Slashdot Mirror
Beige Box Apple Clone?
steve.m writes "Finally it looks like I'll be able to get a cheap box to run MacOSX on, but not from Apple! John Fraser is (sort of) getting into the clone business 5 years after Apple shut down their 3 year long 'experiment' in licensing the hardware. Based on off the shelf apple components in a custom pizza box style case with no bolted on display, a barebones 'iBox' will be around 300 USD and require a processor, disk and memory (and the OS). Complete systems (again, without the OS) should start at around 650 USD."
Apparently nobody is aware that Mac OS X CAN'T BE RUN (legally) on non-Apple hardware? It's in the license. So what's the point?
Don't think for a second Apple won't enforce it. That doesn't mean they will shut this guy down, but I'm sure they'll put "if (running_on_dudes_clone) exit()" in their next OS update.
Who do people think Apple is, Red Hat? They don't WANT clones to exist. Heck, Apple developers don't want clones to exist either. That's how Apple has avoided the pains in the ass that Windows has to put up with. You know exactly what machine your software/hardward is plugged into.
I give this guy maybe a year before he goes out of business.
He's using spare parts manufactured by Apple and sold to repair shops. Why do I have a funny feeling that there's language in the repair parts purchase agreement that prohibits them from being used in just this fashion? IANAL, and IANAACT, but that would be the obvious way to prevent this.
Will the price of spare parts remain the same if they are used (eventually in large quantities) for building iBoxes?
The free market has some laws.
Bye!
apple legal is going to go after him for creating brand confusion and misleading the consumer into thinking the "ibox" is an apple product.
I wish him luck, but I bet he's going to get squashed by apple legal.
A clone market would either a) drive Apple out of business, or b) take away the one unique factor which sets them apart in the industry: vertical integration. Either way, the platform and the entire industry loses big.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
The article states the motherboards from Apple have the Apple ROMS that allows OS X to boot. I would assume the Terrasoft boards don't contain an Apple ROM chip.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
John Fraser, if you read this, I would sure as heck not call this thing the i-box! Let everybody else call it that, but not you.
Apple will jump hard on you for that. It's going to be very difficult to convince a judge that you're not trying to fit this in with the i-mac and the i-book. In fact, I'd say it will be impossible.
The only way to win this lawsuit is to have deeper legal pockets than Apple. Don't try.
Name it something else like: TINAA. It stands for This Is Not An Apple. It sounds good to me, though I haven't researched the IP issues. A quick Google only turned up Finish and apparently one proper name.
Good luck!
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Apple's profit margins for hardware might be a bit higher than usual precisely because there AREN'T any Mac cloners out in force. If you want to use Mac OS X, you need to deal with Apple.
In addition, there are probably more Apple loyalists than there are loyalists to any particular PC brand, given how commoditized and cutthroat the PC platform is (well, for desktops anyway).
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I'm not entirely sure about this. Apple releases a $100+ OS upgrade which most Mac users buy every 2 years or so. The hardware upgrade cycle for a Mac is 4-6 years (twice as long as for a Pc, don't ask me why), so software sales just from the OS are a big chunk of Apple's income, add in other Mac apps, and the percentage goes up.
Another key source of income for Apple is their AppleCare package, which gives minimum-hastle repairs / replacements to people who break thier Macs. This would not be availible to iBox users, so would help to differentiate the Apple brand.
If this guy can sell to the 'I want a Mac, but can't afford one' crowd, but not poach many of Apple's potential customers, then this will provide Apple with a small amount of extra income from OS and component sales, and a potentailly large market share increase, which will benefit Apple hugely.
I know people still using 604 and early G3 based Macs, who can't afford to upgrade to a new Mac. Do you think Apple would rather that they were using a Windows box, or a non-Apple built Mac?
If Apple can still supply inovative machines with a higher build quality, then there will be a place for them, and if they control the OS, they control the platform (How relevant is IBM, how relevant is MS?). Apple will have to work hard to offer something that this guy doesn't, but I suspect that they could.
Of course they'll probably sue him out of existence, but hey, I can hope.
