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

[Rocketman]

Software update tells Apple your system configuration and probably other stuff too so they can decide what pieces to offer to you. I suspect that software could upload a disabling item to known unallowed installs, however, to date, they have not done that in illegal installs of duplicate copies of OS's on real Mac hardware.

Rocketman

 

[aLoC]

If you're talking about Apple ROMs, didn't they go away something like 10 years ago?

No, not the rom/bios/firmware, something else. I thought there was a little DRM chip on there that OS X looks for. The Don'tStealOSX.kext (or something like that) looks for it.

 

[alana22]

399 + the price of Leopard is a fair price. As technology advances, what happened to the music industry will eventually happent to all companies who bloat their prices. I love Apple, but on some level we are all being ripped off by paying such prices. The iMac, given the components that comprise it, is a good example of this. Apple is living in an alternate reality (or their own reality distortion field) to presume they can maintain these off-the-wall profit margins and not face a myriad of alternate competitors such as this one who make available the option to use Mac OS X at a good price.

Granted, OS X is Apple's product, but the consumers will ultimately decide the price points. Just as iTunes changed the music industry, perhaps these smaller companies putting out Leopard-ready computers will change how Apple works. Besides, doesn't Apple have an absurd amount of money just sitting in the bank? It's just starting to look very greedy on behalf of Apple, especially as our economy tanks out.

 

[atthecross]

the modbook is sanctioned by apple, maybe this company got the ok too http://www.informationweek.com/news...UNN2JVN?articleID=205207260&_requestid=434669

 

[Azmordean]

Four points:

1) Looking at their site more closely, it is clear this is based on the OSx86 project. Basically, buying this computer is buying a PC that has hardware that is guaranteed to work with Leopard, and I guess has the EFI emulation in place. You could do the same on your own but I'd assume it'd be pretty technical and you'd have to be certain to get compatible hardware. Put another way, this is not really a Mac clone - think of it as an OSx86-ready package. Given this, I'd shy away from it if you aren't technically inclined. Certain updates can break it, so you have to follow the "Hackintosh" community to know what's safe and so on and so forth.

2) I think they get around the EULA because they are selling you a retail copy of Leopard. Thus the customer is the end-user. So, basically, YOU buy Leopard, and then "ask" them to install it for you. Thus, technically speaking, YOU are the one violating the EULA, not them. I may be wrong of course, but I think Apple may have a difficult time stopping this.

3) This fills a need that is sorely lacking, namely for gamers. Gamers don't want or need a Mac Pro, they just want a video card in something thats not an annoying all-in-one, but Apple refuses to provide it. Gamers also tend to be technically inclined. Thus, I can see this doing well with the small subset of gamers that would like to try a Mac.

4) My biggest worry would be "future proofing" - sure this works now, but you are basically relying on an online community to ensure compatibility with future updates and future OSes. And you can bet Apple will be working hard to make that as hard as possible. If the Linux community is any guide, Apple won't be successful,but its likely what's available for this machine as part of OSx86 will lag considerably behind what is official.

 

[Goldenbear]

...4) My biggest worry would be "future proofing" - sure this works now, but you are basically relying on an online community to ensure compatibility with future updates and future OSes. And you can bet Apple will be working hard to make that as hard as possible. If the Linux community is any guide, Apple won't be successful,but its likely what's available for this machine as part of OSx86 will lag considerably behind what is official.

I was thinking the same thing.

I just took another look at the price.

$399 - OpenMac
$100 - Rough "street price" for Leopard (I think I'm being generous here)
$ 50 - Firewire option

$549 - Subtotal that doesn't include iLife and has the same, sorry-@ss graphics as the Mini. Also is a lot bigger, uses more electricity, is probably a lot louder, fugly, and may break with future OS X updates.

Just how are you saving money going this route?

I suppose if you wanted a minimal cost computer with upgradeable graphics to run OS X, this would be an option, but an iMac is starting to look like a much better investment (except for the built-in display thing that I hate).

 

[inkswamp]

this is almost insulting.

Insulting? Are you kidding?

I think this is amazing and I hope like hell Apple can't stop them because I'll be first in line to get one. In fact, I'm pretty sure Apple can't stop them from selling the actual machine. All they can do is insist they remove all references to Macs and OS X. However, given the kind of free press they're about to generate across the entire landscape of tech sites, it's hardly going to matter.

Anyway, I wholeheartedly support this. If Apple persistently, stupidly refuses to acknowledge that the market for a mid-range tower is alive and well, then why shouldn't someone else be allowed to step in and make money filling that need?

I've been contemplating buying a PC for the last few months because right now, for one of the first times in the 15+ years I've been using Macs, Apple has NOTHING in my price range and needs. The Mac Mini is within my budget but frustratingly overpriced for the paltry amount of computing power it offers. The iMac is a great deal but Apple chose to burden it with a crappy display and no matte screen option. Since there is no consumer-level headless Mac, I have no options as far as buying a Mac.

I would jump at the chance to buy a decent non-Apple Mac right now. And if these guys are allowed to go forward, I will. If Apple refuses to make a product I want, I see no reason why someone else shouldn't be allowed to fill that need. And I'm happy to support that.

 

[iGuy]

EULA Misconception

Also, it isn't illegal. It violates the EULA, but it doesn't break any laws.

Well said but some people may not understand the difference.

There is a basic principle in law that states that if you sell me something, anything, it's mine and I can do what I want with it including selling it to someone else.

This makes software companies nervous so they argue that they haven't actually sold it to you; they've just sold you a license to use it under certain conditions and therefore it's not really yours.

There is a fairly solid body of legal opinion that argues that selling you a license to use something is a fairly transparent attempt to circumvent your rights as an owner to do what you like with the product.

To date, this hasn't been tested in court in a meaningful way. Large software companies like Microsoft, Adobe and Apple rely on the fact that they have deeper pockets than you or I and therefore they can burry any real opposition in legal proceedings for years.

So the status quo continues unabated.

So I would say that the legality of running OS X on non-Apple hardware is, at best, debatable. I wouldn't presume to state categorically that it is or is not legal.

~iGuy

 

[Yvan256]

The modbook is sanctioned by Apple [...]

The ModBook is basically a modified MacBook, meaning that OS X probably couldn't even tell the difference (the touchscreen is just a USB mouse, etc).

Apple sells a MacBook, they modify it into a ModBook.... no loss.

This OpenMac, however, is something completely different!

 

[Eidorian]

$399 for the hardware alone is believable but the options are rather lacking. The 8600GT isn't worth $155 and it barely was at launch.

I'd like to see how this gets taken down by Apple. It's interesting and it'll hopefully be a wake up call for Apple.

The premise of running OS X on an OpenMac hinges around the emulation of the EFI BIOS that Apple computers use. EFI was developed by Intel for heavy server platforms as an improvement over the traditional BIOS that is now approximately 365 million years old. Apple, so far, has been the only consumer hardware producer(reseller) to pick this up as the standard BIOS for their machines (totally ignoring the horror that is the Gateway 610 Media Center).

I'm not sure I can take this company seriously but I sure love their humor.

 

[BenHoleton]

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.

 

[countach]

Is it cheaper?

It's cheaper until you realise you've got to pay extra for Mac OSX, which is included with the Mac Mini.

 

[freebooter]

Whether the new machine is "legal" or not I have no idea but...

I like the idea of putting monopolists' feet to the fire. Dear Leader Steve has had his way with Mac consumers for far too long.

It sickens me to see large corporations use lawyers and their lawyerly pieces of paper to crush competition. I say, Apple should compete with price, product and service, and let the consumer decide what they can and can't buy. Yes, one could buy a PC, but what kind of choice is that? Vista/Windows OS is not a viable option.

Real competition in the OSX-compatible hardware area can only be a good thing for the consumer. I've wanted a consumer level, expandable tower for quite a while, and especially now, now that the iMac is glossy-screen only. If this new, independent product flies (kind of doubtful), maybe Apple will feel a little more motivated to put more variety in the stagnant desktop Mac line-up (kind of doubtful).

Oh well, I guess Our Dear Leader knows what is best for us, and we trust in Him to guide and protect us.

 

[lssmit02]

How does OpenMac get its copies of OS X?

Before they sell it to you, they have to get a copy. Since Apple is the only source for computers that run OS X, there are no OEM versions of Leopard. If they purchase an end user version, they are bound by the terms of the EULA, which clearly states:

You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.

Link

As a result, they can't get a legal copy to install on any computer they sell, so yes, they violate the EULA if they install it.

If they're trying to operate as a reseller, I have to believe that this also violates the reseller agreement (I couldn't locate a copy).

 

[bluedoggiant]

not bad, but I wanna see Apple's moves on this.

 

[oban14]

End User License Agreement. In essence, a legal contract between a company and a user. If the user breaks this agreement then it is illegal. At least how I understand it.

I would respond to this, but iGuy did a much better job at post #58 in this thread than I would do. You can go read it.

In brief, it isn't illegal (although it could be a violation of a contract, theoretically opening a civil judgement), and even then this very EULA may be null and void because it retracts rights that Apple has no right to retract... But you can read more at #58.

I just hope that this results in a test of EULA law so we can get it settled once and for all.

You're right, of course. Anything designed with any aesthetic value whatsoever obviously only appeals to yuppies/hipsters. Regular Joes like it ugly, kludgy, and cheap.

Right-o.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

Apple's entire styling, marketing, and philosophy is aimed at yuppies and hipsters. If you don't see that, congratulations: You're probably one of them. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

I think Apple does a wonderful job of styling their products, although they sometimes allow style to override quality, which is why the iPod has such poor sound quality but such an excellent interface and styling.

 

[dukebound85]

you could easily make a great hackintosh yourself for under 1k if you know what you're doing

why people would go this route when they could do it themselves is questionable to me lol

I think Apple does a wonderful job of styling their products, although they sometimes allow style to override quality, which is why the iPod has such poor sound quality but such an excellent interface and styling.

poor sound quality? how come this is the first ive heard of it? sounds decent to me lol

 

[26139]

Wow

God damn that thing is UGLY. Building a box like that really destroys most of the joys of owning a mac in knowing that you have a closed system that's specifically designed to run a certain OS.

There's no way Apple legal allows this to go to market, and I feel bad for those looking for a Mac experience only to be disappointed by that POS. They manufacturers are really missing the point behind Apple's computers.

 

[aLoC]

I like the idea of putting monopolists' feet to the fire. Dear Leader Steve has had his way with Mac consumers for far too long.

It's a bit of a trick to call Apple a monopoly. You can define any company as a monopoly if you define their market small enough. You can say they are a monpoly because only they sell Macs. I can equally say they are a 5% minority in the market for personal computers.

 

[skellener]

Oh no no no, my son! Let's pretend Leopard is a Beatles CD (ironically), and you distribute it or say that you made it, etc. The RIAA will be a-knocking on your door before you say "Steve's Blue Jeans and black turtle-neck top."

Same thing for Leopard, you can't just "do what you want" because there is somethings you can't do. You can't distribute it, etc.

Did I say distribute it? No. You most certainly CAN do what you want. EULA or no EULA. Buy a copy of Leopard and put it on your machine. Who's gonna stop you? I don't know if this Psystar place will be around very long, but for people who want to hack their own system together...do it! NO ONE WILL STOP YOU!!!! Oh, and hack your iPhone while you are at it! It's yours!

 

[Cougarcat]

They manufacturers are really missing the point behind Apple's computers.

Style over substance?

 

[orpheus1120]

So much for "it just works".

I'll pass.

 

[DCJ001]

I don't think anyone makes a 250GB 7200RPM Drive.

 

[Dsr1205]

Four points:

4) My biggest worry would be "future proofing" - sure this works now, but you are basically relying on an online community to ensure compatibility with future updates and future OSes. And you can bet Apple will be working hard to make that as hard as possible. If the Linux community is any guide, Apple won't be successful,but its likely what's available for this machine as part of OSx86 will lag considerably behind what is official.

lol, the Linux community? there are too many flavors to count, that is why the Linux community sucks. Now aplle and windows will always have a hacking community. If i want to fully unlock my Motorolla Razr i need to buy a 25 dollar program fomr some shady lpace and i must pay becasue only one person thought to make such a program, now becasue there are so many people with iphones, there is a dev team who actually cracked the entire system and released it for free. my example might be a tad diluted but me message is that apple has the community to support your hacking needs. If they put up a wall, the hackers will go at it even harder.

I personally want this thing as i got a mac mini for christmas and told the giver to return it because it honestly was a waste of money, ill wait for better hardware in the mac mini or just buy this quasi mac mini/imac/pro theya res selling fo cheap cheap cheap

 

[Knolly]

From what I've read and been told by lawyers, etc...

Breaking the EULA is NOT illegal. What breaking the EULA does is releases Apple from any responsibility to support the product. So I'm actually quite sure they'll have no legal ground for this although I'm sure they'll try anyway.