Jump to content
InsanelyMac Forum
meklort

New OS X compatible motherboard -> QUO

Recommended Posts

Yes but QUO is covering themselves by saying 'all OS' supported, they're not making the cardinal mistake Psystar made by pre-installing.

 

Also, Apple would have a hard time telling all its vendors to use different chipsets. The reason this board works (on paper) is because Apple uses these components in their Mac Pro.

 

Honestly, I'm way more concerned with Apple going exclusively to ARM. That could be catastrophic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

Yes but QUO is covering themselves by saying 'all OS' supported, they're not making the cardinal mistake Psystar made by pre-installing.

 

Also, Apple would have a hard time telling all its vendors to use different chipsets. The reason this board works (on paper) is because Apple uses these components in their Mac Pro.

 

Honestly, I'm way more concerned with Apple going exclusively to ARM. That could be catastrophic.

 

Apple is not going to ARM because every App would have to re made for it. Apple makes a larger majority from the App Store the Mac Sales. Also look into licensing for x86 emulation. Its not going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but QUO is covering themselves by saying 'all OS' supported, they're not making the cardinal mistake Psystar made by pre-installing.

 

Also, Apple would have a hard time telling all its vendors to use different chipsets. The reason this board works (on paper) is because Apple uses these components in their Mac Pro.

 

From a strictly legal point of view (I spent a year studying business law in the U.K.) what a company mentions in press releases will nearly always ONLY be used against them, and can rarely be used to support them in a legal battle (i.e. "but on our website it says..." doesn't impress judges).

 

So while saying "any OS" is great marketing (and in my opinion, a noble goal), it has absolutely NO standing in any legal sense unless it is stated officially in company policies. EVEN THEN, any other talk on forums such as this of facilitating people to break a contract with Apple (in this case their EULA) is grounds for legal repercussions at Apple's behest. Cleverly they have not mentioned OSX on their kickstarter project. Less cleverly, they have been open about announcing this project on one of two hackintosh websites that I am sure Apple is aware of (i.e. Insanelymac).

 

My argument has NOTHING to do with chipsets and everything to do with a company making money by promoting a motherboard compatible with Apple's proprietary software, whether directly or indirectly. Note the key phrase "making money". Rarely will an end-user be sued (although I do have a friend who was on the chopping block during the BitTorrent shake-down), because barr making an example, there are no financial damages to be had. Hacker magazines? Educational. Figuring out how to hack in to your DVR to download recorded shows to your iPod? Questionable, certainly against your TOU, but probably not going to get you into serious trouble. Partnering with a major manufacturer to sell a motherboard that will most likely be purchased to run OSX?

 

When it comes down to it, a simple question from Apple's lawyers would look something like this (assuming honesty is a given):

 

Apple: Did you create these motherboards to run OSX?

Quo: We created them for an end-user to install whatever they wanted on them.

Apple: At any point did you mention intentional compatibility with OS X?

Quo: There were some conversations about this on an internet forum, yes.

Apple: Was this by people employed by or directly associated with Quo computer?

Quo: Yes.

 

And that is how you get a strong legal basis for proving that their intent, whether primary or not, was to help users bypass Apple's EULA, something which while not ilegal, certainly is open to legal recourse.

 

Listen - I'm all for open-source software and the freedom of choice for end-users, HOWEVER, a noble cause does not a lawsuit avoid. I want these guys to succeed. I wish them all the best on their kickstarter project, and am already planning on purchasing a board for my Mac Pro mod. But having open discussions linking your product to breaking Apple's EULA? Very unwise for people connected to the company to be involved.

 

*Edited for grammatical reasons.*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point well made because when Apple's legal suit finds enough basis to proceed they most certainly will captialize on the opportunity.

 

All in all though, I'm for the board like I've posted before it's just the legalities about how you speak of the board that worries me when monetary gains starts being factored in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is how you get a strong legal basis for proving that their intent, whether primary or not, was to help users bypass Apple's EULA, something which while not ilegal, certainly is open to legal recourse.

