'OpenCore Computer' Launches Commercial Hackintosh in Violation of Apple's macOS Licensing Agreement [Updated]

[Nütztjanix]

The point with the ARM chips is differentiation. Apple wants to avoid their products being commoditized. Switching to Intel was necessary in 2005, but I doubt even Steve Jobs thought it would be permanent. Since then, mobile devices have generated the bulk of their revenue, and they have invested so much into the ARM architecture that it has become viable for its Mac line. While others are starting to close the gap, Apple has shown for at least the last 7 years that they have the best chip designs. And since they control the OS and the chip design, they’ll be able to optimize both in a way that others won’t be, at least initially.

I'd say it's even more about control than about differentiation. Today they depend on Intel being able to execute their roadmap - which they constantly failed to do for the last years. If they switch to AMD, nothing really changes. They are again at the mercy of another vendor's capability to execute their roadmaps. Plus, they have to take what the CPU vendor offers.
"Decent CPU with decent integrated graphics? - Sorry, we don't have that. But we have this nice, shiny new CPU with great new graphics - it's only it runs a little hot, and isn't really faster than it's predecessor. Or you can take this pre-previous generation CPU that runs a lot cooler, not much slower, but unfortunately has weak graphics. Your choice!"

Switching to their own chips, they can release when and what they want, with all the features they need.

 

[Madhatter32]

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 At the time, Apple's range was a mess of poorly differentiated beige boxes, their scheme to replace the outdated MacOS was failing to deliver anything and they had a whole host of side-projects (Quicktake, Newton) which would have been great if they had a $1.5 trillion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).

You are raising a very interesting point in this post and I happen to agree with your thought. Apple is not serving it's entire possible customer base currently and a license program of MacOS on /86 -- a platform Apple is evidently leaving anyway -- could potentially be a great idea. Just because such a program failed in its implementation when Apple was a small growing and financially strapped company, does not mean it could not be very successful in the future. I mean Macs are only 6% of the personal computer space. Apple could increase its ecosystem and services revenue many times over with an increase in market share. The fact is that a licensing model can be extremely profitable for the licensor. More over, the grant of an exclusive license to one of the major players, say HP, could drive the value of such a business through the roof and bring in a lot of easy money for Apple.

The biggest problem for Apple, I think, would be that such a program could hamper adoption of ARM based Macs, which would not be in Apple's interests. But I think following this hybred strategy would make a lot of sense in the event that ARM based Macs prove as successful as their Surface Pro counterparts. In other words, it would keep Apple's options open as a risk management tool.

 

[cmaier]

You are raising a very interesting point in this post and I happen to agree with your thought. Apple is not serving it's entire possible customer base currently and a license program of MacOS on /86 -- a platform Apple is evidently leaving anyway -- could potentially be a great idea. Just because such a program failed in its implementation when Apple was a small growing and financially strapped company, does not mean it could not be very successful in the future. I mean Macs are only 6% of the personal computer space. Apple could increase its ecosystem and services revenue many times over with an increase in market share. The fact is that a licensing model can be extremely profitable for the licensor. More over, the grant of an exclusive license to one of the major players, say HP, could drive the value of such a business through the roof and bring in a lot of easy money for Apple.

The biggest problem for Apple, I think, would be that such a program could hamper adoption of ARM based Macs, which would not be in Apple's interests. But I think following this hybred strategy would make a lot of sense in the event that ARM based Macs prove as successful as their Surface Pro counterparts. In other words, it would keep Apple's options open as a risk management tool.

And yet nobody else is currently able to make money with this model. Even Microsoft doesn’t make real money from windows anymore.

 

[Nütztjanix]

Apple has absolutely no interest whatsoever in embarking on the support nightmare that licensing macOS to third parties or selling it standalone to endusers would be.

 

[xraydoc]

The higher end Power Computing clones were good but the lower end were crap! Worked at an ad agency and all the writer's hand-me down macs from the designers were replaced with new PowerComputing. Biggest mistake ever! Older Macs were already sent back to the leasing company. We has writers asking for Mac from the spare parts pile.

