Slashdot Mirror
Second Mac Clone Maker Set To Sell, With a Twist
CWmike writes "Another company is preparing to sell Intel-based computers that can run Apple's Mac OS X. But unlike Psystar, a Florida clone maker that's been sued by Apple, Open Tech won't pre-install the operating system on its machines. Open Tech's Home (equipped with an Intel dual-core Pentium processor, 3GB of memory, an nVidia GeForce 8600 CT video card and a 500GB hard drive) and XT (which includes an Intel Core 2 quad-core CPU, 4GB of RAM, an nVidia GeForce 8800 video card and a 640GB drive) machines will sell for $620 and $1,200, respectively. Open Tech is prepared to do battle with Apple if it comes after Open Tech. 'We definitely would defend this,' said [Open Tech spokesman] Tom. 'The only possible case that Apple can make, the only one that has any chance, would be based on the end-user licensing agreement.'"
The only tenuous EULA claim Apple may make in this case is that this company is encouraging people to violate the EULA by installing OS X on their unauthorized hardware. I doubt such a claim would find much favor in a court, but that doesn't mean Apple won't attempt it (and try to bully this upstart into submission).
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
If apple goes to court and loses, they start on a slippery slope downward, through legal decisions and software/hardware freedom.
If they go, and then settle out of court, then Open Tech makes a lot of money... and more companies will do the exact same thing, looking for more money.
If they go and win, the apocalypse is around the corner.
If they do nothing, then they're no longer really apple after all...
So, no matter what happens, Apple loses.
And if they win?
Fine, Apple can't stop people from selling computer that have the ability to run MacOS. But there isn't much market for machines where you have to install the OS yourself.
"Huh? I'd buy a computer like that. So would my friends. We install OSs all the time." True. But you and your friends are not typical consumers. Most people will not buy a computer that doesn't already have an OS on it.
Of course, there's the corporate customers, who have the resources for to install their own OSs, and who buy most computers anyway. But they have a disadvantage individual consumers don't: they're big enough for Apple to sue.
If they win the case, it opens up a precedent that I don't think is in anyone's interest, other than Apple's. What if MS sued HP saying they're not allowed to sell machines that run Windows? It would either be suicide or some weird form of extortion.
This could be THE case that forces MacClones into reality. It won't work for Mister John Q Public from Anytown USA who expect their food to be injected into their stomachs predigested. But for those who are willing to sit with a machine for an hour or so, I don't see how this is much of a problem.
This would be a benefit to people who already have one Apple machine, but want another but don't want to pay premium price. They already have the OS disks.
This is much more interesting than PSystar. I could see they were screwed from the gitgo, but these guys have it sussed.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
"Open Tech's site is hosted on a domain belonging to Tokelau, a South Pacific island territory of New Zealand that has in the past been widely used by cybercriminals and scammers."
But that's in the past. Now Open Tech's here, and they're legitimate!
Also I guess your point also makes it ok to steal the code of any open source project and release it in your own closed product, I mean, the code was there to grab, I took it, now it's mine, how does the license matter now when I have the code?
You could not possibly be more wrong. I'm a programmer myself, and make a habit of releasing my software under the GPL (among other OSI-compatible licenses). If I were to incorporate someone else's code into a product I distribute, in violation of their licensed terms of distribution, I would be legally and ethically in the wrong (of course, I'd never do that). However, if someone takes my software (say it's GPL licensed), makes modifications to it, and uses it in his business, he has no legal burden to release those changes back to me unless he distributes the software to others.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Even though Apple prohibit installation of their software on non-apple hardware, I think this is a good think as it might just make Jobs realise that it's time to open-up and prove that their OS is really up to the battle with the competition. If only there were a specific hardware component such as a usb key that could be purchased to turn any computer into an apple-compatible one I would most certainly buy one to try out OS X once and for all.
On the contrary, "labeled with an Apple logo" is just as valid an interpretation of that phrase.
Besides, if you're using a sticker from the box, then Apple did make the label.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
There's a reason why MS has done infinitely better business wise over the last two decades than Apple. Yeah, Apple has gained a little bit of ground in the past few years, thanks to the iPod, not any of their computers, but MS has a much smarter business model. Provide just the software, and don't lock down (as much as is sensible anyways) what type of hardware that the end user can use that software on. Granted, MS does a lot of stuff that can make us cringe, but no one can doubt that they at least do a few things much smarter than the way Apple operates. I'm telling you, 10-15 years ago, people will for the most part be over looking at MS as the evil empire, and Apple will have a sour taste in the mouths of anyone who is not immune to the effects of the reality distortion field. Does anyone believe that Apple has any desire whatsoever to have an open platform? There's a reason they sell their computers for a premium price, and it has little to do with the quality of their hardware.
if it's only a little code, why do you need it? Just download and compile all the code.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
This is not the second Mac clone maker, it's the third. How soon everyone forgets Power Computing, and what Apple did to them.
No company address, phone number, and web site /.ed.
Anyway, here's some snapshots grabbed by endgadget.
I don't understand why it would be so hard to accept that people decide what the fuck they want to do with their product, if this is what customers want to do with their product, let them.
I just kinda want to reply to this sentiment.
I am perfectly capable of making a Hackintosh. I've been building my own Windows and a couple Linux systems for 10 years. I used to have a small business as a whitebox builder.
When building for myself, I build quality. I use top-notch parts, and I don't skimp on the silent cooling or the quality of the case.
You know what? That stuff is expensive.
When I decided to switch to the Mac full-time a few months ago, I thought about building a Hackintosh, but by the time I had my parts list down, I was nearing $2000 in parts. And even that wasn't at the quality of the Mac Pro. I decided that giving Apple the extra $1000 wasn't that much, considering I was also getting support, a warranty, guaranteed software updates, and phenomenal build quality (you should get inside one of these Mac Pros sometime--just polished). I decided that all the stuff that isn't measured in speed or gigabytes was also worth money, just as I had decided with my PCs.
I would still like to build a Hackintosh for fun, but not as a main computer. In fact, that's why I'm irritated with these "clone" companies. Apple is going to have to lock things down and that is going to hurt Mac owners and the hobbyists. If you hack something together for cheap, you don't complain if it doesn't work right. But these companies are making that their business model, and it's not good for anyone.
Even though I'd be the first to agree that the Mini is overpriced for the specs, remember that it is a tiny computer. It's smaller than a laptop. It's point is to be small. I was looking at mini-ITX systems a couple weeks ago, because I kinda want to put one in my living room and replace the solution I have in there now. I was dismayed by the prices, to be honest. It would be really, really easy to hit that $600 in parts very quickly, and then you'd have to put it together and install the OS and make it work. "Hell," I thought, "for that I might as well just get a Mini and be done with it."
So, to return to the GP, yes, people do pay for the whole package. A good, quiet case is not free (on the contrary, it's quite expensive--I added it up and I had almost $1000 of silent/quiet case parts in my last PC). Support is not free. OSX is not free. Given the "whole package," the Apple deal is more expensive than some whirring piece of plastic shit from Dell that runs Vista (gag), but, in my estimation, even as a geek and system builder, it is worth the money.
If it's not worth it for some people, that's fine. They can try to hack something together that runs OSX, or they can get a Dell, or a million other options. Apple is a hardware company. In fact, let's be honest: it's a luxury hardware company. That's all they've ever wanted to be, and they do a nice job at it. It really is a "whole package" kind of thing.