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

Is this some sort of joke? Why would this company even bother to make something that they know will sue them for? Also, I always had thought that if you hack OS X to work on non-apple systems, you'll get "unsolvable" driver incompatibilities.... Interesting concept though

 

Well, it's completely legal for them to make the hardware to run OS X. The only illegal thing is to actually run OS X on it, which is the end users choice not the company(much how it was the end users fault for downloading illegal content on p2p networks, not the applications').
If the company sells it with Leopard preinstalled then there'll be huge problems, other than that... I dunno

 

Link please? I want to buy one.

 

I assume that is a link to the product, but for some reason I can't access it.

 

This belongs in the Apple forum .

 

maybe they were already shut down

 

Apple will shut and sh#t clones down.

 

Yeah, if this is real, I dont see that company lasting very long or pushing much product

 

They're back. Click again, and you'll see that the new name for it is "Open Computer"

=}

 

Interesting development of this:

I personally think, okay, Honda can do that. If you don't agree with it, just don't buy Honda, its that simple.

 

Awesome! Something for the bottom feeders among us. I wonder how long these guys can keep this up? What does the Apple SLA say about installing it on "unsupported" hardware. Does buying one of these things mean going without any support?

 

Yeah, Apple will not support your Mac OS X Installation (or hardware for that matter, but that's obvious ).

 

The Apple EULA states that you may not install OS X on any non-Apple branded hardware, regardless.

 

I don't think that guy's argument could hold up in court. He is violating copyright laws, among others.

Even if he buys a copy of Leopard for each computer he sells, he isn't valid with the license.

His analogy with cars is pretty stupid too. Car manufacturers make money selling you a car that can go everywhere. Apple makes money by selling you a whole package.

 

This should tell apple what some people want. Sub $2500 towers.

 

I don't think that'd attract too many customers. I mean, you paid for the friggin' car and they should just let the customer be.

I don't know about his argument holding against court or whatever, but I do agree that his analogy is the most perfect one out there - I don't think it's stupid, but it's not perfectly executed. His analogy would work only if Apple sold computers and dictated that you can only run so-and-so OS on this computer. His analogy would be similar to Honda being against people using Honda engines in other cars, like say, a Toyota.

Just my thought...

And also, IMHO Apple should stop being anal about what hardware OS X runs on. But I guess if that happened they would end up selling only the OS and the hardware would just catch dust (They probably know that too, haha XD) .

EDIT: Them preinstalling Leopard for free is a bad call. Heck, selling OS X is a bad call. Let them sell computers and have the customers fend for themselves in their attempt to snag a copy of the OS.

 

which could then cause issues due to incompatible hardware. ppl would then say it is the os' problem and not buy it. this is what is happening with windows but ppl keep buying it because they are so used to it and is afraid of change. those who switch over to apple are willing to "give it a try" and is happily rewarded

 

I am switching back
I am not saying Mac is bad but lot of software I use are for windows only.

 

I understand how it can cause inconsistensies. All I'm saying is that they shouldn't make it illegal - they should say that it is recommended that it be run on Mac hardware, and that you won't get any support on non-Apple hardware. Once they do that, and if the customer is aware of that, then I don't see how it can be a PITA for Apple.

Oh, and what do you mean by "this is what is happening with windows"? Windows was and is compatible with any of the hardware that is available in the market today. Vista will just be sluggish on older hardware but any of today's computer that has a gig of ram standard and has at least a Core Duo or the latest Celeron procs shouldn't have much of a trouble with Vista if all you are doing is basic computing like web surfing and office work.

 

what i meant was problems that can be caused by windows not having control over the hardware it is installed in. way too many 3rd party software and hardware and any error is automatically assumed to be the os by the user. bsod, overheating, drivers, random restarts, etc... osx is by no means error proof but is minimal

 

Haha. Excellent. This should take all those Mac lovers off their elitist high horses. Calm down people. There is no need to get upset over paying $2000 more for a white glossy computer.

 

I don't personally find that box of a computer very attractive .

 

These guys are not going to be around long. They are clearly violating the license agreement for OS X. Also, even if they do manage to sell systems, support would be a nightmare. From what I have seen, while OS X seems to run ok on non-Apple hardware, driver issues creep up often (about as often as Apple updates).

