There are a lot of audiophiles who disagree with you about the sound quality thing.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
'OpenMac' Promises $399 Headless Mac... But Not From Apple
- Thread starter star555
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are a lot of audiophiles who disagree with you about the sound quality thing.
Idiots
http://psystar.com/openmac_the_apple_alternative.html
Two stupid things ... infringe on the Mac trade name, and offer to sell a Mac Alternative with Mac OS X installed.
Edit: I like how they took note that the Mac Mini is a trademarked name ... must be the "Mini" that is trademarked and not the Mac.
http://psystar.com/openmac_the_apple_alternative.html
Two stupid things ... infringe on the Mac trade name, and offer to sell a Mac Alternative with Mac OS X installed.
Edit: I like how they took note that the Mac Mini is a trademarked name ... must be the "Mini" that is trademarked and not the Mac.
Attachments
On another note, I think this will be such a small fish that Apple won't even bother. I doubt many of these will sell, but more power to them. I might even buy one myself when I see some reviews first
No, Apple has to bother. A company is obligated to defend their patents and copyrights whenever and wherever they are challenged, or they eventually lose the rights because they will be deemed to have abandoned them.
They'll probably also go after OpenMac as trademark infringement. Nobody could argue that that name was not intentionally chosen to create confusion in the mind of the buyer that this was a Macintosh.
There is a very real difference.
"Buyer beware"
You don't buy Leopard, it's copyright material right down to the name.
You License Leopard and buy a delivery medium (retail DVD or a new mac)
You can do what you please with the delivery medium but the copyright material you licensed is covered by the the agreement.
If you haven't entered in to the contract in good faith then the law isn't going to side with you.
If your suggesting there is good legal opinion that the whole copyright system is void, then there must be some really bad lawyers out there. After all that is the basic grounds for copyright that I (a creative professional) can sell information at terms I see fit and you are willing to agree to.
Apple did allow clones back in the 68040 days, however this really hurt the company and it took a lot to come back.
Apple stopped a company that was purchasing "repair" parts and reconstructing PPC G5 computers in beige boxes and selling them for a fraction of the price. I can't believe they would let this fly.
Apple's legal team could crush this small company, even if they had to win by attrition.
Distinction between contract and copyright
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.
However, you violate copyright law when you use or distribute a copyrighted software program without permission. Therefore, if you breach your contract (i.e., license) to use copyrighted software, you have now committed copyright infringement. Not only that, the infringement might be criminal, if you distribute too many copies.
17 usc 506.
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.
However, you violate copyright law when you use or distribute a copyrighted software program without permission. Therefore, if you breach your contract (i.e., license) to use copyrighted software, you have now committed copyright infringement. Not only that, the infringement might be criminal, if you distribute too many copies.
17 usc 506.
I love how people are pulling numbers are their asses.
Firstly i'm very curious about this and I think i would buy one if they had mobo that takes xeon chips like those found in mac pros.
The reason the mac mini is more expensive is because its a compact desktop computer. It has more expensive components then a regular desktop. That being said it also has a full warranty and is fully compatible. Apple has to offset alot of marketing cost and R&D and such. They are a huge company and obviously they have to make money off of every product. And trust me the margins on Macs are extremely low compared to ipods.
Bring on the mac pro clone and i'm all over it.
IMO the only mistake these guys made is pre-installing leopard.
Firstly i'm very curious about this and I think i would buy one if they had mobo that takes xeon chips like those found in mac pros.
The reason the mac mini is more expensive is because its a compact desktop computer. It has more expensive components then a regular desktop. That being said it also has a full warranty and is fully compatible. Apple has to offset alot of marketing cost and R&D and such. They are a huge company and obviously they have to make money off of every product. And trust me the margins on Macs are extremely low compared to ipods.
Bring on the mac pro clone and i'm all over it.
IMO the only mistake these guys made is pre-installing leopard.
Way cool. If Apple sold a big 'ol upgradeable box people would buy it. It's their own fault that this is happening. Now to all those people who might say that this would degrade their product line: You don't have enough faith in Apple's design team. They can make anything look good. Redesign the beige box!
I'm just saying that Apple probably has bigger fish to fry. This seems like a tiny company that is going nowhere. If they were to shut these guys down, then what? Start shutting down everything that has the word "Apple" anywhere near it? How bout illegal copies of OSX floating around bittorrent? Wouldn't that be a bigger issue for a copyright holder?
Basically - yes. Any computer with the words Apple or Mac or Macintosh.
Trademark is not enforceable when the products are so dissimilar that there is no reasonable confusion in the buyer's mind that, say Appleby's Restaurant is the same as Apple Computers. But if someone comes out with a McPro or a MacBooklet or an Applesauce Computer, then Apple has to go after them, no matter how small they are.
They are offering to sell people Apple "clones" with Mac OS X pre-installed.
That isn't a company selling a machine "compatible" with the Open OSx86 project specifications.
