Attack of the Clones!

amen...

 

is funny to see a website like this one say no to pirate stuff but supports a pirated o.s?

remember guys os x was and as far as we can see will not be released on windows hardware.

 

love this site but their whole view on pirate apps is amazing...

if it wasnt for a pirated version of os x this site woulndt exist

I'm sure there are many users who own a legal copy of OS X which they are using on their Intel machines. This site is far from a clearing house for illegal apps.

First off, if someone legitimately owns a license for OSX-Intel (only way at the moment if by purchasing an Intel-Mac), depending on the laws of their country, it could be perfectly legal for them to install that OS on another machine they own - be it Apple or not.

 

However, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a country that would allow copying and re-distributing that OS for a fee without the permission of the copy write holder.

 

For those that are bound by the laws of the US; if you can't see the difference between piracy for personal use and piracy for profit, regardless of what the law says on the issue, then you probably have other issues as well -- like pushing a death penalty for jaywalking.

You've got my point exactly. Sure, it's legal in many countries to resell an operating system installed like that. But to do so you still need a legal copy in the first place. An important note is that this cloner is operating in the United States, making most of these issues moot.

I'd like to see how long they stay in business before Apple Legal comes down on the hard and fast. Though really, it does beg the discussion on what Apple's next move will be, when it comes to clones. I'm sure they've learned a thing or two from last time, and IMO, they probably won't be to quick to jump into the clone market again.

One of my reasons for thinking this, is the recent release of Bootcamp. I mean, through Bootcamp, you can now easily run windows on your Apple machine, giving more people a reason to buy an Apple MacBook (or whatever else lies in the future). With this method, Apple is providing you the best of both worlds, but in a way they can control. I'd think with licensing OS X out to other manufacturers and consumers, they would loose a great deal of this control. Not to say that it wouldn't be uber-cool to be able to buy an HP/Dell OS X box. Remotely similar to what HP did with the iPod.

amen...

 

is funny to see a website like this one say no to pirate stuff but supports a pirated o.s?

remember guys os x was and as far as we can see will not be released on windows hardware.

 

love this site but their whole view on pirate apps is amazing...

if it wasnt for a pirated version of os x this site woulndt exist

I really do beg to differ. If you've been around since very early in the beginning, when the first murmurs of Apple switching to the x86 platform were swirling around, you'd know that the site was created for anything that had to do with Apple and x86. Sure, in the beginning all we had was the Mactel tar, and a bunch of other illegal Dev leaks, but most of us fully knew that Apple would soon be releasing their official Intel computers. Thus bringing me back to my main point...this site is for Mac OS X, running on x86 hardware, whether it be illegal, or official Apple hardware. We cater to legitimate MacBook users, just as much as those looking to install it on their hackintoshes.

That is, I don't want to deny that a large part of the "scene", if you will, is rooted in an illegal nature. It's simply that we share information on how to use OS X on your x86 hardware. Whether you decide to use that information illegally, or on your Apple hardware, is totally up to you.

Given the nature of this site, it's somewhat hypocritical...

The only thing I think needs to be added to the above responses to this line of comments, is that certain legal absurdities like the DMCA force this site to be hypocritical in order to survive. Please remember that Apple could easily shut down the OSx86Project whenever it feels like it and did take it off-line for a week or so in January by merely writing a letter which alleged a DMCA violation.

the DMCA takes away some of our RIGHTS, such as backing up DVDs so that they dont get scratched, and running linux on our Xboxes right?

Effectively yes, but not directly. The DMCA essentially covers two activities: Producing and disseminating means to bypass copy protection schemes.

This means that if you need some software to back-up your DVD's or a mod-chip to run Linux on your Xbox they will likely violate the DMCA.

Well, looking back in history, mac clones has been build without licence, but with higher technological requirements - ROM implemantaion.

