'OpenMac' Promises $399 Headless Mac... But Not From Apple

[Ed1024]

Cost of "OpenMac" with OS-X and iLife: $613
Cost of Mac Mini with OS-X and iLife: $599

What's the deal?

OK, the OM comes with +1GB, slightly faster processor, upgradeable video, bigger HD, etc. but it also comes with compatability worries.

Will you be able to take your OM to a Genius Bar and get someone to look at it if it goes wrong? Don't think so. No possibility of AppleCare, either. Will it work properly with future iterations of OS-X? Who knows? How long will it be supported for? Same answer.

It's good to see some competition but according to the MacRumors Product Guide, the Mini is overdue for replacement/upgrade, so the new model(s) could be significantly better in "bang for your buck".

If you want a cheap(er) Mac, why not just get one off eBay? At least there shouldn't be any problems with updates, etc.

I suppose it's a good sign that the Mac market is large enough that someone thinks there is a profit in unauthorised clones; however, I think it likely that Apple's lawyers are already circling like vultures...

 

[Foxglove9]

Wow I can't see this lasting too long. Maybe if Apple sees the attention this is going to get, they will try and release something like that as well.

 

[Full of Win]

This is Great news! I hope this acts as a wake-up call for apple to offer a something similar.

Good luck getting through to the iCEO!

 

[headfuzz]

My tuppence;

1) that is an über fugly box. I wouldn't buy it regardless of the innards. I just couldn't bring myself to look at it. It's about as aesthetically pleasing as a public execution.
2) speculation is rife that the Mini is about to be bumped to the GMA965 chipset with X3100 graphics in line with the Macbooks, rendering this machine obsolete by comparison as soon as the bump occurs. They would have done much better to base the box on the rumoured imminent specs rather than the incumbent specs.
3) it's fugly.
4) regardless of the actual legality or illegality of preinstalling Leopard on the unit, I only hope this forces - or, more likely, coerces - Apple's hand to bring out the much desired xMac so that the job is done properly and fully supported hardware is used, not some ropey "let's try and make a fast buck out of a hacking community's efforts" patch job.
5) did I mention it's fugly?

 

[BenRoethig]

I take it Apple doesn't know about it or else they'd have been given a cease and desist for "installing it themselves."

The reason OS X works so well is because Apple knows exactly what hardware it runs on. If you put OS X on other hardware you quickly start to have problems.

Its the same hardware only without the EFI firmware.

 

[tb2007]

A computer like this is just what I need. I've been using Macs for 10 years but am continually frustrated by the lack of upgradability. Sure if you can afford a Mac Pro your fine but they are really expensive. Everything else in the product line seems to have been designed to be as un-upgradeable as possible. I currently have a Mac Mini; great little box but its even hard to upgrade the RAM let alone anything else. Something like an open mac woudl mean I could add a decent graphics card a full speed hard drive and still have change over. In other words I could have what any PC uaser expects. We Mac users put up with this duff deal from Apple. The OS is great but Apple needs a rocket up its bottom.

I hope it works out. I have a macbook and love it and what to change my desktop over to OS X. But the mini mac isn't enough, I don't need a monitor so the iMac is out, and the only upgradeable one is the Mac Pro but whose going to pay for that?

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Interesting concept, but I rated this story a negative because of the legal problems. IF this company is legit and not vaporware they will be hounded out of existence by Apple legal.

Ultimately it will prove a defeat for the hackintosh people because it might cause Apple to clamp down and break the hacks.

 

[BenRoethig]

i just don't understand why apple won't do a headless iMac. the mid-level upgradable box. i sure as hell don't need a mac pro, but i want something more than a mac mini for my entertainment center. Integrated graphics? Meh.

Because Jobs like to control what you use and how you use it.

 

[unatommer]

Antitrust?

I am seriously considering buying one of these so I can sue Apple for monopolistic actions when it makes the machine unusable.

It is way past time for Apple to open up their OS to other hardware vendors.

 

[knewsom]

There's a possibility that none have considered yet.

...that this is what Apple WANTS.

Apple doesn't traditionally like giving up control of their products, however, they DO seem to like it when users/hackers begin viral usage of things.

Let us consider briefly why Windoze was ever so successful in the first place: The widespread piracy of Windows 3.1. EVERYONE and their brother installed it, learned it, etc. The OSX86 project is basically allowing the same thing, but with LEGALLY PURCHASED SOFTWARE, and I suspect has been allowed to continue simply because it's FREE ADVERTISING FOR APPLE. This is the same thing. It targets a VERY specific market that Apple isn't targeting, but that is certainly not inconsiderable. These users will promote the Macintosh as a Platform, and expand the total number of Leopard users out there, which ultimately serves Apple's goals.