The Honda analogy is flawed, btw. Honda actually could sell you a car with the stipulation that it can only be driven on certain roads. There is no law against that. The only problem is they would not sell any cars. I believe the opposite is true of OS X. If it were available to be installed on beige boxes, I believe OS X's market share would shrink, not grow. OS X's biggest advantage is that it is only run on small number of hardware configurations. Open it up to the endless amounts of hardware that Windows has to deal with and you will quickly see the same issues that plague Windows, negating a major reason for switching.

 

Amen.

This reminds me of the battle over jailbreak iphones, but there's a difference. Apple was accused of releasing updates to brick the phones and what an uproar ensued. Perhaps people are hoping an uproar ensues over these clones to force Apple to change their policy. Nada. Not gonna happen. It wouldn't take long for Apple to get their hands on one of those white boxes and find a way to release a system update that would knock those white boxes off the air.

Unlike bricked iphones, in the case of the white boxes, the SLA clearly puts the onus on the user should their "unauthorized" system be bricked by an apple update. I ran for 10 years without windows update and had relatively few problems (unlike my friends who had nothing but problems caused by windows update). On my Mac, I prefer to keep update turned on because Leopard is so new and updates are fixing things I am having problems with now (like Time Machine working with Airdisks).

I would hate to be using one of those white boxes and cut off from the possibility of system updates for fear something would break either by accident or by design knowing I would have no recourse if it did break.

Then there's the car analogy. For me it's a bit too much of a stretch. We are in a situation where the roads are paved by microsoft and only windows apps can run on them. Apple is the little dawg here. But it is true that if they could, Apple would glady put a collar on your neck for you to insert quarters to breathe. Microsoft gets slammed for this only because they got so close to actually pulling it off.

It's the way business operates. Figure out where the wealth is flowing and tap in to as much of it as possible and lock your customer base up by whatever means you can get away with: file formats, drm, hardware investment, licensing, good quality, good treatment [WHAT WAS THAT!?!] Yes, Apple is trying more of those two latter tactics than anybody else right now and kudos to them for doing so.

 

@ r0k
I should clarify, Apple is not purposely breaking OSX86 installs (in fact, I don't believe they purposely broke jailbroken iPhones). The problem is that the hacked drivers are poorly written and are basically a house of cards. All it takes is a small change to screw the driver.

Incidentally, this is exactly what happened when iPhones were bricked.

 

You are probably right. Apple doesn't need to spend one second trying to figure out how to brick those white boxes when poorly written drivers are bound to do it for them.

 

fwiw, the apple-car-manufacturer analogy makes more sense to me the opposite way:

apple allows you to drive your apple car on all the roads! however, there are certain roads that you can only drive on if you own an apple car.

this seems clear to me. apple is really doing no wrong by restricting their OS to their hardware. they own it and it is theirs to use as they wish. it is desirable to a lot of people. and the desire of the apple OS is sometimes juxtaposed to the lack of desire to purchase an apple computer (high price, low customization of parts). but apple most likely just isn't going to release their OS to the world. most of what makes it good comes from the restriction. its rough, but imagine the road analogy.

(car analogy again) it would absolutely sweet having the dedicated lane to owner's of the apple car. but if they open the lane to everyone, then its just another crowded lane, and all of the problems associated with trafficked lanes will return.

my three cents.

 

I also don't believe Apple purposely bricked iPhones. Personally, I think Apple was more fixing things up, and since these iPhones were jailbroken, they see no reason to make sure their method of fixing didn't brick them. So Apple didn't go out of their way to brick them, they just didn't go out of their way to make sure they didn't brick them. Just my opinion.

 

that is one wicked ugly computer

 

Ugly but cheap. Like my first car


< r0k quietly wonders if he should admit to owning, much less riding in one of those things but moves on... >

I see Psystar web site is still up. Some of the wording has changed. You gotta click once or twice to get to the page that says "Leopard pre-installed for free" but it's STILL THERE. Could it be this isn't going to wither up and blow away?

I'm worried that the ready availability of clones will put downward price pressure on genuine Apple hardware but I'm ecstatic that a lower price of entry could bring Apple desktop market share to double digits.

 

Even legit Apple clones from the 90s failed to put price pressure on genuine Apple hardware. I don't see why a company that is breaking Apples user agreement would do any better.

