Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Apple > Mac

June 1st, 2009, 16:11 GMT · By Sergiu Gatlan

The War Between Apple and the Mac Clone Makers

SHARE:

Adjust text size:


The Psystar Mac clone
Enlarge picture
Since it started in April 2008 with the launch of the Open Mac (later renamed as the Open Computer) by Psystar Corporation, the Mac clone phenomenon has gathered momentum and now we can witness a global scale move towards migrating OS X to non Apple labeled machines. The Psystar saga continued during the last year and on May 26, 2009, Psystar filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (despite this fact, the company is still making and selling the Open Computer machines to its customers).


The most important thing that happened during this last year in the legal war between Apple and Psystar is U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup’s ruling, on February 5, 2009, that gave Psystar the right to modify its lawsuit started against Apple. That meant that Psystar could change the countersuit, from accusing Apple of breaking antitrust laws, to arguing that the Cupertino-based company stretched copyright laws by tying the Mac operating system to its hardware.

That ruling came to meet the words of a Psystar representative, “What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers? What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?”

But Apple’s war with the Mac cloners is not only fought at home. There are four other companies that have entered the Mac cloning business: PearC in Germany, RussianMac in Russia, OpeniMac in Argentina, and Quo Computer in Los Angeles, USA. The approach each of them takes differs: while OpeniMac in Argentina sells its clones not worrying of the legal repercussions and blatantly uses the iMac trademark in the name of its products, the German and Russian companies are arguing that – according to their country’s law – once a product is sold to the user, the user owns that product and decides what he/she wants to do with it.

The other Mac clone maker that just entered the stage this month in Los Angeles, Quo Computer, has a strategy different from anything Apple had to face up until now. Quo Computer plans to open a fully fledged store where to sell its Life Q, Pro Q, and Max Q machines with preinstalled Mac OS X.

This comes as a surprise move because, until Quo Computer arrived to make these statements, Apple only had to deal with companies that chose to sell their Mac clones online. Now, it have to battle Quo Computer, which, not only sales Mac clones, but also plans to open its own “Apple” Store. As Rashantha De Silva, Quo founder, declared, "It's exciting. We are trying to stay as close to Apple as we can with our products. We are trying to mimic things as much as we can. I'm hoping that Apple sees the value in what we are doing."

Although there also are other players to be considered in this battle, the fight between Apple and Psystar is the most interesting mainly because Apple has decided not to sue the other cloners until now. The interest in this can be easily explained if you consider the fact that the outcome of this fight can easily decide the way Apple will react regarding the other four companies that sell clones of its products.

If Apple eventually wins the suit against Psystar, it will go after each of the other Mac cloners and will, most probably, win the war. If, on the other hand, it loses against Psystar, it may not even have a chance in Germany, Russia or Argentina mainly because of the differences between the laws in those countries and the USA law.

There is one important issue at the moment (whether it wins against Psystar or not): Apple still does not have a big chance of forcing its EULA against PearC or RussianMac, given the fact that EU and Russia do not want companies to impose any restrictions on the usage of the sold product after the purchase (in this case, the OS X license). And, since the adoption of Intel processors for the Mac platform, Apple cannot argue that the Mac cloners have copied the hardware.

After all, Apple is a company that buys third-party hardware and builds a machine that runs OS X and this means that everyone can use the same strategy to build their own Mac-like system (and many have already done by building the so-called Hackintoshes).

Despite all these outcomes, one thing is sure: Apple is bound to make a change one way or the other. It will have to either completely block the other Mac-cloning attempts using some method that the Mac cloners will not be able to go around, or accept the way things are going and become a software company.

If you have read the above sentence, I’m sure that the latter hypothesis sounds to you as impossible as it sounds to me because, if one goes back in Apple’s history, then one will definitely understand that Apple as a software company will not do well. It has always based its business on selling hardware to its customers and, most likely, it will not change the strategy that brought it where it is now.

The only thing that we can do now is wait for the outcome of this war and just see what Apple will do next. Will we be seeing OS X-ready machines in stores any time soon? I guess we will, regardless of what Apple wants, considering the fact that Quo Computer is determined to open its own “Apple” Store in Los Angeles.

Who do you think will win the Mac clone war? What will it choose to do once it wins or loses the Psystar battle? Share your opinions on this subject with us and the rest of the readers in the comments.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

4,581 hits · 6 comments · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


OS X on PCs - Pros and Cons

Psystar Keeps Accusing Apple of Misused Copyrights

German Clone Maker Not Afraid of Apple

Psystar Files for Bankruptcy

RussianMac Posts Its Mac Cloning Methods

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: huh? on 01 Jun 2009, 20:33 UTC reply to this comment

You lost me completely when you made the statement:

"After all, Apple is a company that buys third-party hardware and builds a machine that runs OS X and this means that everyone can use the same strategy to build their own Mac-like system (and many have already done by building the so-called Hackintoshes)."

Raw materials are not what Apple buys, and Apple designs its own mobos and engineering. To make a statement that Apple does no engineering for their products (which is what your article states right there) is disingenuous and plain wrong. Get your facts straight...


Comment #2 by: Alain on 01 Jun 2009, 22:07 UTC reply to this comment

Well. I hope to have taste of OSX soon without the luxury of have to have the machine (you should know why). I am one of people who keen and fast learn about OS and many of my friends entrust me with their OS (mainly MS Windows) care. But I have always have this little feeling of curiousity inside about OSX to study it directly but I won't go with the fancy price though. I really hope Apple would stay back off & let things roll, firstly, it will give chance for some people like me to grow, which lead to secondly, I believe it will also enhanced the software development for Mac OS, who knows someday the softwares would raging as much as MS Windows nowadays.


Comment #3 by: Sergiu Gatlan on 02 Jun 2009, 06:56 UTC reply to this comment

Actually I did not say that Apple buys ALL the hardware necessary to build their machines.

But, I think you can agree here, they put in enough third party hardware in their Macs to allow people to replicate the Mac architecture and build their own similar machines capable of running OS X (the Hackintoshes are the proof of this).


Comment #4 by: Nelson on 20 Jul 2009, 13:35 UTC reply to this comment

I actually believe that Apple would make millions if OSX was able to run on regular PCs.
Mainly because 99% Windows users will _not_ buy a Mac.
But chances that they would give it a educated try are high.

Apple could make it easier for final consumer providing dual-boot or whatever and requiring OSX to be installed on separated hard drive.
This would lead obviously to increasing Mac only software selling.

I just don't know what's going on in their minds because this just so seems logc to me...


Comment #5 by: chris on 23 Feb 2010, 20:00 UTC reply to this comment

“What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers? What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?"

I think I have a better analogy: what if Sony Pictures said you could only watch their DVD/BD releases on Sony DVD/BD players. Sounds kind of insane don't you think?


Comment #6 by: Rebroad on 22 Nov 2011, 21:27 UTC reply to this comment

If Microsoft wanted to let Microsoft Windows run only on Dell computers, I don't see what would be wrong with that. The maker of a product should be entitled to choose how to limit it (within the limits of the law) shouldn't they? Only if it discriminates against minority groups (of people) would I be concerned...

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM