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

[coolant113]

if you like apple so much like i am sure all of us do including me.. i am a loyal follower of Apple and there products.. there is no way i would go out and support a illegial computer that violates apples terms... i would never run leopard on something other than a apple made machine

 

[mactester09]

silly question, but couldn't one argue that while running mac os x, the system could be labelled by the various preference panes and so forth inside of the OS...and by the same theory, wouldn't I be breaking my EULA by putting a post-it note over my apple logo on my iMac?

how about patrick norton covering his apple logo with fur? Wouldn't that violate the EULA?

P.S: Proud over of an iMac G5, bought the day of the Intel change over...

 

[stainlessliquid]

http://gizmodo.com/379717/mac-clone...-monopoly-laws-wants-to-challenge-it-in-court





Oh Snap, here it comes! But honestly, I think Apple should win. Its there OS, and since they are clearly not a monopoly, its not harmful. Its would be like sueing Nintendo because they won't let Sony use the Wii's OS.

Plus, it puts Apple in a hardplace, since it forces them to be a software company, who happens to make hardware to support it. Or risk having the name of crappy hardware for its OS

since we are using star wars quotes...

If you strike me down I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine

Its just too bad they arent in the EU, the EU loves to slap on monopoly stuff. This would open up a whole can of worms. In the USA monopoly laws dont mean that much. The only reason Apple hasnt been completely annihilated by the EU yet is because nobody has challenged them.

if you like apple so much like i am sure all of us do including me.. i am a loyal follower of Apple and there products.. there is no way i would go out and support a illegial computer that violates apples terms... i would never run leopard on something other than a apple made machine

I dont like Apple. I hate Apple, I think they are far worse than Microsoft. Thats them as a company though, I think their products are just dandy (atleast some of them), I just hate the company and think they are just horrible and one of the most disgusting companies around. Not everyone has brand loyalty, they just buy what suits them best.

 

[Sun Baked]

silly question, but couldn't one argue that while running mac os x, the system could be labelled by the various preference panes and so forth inside of the OS...and by the same theory, wouldn't I be breaking my EULA by putting a post-it note over my apple logo on my iMac?

how about patrick norton covering his apple logo with fur? Wouldn't that violate the EULA?

P.S: Proud over of an iMac G5, bought the day of the Intel change over...

Watch, this dork will say a label is a sticker/post-it note on the machine ... and Apple will be pointing to the federally required labels stating company, origin, serial number, FCC status, etc.

 

[northernmunky]

Never gonna happen...
As soon as you run software update on that thing, its deader than Britney Spears' career.

 

[bluefido]

by no means a Mac fanboy

but this is terrible news. This would mean the end of Apple as a hardware company, period. Apple would not have enough consumers willing to buy its hardware if there was a clone at a fraction of the cost but running the same software. This was one of the initial fears about converting to Intel chips, and the doomsday predictions are starting to come to fruition.

I love my Apple laptop. I am not a crazed Apple loyalist, but I do appreciate Apple's style and attention to detail with respect to its hardware. If clones start having their way, then I predict the same slow but sure downfall of Apple as in the late 80s and early 90s, and that is a bad thing. Apple is good for innovation and upping the ante with respect to design and usability.

Anyways, sorry for being an alarmist, but if you can't see this as a bad sign, you have got some serious blinders on.

 

[cohibadad]

I don't think you have to worry about Apple going under because of this news. How many people would choose this chunk of ugh over an Apple? Not enough to matter. And it won't happen. Seems a certainty Apple will squish this thing like a bug.

 

[stainlessliquid]

I love my Apple laptop. I am not a crazed Apple loyalist, but I do appreciate Apple's style and attention to detail with respect to its hardware.

This reason alone is why people saying clones will kill Apple is rubbish. So many people are buying macbooks because of their looks, not for the OS.