Now, they might get a "stop pre-installing Leopard" order from Apple, but will they have to stop selling this computer? NO WAY. Apple wants a viral phenomenon in regard to their products, period. Eventually, is this a market they want to tap? I doubt it, price points for GAM3R machines are EXTREMELY competitive, and there's a low profit margin, so I doubt they're that interested.

Consider that Apple is sneakily allowing clones to exist, basically to fill this market gap (that wouldn't be profitable for them to fill otherwise), yet still making BUX on Leopard sales as well as other software, and furthering the Platform.

-K

 

[dlastmango]

Website Is Down

Looks like the Apple Legal team is already on the attack... the site is down for me.

Taken from my browser when i try to load their site....

"Yikes, www.psystar.com isn't loading right now.

The computers that run www.psystar.com are having some trouble. Usually this is just a temporary problem, so you might want to try again in a few minutes."

 

[janstett]

This is illegal and will never happen. This is EXACTLY what Apple doesn't want: it's brand diluted with an ugly product full of bargain-bin components to appeal to the wellfare market. No thanks.

"Welfare market"? I paid $3500 for a Mac Pro quad tower, and I can't have the nVidia 8600GT that this thing has at 1/3 the price. Just shows how much a premium Apple unnecessarily charges for inferior hardware. Government cheese on a silver platter.

 

[knewsom]

Looks like the Apple Legal team is already on the attack... the site is down for me.

Taken from my browser when i try to load their site....

"Yikes, www.psystar.com isn't loading right now.

The computers that run www.psystar.com are having some trouble. Usually this is just a temporary problem, so you might want to try again in a few minutes."

the servers are probably overloaded from the BILLIONS of hits they're getting.

 

[BenRoethig]

And Apple themselves don't sell such a product? Perhaps I should introduce you to the Mac Mini or Apple TV.

The Mac Mini is a prime example of where Jobs allowed Ive to go wild and a make a machine that is next to worthless. They were a bad deal when announced and a completely inadequate for any uses above email now.

 

[CashGap]

I am seriously considering buying one of these so I can sue Apple for monopolistic actions when it makes the machine unusable.

Everybody needs a hobby... but that sounds futile and expensive.

It is way past time for Apple to open up their OS to other hardware vendors.

I think they prefer having the company succeed, rather than fail. You know those greedy corporate execs! All the grownups realize that Apple ceases to exist if OS X is supported on non-Apple hardware.

If the market has a choice between an OS with horrible stability and 85% market share (Win) and an OS with horrible stability and 10% market share (OS X on generic hardware), the outcome is obvious.

The Mac Mini is a prime example of where Jobs allowed Ive to go wild and a make a machine that is next to worthless. They were a bad deal when announced and a completely inadequate for any uses above email now.

Perhaps one in ten Mac purchasers use the capabilities of a machine beyond the current Mini. I'm not saying only one in ten OWN a machine with more capability than the Mini, I'm just pointing out that the near-totality of the market doesn't utilize any capability beyond that of the Mini in their machine.

We tend to talk to each other on forums and think we represent 90% of the users, rather than .0090%.

 

[RedTomato]

Psystar site is down. Probably hit by Digg/ engadget / MR / slashdot etc.

I myself have a whole load of Apple Mac components and gear sitting in boxes upstairs, but I fully understand why Apple will never release an xMac.

They don't need the hassle of supporting various gear. The Mac Pro is for people who can pay for top quality gear and can afford specialist support, but even so, they have plenty of problems with hardware support.

Most, *MOST* people will never want to modify or upgrade their macs. I myself have various tower desktop computers, but my MacBook with full RAM does 90% of what I want to do, along with a firewire drive or two.

There are SOME people (like me) who still want the xMac tower configuration to play round with but can't justify a full Mac Pro.

Hackintosh is for the likes of us, and it is relatively untouched by Apple. Remember Apple started in a garage too.

I myself looked at building out an xMac or Hackintosh, but I can't justify the bugs and patching issues when I already have a fully working MacBook.

I think it's a good idea for a small company to sell a 'hackingtosh-compatible' box, but selling it with OSX installed is just too much. Apple will squash them, and probably rightfully so.

Also not revealing exact details of the mobo etc means they won't sell to the kind of people who build hackingtoshes.

 

[krye]

That's BS. I hope Apple sues their ass off.

 

[knewsom]

I think they prefer having the company succeed, rather than fail. You know those greedy corporate execs! All the grownups realize that Apple ceases to exist if OS X is supported on non-Apple hardware.