This is the company we've been expecting for awhile ... somebody to take the Open OSx86 parts, stick them in a box with a shrink wrapped Mac OS X copy and calling it system.
Before, some of the clone companies got around this by running the Mac OS and machine on two different orders.
But these idiots are selling you a machine in one box and purchase, running OS X as soon as you plug it in.
This is what the EULA is really there to combat, people doing this at point of purchase is where the real teeth lie. Mac OS X can only be run on an Apple branded machine, slam bam gotcha.
Edit: EULA not there to nail end-user, but clone makers.
I went to the site and read all that I could.
Nevermind... I recant my first statement.
I love the concept, but I do believe that this is the poorest implementation I have seen. I'd rather pay for the better design, I-know-it's-going-to-work Mac.
Nevermind... I recant my first statement.
I love the concept, but I do believe that this is the poorest implementation I have seen. I'd rather pay for the better design, I-know-it's-going-to-work Mac.
Oh, it's much more simple.
Apple's market research showed this vertical just dripping cash, but chose not to explore just to miff PC people off. ;-)
Ultimately, there is an obvious need for more hardware in this area from Apple. We'll see it, and it will be a "one more thing" announcement.
I don't know for sure, but IIRC I once read that, according to German law, an EULA basically is void because you can only read and agree to it after you already purchased the good in question. Don't nail me down on that one, though...
For those wondering about the actual wording in the leopard SLA:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
As I'm sure others have pointed out, the sole requirement to comply with this license is that the hardware be "Apple-labeled". That means, very much so, that I can slap an apple sticker on any old dell and be in full compliance.
Another very important thing to note here is that the actual legal validity EULAs and SLAs is very much so in question. It is not like a traditional bilateral contract where both parties get to change things until they come up with an agreement... and then both parties sign the contract. An EULA is unilateral and more often then not unenforceable (namely due to the fact that A) You don't get to read them until AFTER you've purchased the product, and B) because they make it so easy to agree to them without actually reading them... and that most people do just that).
In any case, apple could (and probably will) go after this company, but they'll never go after an end user that legally purchased a copy of leopard and installed it on a PC.. it just doesn't make sense (and they'd likely lose in court).
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf
As I'm sure others have pointed out, the sole requirement to comply with this license is that the hardware be "Apple-labeled". That means, very much so, that I can slap an apple sticker on any old dell and be in full compliance.
Another very important thing to note here is that the actual legal validity EULAs and SLAs is very much so in question. It is not like a traditional bilateral contract where both parties get to change things until they come up with an agreement... and then both parties sign the contract. An EULA is unilateral and more often then not unenforceable (namely due to the fact that A) You don't get to read them until AFTER you've purchased the product, and B) because they make it so easy to agree to them without actually reading them... and that most people do just that).
In any case, apple could (and probably will) go after this company, but they'll never go after an end user that legally purchased a copy of leopard and installed it on a PC.. it just doesn't make sense (and they'd likely lose in court).
With respect...
With respect, your wishing it so doesn't make it so.
I understand your frustration but viable business models come and go. I remember watching an interview with the Woz a number of years ago when he talked about those first computer user group meetings in California. He recalled that one day Bill Gates got up and said "we have to stop giving this stuff away".
There were those who agreed and those that still wanted to give it away. Not much has changed. Are you suggesting that the entire open source community should be disbanded so that you can earn a better living?
People seem to enjoy the exploits of open market capitalism when they work in their favour but get upset when those same forces dissipate their business value. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not aware that I lease my operating system from Apple. Nor am I sure that calling an EULA a lease changes much. Leases may be governed differently but calling it a lease dosen't automatically make it one.
Anyway, we'll know soon enough. This really isn't worth losing sleep over and my eyes are starting to get really heavy.
~iGuy
With respect, your wishing it so doesn't make it so.
I understand your frustration but viable business models come and go. I remember watching an interview with the Woz a number of years ago when he talked about those first computer user group meetings in California. He recalled that one day Bill Gates got up and said "we have to stop giving this stuff away".
There were those who agreed and those that still wanted to give it away. Not much has changed. Are you suggesting that the entire open source community should be disbanded so that you can earn a better living?
People seem to enjoy the exploits of open market capitalism when they work in their favour but get upset when those same forces dissipate their business value. You can't have it both ways.
I'm not aware that I lease my operating system from Apple. Nor am I sure that calling an EULA a lease changes much. Leases may be governed differently but calling it a lease dosen't automatically make it one.
Anyway, we'll know soon enough. This really isn't worth losing sleep over and my eyes are starting to get really heavy.
~iGuy
This is very true; in order to maintain a trademark you need to defend it, or you may very well lose it.
Yes we will see just how enforceable a EULA really is, with luck EULAs will turn out to be completely unenforceable which is a good thing.
Granted I don't really give a damn about this unless someone were to build a better Macbook Pro than the Macbook Pro.
Sebastian