What is different about Apple today and Apple during the "clone wars"? Jonathan Ive. The clones were killing Apple because real macs were garbage. They were ugly beige pieces of garbage that costed too much. There was no point at all to buy a real mac. Things are different today, macs are higher quality than most PC's, they have aesthetic looks that are better than most PC's. As long as Apple continues to be a fashionable hardware maker then they will be fine because now more than ever are people wanting a good looking computer.

 

[bluefido]

please...

I don't think you have to worry about Apple going under because of this news. How many people would choose this chunk of ugh over an Apple? Not enough to matter. And it won't happen. Seems a certainty Apple will squish this thing like a bug.

let's say about 95-99% of the world? let's not forget, Apple needed to get bailed out soon after it's failed cloning experiment by Microsoft. it may be highly successful now but that's because it zealously protects its intellectual property. if it just allows any piece of hardware to run its OS, it will suffer the same way it suffered in the late 80s and early 90s. it cannot compete on a pure price point comparison as past history has shown. it has to be proprietary to a certain extent because it's value is in selling the whole widget not just the OS.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

Monopolies sooner or later always suck.

Ummmm less than 10% market share makes a monopoly? I'm confussed

 

[bluefido]

This reason alone is why people saying clones will kill Apple is rubbish. So many people are buying macbooks because of their looks, not for the OS.

What is different about Apple today and Apple during the "clone wars"? Jonathan Ive. The clones were killing Apple because real macs were garbage. They were ugly beige pieces of garbage that costed too much. There was no point at all to buy a real mac. Things are different today, macs are higher quality than most PC's, they have aesthetic looks that are better than most PC's. As long as Apple continues to be a fashionable hardware maker then they will be fine because now more than ever are people wanting a good looking computer.

you and me may think this way, but most people think mostly about their wallets in the short term. so yes, clones are still very dangerous to apple's long term health. things are not that different. it's basic microeconomic theory.

 

[mcavjame]

The box hits a pretty nice sweet spot IMO. It provides a box between the mini and Pro... exactly what I've been hoping Apple would develop.

BTW Psystar also makes a Pro model - configuration is $1599:

 

[stainlessliquid]

you and me may think this way, but most people think mostly about their wallets in the short term. so yes, clones are still very dangerous to apple's long term health. things are not that different. it's basic microeconomic theory.

Yes, thats why Apple has a small market share. They are not tapping into the low cost market which is the majority, they are only tapping into the fashionable market (which is growing pretty fast). Clones allow them to tap into the low cost market while still maintaining a leadership role in the fashionable market.

People are not buying more macbooks today because of the OS, they are buying them for the looks, clones are not going to change that fact especially since their role is to be cheap and affordable. Apple's industrial design is extremely important to their current success, their OS has always had the same benifets and hasnt been that great of a selling point to unsavvy people, what saved Apple's ass is its new design appeal which will not change with the introduction of clones.

 

[BenRoethig]

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.

Actually close to a grand cheaper. Dell makes up for low margins in the consumer sector by charging the server/workstation market up the wazoo

You know it never used to be like this. Ever since Jobs came back, everything has taken on a quazi-religious tone. You can't question anything and Apple and the iDeity cannot be wrong. I'm afraid this company has created a bubble around a fad and once that fad runs its course, the bubble will burst and all the gains will be given back. Just like the iMac boom.

 

[br0adband]

Aside from all the legalities, what's the problem? Isn't this awesome?

Does make one wonder why everyone - ok, so maybe not everyone but quite obviously the overwhelming majority - sees this as a bad thing. I mean really... look at some of the comments so far:

"this is a bad idea..."

"this will spell the end of Apple..."

"this is illegal...

Come on, people can't be that truly stupid, can they? I see it as a good thing, as competition is a good thing. Or am I missing something in that?

But then again... we are talking about humans. Hmmm...

 

[bluefido]

my sentiments exactly

The box hits a pretty nice sweet spot IMO. It provides a box between the mini and Pro... exactly what I've been hoping Apple would develop.