Note: Apple's deal with Intel will prevent AMD x86 CPUs on Macs.

I had two Power Computing machines back in the day. They were both awesome.
One machine’s power supply died and I was able to replace it with an off the shelf generic PC power supply. Pretty amazing for a “Mac.”

 

[jlc1978]

My point was that the licensing program was probably not the main thing that nearly bankrupted Apple in the 90s.



He introduced the "4 quadrants - focus on what Apple does best" model because Apple's Mac range was a confusing shambles and needed revising with extreme prejudice... and yet the next thing he did was to introduce a personal stereo, and then a phone, which were both complete departures for Apple (try to compete with Sony, Nokia and Blackberry? Don't be silly!) However much the authors of business studies courses may want it to be true, people like Jobs don't succeed by adhering to simplistic rules that will fit on a powerpoint slide. "4 quadrants" may have saved the company from actual ruin, but it was ignoring that rule and taking a huge gamble that turned it into a massive success. Superficially, the Newton or the QuickTake made just as much sense at the time - the devil is in the details (plus a large dollop of luck).

I agree - Jobs did two key things:
1. Right the ship and stop the bleeding by focusing on a few key products at a time when money was an issue
2. Diversify the product base by moving into markets where they could introduce an innovative product

Those two things enable Apple to survive and eventually become what it is today.

 

[cmaier]

I had two Power Computing machines back in the day. They were both awesome.
One machine’s power supply died and I was able to replace it with an off the shelf generic PC power supply. Pretty amazing for a “Mac.”

At the time, Mac motherboards had chips on them that nobody at Apple even understood. We were working closely with them and we had a far easier time booting windows nt on our powerpc’s than MacOS. And NT ran much faster.

Lots of problems with mac engineering back then.

 

[jlc1978]

Yep, monitors don't change in any essential way for 10+ years, computers 4 or 5 years. But the problem is that Apple today is changing for changes sake, not to really improve. They want people to buy new computers needed or not because that is their DNA and it is required to support current macOS releases.

I agree they like upgrades and even run a trade in program. Granted yu9 can get more selling it outright but it makes upgrading easy.

Computers today are a commodity, not new fast changing technology. Apple is still caught up in the 90s where computers improved so much in 2 years that new ones were wanted. Today, I don't want a new computer every 2 or 3 years just in order to run a current Apple macOS. This is the problem that Apple does not understand and why the 90s strategy worked during the 90s and does not now. It is Apple that has not adapted, not me.

Considering Catalina runs on Macs 5 years old and some as old as 8 there is no need to upgrade every 2-3 years unless you want to. I still have several really old (>10 years) Macs that work fine on older OS's and meet my needs.

People often confuse want with need; something I am gulity off when I Jones for a new iPad even though current iPad Pro works just fine.

 

[high heaven]

More like: Far from what whiny tech nerds get frothed up about on tech forums.

Apple knows its customer base. That's why Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world. And why its customers are repeat purchasers, opening their wallets paying premium prices, year after year after year.

Haha, actually they aren't. They are the ones who messed up with their own professional world with Mac Pro 2013. How long did they ignore professional users? More than 6 years. You see, what you are saying is totally nonsense.
[automerge]1592151275[/automerge]

BMW doesn’t have a proper coupe at around $25000 and it’s a big issue.

Guess I can just sneak onto a lot and take one.

Cant innovate more my ass...
[automerge]1592151431[/automerge]

Tell me more. How exactly is it a big issue?

Apple does not have a proper desktop and that's the big issue. Both iMac and Mac mini aren't considered as a normal desktop at all. And yet you have to pay a premium price for those Macs with terrible cooling performance, limited upgradeability, maintenance(image if you cant even clean dust), and more.
[automerge]1592151485[/automerge]

Well, it's a big issue apparently only for a handful of critics and shorts. The company is approaching $1.5 trillion market cap, so it's not an issue for Apple, their target market, or their long shareholders. Could you help us understand what you mean by "a proper desktop"? I suspect it's an area of computing that has a slim margin.

