Quo Computer set to open Mac clone shop in California
By Donald Melanson 
posted May 29th 2009 12:26PM
posted May 29th 2009 12:26PM
Mac clone maker Psystar may have finally ran up against a wall, but it looks like its tale hasn't dissuaded upstart Quo Computer, which is now planning to open a retail store in the Los Angeles area that'll sell some as yet unspecified Mac clones. While that'll apparently be a relatively small operation initially, the company's founder, Rashantha De Silva, does seems to have some fairly grand plans for it, with him telling CNET News that they are "trying to stay as close to Apple as we can with our products," and that he hopes Apple "sees the value in what we are doing." Of course, that's about as likely to happen as Woz staying awake during a Palm talk, and De Silva isn't completely unrealistic about the situation, adding that they'll "probably" get sued. Nevertheless, the store is supposedly set to open on June 1st, and the company is apparently aiming to have pricing start at less than $900.
does seems to have
good work quo... however, i think you'll end up of suing by mac.. its a suggestion that you should first create your product in either Europe, China or any other country which is very linient on copying or cloning
no one else noticed the mistake? "does seemS to have" am i the only one who READS things?
A Quo, eh?
Probably a case of "whatever you want" then?
Thank you I'm, here all week.
The man has balls of steel. Unfortunately steel balls aren't much for thinking.
I agree, surely he'll become bankrupt like the rest of them.
Agree +2. I admire his courage in making a difference in this computer world.
If Apple would sell a tower PC at a mid-range price then maybe this wouldn't be necessary.
Balls of steel or not I would still like to see his business plan that he had to present to almost anybody if he got any sort of outside funding.
"So tell me about this section were you describe how you will most likely get sued."...
That or he invested his own money for the business venture which, well I guess is about as bad. Anyway at least Apple's lawyers will have a fairly short drive down to shut the place down some time after June 1st as I see this place getting the same treatment Psystar got.
If Apple would license their OS software to computers then they'd get more market share...but then I guess Apple would loose their Mac slave control which they have had since 1984
*BUUURP*
Rashantha De Silva? lol ... Fresh after getting rid of the Tamil tiger terrorists, Sri Lankans are setting their sights on Apple!
Apple won't license OS X to 3rd parties because their business model is galaxies apart from Microsoft's business model. Not the same at all.
"If Apple would license their OS software to computers then they'd get more market share...but then I guess Apple would loose their Mac slave control which they have had since 1984"
they did license their OS to 3rd party cloners.
they didn't get any appreciable market share increase.
they didn't have "Mac slave control since 1984" if by licensing their OS they "loose" it... and they already did that. well after 1984.
so you can't have it both ways. either they didn't have Mac slave control since 1984 using your definition. or they didn't license their OS. but they did license their OS... sooooo?
Just like phystar, Epic fail
Why can't these guys get a reseller license like every other third party that sells OS X? Are they really this stupid?
You can take comfort in knowing that they are still smarter than you
I don't see how, they're going to get sued into oblivion just like Psystar. What part of that is "smart"?
Can we go ahead and stamp Fail! on this now and get it over with? Just sayin.
i want the quantum of solace pc game!
LOL,... wrong article.......
I don't know...that looks pretty close to the old Compaq logo. Maybe HP would have a problem with that since it owns compaq. I see a lawsuit coming.
You know maybe the secret creditor is Apple's legal team. I mean with all these lawsuits and such they must be getting some crazy amount of money.
We have to wonder how successful OS X would be if Apple would legally open the operating system to run on "Apple approved" or non-Apple hardware. Apple world wide isn't even in the top 5 consumer computer sales. It could even be argued that their stubbornness has allowed Linux to become the real alternative to Windows.
All apple would have to do is allow people to install on regular pc's and offer no support.
Basically say yes you can install osx on regular pc's but will be install at your own risk. HEck they dont even have to advertise it just put in a simple line or to in the eula.
It'd be popular yes, but it would also gut Apple's bottom line. They have huge margins as it is, which massively subsidize all of their software development and other R&D projects.
Apple will likely never allow 3rd parties to distribute OS X, for the simple fact that it's a huge selling point for their hardware that is exclusive to them and shareholders would kill them for it.
These guys can keep trying and even possibly win their case in court. All that will do is force Apple to kill off retail OS X sales.
That would kill their whole "it just works" lore. It would be a no win situation (pun intended). Offering no support would just piss of the people that have problems, and without Apple controlling the hardware, there would definitely be more probs.
it would be less successful, not more.
Yes, geeks like us can get ti running on a non-Apple PC, but the average person cannot, and if they do they won't be able to figure out the driver issues on their own. This would lead to fairly high dissatisfaction amongst that group of users.
OS X is designed to run on a specific set of hardware. Period.
Remember that the number one cause of blue screens on Windows is 3rd party drivers.
Apple would be foolish in the extreme to allow this.