For myself, I can say that if these boxen were availible today, then I would be a Mac user. Since they are not, I am still a PC user. If I were a Mac user, then my next box, or possibly the one after that would be a genuine Apple box because, let's face it, they're so much more cool than the iPizza.
Which reminds me, my pizza dough has probably finished rising now, so I shall stop rambling and go and turn it into food. Mmmm, pizza....
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
There's no reason to buy this case if you want to run OS X. The costs will be about the same because OS X is outrageously expensive (It's an OS), the processor upgrade companies gouge you, and other components are bound to be scarce enough that you will be paying near near full price compared to the x86 market where components are hideously cheap.
Basically, this is an "OK" idea if you're vehemently opposed to giving Apple your $xxx for their OS and want to use a PPC based *nix because you've got something against x86 and can't afford an IBM PPC box or other alternative hardware (Alpha, Sparc, etc).
It goes without saying there are Apple hardware collectors that just buy obscure hardware to say they have it. There's always a market for them. "Look I got one of 500 iboxes before he got shut down!"
Apple has NOTHING to worry about from young Mr. Fraser. As discussed in the article, Fraser said he doesn't have any grand plans for building the iBox business into the next Dell or Gateway. "I'm not doing it for profit," he said. "I'm doing it for a hobby.
On the contrary, those who purchase these systems could be in for some serious headaches if they ever need tech support. I can't see Mr. Fraser being able to take his hobby seriously if he's personally getting phone calls from nebie users in Dallas, Topeka, and Seattle. Don't get me wrong, I wish Mr. Fraser much happiness and little frustration in his hobby. He has very little hope (and, it appears, no desire) to make this in any way a threat to Apple's business model.
Apple's best strategy in this case is to ignore the close and 2khappyware give a real-world example of the differences between a small-time clone and a bona fide Apple.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
The whole point of Apple is that THERE IS NO 3rd party. Yes the Mac is expensive upfront, but look at it this way : if you buy a PC, either assembled or part-by-part, you know you're going to spend hours, no, days tweaking it and stamping out the zillions of compatibility issues and hardware glitches. If you buy a Mac, Apple has already done all that tweaking and testing and you have a solid finished product, identical to the other millions of Macs sold all over. You don't have to futz with a Mac, it just works and works well. You have to pay for that extra effort and quality, but in the long run you save lots of time (thus money).
Now if this guy sells you a naked board, and you find a CPU somewhere, then a cheap-cheap IDE drive from your favorite asian importer, and some Kingston Value Crap Ram, well you have yourself a 1500$ iBox with an identity crisis. And it is really much cheaper than a 'true' Mac ? Not that much.
If you want a cheap Mac, buy it used or get a lower-end model. If you just want the cheapest computer, then go grab a 500$ PC from Walmart. The bottom line is that a fully-equipped PC that works as well as a Mac, costs as much as a Mac.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
BTW Microsoft makes more than Apple for each Mac sold. The profit margin on MS Office is larger than the profit margin on the hardware and OSX (or OS9, or OS10.2).
Galium Arsenide is the material of the future, and always will be.
Why do they need help? It isn't the customer's job to keep a company in business. It is the company's job to keep themselves in business. If the computer "for the rest of us" is too expensive for "the rest of us" to purchase, Apple gets what they deserve. By the way what is Apple's retained earnings? Go read their financial statements sometime. They are interesting reading, if you know what it is you are looking at. Jobs & co. are skinning apple users on a regular basis.
Same thing could have been said about Intel's chips in 1997-98 when the PowerPC chip was way further ahead in MHz and raw speed.
The industry fluctuates. Just because one company leads doesn't mean they will forever. Quit being so short sighted.
sin(6cos(r)+5A)
... and eBay certainly has more than a few late-model iMacs at less than this price point. They were going for $799 new from Apple until not so long ago. I don't see even $650 total as anything like a "deal"....
Umm. They can write a contract that says we sell you this hardware and you may never use it for any purpose and if you don't agree to these terms, return the hardware. Now, you the End User can argue that the contract is one where there's unequal bargaining power, it's a contract of adhesion or unconscionable, but people write contracts regarding hardware all the time [see Licitra v. Gateway 2000 in NYS]
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
Actualy I think that Gateway is trying to target the market that wants a "trendy" looking computer but all the benefits of a PC. In other words, anybody who looks at a Mac and goes "cool" but then goes "err, does it run Windows?"