 

I live in France, ymmv for other values of "home". :)

Breaking EULA could certainly bring you in front of a judge if Apple decide to bring the matter to court.

But the results could also be suboptimal here: we all remember the Psystar case, but www.pearc.de sells Apple clones since 1999 and as far as we know, Apple let it be without going to court or trying to settle by other means.

 

http://www.pearc.de

 

Here in France we also have Article L122-1 from Code de la Consommation about "vente liée" which could apply to Apple EULA, should they choose to sue.

 

http://fr.wikipedia....es_de_logiciels

 

I think (and could be wrong as IANAL) that Apple do not see their EULA as 100% enforceable in Europe, and wisely choose to stay put, for the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in France, ymmv for other values of "home". :)

[...]

I think (and could be wrong as IANAL) that Apple do not see their EULA as 100% enforceable in Europe, and wisely choose to stay put, for the moment.

 

Tu as tout a fait raison - you are of course correct, and we are seeing that Apple is both winning and losing their case depending on the locale of the fight. The problem is that a startup that seems to be based in California, USA (http://www.corporationwiki.com/California/Los-Angeles/quo-computer-llc/47645873.aspx) may not have the protection afforded by E.U. regulations. Either way, I wish Quo the best of luck - forget OSX out-of-the-box, I want that color scheme!! :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys thanks for all the post, suggestions and feedback.

Really appreciate. I am sorry we can't say too much only that this an amazing product and we are excited as much as you guys.

 

We really hope the KS campaign succeeds : it is great to see the community unite.

Definitely have future plans and road map but one step first. Then when you guys get the board in your hands we take a second step.

Wish I could talk more about this. We need your continued support. thx.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to order a complete system, but I'd really rather do it through some configuration tool on your website where you can customize it and know exactly what you're getting. So.. I'm certainly rooting for the product and hope it succeeds. I like when anyone challenges the constraints of modern technology and potentially makes Apple mad :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@iztech

 

hi, i don't know if you had time to read all comments but here are 2 who seem to me more important than others and there was no answer

 

 

Say nothing about FakeSMC?

If it still needed then how can you say "compatible with OSX"?

For me HackOSX can be installed on most computers.

Agreed.

Does it implement an ACPI SMC device in the hardware or in the firmware?

 

 

:)

 

 

Cordially

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, after reading through all of this there is one point which is missing in regard to the legalities of this mother board in respect to Apple's End User License Agreement. When this was in court in the United States the end ruling did uphold Apple's EULA, but more importantly it has upheld the lawfull right to install non-Apple parts into an Apple branded computer. This being said it would be unlawfull for Apple to stop a company from making replacement components for an Apple computer or making third party hardware for the purpose of being installed into an Apple computer. I own a 2006 Mac Pro and have already upgraded it from a quad core to an eight core, if my motherboard was to become damaged (or I simply wished an upgrade) then the purchase of this motherboard would achieve that goal and have no legal consequences.

This a company selling a motherboard which can be used to build a PC or as a replacement for an existing Mac Pro motherboard. Sure, to replace my Mac Pro motherboard I would have to modify my case such as I have already down to my G5 so that it can take a mATX board. I did so on my G5 by installing a Lian Li motherboard tray and back plate. With my G5 I wished to upgrade it to have an Intel CPU and so I replaced the motherboard and CPU. Would this be classed as a Hackintosh or an extensive upgrade? With a Windoze based computer people's upgrade their CPU and motherboard on a regular basis and often change manufacturer in the process, this is still classed as an upgraded.

All thoughts welcome.

 

P.S. This is the first time I have had to do an exam to be allowed to post on a forum, anyway to find out which two I got wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...This a company selling a motherboard which can be used to build a PC or as a replacement for an existing Mac Pro motherboard...