All Apple really needs to do is make the license on the retail copies an upgrade license. Since the clones don't come with an original license, installing an upgrade license on a virgin box would clearly violate the terms, case closed...
@sweet greggo
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=puns
People keep forgetting that Apple licensed their operating system back in the nineties and that were losing money left and right. You only can make money on operating systems if you have a MONOPOLY like Microsoft. Why would Apple settle for sales of maybe $100 a copy on OS X, when they can make $1000 a sale on a Mac?
The fact that we are discussing Apple's OS as a serious competitor to Windows means that they DON'T have a monopoly on OSs, you fool.
Yes, Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems when you can pick up a rock solid Linux distros for free.
People have picked what they want: Windows. It's about time you get over it
@The Walrus
Nope. People didn't choose anything. Read some history to find out what happened.
The Rise of Windows:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Home/4C5CEE4A-94F7-4DA2-A518-B29372AA0839.html
Why the World Went Windows:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/3EC02E78-FD4D-4CDF-92A0-9C4CBDFAB3D2.html
.
@FoxKenji
Those references have been written witt applecolored lenses.
The reason why world went windows isn't anywhere near what they claim.
World went windows because of legacy software. People and companies already had a huge portfolio of msdos programs. When selecting a new computer going for a nonmsdos option meant that they would have to buy all new programs too, and they cost a bundle, more than the machine.
Apple missed golden opportunity in the 80s. If they had build msdos emulation mode with enough oomph to be usable they might have supplanted microsoft in the 90s. As the apple couldnt use legacy msdos programs it was sidelined while mainstream went windows.
@FoxKenji
Using a site as biased and that has such a bad case of tunnel vision as roughlydrafted to back up one's statements is the lulz...
bankrupt the company. but as for him and anyone else opens up a business you can just reopen under a new name and keep doing business. this is going to snowball into a lot more apple clone makers popping up everywhere. just wait and see
and each time one of them tries, they will get a cease and desist from Apple, etc.
like it or not, Apple has the right to limit hardware used by the OS. and they have the right to sue the hell out of anyone that hacks the software or creates a program to get the OS to install on whatever hardware. and anyone that tries to make a public business out of hackintoshes is just a moron.
go grab the open source elements, create your own GUI and avoid the pain.
Employing tricks and hacks to install the OS on your own hardware is one thing, doing it with the express purpose of selling the resulting installation for money is quite another.
Writing software to get the OS to install on non-sanctioned hardware and sharing the knowledge (for free, and NOT for any money) can possibly be said to fall under the umbrella of hobbyist "fair use." The process will never be easy enough to seriously dent Apple's profit margins enough to warrant Apple entering the quagmire of trying to go after small groups trying to get them to stop.
If you are dumb enough to try to make a business out of it however, fully expect to get a visit from Apple's nice little legal "ban hammer." It's much, MUCH easier to sue a business.
Saying they'll "probably" get sued is a bit like saying the Earth will "probably" make one full rotation today. What I'm more interested in learning is how they're handling the firmware. Are they doing what Psystar did and using the OSX86 project's work without permission, credit or payment?
I hope everybody realizes that Apple has never gone after the OSX86 project, despite the fact that they're the guys enabling everybody to make hackintoshes. Apple only cares if you try to sell Mac clones as a retail business.
If Apple went after the people behind the OSx86 project, they'd be like the MPAA and RIAA.
Apple isn't quite that bad, I'll admit.
MPAA and RIAA? No. The difference is that OS X is something Apple created, and owns patents on, and has a EULA for. The MPAA and RIAA don't own the music or movies. In any case, like I said, Apple isn't interested in going after OSX86, since they're not making a profit from what they do. Psystar and Quo are very clearly doing it for profit, hence the suing.
I meant the way they'd have to do it. Tracking down people using their IPs and dragging them to court.
Thank you Zak, that was a very well put comment.
One of the things I've noticed on the various hackintosh forums is just how many people, after successfully installing OSX onto their computer setup, are so happy with OSX they end up buying a mac later on down the road. It's a lot of free advertisement for their OS and I suspect that at the end of the day, the OSX86 project ends up making Apple more money than they cost it.
"There are thousands of people in the 'Hackintosh' market"
Really? 'Cause I see 2 including you, and the other one will be in litigation until they no longer exist. Not "thousands". 2.
You have no chance. Quit now before you lose the clothes you're wearing and tell your landlord you made an "oopsie" and will no longer be renting that retail space after all.
no need, he lives with his parents
People in the market to buy a hackintosh, not to sell.
In California? Hahaha.
Thats what i thought, its like saying "Small man lights match underneath Giants balls"
They will go Bankrupt just like Pystar did, end of story.
Balls of steel? Maybe. Brains of mush, definitely. Hopefully, Apple will give him exactly what he's asking for--right in the chops.
All I know is I'm all outta gum.