Psystar slaps Apple around, releases Mac clones with Blu-ray / GeForce 9800GT

While suits from Psystar and Apple are currently attempting to work things out via alternative dispute resolution, the former company is doing something the latter company won't: offer OS X-capable machines with built-in Blu-ray and NVIDIA's GeForce 9800GT. Showing no mercy whatsoever in a recent release, Psystar calls Steve Jobs out for his controversial "bag of hurt" comment and proceeds to inform the general public that it's "now shipping" OS X-compatible PCs (better known as Open Computers) with Blu-ray optical drives and the GeForce 9800GT GPU. Based on pricing figures gathered from the company's website, a 6x Blu-ray writer is a $310 upgrade over a dual-layer DVD burner, while the 512MB GeForce 9800GT will set you back $200 more than the 8600GT. Whatcha got to say now, Steve? Huh? Huh?

[Via MacUser]

[dotAaron @ Oct 28th 2008 4:38PM]

Haha! How about that for a bag of hurt :)

[Flashpoint @ Oct 28th 2008 4:50PM]

I understand why Apple wouldn't want other companies out there to build computers running OSX and sell them.

If that happens and the "open computers" aren't high in quality, it will potentialy threaten the user reliability ratings of OSX.

People who don't realize they are using an open computer, not a mac, won't know the difference when isht starts to FAIL.

[konshuss @ Oct 28th 2008 4:54PM]

let's face it, OSX is shaky outside of its native environment and the last thing that walking stick in beatnik clothes wants is bad PR on any level.

[Bill H @ Oct 28th 2008 4:54PM]

and fail it will if it is anything like the real Apple product

[Pip @ Oct 28th 2008 4:55PM]

"I understand why Apple wouldn't want other companies out there to build computers running OSX and sell them. "

Ever play the game Monopoly?

[konshuss @ Oct 28th 2008 4:56PM]

er, then again... trying to stop a tiny company from selling 'open' versions of computers running your OS doesn't exactly come off as a forward-thinking move.... steve, back down, this is a lose-lose situaton.

[Atropos @ Oct 28th 2008 4:57PM]

@Flashpoint

And no GENIUS BAR! What would an OSX user do without the geniuses?! Surely die.

[Ian @ Oct 28th 2008 5:04PM]

Pip:

Should ford be forced to let Chevy put their motors in its cars? Nope. Should Sony be forced to let MS run PS3 games on the 360? Nope. Have the entire market of a single product is no a monopoly. If Windows is a monopoly, then explain to me how Apple can have one too since they're in the same industry?

[Decoy @ Oct 28th 2008 5:11PM]

@ Flashpoint

Nope, the hurt is if you can make a good OSX platform at PC prices with more features than a Mac.

The flipside is the Microsoft crisis, where the software gets blamed for the failings of the hardware.

[Ian @ Oct 28th 2008 5:18PM]

hahaha rank me low because I make a valid point. Good show chaps... good show

[Jinx @ Oct 28th 2008 5:22PM]

Most people would know OS X belongs on a Mac in the first place therefor they are taking their chances on a custom built machine.

But overall OS X would be like a Linux distribution but better; much more optimized in certain aspects.

Propz to Psystar because I refuse to not get as much computer for the price I'm paying.

[Pip @ Oct 28th 2008 5:21PM]

@lan: You're comparisons are wrong. I'm not forcing Ford to put their engines in a Chevy. However, what if Ford artificially limited their engines to Ford although the engine would otherwise work fine in a Chevy? There is no reason why OS X couldn't work on any modern PC. In fact, it does. Look up OSX86 and you'll see that plenty of people run OS X on their PCs with no problem.

I'm not asking Apple to go out of their way to make their software work on PCs. All they need to do is to remove the DRM that keeps Apple software from installing on PCs natively. Apple is a monopoly or at least has monopoly characteristics. As their market share grows, a monopoly trial almost certainly awaits them. Why do you think Apple wants to handle the Psystar case out of court? Because they aren't sure they can win.

[leen @ Oct 28th 2008 5:24PM]

@lan
Should ford be forced to let Chevy put their motors in its cars? Nope. Should Sony be forced to let MS run PS3 games on the 360? Nope. Have the entire market of a single product is no a monopoly. If Windows is a monopoly, then explain to me how Apple can have one too since they're in the same industry?

Yes. If Chevy finds a way to use ford motors in their car, and they purchase them in a legal way, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with what they've bought, and that includes repackaging and reselling it if they think they can turn a profit. Ford has no say in what is done with their engines after somebody else buys one. None of this would be possible anyway if OSX wasn't already 99% compatible with pc's, and as long as Psystar pays for the licenses of OSX, at retail btw, then they should be allowed to use or package it however they feel like. There's no additional burden being placed on Apple and Apple has no right to tell people how to use their property.