BTW Psystar also makes a Pro model - configuration is $1599:

also the reason why this is bad news for apple unless they prevent clones from becoming reality. i love mac's design, but am i wiling to pay hundreds of dollars more for the same OS? no.

the same calculation will be made by most consumers who are currently considering an apple. again, i love my apple laptop, but if i can run the os for hundreds of dollars less at essentially the same performance levels, then looks don't mean that much to me.

 

[BenRoethig]

This reason alone is why people saying clones will kill Apple is rubbish. So many people are buying macbooks because of their looks, not for the OS.

What is different about Apple today and Apple during the "clone wars"? Jonathan Ive. The clones were killing Apple because real macs were garbage. They were ugly beige pieces of garbage that costed too much. There was no point at all to buy a real mac. Things are different today, macs are higher quality than most PC's, they have aesthetic looks that are better than most PC's. As long as Apple continues to be a fashionable hardware maker then they will be fine because now more than ever are people wanting a good looking computer.

Agreed. Microsoft's misfortunes are also in play here. Still, Apple is not the computer company for everyone and the OSX set up to take more customers from Redmond than their hardware can.

 

[bluefido]

and they were doing the same when the clones existed before

Yes, thats why Apple has a small market share. They are not tapping into the low cost market which is the majority, they are only tapping into the fashionable market (which is growing pretty fast). Clones allow them to tap into the low cost market while still maintaining a leadership role in the fashionable market.

People are not buying more macbooks today because of the OS, they are buying them for the looks, clones are not going to change that fact especially since their role is to be cheap and affordable.

yes, and the market share will shrink even further. apple is not invincible. the OS plays an extremely attractive role in selling its hardware. they are very interrelated. everyone at apple and its customers say so. if you separate the two, you lose a whole bunch of customers, and that hurts regardless of whether it's a small or large market co.

 

[Rendwich]

The Double-Standard Hijacking

Plus, it puts Apple in a hardplace, since it forces them to be a software company, who happens to make hardware to support it. Or risk having the name of crappy hardware for its OS

You hit on the key problem of Apple in 2008. Nearly all CPUs use the same instruction set, so that software is fundamentally independent of hardware. Yet Apple is forcing customers to buy their hardware to use their software. There are many different US laws which forbid this practice.

There is no one buying Apple hardware and running a different *base* OS on it, even though Apple makes that extremely easy. This demonstrates their illegal market leverage.

It also demonstrates a horrible double-standard. Apple encourages you to install other OS on its hardware. Yet it forbids you to isntall Mac OS on other hardware. Total hypocrisy which WILL matter in court. There can only be one standard. If Psy is guilty of some kind of bad practice, then Apple is guilty of the same bad practice on a massive scale.

Apple has *always* made their money on hardware and their market share on software. Always. No one cared when they had 3% market share. Now that they are filling the Vista gap (along with Linux), people do care.

Microsoft clearly demonstrated that you can make a fortune simply by selling an OS. It doesn't even have to be good. Judging by the quality of the current Mac lineup, the best thing that Apple could do would be to *stop making hardware* and facilitate the Mac OS for all the major manufacturers like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc.

Apple's costs would be a tiny fraction and their revenues would be comparable. Microsoft gets a huge license fee for every copy of XP - Apple is still trying to get that money by building overheated, underpowered, unexpandable desktops out of laptop parts (iMac).

The iPod has given Apple the revenue "cushion" they need to make this transition. It's time.

 

[SheriffParker]

You hit on the key problem of Apple in 2008. Nearly all CPUs use the same instruction set, so that software is fundamentally independent of hardware. Yet Apple is forcing customers to buy their hardware to use their software. There are many different US laws which forbid this practice.

There is no one buying Apple hardware and running a different *base* OS on it, even though Apple makes that extremely easy. This demonstrates their illegal market leverage.

