Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'OpenCore Computer' Launches Commercial Hackintosh in Violation of Apple's macOS Licensing Agreement [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Really, I have to run Parallels to keep MacOS 10.14.6 operating as Accountedge will not update their software and I have fifteen year of company data tied to Accountedge. So that is one piece of software that is still not 64 bit ready.It's 2020! What Apps are you running that are not 64-bit?
“...make Mac Pro-style workstations more accessible.” and it starts at $2,199. Anyone who needs a workstation and willing to start from that price-point, should buy the actual thing. The rest of us are fine with 1,000€ iMacs. My setup is a 2012 Mac Mini (with upgraded ram and ssd) and 32” LG display - all for less than 500€. Serves my needs perfectly!
OMG, I haven't been on the Mac in over 5 years, and I just got this 16" MacBook Pro sitting here. You mean the OS I've been using now for the past 2 months (Catalina comes pre-installed) is a dumpster fire of a MacOS release? I thought it was pretty cool and I've had no problems with it at all...but hey, a total stranger saying this on the internet can't be wrong, so I'm sure everyone everywhere feels this way. Thanks for putting me straight! I HATE this OS now!
/s
I wonder if Apple will kill/or could kill hackintosh with the T2 security chip in the next version of that chip T3
basically the os is married and encrypted to that T3 chip so you can’t install any future release without that T3 chip in its hardware design.
basically the os is married and encrypted to that T3 chip so you can’t install any future release without that T3 chip in its hardware design.
By controlling the OS and hardware Apple gets to decide when it EOLs something or no longer supports a feature or chipset. If the started selling Mac OS users would expect support for whatever hardware they are using; and while Apple could simply ignore those buyers the marginal revenue is not worth the marginal headaches cause by customer expectations.
For example, let's say 99% of App store purchases are made by Macs with a T2 chip and Apple decides to require it to make a purchase. Would purchasers of MacOS for their Hackintosh simply say "OK, we knew Apple woul dnot support us?" and quietly go on unable to access the App store?
In addition, developers would have to contend with users who are running odd configuratiuns that their program won't run on properly; adding to support costs and headaches.
Even if it causes a bit of pain I think Apples approach of taking steps forward and abandoning old tech is better than MS trying to always be backward compatible. Windows contains stuff going back 20 - 30 years.
Of course if your app supplier is not keeping up, it is a problem. Any alternative? But you should be OK running a 32-bit Windows app in Parallels on Catalina, I do.
I keep reluctantly wantimg to upgrade my MacBook Pro 2012 its seems doing research though it’s full of bugs and I lose the 32bit support and usually with every version the battery takes a hit or would run dog rough on my 2012!
what's your point? if Apple doesn't make exactly the machine you want, you have the right to steal Apple's OS outside of EULA? I think you are over estimating how many additional people this would bring to the apple fold without canablelizing their hardware sales because it fits your agenda.
Except desktop is a generic term for a computer that is not a portable; tower is a type of desktop but not all desktops are towers.
[automerge]1592136308[/automerge]
But that is decisions all business make - where do we put resources to get maximum revenues? Just because someone wants to be a customer doesn't mean you have to take them on as a customer. There is nothing smug about it, it's a simple business decision.
My thoughts exactly. I immediately thought of the Escobar phone saga and basic investigation makes this even more likely. While all of this debating is going on, the bottom line is THIS IS A SCAM.
[automerge]1592136599[/automerge]
Oh, they will!
Actually, they tried it twice - they licensed the Apple ]['s OS for a while as well.
[automerge]1592136751[/automerge]
Price. Cheaper to buy and if upgrading you simply keep your monitor.
I must say I think this is a kind of computer I wish Apple would offer.
But I understand making a commercial box like this that goes against the MacOS EULA isn't a lasting way to go. Also without the consent of the people behind OpenCore Bootloader. 🤔
But I understand making a commercial box like this that goes against the MacOS EULA isn't a lasting way to go. Also without the consent of the people behind OpenCore Bootloader. 🤔
LOL you so funnay
There is absolutely no price point that 1) people would be willing to spend, and 2) Apple would be willing to swallow, given that it means one less Mac sale for them.
[automerge]1592136984[/automerge]
I also offer great escrow advice. It's called using an actual currency.
[automerge]1592137099[/automerge]
They had 11 years to make their app 64-bit and now blame Catalina? Give me a break…
I'm in the same boat. I wanted a laptop that can stand up to the abuse that comes with jamming it in a bag and dragging it through airports. I'd add Apple support is the best I've ever had and there is generally an Apple store where I am so if I need support it is easy to access. That for me is critical. In the end, a similarly sturdy Win10 box would cost out the same but with less support options.
