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

[EagerDragon]

I think it is an interesting idea, and it has me tempted to buy one. I will wait and see if someone actually test one to see if it would be worth getting.

I am sure Apple will buy a few to see what sort of hacks they used. Think they will run some benchmarks and publish them?
LOL.

Yes it is Smart to wait and see what happens. I find this very interesting and intend to keep an eye on it and see how Apple reacts. We may learn a thing or two about Apple.

 

[liam5150]

The real question...

Man why can't Apple make something like this?? My roommate just configured a custom built PC with a gig of graphics card memory, 4gb of RAM, Quad core processor, and two 10,000 RPM hard drives for 1,300 bucks.

I dno't know, if you have the technical know how to deal with computer parts, its probably worth saving a couple thousand dollars.

Ok, now ask your friend to connect a video camera, build a video library and get a decently edited video in less than 10 min in his new computer...

When people will understand that Apple's hardware is only part of the whole value? You pay for really useful software, that's where the difference resides.

 

[headfuzz]

I guess, but can't help but feel sorry for those customers, specially young kids that have been saving to get a Mac and may have jumped at this opportunity. Don't like kids getting hurt.

True enough, and Apple could do themselves a favour by inserting something comparable into their product line to get the very same kids on the Apple bandwagon as early as possible, make them switch before they have anything to switch from, as it were; but then that would be the as yet elusive xMac...

 

[daverso]

The fact that people are saying this is 'too good to be true' shows how much we are simply desensitized to overpaying for Apple computers.

True you might sacrifice some stability and support for price, but if it really is the same secure OS X that this computer can run, than it has to be pretty secure. The fact of the matter is, this computer is 400 dollars and has specs comparable to the mac pro. Where is the other 1600 dollars going? I highly value the importance of stability, but I highly doubt this computer is $1600 less stable.

My prediction? Apple Legal may knock this company off the face of the earth, but I think it could end up having an effect on apple.

From an economic standpoint, if a new product is released and is meant to rival a product, but has a dramatically lower price, the new product will force the price of the rival product (in this case apple computers) down, assuming the new product is successful.
I think this is the first of many computers to spring up that will do this... I hope it will cause mac's to go down in price...

 

[netkas]

Hi, they said they used efi v8.

I'm netkas and i'm developer of efi v8.

And it's my (c)

and they used it withotu even notifing me about it, (not asked even)

so, they not only violating apple's EULA, they also violating my (c) abotu efi v8.

 

[Tallest Skil]

so, they not only violating apple's EULA, they also violating my (c) abotu efi v8.

Well, if you can prove it, help Apple bring them down!

 

[xbjllb]

Sorry, but there's no way this can go through. It's not even a good idea, IMO. I mean, cr@ppy hardware with poor support --you get what you pay for, as we all know-- would lead to potential bad experiences for users with machines that overheat, lock up unexpectedly, and so on.

Oh, I can see you bought one of the new Mac Pro's with an eye to Pro Apps...

 

[netkas]

Well, if you can prove it, help Apple bring them down!

about 10000 internet users can prove it %)

also google cache

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...i+released+v8&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=opera

i'm not going to sue them, i'l just make new efi v8 with eula which forbids using v8 on openmac computers or any commercial using at all %)

 

[dejo]

The fact of the matter is, this computer is 400 dollars and has specs comparable to the mac pro.

You must have a pretty loose definition of comparable.

 

[Poncho]

'Buyer beware. You wouldn't expect a Bang and Olufsen hi fi to cost £100 without there being some sort of catch.'


Oh no, in terms of sound-per-pound Bang and Olufsen make some of the worst hi-fi equipment in the world. Along with Bose. Style over substance.

I get the point you're making, but don't equate an Apple product with one from B&O. Or maybe we should??????

