAO. So the market hasn’t decided that Apple’s model is successful? I guess they must have robbed a bank to put $35 B in the bank. How much money have YOUR innovations earned?
As for the law changes, that’s just absurd. Copyright law has been around since the Constitution (earlier, actually) and it works quite well. No one is claiming that copyright law is invalid – except whiners who never created anything of value. What’s to stop me from copying your article and posting it under my own name? Other than the fact that I am rational enough not to want my name associated with your drivel, it’s copyright law that prevents it. If the copyright law that Apple depended on were to disappear, incentive for innovation would dry up nearly overnight. Your ‘everything should be free and anyone who wants to use someone else’s work without permission should be able to do so’ view doesn’t work – and never has.
It’s funny that ‘you’ve had enough of this’ only after your every argument has been so soundly shredded. If you bothered to think BEFORE writing, you wouldn’t have wasted a Saturday trying to defend criminal activity.
I’m sorry why is it that you have no argument but the usual devotion BS? Nothing in my post says anything about a devotion to Apple. You & plenty of cop out writers such as yourself seem to use fanboyism as an attack with anybody that doesn’t agree with you or when the facts don’t back you up. Yeah, if things change business models probably will change…but what would be the law written that will strip a company of it’s intellectual property & just let anyone do with it what they will. Total Head in the sky, fantasy BS.
“Quite the contrary, I’ve always wished I could load Ubuntu on my Mac Air.”
Ummm you can. OSX ix UNIX so I’m not sure what your comments about kindergarten OS mean. Except maybe you don’t know what you are talking about. Ubuntu looks like it lifted plenty of UI ideas from that kindergarten UNIX OS.
OS X is UNIX based; Windows is not. Therefore, they are fundamentally different. If you want to run Ubuntu on an Air use REFIT.
Sales projections for a venture are always implicitly footnoted ‘As long as everything goes the way we want.’
In this case, an investment in Psystar is a bet on the court case. If Psystar had won their legal battle & been able to sell OSX machines legitimately, they may have made millions of sales. Sales & margins probably wouldn’t last long since eventually selling OSX machines would be pretty similar to selling Windows machines.
I’m wondering how do they pay for their lawyers army if the sales did so well …