If the market has a choice between an OS with horrible stability and 85% market share (Win) and an OS with horrible stability and 10% market share (OS X on generic hardware), the outcome is obvious.

See, this is why I think Apple will allow this, at least to a certain extent. They won't officially support it - no way. But they'll let it continue. Let's face it - most of the people who would buy a machine like this realize that it's not going to be as well integrated and high quality as an actual Mac. This is the gamer market we're talking about here. Consumers who don't know a lot about computers are going to buy iMacs and be really stoked with them.

 

[NoNameBrand]

The Mac Mini is [...]completely inadequate for any uses above email now.

Funny, I run PS on mine at work. It isn't as fast as on my G5 with a four-disk stripped scratch disk, but it's fast enough for web graphics and small print work.

 

[BenRoethig]

Hmm, I just want to tell if Apple do what you said and Mac OS X become less stable then last time when Apple restrict the hardwares on their product, dont come in the forum and start bashing Apple.

You know why Vista sucks? Partly because most people hope their 3 years old PC can run Vista flawlessly. If MSoft did like what Apple doing now, Vista wont be that sucky.

Funny, it didn't become unstable on my G3 tower and it doesn't become unstable on G4s, G5s, or Mac Pro. Please people, update your stereotypes. They're 5-10 years out of date.

 

[apull]

My tuppence;

2) speculation is rife that the Mini is about to be bumped to the GMA965 chipset with X3100 graphics in line with the Macbooks, rendering this machine obsolete by comparison as soon as the bump occurs. They would have done much better to base the box on the rumoured imminent specs rather than the incumbent specs.
5) did I mention it's fugly?

My two cents:

#1) The whole point of this is NOT to run it off the integrated graphics card, but to put your own dedicated graphics card in it. You can find an 8600GT for about $50-60 after rebate on sale these days. Furthermore, X3100 is not that much better than the GMA950, at least not to the point of making it obsolete.
#2) Gee, I'd hate to have an ugly case hidden under my desk where no one can see I'm a Mac snob.

...and yes, I own two Macs, and I like them. But I work (and game) on a PC because I can't afford the ridiculous sums of cash they charge for a Mac Pro. This sucker (tho it's probably a hoax) would be awesome if it actually worked. Can't they just tell customers to slap an Apple Sticker on the side of their case and call it "branded hardware"?

Speaking of the branded hardware crap, seems to me illegal. Can you sell gas and only allow it to be used in Fords? Can you sell video games and legally require them only to be played on Gateway computers? It's the lamest thing I've ever heard...personally, I think Apple is a little shady, what with the hardware monopolism and their stuck-up switcher ads. It's too bad I like my MacBook so much...

 

[rhpenguin]

In all honesty, why would you buy a fake mac? Its nothing to be proud of really..

I hope apple tears them apart.

Why would you buy a "Mac"? They're the exact same thing. A CPU, MoBo, GPU, HDD and RAM. Chipsets from Intel, the rest from whoever made it. An x86 PC is an x86 PC regardless of who's logo is on it.

 

[OllyW]

The Mac Mini is a prime example of where Jobs allowed Ive to go wild and a make a machine that is next to worthless. They were a bad deal when announced and a completely inadequate for any uses above email now.

What a dumb thing to say!

The mini is still a good computer. I know it is in desperate need of an update to keep up with the rest of the Apple range but to insinuate it can only manage to run an email program makes you look ridiculous.

It is basically a MacBook in a small box. Does this mean MacBooks are only suitable for reading email too?

 

[emotion]

Wow, this really splits the opinions of the forum.

I'd say this could be a good thing but the way it's being approached is as a protest more than a sustainable business.

I think some form of limited cloning could be reintroduced and be a good way for Apple to expand market share (if it just cannibalises the current market then that's pointless - check back to the last time).

As an aside: I'd say I'm less impressed with Apple hardware since the Intel switch. This MBP (SR, LED-backlit display bought last Sept) is on it's third display (yellowing bottom 1/3), has issues with the sound output and has issues with not being able to output to some projectors. All these are recognised problems and have not been substantially addressed.
(My Macbook is a little better however, and my powerbooks before them were flawless).

It might be nice to have alternative hardware to keep Apple on their toes.

 

[rhpenguin]

And then there is this situation: you have a girl friend bring her home. You say you have a Mac. She then says "where is it?" You point to that fugly piece-o-crap and say "it runs OSX". She then says "Goodbye you cheap looser".

What kind of women are you bringing home?! The one I bring home find my Hackintosh kinda sexy