And that's only 10% of the market. I told you, PC market is way bigger than Mac market. And obviously, there are quite a lot of people from this forum want a normal desktop.

 

[Madhatter32]

And yet nobody else is currently able to make money with this model. Even Microsoft doesn’t make real money from windows anymore.

I get what you are saying but it's a little myopic. Look at the big picture. No company looks solely at its OS as a profit driver whether its based on a license model or not. Microsoft is well along its way to becoming a services company and is generating a lot of profit in large part on the back of its OS dominance in the market. It has an operating margin of about 38% vs. about 25% for Apple. Both companies are in a great financial condition but hardware development is very expensive and unpredictable. There is a reason Apple is trying to make a similar transition with its business to become a more services based company. It wants a more predictable recurring revenue stream. Apple can do this by growing its ecosytem through market share. More OS adoption (not OS sales) is a path to accomplish this growth.

 

[ChrisA]

I think I found a legal way to make and sell a "Hackintosh". Read the Apple EULA and it says that macOS may only be installed on an Apple-branded computer. My plan is to buy a very old mac Pro and gut it keeping only the skin. Then install a modern i7 or Xeon mainboard.

The EULA seems to allow all manner of upgrades, gutting a Mac Pro, and replacing everything inside is an "upgrade" to an existing Apple product.
[automerge]1592151974[/automerge]

Why should they is there question. They seem to be doing well without it.

Not at all. Apple is doing well making iPhones. Take away the iPhone and Apple is a tiny bit-player in the computer market.

 

[lederermc]

I'd be interested to know how the currency used affects the enforceability of the EULA...

No financial paper trail and no official country of origin. Anyone that buys one of these should expect the Russians or Chineese or Irainian or North Korean or the CIA have preinstalled their snoopers. The way this company should do business is to preinstall a sim-down linux and give very very simple instructions to install hacintasoh. like 5 clicks and your done.

 

[cmaier]

I think I found a legal way to make and sell a "Hackintosh". Read the Apple EULA and it says that macOS may only be installed on an Apple-branded computer. My plan is to buy a very old mac Pro and gut it keeping only the skin. Then install a modern i7 or Xeon mainboard.

The EULA seems to allow all manner of upgrades, gutting a Mac Pro, and replacing everything inside is an "upgrade" to an existing Apple product.
[automerge]1592151974[/automerge]


Not at all. Apple is doing well making iPhones. Take away the iPhone and Apple is a tiny bit-player in the computer market.

Creative.

But an apple-branded computer case is likely not an apple-branded computer within the doctrines of contract interpretation. Would be an interesting question, though.
[automerge]1592152382[/automerge]

No financial paper trail and no official country of origin. Anyone that buys one of these should expect the Russians or Chineese or Irainian or North Korean or the CIA have preinstalled their snoopers. The way this company should do business is to preinstall a sim-down linux and give very very simple instructions to install hacintasoh. like 5 clicks and your done.

His point was that the article suggests that, somehow, using bitcoin makes it legal.

It clearly doesn’t.

 

[VanNess]

It basically proves beyond a shadow of doubt that in the long sad history of really stupid ideas, there is never a shortage of current really stupid ideas.

 

[Nütztjanix]

Haha, actually they aren't. They are the ones who messed up with their own professional world with Mac Pro 2013. How long did they ignore professional users? More than 6 years. You see, what you are saying is totally nonsense.

Last time I checked, they were indeed one of the most successful companies in the world. They seem to get by quite okay, given that they just last week set a new record high in stock price.

Apple does not have a proper desktop and that's the big issue. Both iMac and Mac mini aren't considered as a normal desktop at all. And yet you have to pay a premium price for those Macs with terrible cooling performance, limited upgradeability, maintenance(image if you cant even clean dust), and more.

You still haven't explained how this is a big issue? For you, because they don't build the computer you want? It's certainly not a big issue for Apple, otherwise they would have done something about it.