[CraigJ @ Oct 28th 2008 5:38PM]

Leen has a point, but Pip needs to look up the definition of monopoly.

[Pip @ Oct 28th 2008 5:57PM]

@CraigJ: I addressed Apple's market share in my 2nd comment. I realize with it's current market share it's not a true monopoly as defined by the US but that doesn't mean it certainly doesn't act with monopolistic characteristics.

Also, I looked up the definition on Google. The first definition "a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller" fits. Apple is the only seller of Mac products AND it limits the sale and use of Mac products to themselves. The second definition on Google might as well define Apple as well, "exclusive control or possession of something". I think my usage of the word monopoly is valid when referring to Apple.

[Mobius_1 @ Oct 28th 2008 5:55PM]

Flashpoint:

No, Apple doesn't want others selling computers with OSX because they can do better at lower price, and if many consumers know of it and buy from *that* company, then Apple are gonna lose their profit margins.

I do love competition :)

[letstakeawalk @ Oct 28th 2008 6:04PM]

@ Ian

Your automotive analogies don't work, because the automakers can and do share between companies. You can buy a GM with a Honda motor, a Ford with a GM motor (the Land Rover V-8 is a Buick block basically), a Lamborghini with a Dodge motor (the V-10), even a Porsche or a Subaru with a VW motor (the flat-four from the Beetle). Granted, the designs have been modified and updated, but the automotive industry will buy parts and ideas from anyone...

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/10/24/bmw-to-sell-engines-to-mercedes-others/

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6523987/Vue-drops-Honda-engine-News.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_V8_engine

This doesn't even get into the issues of the hot-rodders who'll shove Chevy crates into anything at all...

[Rob Werner @ Oct 28th 2008 6:24PM]

From Black's Law Dictionary:

antitrust law. 1. The body of law designed to protect trade and commerce from restraints, monopolies, price-fixing, and price discrimination

monopoly, n. 1. Control or advantage obtained by one supplier or producer over the commercial market within a given region. Cf. OLIGOPOLY. 2. The market condition existing when only one economic entity produces a particular product or provides a particular service. 3. Patents. The exclusive right of a patentee to make, use, sell, offer for sale, or import an invention for a certain period, subject to the rights of the owners of other patents that would be infringed.

---

In the law few decades antitrust law has really fallen before patent law which creates what is often called a "legal monopoly".

[El Taco @ Oct 28th 2008 6:28PM]

@mobius1

lower price??? I don't know where you've been lately, but the price on apple computers is much more than that of a pc with equal specs

[levelnext @ Oct 28th 2008 6:32PM]

@Ian: you were ranked down for stating the not only obvious but already tirelessly stated, and thinking you were clever to do so. and for being a dumbass. :)

cheers.

[CraigJ @ Oct 28th 2008 6:53PM]

@Pip, I here you, but using your broad definition, almost all manufacturers are monopolies. Microsoft is a monopoly because only they sell Xbox 360s, for example, likewise Apple has a monopoly in iPods, Boeing has a monopoly on 777s. Monopoly, in the sense we are discussing is not meant to be defined that broadly (or that narrowly, depending on your perspective)

[happy_penguin @ Oct 28th 2008 7:17PM]

Wow. This string of comments is the biggest load of fanboy horseshit I think I have ever read on Engadget.

[UnixSystemsEngineer @ Oct 28th 2008 7:42PM]

Pip,

The definition of "monopolistic behavior" is not "company that does not have a monopoly but engages in practices that Pip doesn't like".

Monopolistic competition does not qualify because the agents in such a market do not have what is considered a monopoly.

As for Psystar, good for them. This action in no way will alter the outcome of the arbitration, so it makes no sense to not keep on with business as usual until told to do otherwise.

[Pip @ Oct 28th 2008 8:32PM]

@UnixSystemsEngineer: Yeah, because I'm the first person to suggest that Apple has monopolistic characteristics. That's why my comments are voted up while the comments you're defending are voted down... and that Apple logo in your avatar wouldn't suggest that your biased or anything.

You want another Apple monopoly... a "real monopoly" by your definition. How about the #1 music store, iTunes, limiting the use of purchased songs to their MP3 players?

[bondsbw @ Oct 28th 2008 8:36PM]

@leen: "Yes. If Chevy finds a way to use ford motors in their car, and they purchase them in a legal way, they should be allowed to do whatever they want with what they've bought, and that includes repackaging and reselling it if they think they can turn a profit."

The problem there is the word "LEGAL". Apple licenses each boxed copy of OS X as an upgrade. It is relatively inexpensive this way. Microsoft has also created upgrade versions of Windows that are less expensive and can be used in the same way.

The difference here is that Microsoft also markets full versions of Windows in a box; Apple does not. But think about it... Microsoft feels that selling boxed version of Windows is profitable for them, but Apple feels that selling boxed copies of OS X would actually reduce its income over the long term by creating overwhelming hardware competition.