Today it is very easy to build a clone - a bit too easy. The point is, that Apple had 5 years of developement to take care that the OS won´t run on generic systems. Look at Amiga OS 4.0 that has a very similar hardwarebase under it as a Mac -> Logic Board, G3/G4 CPU. But Amiga has built in a special bootrom, the UBOOT chip. Sure, you can say it is something like the TCPA/TPM Chip, but this TCPM/TPM Chip can be deactivated or hacked. Without the UBOOT AOS4 won´t boot and you need a dongle to run AOS4 pre-release 1/2. This dongle should be built in at retail Amiga One systems, but you know history, the retail version isn´t out, only the developer system is out since years. AOS4 do not work on G3/4 Mac because the UBOOT and it does not work with the OpenFirmware. Question is, why OS X x86 runs without TPM Chip and EFI? Yeah, because it´s hacked. However it shouldn´t run, not hacked and not native. Why did they killed the OpenFirmware? Well, we know the answer but in some way it´s Apple´s fault too, that OS X x86 can run on generic computers. They have the technology and they didn´t built it in. Why? Have they planed redistributation of LEMs? Definitly not or?

Apple sure has seen this situation to come, they have to. OS X x86 is not the first OS from Apple, ok it was from NeXT but Apple build it after Steve Job´s come back, that can run at generic PCs. You may know Apple Rhapsody, based on OpenStep/NeXTStep OS. This thing is very old and it runs on x86 systems, it looks a bit like OS 9 but it worked different. Sometimes you can buy it at eBay, very rare, very cool.

Now Apple has opened the pandora box and the people do what they ever do in such a situation. They just do it.

However, Mac OS X 10.5 will be the challenge. This system will work differrent as 10.4 do and this could be the end of generic system running OS X. So, perhaps the problem resolve itself with 10.5. For now, the situation is just a bit out of control and this is more dangerous as it was before this clone. One clone is out, millions will come and they can´t defeat them all. This is just like it was in history of LEMs.

Well, enough writing. I don´t need a clone. I only need a MACTEL with expansion slots - Mac Pro or if they built one, a Mac Mini with PCIe + PCI Slot, Mac Makro.

This is a very interesting topic, cause if we look at the future, Apple clones could be a new very strong impulse for the PC market.

They are cheap, and they copy or at least have a heavy Apple inspired design. Design is becoming more important now for office PCs, and the Apple design often has a specific formfactor (iMac).

It would have been very dissapointing, if PC design would have stopped with redneck monstertruck casemodding.

So I am looking very fortunately in the future, if Apple also becomes the design leader of the PC market now.

Every business where good looking and prestiege is important to the customer will switch to an XP-Mac now. "They have macs, we need some of these, too" Nice So imho it is just a matter of time until they also find out, why osx is so much better

And boom, cupertino, we have contact. Bye redmond

welcome to the super SCAM world...

here one sample,just for fun:

http://www.complaints.com/directory/2004/october/4/6.htm

but you can find more on google...

Well, looking back in history, mac clones has been build without licence, but with higher technological requirements - ROM implemantaion.

...

Well, we know the answer but in some way it´s Apple´s fault too, that OS X x86 can run on generic computers. They have the technology and they didn´t built it in. Why? Have they planed redistributation of LEMs? Definitly not or?

I am not sure what you mean by "LEMs" (Low End Macs?) but I think you mean Mac-Clones.

To the extent you seem to be suggesting that the lack of an Apple ROM in the x86 Macs implies that Apple intends to make it easier to license OS X to say Dell and HP, I think you raise an interesting point.

However, it seems clear that Apple thought it's TPM-based security would be a little more, umm... well... secure.

However, it seems clear that Apple thought it's TPM-based security would be a little more, umm... well... secure.

I think Apple is fully aware that "if man can make it, man can break it". All they needed to do was make duplication and maintenance inconvenient - and they've done that.

Even in the case of pre-built "clones", what happens when software updates are released? Is the clone maker going to supply you with updates for the life of the machine (3 years or so)?

Illegal clones hold little value. You choose: $499 for a clone with overclocked hardware and no support, or $599 for a Mac mini that works well at it's default clock and is supported? I just don't think these clones are much of a threat to Apple.

All they needed to do was make duplication and maintenance inconvenient - and they've done that.

Yes, but Apple already had "inconvenience" with 10.4.1 and 10.4.3. They took it a step further in 10.4.4 by encrpyting binaries and I think most clued-in people expect them to do more to secure Leopard (10.5).

...