I think this Mac alternative throws up a serious question: if you have the choice of two boxes, of equal performance, but one costs appreciably more, why buy that one? Is it just because it has an Apple logo on the front? If there is more to it than that then that will tell you why you buy Apple.
To some people here it appears to be to impress girls. To others it is the enjoyment they derive from owning a computer unavailable to the unwashed masses.

There MUST be better reasons than than that!

Have a think....

 

[headfuzz]

True you might sacrifice some stability and support for price, but if it really is the same secure OS X that this computer can run, than it has to be pretty secure. The fact of the matter is, this computer is 400 dollars and has specs comparable to the mac pro.

No it doesn't. A Mac Pro is a 8 core "Harpertown" Xeon based workstation. This machine is a low end Core2Duo based consumer level machine using the same GMA950 chipset that there are no end of threads on this forum alone lamenting how out of date it is. A larger hard drive and the option - not default spec - of an Nvidia graphics card hardly counts as specs comparable to a Mac Pro.

Please double check your facts before posting something like this.

 

[xbjllb]

Ohmigod, competition! QUICK, MUST DESTROY AT ALL COSTS!

Oh, God FORBID Apple would have to deal with some actual real competition to get performance on actual desktop computers (as opposed to iPods and iPhones and other assorted iCrap) back up to cutting edge technology at reasonable prices...

Monopolies sooner or later always suck.

 

[Beric]

about 10000 internet users can prove it %)

also google cache

http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cach...i+released+v8&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=opera

i'm not going to sue them, i'l just make new efi v8 with eula which forbids using v8 on openmac computers or any commercial using at all %)

Well, if this is true, so much for them. But since they already violate Apple's EULA, why should they have any qualms about violating yours?

It's too bad, these guys sounded OK at first.

 

[Tallest Skil]

Oh, God FORBID Apple would have to deal with some actual real competition to get performance on actual desktop computers (as opposed to iPods and iPhones and other assorted iCrap) back up to cutting edge technology at reasonable prices...

Monopolies sooner or later always suck.

When it's illegal/law twisting competition, I'm pretty sure they have the right to do so.

And if you can't afford it, get refurbished. If you can't afford refurbished, save up. It's called the "Apple Tax", and we pay it for the privilege of a working OS.

 

[EagerDragon]

The one thing this does bring to the surface is that there is a market (who knows how small) for a mid tower customer level system that is user upgradable.

Also in that area there is a possible answer to M$ home server. An Apple mid tower would answer that need and the need of gamers to have a reasonably fast system and some choice of graphic cards without shelling the amount for a Mac Pro.

Sounds like there is a market for it, again not sure how small that market is.

 

[zap2]

Oh, God FORBID Apple would have to deal with some actual real competition to get performance on actual desktop computers

Gosh, HP, Dell, Sony, and the bunch are going to be pissed, they think they've been selling desktops for years!

O(as opposed to iPods and iPhones and other assorted iCrap)

Gosh, someone is fussy!

Monopolies sooner or later always suck.

Yes, they do. But luck for us, Apple doesn't have one.

 

[headfuzz]

The one thing this does bring to the surface is that there is a market (who knows how small) for a mid tower customer level system that is user upgradable.

Also in that area there is a possible answer to M$ home server. An Apple mid tower would answer that need and the need of gamers to have a reasonably fast system and some choice of graphic cards without shelling the amount for a Mac Pro.

Sounds like there is a market for it, again not sure how small that market is.

I don't think there's any debate as to whether or not there is a market, just whether Apple will actually ever tap into it or maintain the speculated view that it will just cannibalise too many sales from their existing lines.

As for a home server, I see no reason a Mini with a large hard drive couldn't perform such a task already; file and print serving, the main functions of a home server (not a streaming HD media centre) do not take much processing power at all.

 

[wildmannz]

How wrong can one guy be?

The fact that people are saying this is 'too good to be true' shows how much we are simply desensitized to overpaying for Apple computers.