Moral of the story: just because you REALLY REALLY want a company to do something doesn't mean they have to do it. Businesses exist to make money. I REALLY REALLY want Microsoft to port Office to Linux and to make a version of Visual Studio for the Mac and for Linux, but those make little financial sense in the eyes of Microsoft. I don't get what I want either.

[johnwiles @ Oct 28th 2008 9:34PM]

I'm really not sure why everyone is hating on apple over this psystar issue.

Apple uses hardware sales to subsidise their OS development, the full cost of OS development is not included in the retail-off-the-shelf OSX box. The rest of the development cost is actually in the mac's people buy.
So when psystar takes OSX and puts it on a non-mac, they reap the benefits not from their own work but from customers of apple.

Apple is doing the right thing offering OSX very cheap because they know it is an upgrade, as everyone already paid for this OSX cost when they bought their mac. But if OSX is put on non-mac's, i.e. apple are forced to allow the sale, then apple may be forced to put the price up to recover the development cost. Then who would be whinging? Engadget commenters?

Now, the question is, why SHOULD they be forced to recover the full cost of the OS development by upping the price of the software. What is wrong with using one product's sales to support another's. I'm not sure why people hate apple over this..?

Is it just people crying about what they want, expecting to get it and whinging when they don't?
Psystar seems to be taking a big gamble, obviously so are it's investors, I'm just glad i'm not one of them.

[jaywontdart @ Oct 28th 2008 10:42PM]

why cant Apple protect its OS? Its nuts to FORCE Apple to sell their property to other makers, imagine that Coke brought out New Coke, turns out nobody likes it, and then Pepsi gathers a couple more points in marketshare, nobody would say that Pepsi has to give their recipe to Coke!

Nobody MAKES you use Windows, nobody MAKES you use OSX, nobody MAKES you use Linux. Why should Apple have to give up their OS? Do I have the right to ask you for your wallet?

[MrNuclear @ Oct 29th 2008 3:55AM]

Coke and Pepsi are the same thing! Wake up, people!!

[Rick @ Oct 29th 2008 9:08AM]

Apple fail!

[Mikey @ Oct 29th 2008 12:24PM]

In response to many, you can have an antitrust violation without a monopoly. This particular arrangement is what is called a tying arrangement (because Apple "ties" the sale of its hardware to the sale of its OS). Tying arrangements aren't necessarily illegal, but they can be. If the tying arrangement is an unreasonable restraint of trade, then it violates antitrust laws (specifically, Section 1 of the Sherman Act). Whether or not Apple's EULA is an "unreasonable" restraint of trade is a very complicated analysis that we cannot possibly go into here.

The argument that Apple shouldn't be forced to sell its OS for all hardware. If the practice is an antitrust violation, then Apple absolutely can be forced to sell its OS for all hardware.

My favorite argument in favor of Apple's practice is "remember how Apple tried to do this before and almost went out of business." This is actually evidence that it is unreasonable restraint on trade, because it is admitting that without this practice, Apple could not withstand the competition. In other words, the EULA requirement is protecting Apple from competition instead of enhancing competition.

[PynkFloydd @ Oct 29th 2008 2:06PM]

@Flashpoint:

If that's the case, Apple has no business comparing itself to Microsoft.

I have a feeling that it's more of a business model for Apple. They probably make all of their money off of hardware sales, not software licensing. If another company starts selling Mac-capable hardware, they'd have to lower their (hardware) prices and profit margin to sustain growth. The problem is that they'd have to start relying on software to make money...completely changing around their currently successful business model. The only way they'd be able to survive is if they'd be able to match Windows' market share after their monopoly on the Mac platform was destroyed. It's possible but, it'd be a huge risk.

[happy_penguin @ Oct 29th 2008 3:55PM]

There is no "monopoly" on the Mac platform. It doesn't fit the definition. But there has been considerable argument that Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop market, and that's debatable. You can choose to not use a Mac but there is a great deal more percentage of people who have no choice but to use Windows.

Apple can compare it's operating system, it's desktop to Windows. That's fair. But there is a divide in that Microsoft does not produce computers. You still don't have to choose a Mac. You can choose any other kind or brand of PC or build one yourself with off the shelf components. You can install any number of operating systems on your computer except one. Technically, you can not install OSX unless you own a Mac. Big deal. You don't have to have OSX.

[loosely_coupled @ Oct 29th 2008 6:28PM]

Jobs was referring to the licensing requirements of HDCP for allowing Blu-ray movie playback on OSX. Basically, there is a whole host of DRM/encryption requirements that have to extend deep into the OS for "content protection" for the studios to agree to licensing. This is the same issue that got so much controversy with Windows Vista's DRM.
Pystar is simply offering a Blu-ray drive for data use, just as there are 3rd party Apple vendors selling BD drives for the Mac Pro.