Dell, years ago, with their XPS line had, for a price, a dedicated customer service number with techs who were actually helpful and would cross ship parts needed for a repair. Not sure if they still do that. My ancient XPS desktop tower was a great machine. Well built, reliable and affordable and still runs Win10. I still have it but with Parallels my MBP meets my Windows needs.
You are attacking the wrong guy here, I didn't even talk about hackintosh, let alone those scammers who try to monetize the community's contributions.
As for cannibalising sales, this would be the case if there were too many redundant models, which is hardly the reality or what I suggested.
The T2 already controls the SSD (and contains its encryption key).
It's perfectly imaginable that a future release requires the T2, which in turn means you'll have to emulate it to boot without one.
From what I can determine it is not an escrow service that holds funds and releases them upon completing the transaction. Rather you create a wallet that both users have access to and when you agree that the product has been delivered both sign and funds transfer. It requires a set number of signatures to transfer funds. The hook is that if you disagree you use an arbitrator to decide and that gives one party the needed signatures. My question is how are arbitrators chosen? If you can get a partner to be an arbitrator you can win every time.
It’s justified because Apple is under zero legal or moral obligation to make and sell a product if they don’t want to.
You may wish Apple sold lower priced computers. A million people may wish Apple sold lower priced computers. Everyone on the planet except Apple leadership may wish Apple sold lower priced computers. Guess what? Apple doesn’t have to any more than BMW has to sell a cheap car.
Why do people keep cherry-picking history to prove their point?
The official Mac clones of the 1990s were probably more of a symptom of Apple's problems than the cause - selling licenses was a way to quickly raise cash. At the time, Apple's range was a mess of poorly differentiated beige boxes, their scheme to replace the outdated MacOS was failing to deliver anything and they had a whole host of side-projects (Quicktake, Newton) which would have been great if they had a $1.5 trillion market cap, but not so much when they were teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Plus, the 90s were the peak of the era when it was nigh-on impossible to sell anything that didn't run Windows. Apple were about the only mainstream non-'Wintel' personal computer platform to actually survive the decade and - however brilliant Jobs' rescue plans were - his real success came from building on Microsoft's failure to embrace the Internet and mobile market, which wouldn't have worked 5 years earlier (if affordable mobile internet had been available for the Newton in 1993 then it might not have been killed by a Doonsbury cartoon and, today, Apple's lecture theatre might have been named after John Sculley).
The problem with the licensing idea wasn't licensing MacOS - it was licensing MacOS to companies who were going to sell cheap high-end desktop Mac Clones at a time when making expensive high-end Macs was a huge part of Apple's business. If the plan had been to - basically - get out of the desktop business and focus on laptops (Apple made great laptops in the 90s and basically invented the modern notebook form factor). More likely, though the plan was "Oh (expletive) what can we sell to raise $x million by next quarter?"
It's quite true that if, today, Apple sold (say) a macOS license to Dell without strings attached, they'd stick it on an XPS, price it for 10% less than an MacBook Pro and blame Apple if it overheated. However, there's nothing to stop them collaborating with a more specialist workstation manufacturer to plug the holes in their range - just as they have done with LG on displays, BlackMagic on eGPUs, Promise on MacPro internal storage etc.
However - that's really not the game today. Apple don't need any help to produce a modern equivalent of the 2006-2012 MacPro (it's just hooking together generic components - if a hobbyist can do it in a week, Apple can do it properly in 6 months) but they've decided to play "lets see how many people are so locked into Mac-only software that they'll pay silly money for a grossly over-engineered tower priced like a luxury car rather than change their workflow". Which may well generate short-term revenue over the next few years as the pool of "pro" users gradually evaporates. What it is not going to do is tempt any new pro customers to the platform - show the Mac Pro to anybody who isn't already a Mac user and wait for the hysterical laughter when you tell them the price.
I guess it depends on whether you're more worried about the future of the Mac platform or the future price of Apple stock (the latter will doubtless continue to boom until the day when a "Yo! My dad has an iPhone" meme goes viral on twitter and the iPhone bubble bursts overnight).
NB: FWIW none of that forgives these shysters for advertising illicit Mac clones (I'm sure their plan doesn't actually involve making many) - although the real victims here are the genuine OpenCore devs and the personal-use Hackintosh community.