And that's only 10% of the market. I told you, PC market is way bigger than Mac market. And obviously, there are quite a lot of people from this forum want a normal desktop.

Obviously not enough to make it worth developing for Apple. People on forums often seem to think that somehow a forum is representative of the whole market per se. It's not.

 

[Azrael9]

Update: The developers of the OpenCore Bootloader have released a statement regarding the unauthorized use of the OpenCore name.




Original version of article follows...

Following in the footsteps of Psystar, a new company called "OpenCore Computer" (No affiliation with the OpenCore Bootloader) this week launched a commercial Hackintosh computer called the "Velociraptor," which is a violation of Apple's end-user license agreement or EULA for macOS.

On its website, OpenCore Computer claims that it hopes to make Mac Pro-style workstations more accessible. The company's lineup of computers, which they call "zero-compromise Hackintoshes," are advertised as coming with macOS Catalina and Windows 10 Pro pre-installed. The first available model is the "Velociraptor," which is configurable with up to a 16-core CPU, 64GB of RAM, and a Vega VII GPU, and starts at $2,199. OpenCore Computer intends to launch more models at a later date, with options allowing for up to a 64-core CPU and 256GB of RAM.

Hackintoshes are computers that run macOS on hardware not authorized by Apple. OpenCore is a free open-source tool used to prepare a system for booting macOS. The company selling these Hackintoshes seems to have appropriated the name of the open-source bootloader, and has no affiliation to the developers of OpenCore. Hackintosh machines have to bypass copy-protection technologies that Apple uses to protect macOS from being cloned, affording them a dubious legal status when sold. OpenSource Computer reports that its computers "work just like a regular Apple Mac."

Commercial Hackintoshes have a notorious legal history. The now-defunct Psystar Corporation sold so-called "Open Computers" from 2008, with the option to have Mac OS X Leopard pre-installed. Apple's EULA forbids third-party installations of its software, and any commercial Mac clone is a violation of that agreement, as well as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Apple sued Psystar in 2009 and won a permanent injunction against the company, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case in 2012. Given this precedence, it is particularly surprising that OpenCore Computer has chosen to sell a Hackintosh.

OpenCore Computer seems to be trying to get around the EULA by accepting payments in Bitcoin cryptocurrency only. In an attempt to prove that the company is not a scam, it offers the use of escrow payment through "Bitrated," which intends to bring consumer protection and fraud prevention measures to cryptocurrency transactions. Much like the skepticism levelled at Psystar in 2008 when it announced its Mac clone, the legitimacy of OpenCore Computer is unclear. No address for the company is given and there is little further information about it online.

Article Link: 'OpenCore Computer' Launches Commercial Hackintosh in Violation of Apple's macOS Licensing Agreement [Updated]

The computer Apple 'should' be building right now.

Revive the Power Computing brand and sell towers like this at a reasonable price.

Allowing for the actual tower market of typical tower buyers offering value and power at rational prices.

Azrael.

 

[high heaven]

You still haven't explained how this is a big issue? For you, because they don't build the computer you want? It's certainly not a big issue for Apple, otherwise they would have done something about it.

I explained quite a lot and yet you didn't care to check facts.

Obviously not enough to make it worth developing for Apple. People on forums often seem to think that somehow a forum is representative of the whole market per se. It's not.

Then how come Apple made Mac Pro which is quite a niche for its market?

Last time I checked, they were indeed one of the most successful companies in the world. They seem to get by quite okay, given that they just last week set a new record high in stock price.

And mostly sold by iPhone, iPad, and service, not by Mac itself.

 

[Metrosey]

I think I found a legal way to make and sell a "Hackintosh". Read the Apple EULA and it says that macOS may only be installed on an Apple-branded computer. My plan is to buy a very old mac Pro and gut it keeping only the skin. Then install a modern i7 or Xeon mainboard.

The EULA seems to allow all manner of upgrades, gutting a Mac Pro, and replacing everything inside is an "upgrade" to an existing Apple product.

That wouldn’t work, an Apple-branded computer is what they sell, any physical changes to the device that are outside the Apple specification documentation means the device is no longer an Apple device.