[Jwaire @ Oct 28th 2008 4:41PM]

Steve says how are you going to be playback Blu-ray movies? No playback software available for Mac OS X.

[cody @ Oct 28th 2008 4:45PM]

iit's not just os-x. it's an 'open' pc that can run OS-X, which is why it can also play blu ray

[amart @ Oct 30th 2008 10:25AM]

I'm sure an add-on can be written for something like VLC which supports almost any format already.

[Bjarke @ Oct 28th 2008 4:47PM]

Actually, OS X supports Blu-ray, but doesn't have a playback software yet, so kind of useless.

[Bjarke @ Oct 28th 2008 4:48PM]

Disregard my comment, i apparently can't read.

[looseinthedeuce @ Oct 28th 2008 4:56PM]

Yeah, how's it gonna perform the operation of "playback" without any software? Also, the drivers for the video card would have to allow for HDCP. Does this stuff exist yet?

[rock99rock @ Oct 28th 2008 5:03PM]

1. Explore content (sorry, dont know OSX version of this)
2. -->"SOURCE" folder
3. Right click (sorry, don't know OSX version of this) .m2ts file
4. Open with "VLC"

[shawnmos @ Oct 28th 2008 5:14PM]

VLC can bypass AACS and BD+? News to me.

[looseinthedeuce @ Oct 28th 2008 5:15PM]

@rock99rock

You've successfully done this on a Mac? That doesn't work in Windows because of encryption on the discs. Besides the fact that this technically isn't "playback" of the disc itself, but a work-around that locks out other aspects of "playback." Sometimes you end up with the French audio track with no way of switching to the English.

But on that note, I've unsuccessfully attempted .m2ts playback with VLC on Mac OS from a de-encrypted Blu-ray. Maybe my VLC is too old...but I don't think so.

[mikeg @ Oct 28th 2008 5:15PM]

oh yes right!
because you can only use APPLE designed and written software on a bsd derivative.....


oops.
fail.

[phanbouy @ Oct 28th 2008 5:44PM]

i could never play HD DVDs on OSX how'm I gonna play the hurt bags?

[rock99rock @ Oct 28th 2008 6:25PM]

@shawnmos

Oh im sorry. I borrow my copies. Its just so easy to play i didnt think it would be more difficult than that.

@looseinthedeuce

I have not tried on a Mac, i'll switch over to the other partition and try it tonight with a followup.

[rock99rock @ Oct 28th 2008 11:06PM]

@looseinthedeuce

I can play the mt2s files, but like you said, audio issues\no audio. It was odd though, i had to move my mouse off of the video in order for it to play the video without pixelation.

[Shoumik @ Oct 28th 2008 4:43PM]

thats badass...

[Paul Chapel @ Oct 28th 2008 5:28PM]

It's not bad ass. It's stupid. Psystar is playing with fire. All Apple has to do is stop selling upgrades to OS X to people unless customers provide a proper serial number from their Macs. I've already heard rumbling on other forums that Apple is planning to roll out such a scenario using their Mac sell database. It looks like it going to be rolled out at the next Mac World. According to the rumor, Apple is going to limit the number of purchases for current Mac users to two copies, a lot like they did with the iPhone.

So Psystar is going to be in a lot of trouble if they can't buy OS X off the shelves any more. If that happens, Psystar will only be able to sell OS X using clones downloaded from P2P networks, which will make it much easier for Apple to sue them. The biggest argument that Psystar has in their favor is that Apple sells OS X on the open market. Remove that and Apple can argue that like the PS3 and Xbox, only current users of their computers have the right to buy upgrades.

And even more scary, there is no law that says that a company can't do this.

I'm a PC user, but Vista has disappointed me to the point where I've been searching for alternatives, one of which might be a Mac, especially if Windows 7 turns out to be a turd. Psystar is either going to kill Apple's model of business completely, which will mean Apple will drop the Mac in favor of making iPhones and iPods exclusively or Apple will be much more strict with OS X, to the point where it will rival Windows for annoying DRM like WGA. I'm praying this doesn't happen. I like having at least 2 choices between major operating systems. For one thing, it keeps Microsoft on their feet. For another, it makes computing much more interesting.

Psystar is just piggybacking on another company's success and hard work. If they were real men, they would make their own operating system and stop ripping Apple off. I know I'm going to get some flack from the Steve Ballmer clones, but that's the way it is.

[BigD145 @ Oct 28th 2008 5:42PM]

Apple would be inviting DRMish style hatred from users if it required looking at a hardware serial number on the back of a computer to get upgrades.

[Sven @ Oct 28th 2008 5:51PM]

@Paul C
Great going, spending half a day on your fanboi post, just to get it faded. Hell, you even included the far too cliché "i'm a PC user, but looking for alternatives". Give us a break and return to gizmodo...