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."

Comments

iBox?

[UncleBiggims]

I can already see Mike Tyson in the Switch ad:

"I was looking at this lolita sight and all of a sudden beep... beep... beep. I was like, bummer. It was a good sight.

I'm Mike Tyson and iBox."

Uh huh...

[saddino]

"But I want to get Apple's full support. I want to make sure I'm on the up and up. I'm an Apple supporter. It's not something I want to clash with them about. I want to make sure what I'm doing is legal."

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?

Sure sounds like "clashing" to me.

Re:Uh huh...

[TheRaven64]

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....

brand confusion

[pcp_ip]

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.

Re:What will you run on it?

[JabberWokky]

Had you read the article, he's using Apple motherboards - bought from Apple. You know - "Apple Hardware".

--
Evan

Re:Spare Parts

[JabberWokky]

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

TINAA

[Hanzie]

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!

You can do this yourself!

[nycroft]

On December 19, 2002, Tech TV's The Screen Savers aired an episode in which Kevin Rose built a G4 in an ATX case. Most of the parts came from Mac Resq and others. It's an interesting article for anyone who wishes to tackle the project by themselves.

The segment was inspired by an aricle on MacOpz Web Site. I urge all to check it out.

Though this might end up costing a little more, there are benefits: You get to choose your own case (which must be slightly modified), and get the pleasure of building a computer that normally isn't built by anyone except Apple and the pizza box guy.

Re:Lost sales and/or lower profits for Apple

[Krow10]

JabberWocky wrote:

Had you read the article, he's using Apple motherboards - bought from Apple. You know - "Apple Hardware".

To which some AC Responded:

Had you read the article, you'd know he is using motherboards Apple sells for repair and spare part purposes. Manufacturers supply boards like that with much lower than retail markup because they're intended to serve its existing user base. ...

Technically correct. This has nothing to do with the point that JabberWocky was addressing; namely, this statement by (perhaps some other) AC:

Apparently nobody is aware that Mac OS X CAN'T BE RUN (legally) on non-Apple hardware?

See, since this is Apple hardware, running software that has a "you can't run this on non-Apple hardware" clause in it's license does not violate that clause of the license.

-C