 

[Nütztjanix]

I explained quite a lot and yet you didn't care to check facts.

Which facts? You explained a lot, but not how this is "a big issue". Only that you and numerous others don't like it. That's not an issue. It's a sentiment.

Then how come Apple made Mac Pro which is quite a niche for its market?

Obviously, there were enough people demanding it to make it worthwhile. It's not that hard, is it?

And mostly sold by iPhone, iPad, and service, not by Mac itself.

Doesn't change the outcome. They are one of the most successful companies in the world.

 

[high heaven]

Which facts? You explained a lot, but not how this is "a big issue". Only that you and numerous others don't like it. That's not an issue. It's a sentiment.

You pay an expensive Mac for poor cooling performance and hardware. That's the biggest issue.

Obviously, there were enough people demanding it to make it worthwhile. It's not that hard, is it?

And people demanding a normal desktop are much more than people demanding Mac Pro.

Doesn't change the outcome. They are one of the most successful companies in the world.

Successful does not mean they are doing great. Then Intel is doing great with pathetic CPU I guess?

 

[Nütztjanix]

You pay an expensive Mac for poor cooling performance and hardware. That's the biggest issue.

Now that is an argument.

And people demanding a normal desktop are much more than people demanding Mac Pro.

How do you know? Do you have any sources?

Successful does not mean they are doing great. Then Intel is doing great with pathetic CPU I guess?

OP didn't say anything about "great" (whatever you mean by that), nor did I. Point made was success.

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

I just don't understand their business model. They don't tell you where they are or, really, who they are. They set up a complex payment schedule using bitcoin -- BITCOIN! -- as though that's a common currency of exchange. They send you a photo of the computer as though it's an exchange of a kidnapping victim. They (claim to) have a warranty but don't tell you how to get this freaky Frankenstein serviced. They use a CPU that is widely known not to be fully compatible with Hackintoshes. Their website is wonky. All it's missing is a Nigerian prince. Who would buy this thing?
[automerge]1592144615[/automerge]

It's a creative thought but, no. It would still be illegal. It would be a case of inducement to infringe, and still violates patent and copyright laws.

I personally think that the DMCA law needs to be changed in America. It was written by elderly people in Congress who probably at that time didn't even own a computer or know how to use one. They just didn't want people stealing DVD movies. It's about the limit of what they understood when the law was written.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Clearly, there are more normal desktops than AIO desktops that Apple makes. Why do people demand a normal desktop? Because both iMac and Mac mini aren't enough in terms of performance, maintenance, and more.

Enjoy your Windows and/or *nix desktop.

 

[high heaven]

How do you know? Do you have any sources?

Base on Apple in 2017, they claimed that only one digit percent of Mac users using Mac Pro. Clearly, there are more iMac users than Mac Pro base on the market. What else do I need to explain? Do you really expect that there are more Mac Pro users than iMac users? Workstations are extremely expensive thus less users.

OP didn't say anything about "great" (whatever you mean by that), nor did I. Point made was success.

That does not mean Apple is doing fine with desktop. That's totally nonsense. No matter how much Apple earns, they still have a lot of issues to deal with.
[automerge]1592158958[/automerge]

Enjoy your Windows and/or *nix desktop.

Then enjoy being a fanboy. If you hate to fix and change, then what are we suppose to expect? Apple isn't the best company and you need to admit their problems.

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

That's it exactly. Relying on commodity CPUs pretty much levels the playing field among computer manufacturers. Apple designing their own CPUs permits custom functions, architectures, and other secret sauce not available to competitors. And that includes being able to better trade performance/power dissipation/thermals/etc for different products.

Other benefits are cost and Apple not having its success (or downturns) driven by Intel's roadmap.

I agree, but just can't help thinking that this is not something that is in Tim Cook's wheelhouse. This is something Steve Jobs would be bold enough to do no doubt, but I don't see the bean counter being successful pulling this off.
Tim Cook is milk toast to Steve Jobs fiery red hot iron.