I was thinking about the new Pystar Apple clone computer. I guess the only advantage I can think of for buying this machine is price. Nothing is offered that you couldn’t get from Apple for a few more bucks. And the price is only marginally better. I think the low-end machine is about $400, but this doesn’t include leopard which will add another $130. And it also doesn’t include iLife which will add another $80. Then the box is about the same price as a Mac mini, though it still has a better video card.
But then there is the issue of support. Just the other day I was working on an iMac G5 trying to make a DVD. I was using iDVD and I kept getting an error message. I figured a way around the issue, but if this had not been an Apple Computer but a Pystar computer than I would never have known if the issue was due to the software or the fact that I was using a non-Apple Computer.
I imagine a lot of things like this will happen to people with clones. An external drive won’t work, or some software won’t launch, or the system will crash, and they won’t know whether this is a problem that can be solved by Apple, Pystar, or neither. It will be frustrating.
I imagine Windows users go through this all the time. When something doesn’t work they don’t know whether it is Microsoft’s fault, the PC manufacturer’s fault, or maybe the company that built that particular piece of software.
Actually, I’ve run across this before with PC games. The computer, the operating system, the game, the video drivers, and perhaps other drivers as well, were all made by different companies. So what do you do when the game suddenly crashes? All you can do is hope that somebody else has had the same problem, has figured it out, and has posted a fix.
I’d imagine the success of the Pystar computer will hinge on good support forums. If Pystar users stick together and help each other, they can make the experience tolerable enough to be worthwhile. That is, of course, if Apple doesn’t step in and stop Pystar before it’s too far off the ground. Either way, I’ll stick with my Apple made Mac.
Sometimes it is useful to know what IP address you appear to have to the outside world. For instance, to use Leopard screen sharing, you usually need to know the IP address of the machine you wish to connect to. Or, someone may restrict access to a Web site or file sharing service to only a small list of IP addresses, and you need to tell them your IP in order from them to add you to the list.
You can sometimes find this by going to your System Preferences, Network settings and looking at your status. But it may show you the IP address on your local network, which may start with a 10.0 or a 192.168. This won’t help a computer from the outside world know where you are.
But when you surf the Web, every Web server and page knows what IP address you have. So all you need to do is go to a Web page like this one, and it will tell you:
Your IP Address is:
You can bookmark this page to use in situations where you need to quickly figure out your IP address.
It’s no big revelation that Mac fans love rumors. There are several sites dedicated to Apple rumors that get more traffic than sites dedicate to actual Apple news. I guess we just like to daydream about the computers and gadgets in our near future.
But this obsession with rumors makes it easy for lots of bad information to get out there. How many Apple rumors in the past 10 years have turned out to be slightly off, or completely wrong? There are several origins to Apple rumors.
First, there is the old whisper-down-the-lane phenomenon. Person A, at an event, with no real facts, speculates that Apple will come out with a touch screen Mac. Wouldn’t that be neat? Person B is listening to them, then repeats this to person C. Person C assumes that person B has heard this from a good source, and so starts spreading the rumor.
A second source of Apple rumors is: thin air. I believe there are people out there purposely starting rumors they know not to be true. All you need to do is come up with a reasonable rumor that many people want to see come true. In many cases, artists create fake images or videos to support a rumor. Fortunately, these are easier to call out as fakes than a single bit of information.
I don’t think it is the rumor sites that are behind these false rumors. In fact, they are the victims.
A third source of Apple rumors is our misunderstanding of how Apple works. For instance, every time they file a patent, we assume it will become a product. A company like Apple is researching all sorts of things, and they are sure to patent everything they think is patentable. But it certainly doesn’t mean that they will ever build it.
Also, rumor pundits frequently forget that Apple sometimes announces products way ahead of time, like the iPhone. So a rumor that product X will be coming out in August, may actually be somewhat correct, except that product X will be announced in August, but not released until December.
Of course these three sources are for false or misleading Apple rumors. A fourth source exists: actual facts. These are the rumors that come true. A lot of times this comes from Apple employees or the employees of stores that resell Apple products. For instance, a new iPod would appear on a Best Buy computer system the day before release. Unless it is that specific, it is usually only partially correct. For instance, just before the iPhone release, there were a lot of rumors about the iPhone. All were right in that Jobs did announce an iPhone at MacWorld, but no one got the specifics right.
So the next time you hear a juicy rumor about Apple, remember these potential sources and don’t believe everything you read.
Note: We actually round up and link to rumor stories at our MacMost Apple Rumors page. Here you can quickly see who is writing about each rumor and what they are saying.
So in news today, NBC Universal chief digital officer George Kliavkoff said he thinks that Apple should have iTunes checking your iPod for pirated content.
As an engineer and programmer, I’m scratching my head at this. How is this supposed to happen?
Recognizing that a piece of media has DRM on it is easy. DRM is additional secure information attached to media. But without DRM, you just have raw media. In other words, audio or video in a standard format like mp3 or mp4.
You can only assume that if a piece of media doesn’t have DRM, that it must be illegal. But you can purchase DRM-free music from a variety of sources, including Amazon. You can also import music from CDs in non-DRM format. You can do the same with video, though companies like NBC like to think you can’t.
