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

[milo]

I thought Apple get a hardware list when you send a bug report or update your software through the updater app?

I wouldn't be surprised if system information wasn't sent to Apple more often, but those are the only two that I know of off the top of my head.

You really think software update sends enough info to apple (about every user) for them to not only know you are running a hacked version, but enough personal info for them to take legal action against you?

And even if that was the case, users of hacked versions would just need to avoid sending bug reports and download the updaters instead of using software update.

Looks like they've been shut down....

http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-9918069-37.html

Except that people have got through on the phone since that article went up, and they've confirmed they haven't been shut down (yet). Just because a website goes down doesn't mean it's because of legal reasons.

 

[overcast]

I feel like this thread is a good time to mention the Alu iMac video card driver issue of last Fall with the ATi Radeon 2600 HD cards... just because you have an Apple box, doesn't mean everything is going to work.

Yeh let's talk about Nvidia drivers in Microsofts latest and greatest. Those were pretty stellar for the first what, 6-9 months?

 

[lacota]

Mac mini: US$599
MacBook: US$1099

You're only $100 away from being able to buy TWO Mac minis for the price of a single MacBook.

"But the Mac mini needs a display, keyboard and mouse", you say. Of course!
- Logitech Classic Keyboard 200 (USB): $15
- Logitech LX3 Optical Mouse: $25
- DELL E178FP 17-inch Flat Panel Monitor: $180

MacBook: $1099
Mac mini with keyboard, mouse and monitor: $819

That's a $280 difference, or only $20 short of being half the price of the Mac mini.

Batteries?

 

[Eidorian]

Well, those are my comments and I don't see anything wrong with them. Would you care to enlighten me?

Apple does not chose hardware at random. For better or worse, Apple chooses a few particular pieces of proven hardware and continues to use them until something better comes along at a similar price. They do not mix and match chipsets as prices fluctuate like Dell or Gateway do. You know each 24" iMac in a given cycle will be identical to the one before it and the one after it with the obvious exception of BTO items and with the less obvious items like hard drives and memory (each of which has two or three vendors providing these components). Because of this, Apple can concentrate on making Mac OS work with this much smaller array of hardware products relative to making Windows work with every piece of hardware ever created.

I'd like some proof of this. If Dell uses a G33 motherboard for a minitower it's going to be the same G33 motherboard with the same onboard features until it's replace by the G43 in the next model.

 

[Sun Baked]

Perhaps this move by Psystar will convince Apple there is a market for a moderately priced, headless Mac that users can upgrade with Apple qualified hardware.

Why would it convince Apple of anything, they know they have huge holes in their product line.

The major one being the lack of an actual desktop chipset for their desktops.

Big hole there between laptop chipsets and the workstation/server chipset on the other end.

But Apple has become a master of saving R&D dollars by repacking machines and making them look like different machines to consumers.

For years the eMac was considered a CRT iMac, when it was really a repackaged PowerMac inside the case -- only in the last iteration did it share the iMac's consumer chipset.

Apple tried using a consumer chipset as the low end G5 tower, which ended in failure and died in 90days -- don't know it they will try that one again anytime soon.

 

[HLdan]

There are a lot of reasons not to go with a hackintosh, but it's hard to beat performance/cost-wise.

Oh really? I would put down the slightly extra performance of your HackinCrap in favor of a Mac that doesn't require the headache of searching forums for patches every time Apple releases an update or for when a reformat is necessary.
You will always GET what you PAY for in this lifetime, don't try to make your Hackincrap out to be this great solution for many because it's not.

 

[FaasNat]

Clones were producing better products than the original company! Without this competition, Apple has all but ignored its customer demands.

Not just better, but I believe they were better priced to (that is, easier on the pockets). I ended up buying two, a UMAX and a Motorola. I ended up selling the UMAX and my wife's sister had the Motorola one with a G3 upgrade card (the one that went into the L2 slot). Was still running fine (OS 9) until she upgraded to a lamppost iMac....

 

[BenRoethig]

I'm sure it's already been brought up in this thread, but Power Computing (and the rest of the clones) all but killed Apple.

It not only worked, it worked all too well - people were running, not walking, to CompUSA to buy clones not just to save a few bucks, but because Power Computing in particular was blowing away Apple in performance, as well (they broke the 200MHz barrier before Apple did!).

Steve killed off the clones not because they weren't doing well, but because they were eating away at Apple market share from the inside out, and doing it quickly.

Yeah, power sold the computer the customer wanted at a competitive price and was always upgrading to the latest and greatest. Apple, on the other hand offered the computer they wanted you to have at the price they wanted to sell it at and would update at their schedule. The more Apple changes, the more they stay the same.

 

[SkyBell]

I can't believe anyone would have the balls to try and cash in on Apple like this. This is a total slap in the face to the Mac community. I'm sure there are some wannabes that would love a $400 Mac. I say to them: Go buy a Mini! As for the rest of us, the Apple faithful, we should be up in arms at this. We spent our hard earned cash to buy the real deal. We should not support this company's attempt at cashing in on Leopard, the Mac, or Apple.

fanboi alert.