 

The drivers issue seems like it would mostly apply to people trying to get OS X to run on any random computer they might own. But this computer is designed around OS X, so for the most part they can just choose components for which Apple has already written drivers. So I wouldn't expect to have lots of driver difficulties with this type of thing.

As for "bricking", you only really need to worry about that with firmware updates. If it's just a regular OS or driver update, worst comes to worst, you could always reinstall.

I hope this does go to court. I see enough people trying to claim that it's "illegal" to install OS X on non-Apple hardware (just because it violates some interpretations of Apple's EULA) that I want to find out whether they're right or not.

 

My $2000+ Apple computer is made out of aluminum, and honestly has a good price for what you get. Of course if you don't use all of it, you don't benefit from that...

But if you want a Dell equipped with dual quad-core processors, you are looking at an extra $1500 for a 2.66GHz model.

 

$2000 more for a WHITE GLOSSY computer? No, first off the MBP is around $2000 and $2000 on top of $400 is $2400. And the MBP is not white and glossy, that is the MB you are thinking of for around $1100. So as far as I see it I would be paying about $700 more for a WHITE GLOSSY computer that is legit and supported by a solid company that has no chance of being debunked by a mere software update. Not a bad amount I might add.

Next time get your facts straight before trying to spit some game.

 

good points. i've actually mentioned this before, a long time ago.

i agree that just because it violates apple's EULA, it doesn't technically make it illegal. if apple had something in its EULA that doesn't hold up in court, then it wouldn't be illegal for you to violate it.

for example, if, in the EULA, apple sets that the user must be a white male between the age of 18 and 25 to use their software, they very well might lose the right to hold that up in court. now, imo, there is nothing that apple does which won't hold up in court. apple doesn't have a monopoly... not even close. so its not like they are forcing people to buy either their hardware or software just to function in society.

if windows required you to use a "windows brand" computer. hell would break loose. but market forces make it acceptable practice for apple imo. this is why i think psystar won't hold up in court.

now, as far as violating "some interpretations" of apple's EULA... i mean, thats a joke. maybe it violates the "english" interpretation? which interpretation does it not violate? possibly if you use the "read only one out of three words" interpretation, it doesn't violate it any more.

even psystar is battling apple on the basis that the EULA is unfair and violates anti monopoly laws. they aren't arguing about the interpretation of it...

my four cents.

 

If Apple is still in control of which hardware their Operating System will run on, would it not force the makers of beige boxes to conform to the Apple configuration standards? I would think it easiest for them to build boxes that ensure compatibility.

 

I'm surprised there isn't more support for this kind of thing in the 'apple community'. Isn't this what made IBM the enormous company it is? They decided to allow cloning. Instead of seeing clones as a threat, they embraced the defacto understanding that they had set 'the' standard and increased sales worked for everyone.
I think Apple does have an unreasonably high mark up and a little competition would do them a world of good.
While everyone complains of Microsoft, Apple is at least as copyright oriented and letigious.
It's high time for Apple to join the real world of competition.

 

Sure, but that defeats the purpose of opening OS X to other vendors. The whole idea is that a consumer would have more choice. If Apple still limits the required hardware, what's the point?

Apple did try clones, and it failed miserably. The reason the Apple community does not call for OS X on generic boxes is because they understand that what makes OS X (and all Apple products for that matter) different is the closed system. The relationship between the OS and hardware would be compromised.

 

Because you can buy the same hardware from non-Apple vendors for less.

 

Psystar also has managed to alienate the hackintosh community: They didn't get permission from developers working on the OSx86 Project to sell their work. Netkas, who developed an EFI emulator which psystar is using, never gave them his leave, and has now re-released his code under a license that specifically forbids commercial usage. The community itself also don't like that they're selling these boxes. Until now, Apple seems to have been tolerant of them, but now the hammer may fall.
yes, I used lines from the engadget post
Read about it here:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/16/osx86-project-not-too-happy-with-psystar-either/

 

Well, I don't know what license they have on that software, but it's probably their own dumb fault. Most popular open source licenses are specifically written to allow commercial usage. This includes the GPL and BSD-style licenses. Do you think Dell asked permission from all the Linux developers, and X11, and Gnome, Firefox, etc. developers before selling computers with all those programs loaded onto them (the Dell Ubuntu systems)? I'm sure Apple also uses some open source stuff in the OS they sell (KHTML for example).