True you might sacrifice some stability and support for price, but if it really is the same secure OS X that this computer can run, than it has to be pretty secure. The fact of the matter is, this computer is 400 dollars and has specs comparable to the mac pro. Where is the other 1600 dollars going? I highly value the importance of stability, but I highly doubt this computer is $1600 less stable.

My prediction? Apple Legal may knock this company off the face of the earth, but I think it could end up having an effect on apple.

Comparable to a Mac Pro?
You are seriously deluded, my friend. This offering cannot run 8 cores - and it cannot support 16GB of RAM.
Just because YOU want a cheap computer doesn't mean Apple over-charges for what it sells. Go check some figures before opening your mouth.

First off the $$$ comparison is way off. $400 for the basic box + $155 for a Leopard install. Add an IR remote for $30 and you have the same relative price as the mac mini. So - it's not cheaper at all. Let me repeat that.
It's NOT cheaper.

It gives you the potential to expand - so - add a decent graphics card. You'll need one with an Apple firmware for it to work.

The only effect that I can see happening with this - is putting pressure on Apple itself to provide more games-worthy computers. A better choice of graphics cards etc.
Let 's hope that happens - because there are obviously a LOT of people who want that.

 

[EagerDragon]

Monopolies sooner or later always suck.

I hate to tell you this but anyone making a PS3 look alike guarantied to run all PS3 games, is bound to have an issue with Sony. Why would Apple be different?

Just because only Apple can sell official Apple computers does not make them a Monopoly. People can buy any computer they want. Apple can not be a monopoly of 5% of the market.

On top of that you do not have to buy a computer from Apple, you can get it from distributors and from BestBuy and others.

Want a monopoly??? Try the electric company, try the single cable tv company in your town, try the single gas company with the pipes into your house. Even some people will debate that those are not monopolies.

So why would Apple be a monopoly? Because they are the only ones that can make their own branded computer?

Sorry don't buy it.

 

[Bubba Satori]

It's about time. Think different Apple.

 

[EagerDragon]

It's about time. Think different Apple.

Sorry my eyes locked into the bounce and missed the rest.

 

[oldwatery]

Apple is a powerful, greedy corporation.

So what are you doing on an Apple rumor site

 

[Sun Baked]

So why would Apple be a monopoly? Because they are the only ones that can make their own branded computer?

Sorry don't buy it.

Not Apple's fault Amiga keeps going bankrupt, though the decision to do the G5 and the later switch to Intel sort or cremated any future moves forward for the Linux PPC platform yanking Amiga's easy platform development out from under them.

There was some interest in the G5, and some system makers tried and left disgusted with the PPC970s complexity.

Now after the Intel switch the Mac is just another PC with Apple I/O and their cases on the machines.

Apple has no monopoly there, other than an extremely fast growing PC computer business ... and the OS is just another Unix, though with a slick package and GUI.

 

[EagerDragon]

Not Apple's fault Amiga keeps going bankrupt, though the decision to do the G5 and the later switch to Intel sort or cremated any future moves forward for the Linux PPC platform yanking Amiga's easy platform development out from under them.

There was some interest in the G5, and some system makers tried and left disgusted with the PPC970s complexity.

Now after the Intel switch the Mac is just another PC with Apple I/O and their cases on the machines.

Apple has no monopoly there, other than an extremely fast growing PC computer business ... and the OS is just another Unix, though with a slick package and GUI.

Confused, sounds like you are agreeing with me that Apple is not a monopoly.

 

[Roderick Usher]

It's called the "Apple Tax", and we pay it for the privilege of a working OS.

This attitude frightens me. It sounds like someone that's abdicated all their rights as a consumer. I'm paying for the privilege to use a company's product? Are you out of your mind? Apple kowtows to ME, not the other way around. That's where my power as a consumer comes from - or, rather, would come from if the Mac market weren't bizarro-world.

And besides, Apple is reasonably price-competitive; the problem is that they're not range-competitive. Sure a Mac Pro is about the same as a comparably-equipped Dell workstation... but if you want expandability in the Mac world, it's also your one and only option.