Good point! But there is a catch. If a product you've upgraded using a 3d party components not approved by Apple, you would lose a warranty (If it is still under). IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point! But there is a catch. If a product you've upgraded using a 3d party components not approved by Apple, you would lose a warranty (If it is still under). IMO

 

This is all un-true. You can not take this MB and use components from any one mac and make this work. Second its not meant nor designed to be a replacement but a motherboard that is easy to configure under any OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But his point is that, based on the very same judicial decision that defeated Psystar, using the board in this manner - if possible, and it is, needing only a case mod - would not violate EULA, only void the warranty. If that's true, he's got a point, Rampage, yet i doubt someone would ever buy this board and undergo all the mods needed as a replacement for a Mac Pro board.

 

Best regards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all un-true. You can not take this MB and use components from any one mac and make this work. Second its not meant nor designed to be a replacement but a motherboard that is easy to configure under any OS.

My point is that you can't replace an apple made components (the main ones like MB) with non apple made, and still have a valid apple warranty. I'm not talking about the technical side of the matter. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But based on the very same judicial decision that defeated Psystar, using the board in this manner - if possible, and it is, needing only a case mod - would not violate EULA, only void the warranty. He's got a point, Rampage, yet a quite impractical one.

 

Best regards!

 

No he does not. This has nothing to do with the EULA or warranty. Psystar did not get in trouble for making mac systems but for installing the OS. Please read the court brief of what they were found guilty of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, he does, and what you're saying is that, in the end, it doesn't really matters, because building a hackintosh-friendly piece of hardware, or even a complete build, doesn't violate itself the EULA, as long as you don't pre-install the OS.

 

Well, that's disputable: see post #104.

 

Best regards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, he does, and what you're saying is that, in the end, it doesn't really matters, because building a hackintosh-friendly piece of hardware, or even a complete build, doesn't violate itself the EULA, as long as you don't pre-install the OS.

 

Correct. Thats what case law says. Dell has been building clones for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, he does, and what you're saying is that, in the end, it doesn't really matters, because building a hackintosh-friendly piece of hardware, or even a complete build, doesn't violate itself the EULA, as long as you don't pre-install the OS.

 

Well, that's disputable: see post #104.

 

Best regards!

 

Exactly. Any vendor selling a a UEFI-based GIGABYTE LGA1155 board with compatible CPU and a GraphicsEnabler-supported GPU is effectively selling a Mac clone, or at least an easily hackintosh-able PC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Any vendor selling a a UEFI-based GIGABYTE LGA1155 board with compatible CPU and a GraphicsEnabler-supported GPU is effectively selling a Mac clone, or at least an easily hackintosh-able PC.

 

Thats exactly my point. People thinking this is not legal is laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if the hackintosh is the reason the MacPro is being left to wither on the vine...

 

I doubt it - not that this isn't a valid idea but simply because of conversations I have had with people (mostly creative professionals) who buy Mac Pros. A couple of reasons why:

 

1) When you're an established business, you don't go around breaking the EULA of the company your workflow is built around.

2) When your livelihood depends on your computer, you don't play with the possibility of important updates breaking your system.

3) Though Macs do fail, AppleCare is still a HUGE motivator for buying a real Mac Pro (this is the one that comes up the most).

 

Honestly spoken, the majority of people who build Mac Pro-type hackintoshes probably wouldn't shell out the $2500+ bucks it would take to buy a base Mac Pro. This is a general observation - obviously we have seen some KILLER builds on this forum, but generally speaking people who build hackintoshes do so to save money or to tinker. The Mac Pro is designed for the professional market, the majority of whom probably are still buying/considering buying a Mac Pro (although their sales will drop until they announce the new line later this year).

 

Just my casual observations, but they are backed with many conversations with Mac Pro owners in various professional fields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I could allow a Mac Book/Pro, would definitely buy one. That's for sure. When a hardware is pleasant to use and work with, it pays off 100%. Esp. if it's equipment used to earn for living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×