As long as there's a license and the license doesn't explicitly forbid it, there's no need to ask permission. If the developer wanted to restrict commercial use, and he used an open source license without any such restrictions, then it's his own fault.

 

I want a headless mac... but I don't want a freaking Mac Pro.... Don't need that kind of hardware.

But I don't see why anyone would buy this... Hackintoshs still appear to be somewhat problematic when it comes to maintenance. There is also that chance of an apple update bricking the system. If I was going to delve into the hackintosh thing (which I've thought about) I would certainly buy the components and build it myself.

There is also some question as to whether this company is really legit.

 

Which is why it would never work. Apple would never allow the same exact machine to be sold for less.

Anyway, it seems Psystar is really falling apart here. Now there are questions if they are even a real company.

 

Well, I tend to see OS as an analogy of cars as well...maybe not the best way, but BMW uses its own engine design. Lexus/Toyota use their own. If BMW allowed any competitor to use its engine design in their cars, it would lose its "mark", its "unique-ness". It would have to make sure the engine was well working with all car models that purchases the right to use their engine design.

Is that not what is Microsoft's flaw? It now has to support basically anything on the planet. That's why there are so many issues with compatibility.

Instead, Toyota/Lexus kept their engine design to themselves. They only need to worry about making sure their cars work best. Not the Honda, not the Mercedes-Benz. This is Apple.

Of course, this is no perfect analogy. But I'm trying to put this issue into another context so you can see it from another light.

 

Perhaps not the the exact same hardware, but close enough to get it work. That will always appeal to some since Macs tend to cost more. What's really proprietary on a Mac anyway? The maybe the board and the BIOS. Everything else is off the shelf.

No argument on Pystar. They seemed to have pissed off everyone including the OpenOSX project. They went about it the wrong way, but that may not stop someone else.

 

There is really nothing proprietary about the Mac at all. The main difference is the use of EFI instead of BIOS. Proprietary is not the issue though. Windows biggest problem is drivers IMO. MS has to rely on thousands of vendors to write that work, and do it in a timely matter. Vista is the perfect example of this flaw, especially SP1 that is not being delivered to many machines due to driver issues. There are still some things that do not work with Vista, and it is not MS's fault. Apple writes their own drivers for the hardware and so does not have to worry about a manufacturer dragging their feet or writing junk.

So, yeah, everything in the Intel Macs is pretty much off the shelf, as much as any Dell or Sony. However, since there is only a small number of hardware configs, Apple saves themselves a lot problems.

 

It looks like Psystar is about as clueless as they get. Wow! How do you manage to piss off BOTH Apple and the OS 86 people at the same time?

Will Apple put the kabosh on the OS 86 guys because of Psystar? I don't think so since Psystar didn't ask anybody for permission. They just jumped. I'd like to see the details of how to make a PC run with OS X so I can use a couple of useless ex-windows boxes for something other than Ubuntu. Not that Ubuntu is bad mind you. If given a choice, the only gui I want staring me in the face right now is Leopard.

For a moment there, I had a glint of hope that the whole OSX on "other" hardware thing might get a lot easier. Not yet. Not now at least.

 

ok ive only skimmed this thread so dont flame me if this sounds dumb

this company have changed their site how many times? changed the product name even!!!!!!!!!! this to me shows that when you order you will get one of the following......a long wait promising no computer or a box made from plastic and aluminum with some poorly thrown together computer parts.


just sit and think, if a mac pro costs what $4000 and this thing costs $400 then there is a problem one being that the apple case on your mac pro costs more than the entire openmac. I MEAN REALLY THIS IS NOT A PROPER COMPUTER FOR THAT MONEY IT CANT EVEN COMPARE TO A MAC PRO

and as i think it has been said wouldnt apple just send out an update or something of that nature that would wipe the software from these forgeries?

there is a thing, its called to good to be true

 

So its funny... was looking at the mac pro again today.

You can remove 1 of the xeons and drop the price by $500.
So in interest, I decided to see how much the same processor goes for on newegg. Almost $700!!!! :-o

So a DIY system using same hardware would literally be about the same price as the mac pro. Server motherboard, server processors, and server ram... Adds up REALLY quickly.

 

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/appleaday/blog/2008/04/no_mac_os_x_for_nonapple_pcs_a.html

It was a hoax.:wub: