Macopinion

How to Play Poker on a Mac

Mac Clones

by Marc Zeedar macopinion@designwrite.com

By now I'm sure you've read reports of Psystar, that mysterious Florida company that is apparently selling unauthorized Mac clones. These are basically standard Intel PCs with Mac OS X pre-installed on them. Since today's Macs use the same hardware as PCs, it is technically possible to do this (though not simple), but apparently not legal as it violates the Mac OS X license agreement (which pretty much says you're only allowed to install it on Apple hardware).

I really don't think the Psystar thing is much of a story at all. The company's tiny and unknown, the product unproven, and there are so many drawbacks I can't imagine many people would bite. But I keep reading journalists who seem amazed that Apple hasn't sued Psystar out of existence. They think this means that Psystar is on to something, that it has figured out some loophole, and maybe other companies will follow suit and give Apple some competition.

These writers have it wrong. There are several reasons why Apple isn't stopping Psystar, but they are not what most people think.

The first and most important reason why Apple is refraining from suing is that lawsuits are dangerous. Courts are unpredictable -- especially in complex technology cases -- and a lawsuit can easily backfire. If Apple were to sue and lose, it would set a precedent and open the door for anyone to make a Mac clone. Now that's extremely unlikely as it seems Apple's on pretty firm legal ground in this case, but you never know. Apple should have never lost their OS theft case against Microsoft, but they did, and look where that got them.

Apple has to look at the risk versus the reward: Psystar is a tiny company stealing perhaps .00001 of Apple's business. Apple might even gain business as each machine sells with a legitimate copy of Mac OS X and the people who buy Psystar machines are probably cheapskates not interested in one of Apple's more expensive machines anyway.

But losing the lawsuit could cost Apple a huge chunk of the hardware business or at least millions in legal battles; why even open the door to that possibility? Apple will hold off until Psystar is significant.

A second reason Apple is reluctant to sue is that a lawsuit just gives Psystar free publicity. This is no doubt what Psystar wants as they have apparently publicly challenged Apple to sue them. By ignoring the gnat, Apple reveals its insignificance. If Apple was to pay attention to it, it would give it undue importance.

The third reason Apple isn't suing is more subtle and complicated. If we look at how Apple operates in other arenas, such as iPhone hacking and iTunes DRM removal, we can see that Apple often has a public position that says one thing ("Don't unlock iPhones, don't steal music") but turns a blind eye to actual violations. I suspect a similar situation here: Apple's corporate policy is that what Psystar is doing is illegal, but that doesn't mean Apple will bother enforcing that.

Why would Apple passively allow Mac clones? Well, why not? Why should Apple care?

The truth is that Apple knew Mac clones were a possibility from the moment they considered the switch to Intel. No doubt Apple has numerous contingency plans for how to handle this kind of situation. In fact, I bet the only surprising thing here is that it has taken so long for someone to try this!

Apple is not that concerned about Mac clones. Back in the 1990s when Apple licensed clones, it was a different world. Apple was in a world of hurt, Microsoft was dominating, and Apple's machines were not competitively priced. Worst of all, there was only one company (Motorola) making processors for Macs and the fastest chips were in rare supply. The cloners bought small batches of these chips and advertised that their machines were faster than Apple's machines and started stealing Apple's best customers (the high-end ones in need to peak performance). And that was the end of legitimate Mac cloning.

Today Apple is riding high. Not only are Mac sales the highest ever, but Apple has their own retail store network to offer service and support, and it has the iPod, iPhone, and iTunes businesses to leverage if the PC business goes soft. Apple's machines are competitively priced and they've trimmed their offerings from the chaos of numbered machines in the 1990s (Quick: what was the difference between the Centris 650 and the Quadra 950?) to a handful of clearly delineated product lines.

In short, the Apple of today can compete with cloners. Back in 1996, it could not. Today no cloner can offer Apple's level of support and product design.

When Apple original licensed cloners the idea was that they would offer speciality equipment in markets too small for Apple to bother with: low-priced economy boxes, beige business boxes, special hardware for scientific or military use, etc. The reality was that the cloners targeted the same customers Apple wanted: graphic designers, video producers, upper-class consumers.

But the idea was a good one. I'm always hearing someone complain that Apple doesn't make the exact machine they want. We heard a lot of that when the MacBook Air was announced! Well, the bottom line is that Apple is never going to make a hundred different models and shouldn't: Apple needs to focus on the broadest market.

But if a PC company were to produce some niche products for vertical markets? That would be good for Apple!

In the case of Psystar, it is really cheap computers. No doubt there is a market cheap Mac OS X systems, but Apple's not going to bother with it. As Steve Jobs famously said, "We don't make junk." So let Psystar make the junk. It's not going to hurt Apple who really don't want a customer that would want junk.

So my suspicion is that Apple really doesn't care about Psystar. As long as they stay small and don't actually threaten Apple's real business, it's not a problem. If and when Psystar starts selling significant amounts of product, however, that's a different story (same as if Dell or HP started shipping "Mac OS X installed" machines). But that's not likely to happen.

The Psystar machine is unsupported by Apple. It never will be, either. Apple's not going to support hardware it didn't make. There's no guarantee that future OS upgrades will run on it. How many people are really interested in a product like that? A handful of geeks and specialty types, maybe, but certainly no mainstream buyer. The Psystar "Mac" will always be a niche product.

So Apple will play it both ways: publicly their official position is that Psystar is wrong, but privately they are fine with it. If other companies similar to Psystar start making unofficial Mac clones, they'll have to diversify to ensure some product uniqueness: price, feature-set, design, or something. Thus Apple sells a few extra copies of Mac OS X to people who probably weren't going to buy a Mac anyway. It's win-win.

My hope is that we'll see some interesting and unique Mac "clones" produced: perhaps an ultralight or maybe a waterproof one. We'll just have to wait and see what Psystar inspires.

macopinion@designwrite.com