So, if you are like me, you don’t pirate media, and you also don’t support those who use DRM. So I only buy music from sources that are DRM-free. Mostly, I buy CDs. So how does NBC think iTunes can tell the difference between my legal DRM-free mp3s, and illegal mp3s? They can’t.
I hope that Kliavkoff said this as part of some sort of strategy to justify NBC’s absence from iTunes, and allow them to come back to iTunes soon. Because otherwise, it just shows that NBC has someone in charge of this that doesn’t understand technology.
The whole Psystar $399 Computer to run OSX, brings to light an interesting issue about software ownership. The Psystar spokesman is reported to have said “What if Honda said that, after you buy their car, you could only drive it on the roads they said you could?”. This is a straw man argument. When you purchase software, you are purchasing a license to use the software, and to use the car analogy, it’s more like leasing a car. If you lease a Honda, it’s a violation of the lease agreement to modify and race the car. End User Licensing Agreements (EULAs) are exactly like lease agreements, You purchase the right to use the software as a licensee after agreeing to the terms of the EULA. Good, bad or indifferent, that’s the way it is.
The other Argument by Psystar is that this is a anti-trust case citing that “What if Microsoft said you could only install Windows on Dell computers?”. If that were the case, then perhaps that would be a violation of the Sherman Anti-trust act for collusion, but if Microsoft bought Dell and then only sold Windows to owners of Microsoft computers that is not a violation. Back to the car analogy, Honda makes Honda engines to run Honda cars (and Acuras), if you want to put a Honda engine into your Miata ,you could probably do that with some hacking. Now, if a company started selling Miatas with leased Honda S2000 engines pre-installed for $5000 dollars less a than a Honda S-20000 and called it the “Open Honda” it would be the exact same thing as the Psystar case. This would violate the engine lease agreement and it’s a trademark infringement. Not that I wouldn’t want a 240 HP Miata , the same way I want a Mac Mini with a 512 Meg graphics card in it. Hello? Mazda and Apple are you listening?
So unfortunately, I don’t think Psystar has a leg to stand on. The old advice to RTFM might have to be changed to include RTFEULA as well. On a side note, Psystar’s website is back up and they are no longer offering the “Open Mac” It’s been renamed the “Open Computer.” Like Mae West said “Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.”
If you want a visit from Apple’s lawyers, one way to get their attention, is to announce that you’re selling a $399 Computer preloaded with Mac OSX 10.5 Leopard. That’s just what a company named Psystar did this weekend. Pystar is selling a standard PC tower called “Open Mac” and is using the EFI emulator to run OSX on it with “minimal patching.”
Psystar is touting the computer as a cheaper more expandable alternative to a Mac Mini saying :
When comparing base configurations, the Mac Mini costs 150% of the price of the OpenMac while offering poorer performance, smaller storage space, and RAM. Not only that but the Mac Mini doesn’t have the option for an nVidia GeForce 8600 video card like the OpenMac does so playing games on it is a lost cause.
The idea of running Second Life, or W.O.W. on a “Mac” with a 512 graphics card for under a thousand bucks does have it’s appeal for many users, me included. But I would be wary.
The Open Mac brings back memories of my Power Computing Tower a few years back. The Power Computing computer had it’s compatibility issues with, then Mac System 7 and I remember that the CD drive was a constant nightmare. And the Power Computing computer was legal, the Open Mac is not. Also note that installing Leopard on non-Apple hardware is a specific violation of the OS’s End User License Agreement (EULA).
You can just hear Steve Jobs shouting “Release the hounds!” Apple’s lawyers will surely try to take the party out of any third party hardware company trying to sell anything loaded with Mac operating systems. So the Open Mac may already be a closed case.
(Ed.Note) Apple Lawyers have already shut down the Pystar site as of this morning.
So, with the rumors of an iPhone v2 with 3G capabilities and maybe some other bells and whistles, what will this mean for existing iPhone owners. I assume many of us will be waiting in line again and “upgrading” to a new iPhone when the time comes. But what about our 2-year commitment to AT&T? I see several possibilities.
The worst case scenario is that you have to sign up for another 2 years. So if you bought one year ago, and then upgrade to iPhone v2, you have to add another 2 years to your contract. This is unlikely.
The best case scenario is that nothing changes. Getting iPhone v2 is just like replacing a broken iPhone right now. You just transfer your sim card from one to the other, and your standing with AT&T doesn’t change. I see this as somewhat likely.
When my SideKick II broke a few years back, I bought a new one. I had the option to pay the full price for the SideKick, or pay the discounted price, as long as I added another year to my contract with T-Mobile. So you can see where the worst case scenario isn’t that far-fetched.
Another option would be that you have to restart your 2 year contract with AT&T. Could be.
I think the one certainty is that there will be confusion. When the iPhone plans were first announced, a lot of people complained about the $59 (really $70) plan as a one-size-fits-all thing. You could add extra minutes, but that was it. Now, there are many more options, including family plans and, data-only plans, purchasing extras like unlimited text messaging, etc. I personally hate this. I think the only reason that most mobile phone plans offer so many options is that the phone companies hope to confuse us into spending more money. AT&T offers all sorts of plans for unlimited voice and extra features, but it is unclear which work with iPhone plans. Not that I get anywhere near the 450 daytime minutes on my iPhone anyway.