It's good that Apple might have some competition in the Mac market, as long as it doesn't totally cannibalize sales. Balance is the key.

 

[sighlent]

Yeh let's talk about Nvidia drivers in Microsofts latest and greatest. Those were pretty stellar for the first what, 6-9 months?

This wasn't an OS X vs. Windows comment, it was just pointing out that the Hardware/Software integration that everyone touts as the value of buying a genuine Apple machine, isn't always the case.

 

[MacUser2525]

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

Then you could add in the fact that Apple does not own the copyright on all the software included on their install disk so it would get even harder for them to claim you are violating their "rights". For those who would like to know there is some pile of GPL software included on every install of OS X that they have no right to even restrict your use of according to their EULA. As well contrary to the GPL's EULA there is no offer to provide you with the source (couldn't even find a link to it on the downloads section of apple.com) or even an effort made to inform you of your rights under the GPL, hell they don't even put a gpl.txt copy of the license on the system as is customary (maybe even required) to say that GPL software is included. Here is what the GPL says on re/distribution of the software.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the
       recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, dis-
       tribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.  You may not
       impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
       herein.  You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this
       License.

The key part being no further restriction on the use of the software once you distribute so it could be argued that you have the right to install OS X anywhere you want as the installer contains software that cannot be restricted in its use that is intended to be used and installed by default on an OS X system.

bash --version
GNU bash, version 3.2.17(1)-release (i386-apple-darwin9.0)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Just thought I would throw this in as most people have been on about Apple's EULA/copyrights and have not seen their obligations to other peoples software they include mentioned in the fifteen or so pages I have read in this thread.

 

[Unspeaked]

Oh, the irony:

 

[SkyBell]

Batteries?

For what?

 

[gothamm]

this is great news. i whole heartedly support this openmac platform.

Heres something interesting:

Without reading a single post in this thread, I'd bet my left nut that fanboys are not cool with this, since it doesn't have an apple logo on it.

 

[bla3rd]

Licensing being restricted by Apple???? C'mon....

Gee, that sounds like one of the big complaints about M$, that Billy wants to control licensing to make sure that he stays rich and powerful.

Yet now we have Apple wanting to make sure that no one else makes a less expensive alternative.

Ha ha ha!!!!

Yeah, it's about quality and not profit, and I gots some great land fer sale... oh and I bet that Apple's lawyers could beat up M$'s lawyers, they're so hyped up on caffeine (probably LSD as well).

Go Stevie, you are Wonder Boy for sure!!!

(by the way Steve, did you ever pay your child support for Lisa?)

 

[irun5k]

May have already been said in the last 30+ pages, but Apple's warranty isn't bad at 1 year. I'm sure there are anecdotal horror stories but in general they are good about fixing or replacing things that break. Applecare extends you to 3 years, at a cost of course. I've never been big on consumer electronics warranties, but I admit that the piece of mind isn't a bad thing to have.

It really seems like if you're buying into something that isn't officially sanctioned by Apple, you may be in for trouble. Remember Real vs. Fairplay, and don't forget about bricked iPhones and the like.

If I were really cost conscious and couldn't afford the Apple product line, I would seriously take a look at a Dell preloaded with Ubuntu. Then you can choose a laptop or desktop, whichever suits you. Ubuntu has grown into a really nice distro and it is a great option for economy-minded individuals who have had enough of Windows.

 

[Yvan256]

[...] We are all going to ditch our Macs now and build our own computers in cardboard boxes now. [...]

Here you go.

 

[gnasher729]

Aha, and I think that's the reason why ****ing apple is not able to sell me a MB with a 7200rpm HD, isn't it ? Why the **** do I have to buy it myself and open my MB to throw the bottle neck inside out and replace it with a good hdd ?

You don't have a clue about hard drives, do you?

 

[Wild-Bill]

Without reading a single post in this thread, I'd bet my left nut that fanboys are not cool with this, since it doesn't have an apple logo on it.

And you would be CORRECT. Fanboyism running rampant in here. I'm surprised its not locked yet.

I see no problem with people buying their own hardware and a copy of Leopard and building their own, providing themselves with a mid-range Mac that Apple won't produce.

Dollars to donuts the Hackintosh owners will (and do) have a quicker upgrade path than those of us with real Macs. How many pre-2008 Mac Pro owners are able to slap an 8800GT in their machine? And how many Hackintosh owners have an 8800GT or better in their machines???

 

[jragosta]

Well... sure OpenMac is $400 and Mac Mini is $600 (which is 150% more), but remember MacMini comes with OSX ($155) and iLife (?) prebundled.

So not so insulting.

I'd like to see Apple let this happen, particularly if they're making $150 on each sale. That's probably as much as they make on the MacMini sale anyway.
(edit: though Apple would have to make a nominal stink, if only to protect themselves from having to support users who can't get Leopard to work properly etc)

I wish people would learn do do math. $600 is 50% more than $400, not 150% more. And as soon as you add in the $155 OS option, the price difference becomes insignificant. So you're getting an illegal box that's a bit faster, but it's huge, ugly, and unsupported.

right to clarify some things.

a EULA is that - and end-user agreement. The only weird thing is that this company will preinstall Leopard for you. So I could see Apple trying to get them in trouble for that. That being said, EULA's are of debatable enforcement. But I'd guess Apple would try against a company like this.