It also demonstrates a horrible double-standard. Apple encourages you to install other OS on its hardware. Yet it forbids you to isntall Mac OS on other hardware. Total hypocrisy which WILL matter in court. There can only be one standard. If Psy is guilty of some kind of bad practice, then Apple is guilty of the same bad practice on a massive scale.

Apple has *always* made their money on hardware and their market share on software. Always. No one cared when they had 3% market share. Now that they are filling the Vista gap (along with Linux), people do care.

Microsoft clearly demonstrated that you can make a fortune simply by selling an OS. It doesn't even have to be good. Judging by the quality of the current Mac lineup, the best thing that Apple could do would be to *stop making hardware* and facilitate the Mac OS for all the major manufacturers like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc.

Apple's costs would be a tiny fraction and their revenues would be comparable. Microsoft gets a huge license fee for every copy of XP - Apple is still trying to get that money by building overheated, underpowered, unexpandable desktops out of laptop parts (iMac).

The iPod has given Apple the revenue "cushion" they need to make this transition. It's time.

Um... No. I'm Sorry. You are very wrong.

 

[bluefido]

You hit on the key problem of Apple in 2008. Nearly all CPUs use the same instruction set, so that software is fundamentally independent of hardware. Yet Apple is forcing customers to buy their hardware to use their software. There are many different US laws which forbid this practice.

There is no one buying Apple hardware and running a different *base* OS on it, even though Apple makes that extremely easy. This demonstrates their illegal market leverage.

It also demonstrates a horrible double-standard. Apple encourages you to install other OS on its hardware. Yet it forbids you to isntall Mac OS on other hardware. Total hypocrisy which WILL matter in court. There can only be one standard. If Psy is guilty of some kind of bad practice, then Apple is guilty of the same bad practice on a massive scale.

Apple has *always* made their money on hardware and their market share on software. Always. No one cared when they had 3% market share. Now that they are filling the Vista gap (along with Linux), people do care.

Microsoft clearly demonstrated that you can make a fortune simply by selling an OS. It doesn't even have to be good. Judging by the quality of the current Mac lineup, the best thing that Apple could do would be to *stop making hardware* and facilitate the Mac OS for all the major manufacturers like Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc.

Apple's costs would be a tiny fraction and their revenues would be comparable. Microsoft gets a huge license fee for every copy of XP - Apple is still trying to get that money by building overheated, underpowered, unexpandable desktops out of laptop parts (iMac).

The iPod has given Apple the revenue "cushion" they need to make this transition. It's time.

The only reason it is so successful (from a profit perspective) is that it is a hardware company too. Without a focus on hardware, there would be a lot less R&D money for its OS. Apple's value is making the BOTH the hardware and software. It cannot compete with Microsoft if it just focused on the OS. Microsoft has too large an installed user base to do that. Apple's shareholders also would go ballistic. Less profits, so Apple could increase the usage of its OS? Yeah, right.

 

[dwl017]

How hard can it be for a company to build a machine that will run os x what law would that be breaking if you had to install your own software ? forget about the pre installed stuff any idiot knows thats wrong.

I don't think its a bad idea at all bring it on! let me install what ever I want on it.

 

[mcavjame]

Um... No. I'm Sorry. You are very wrong.

Which part is incorrect? I think he is bang on with his assessment of dual boots and double standard.

 

[stevegmu]

That OpenMac is fugly. Looks like an Aptiva from 10 years ago. Not a chance Leopard runs as it does on a Mac on that pile of poo. I've heard many who use bobo Macs and OS x86 can't even get the sound to work, nor updates. I bet they haven't even sold 3 yet. Those too cheap to buy a Mac in the 1st place will gripe about the OpenMac being too expensive, and claim they can put one together cheaper.

 

[br0adband]

Um... No. I'm Sorry. You are very wrong.

I think he nailed it on many points myself. What better way to sway people towards OSX now that it's on the Intel hardware platform than giving them the option to continue using their old PC-based Intel-centric operating systems without losing anything in the process.

Can you say, "Boot Camp"?

I knew that you could.