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
For what it's worth, when will Apple realize that
a) now that they have an awesome OS, they have a huge untapped market of new customers who aren't used to paying $1200 for a low-end computer,
b) there is money to be made on the low end,
c) There are people who want a mac but can't/won't pay those prices.
d) Getting more market share (from low-end customers) will help get more product support for the mac.
It's frustrating to see apple refuse to go after a large segment of the population (like me!), and I really think they could introduce a cheaper mac without poaching their others if they're careful.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I like his idea; if I got a Euro for every person who told me that they would like to have a Mac but couldn't afford it, I'd be able to buy a Apple branded G4.
There is also a huge crowd of very knowledgable Mac owners who have to satisfy themselves with older systems or iMacs because they can not afford to buy the luscious Apple Pro systems while they would love to tinker as much as their PC buddies can with their systems of 500-600 Euros. Some of those I know switched to PC hardware because they got fed up with Apple's stance of exploiting their customer's loyalty and keeping prices high.
There is a huge demand for low cost Apple-compatible hardware which can be expanded easily.
Apple could play this very smart by providing hardware to him and since it will be Apple hardware MacOS X will not have too many hiccups running on it.
Apple could even explicitly include a paragraph in their OS X EULA in which they state that they do not garantuee, support or claim OS X to be fit for any non-Apple branded hardware.
Their hardware sales would go up, their OS X sales would go up and -most importantly- the Apple Clones would help Apple to conquer market and credibility with MicroStuffed IT Managers.
While Apple makes good hardware in a superior design with unequated software integration, they have to dump their 'People will buy it if they see the intrinsic superiority of our systems'. People will drool, will moan and will google for an MacOS X theme for Windows.
I'd call it aBox though since the concept is lumping hardware PC style in a box. The 'a' could stand for alternative.
Using the 'i'-nomenclature for hardware would be the same as wearing a 'iGotSuedbyApple' tag
Linux or BSD on x86 offers me great software on powerful hardware.
OS X on Mac boxes offers me a beautiful case and Apple support.
What does a beige Mac offer me? None of the above? I must rush out and buy one right away.
Beep beep.
This is just a big noise, no meat story
1. Some people are doing similar things already.
Look at it carefully. All he does is repacked some spare parts. It's not a complete system and by the time you make it complete system it will cost about the same as cheapest eMac. But no warranty, no support, no style and only hype.
Marathon was offering rack mount Power Macs way before XServe, but they did not get in trouble.
2. It's not a clone.
The only way it could have real success (and only probable problem for Apple) if a big manufacturer would make it, using their own motherboard and all other parts from the market.
3. I understand why Apple does not want clones. What I do not understand is why Apple does not make a $200-$400 part, sell it to clone maker along with permition/ability to buy and install OSX. So if Apple then can make about $500 per clone, it should not hurt them. Then companies like IBM could make servers, SGI could make hi-end graphics systems and direct their current customers to OSX
4. If all this will work out and price will be low and Apple won't kill him it will be permanent backorder company.
5. if someone so desparete for cheap mac, just buy used, or even non-working one, and fix it. it will be cheaper than iBox
I got into computers in the early eighties. By the end of the eighties we had Macs, PCs, Amigas, STs, and half a dozen also-rans from smaller outfits just doing interesting things. And the personalities of these machines were so different.
Right now there are two computer platforms, Mac and PC. The PCs have been cloned to death, and now someone's considering cloning the Mac again. What happened to innovation, especially now that there's a strong base of free software that'd ensure anyone wanting to create a machine from first principles would be able to hit the ground running with a modern operating system and reasonable software? (ie make a *BSD or Linux or Hurd based system, get an off-the-shelf user space, build a GUI, and port Mozilla and OpenOffice.org to it.)
It ought to be more possible - much cheaper - than, well, since 1979 when expectations were still low, to put together an entirely new platform. Nobody seems to have the balls to do it though.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.