If they don't sell it with Leopard, I don't see how Apple can block it. They'd have to go after the end users buying/installing Leopard and it seems unlikely that would happen.

arn

Simple. Trademark violation. Tortuous interference. Misleading advertising.

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.

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!

But by encouraging the customer to break the EULA, they create an opportunity for Apple to sue them for tortuous interference.

I want a quad core system for under a g with dedicated graphics! Apple doesn't sell what i want, i own several macs, but they always use over priced mobile hardware. I don't mind it being a little larger and using cheaper more powerful parts.

I want an 8 core, 3 GHz system with 8 GB of RAM and a couple of TB of disk space and the latest video card for $9.99 - and I'm going to whine until Apple gives it to me.

And then I want a Ferrari with 7 passenger seating which will haul my 8,000 pound trailer and get 120 miles per gallon.

Apple makes the products they make. You either buy them or you don't. They don't OWE you anything.

Breaching a contract is not "illegal" in the sense that you are only liable for the harm caused by failing to live up to your end of the bargain, and no more. In other words, you are not liable for additional sanctions merely because you breached your contract..

This is not correct. You can be liable not only for the harm YOU caused, but for any harm that you encouraged others to cause. If they sold 1,000 of these systems, Apple could claim that they cost Apple $3 M (at $3,000 per computer) in sales.

Not to mention that you can also sue for punitive damages and get a preliminary injunction to shut someone down before they even start.

 

[Phil A.]

Then you could add in the fact that Apple does not own the copyright on all the software included on their install disk so it would get even harder for them to claim you are violating their "rights". For those who would like to know there is some pile of GPL software included on every install of OS X that they have no right to even restrict your use of according to their EULA. As well contrary to the GPL's EULA there is no offer to provide you with the source (couldn't even find a link to it on the downloads section of apple.com) or even an effort made to inform you of your rights under the GPL, hell they don't even put a gpl.txt copy of the license on the system as is customary (maybe even required) to say that GPL software is included. Here is what the GPL says on re/distribution of the software.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the
       recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, dis-
       tribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.  You may not
       impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
       herein.  You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this
       License.

The key part being no further restriction on the use of the software once you distribute so it could be argued that you have the right to install OS X anywhere you want as the installer contains software that cannot be restricted in its use that is intended to be used and installed by default on an OS X system.

bash --version
GNU bash, version 3.2.17(1)-release (i386-apple-darwin9.0)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Just thought I would throw this in as most people have been on about Apple's EULA/copyrights and have not seen their obligations to other peoples software they include mentioned in the fifteen or so pages I have read in this thread.

http://www.apple.com/opensource may help you here.
There is a whole section in the EULA around the use of Open Source (GPL/LGPL and others) software within OSX. You can even download the source code for the entire Darwin OS from here: http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

 

[topgunn]

I'd like some proof of this. If Dell uses a G33 motherboard for a minitower it's going to be the same G33 motherboard with the same onboard features until it's replace by the G43 in the next model.

Our office of 35 computers is comprised mainly of Dell Dimension 8200's and Gateway 300L's. All of the Dell's were bought at once and all of the Gateways were bought at once. The 8200's are split 50/50 between 400 and 533Mhz FSB. The Gateway's are split 75/25 between SDRAM and DDR. Given, I haven't bought in mass from either company in more than 2 years but I can't imagine that they would have stopped this practice.

 

[farmboy]

Wrong.

Then you could add in the fact that Apple does not own the copyright on all the software included on their install disk so it would get even harder for them to claim you are violating their "rights". For those who would like to know there is some pile of GPL software included on every install of OS X that they have no right to even restrict your use of according to their EULA. As well contrary to the GPL's EULA there is no offer to provide you with the source (couldn't even find a link to it on the downloads section of apple.com) or even an effort made to inform you of your rights under the GPL, hell they don't even put a gpl.txt copy of the license on the system as is customary (maybe even required) to say that GPL software is included. Here is what the GPL says on re/distribution of the software.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the
       recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, dis-
       tribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.  You may not
       impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
       herein.  You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this
       License.

The key part being no further restriction on the use of the software once you distribute so it could be argued that you have the right to install OS X anywhere you want as the installer contains software that cannot be restricted in its use that is intended to be used and installed by default on an OS X system.

bash --version
GNU bash, version 3.2.17(1)-release (i386-apple-darwin9.0)
Copyright (C) 2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Just thought I would throw this in as most people have been on about Apple's EULA/copyrights and have not seen their obligations to other peoples software they include mentioned in the fifteen or so pages I have read in this thread.

Even if OS X is BASED ON free code, it is Apple's unique combination of code that makes it something they OWN, and you LICENSE. This is not even debatable.

 

[Yvan256]

I Macs Are Supposed to Be Like Toasters

Oh crap, our Macs are Cylons! Destroy them!

 

[newrigel]

Oh hell... another one!
We'll see how long this one last... LOL!!!