Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Beige Box Apple Clone?

Posted by michael on from the lawsuit-already-on-the-way dept.

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."

7 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. Spare Parts by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Spare Parts by JabberWokky · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Aye, but, IIRC, EULAs can't be applied to physical property. If you want to buy a Ford F150 and chop it down into the shape of a giant shoe, it's yours to do with as you please.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    2. Re:Spare Parts by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The nature of EULAs (shrinkwrap licenses as we currently know them), is that they aren't a condition of the sale. The reason they can't be applied if that by the time you are asked to agree to the EULA, you already have the software and therefore have little incentive to agree to it.

      Apple's deal with a repair shop, can quite easily and plausibly, require agreement to a contract before Apple supplies them with any parts.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  2. brand confusion by pcp_ip · · Score: 5, Insightful
    the name "ibox" is going to get him in trouble.

    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.

  3. TINAA by Hanzie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:Apple's business model by Stonehand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:Uh huh... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    How is creating a low cost box that will cut into Apple's hardware sales (where they make the MAJORITY of their revenue) "supporting" Apple?

    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