However, it seems clear that Apple thought it's TPM-based security would be a little more, umm... well... secure.

Perhaps. But the TCPA stated that you can deactivate the TCPA/TPM Chip via BIOS. You are not forced to use this chip if you won´t. So, thinking that the TPM Chip will resolve all problems of illegal running systems is just a fatal error and Apple has to known this for sure.

Yes, I mean Low End Macs. But the LEMs today are better als the MAC LEM (Mac Mini is sure just a LEM). My problem is, that the Mini is not expandable and if you want a expandable Mac you have to buy a PowerMac/Mac Pro. This thing costs around 2000USD without extras, the Mni 599USD. So, there should be a middlesized computer too, priced at iMac price but expandable.

At all, old rumors said that DELL is interested in reselling computers with OS X. This was fastly denied but now it seems more possible as I ever thought.

AND another thing. Sony had stated last year that OS X could run und the PS3. This was denied too, but why the hell manufactors do say such things? Only to show how powerfull the new consoles and computers are or is there more behind all this?

Well, big companies like DELL could support a OS X installation at their systems for sure. You´ll get a cecovery disc and you have to download special update packages from the distributor site. Thats all no big deal.

Apple had all their systems protected against running on normal PPC computers such as IBM RS/6000. Now they didn´t secured X x86 very well and this is definitly a question that only Apple can explain. This perhaps show that they thinking about the big OEM market. OEM + licence market = big profit, they´ll know it, we know it. However, wil a real macian buy a OEM Mac? No! Never!

So, there should be a middlesized computer too, priced at iMac price but expandable.

Yes, I agree there is still a hole in the Macinstosh line. People want a consumer grade Mac with some expandability. Likewise many people complain that the PowerMac only holds a single optical drive and only two hard drives, they want those numbers doubled.

Given the economics of the chips and chipsets with Conroe and Woodcrest are different than that for G5's, it seems kind of silly to sell a machine with only one Woodcrest chip. So we may see an expandable "Mac" based on a single Conroe while the Mac Pro line is all dual Woodcrest. That way the Apple could raise prices on the Mac Pro workstation and double the number of drive ways while covering the lower the end with Conroe-based machine in a different chasis.

At all, old rumors said that DELL is interested in reselling computers with OS X. This was fastly denied but now it seems more possible as I ever thought.

AND another thing. Sony had stated last year that OS X could run und the PS3.

Dell is hurting right now. Their stock is down 25% since August and they are now lagging behind the overall growth of the PC market. Dell would kill to be able to sell Mac-clones. In an interview with Fortune magazine, Steve Jobs said on the record that three big PC manufacturers wanted to license OS X.

http://www.engadget.com/2005/02/10/jobs-sa...me-up-for-os-x/

Likewise, the PlayStation 3 certainly can run PPC OS X with little or no modification and Sony wants it badly. That would be a major feature in their battle against Microsoft's Xbox 360.

This perhaps show that they thinking about the big OEM market. OEM + licence market = big profit, they´ll know it, we know it.

Even if Steve Jobs is in some state of denial about this, economics tells me that Apple will inevitably license OS X. The question is when, but I do not think it is anytime soon.

"PowerPC G6 Macintosh", "Apple G6 Macintosh-Clone Computer", seriously, it sounds {censored} as f***. Couldn't those sunday bootlegers find anything better? Oh well after all Apple itselves couldn't find better than "MacBook Pro".

"All this leaves us with an important question: When Steve Jobs first re-joined Apple, the clones were dead. When will we see a return of the jedi?"

... dude, can't compare, it's all about piracy/bottleging/scaming, nothing to do with clones.

OT : If we were on Slashdot my post would be modded to -1 in no time lol

Yes, but Apple already had "inconvenience" with 10.4.1 and 10.4.3. They took it a step further in 10.4.4 by encrpyting binaries and I think most clued-in people expect them to do more to secure Leopard (10.5).

Of course. My expectation is that virtualization in Leopard, and the OS itself, will be much more dependant on EFI, and Apple specific EFI modules, than 10.4. So I’m guessing that's where the extra annoyance in building hackintoshes will come in.

For every extra annoyance Apple adds, it further reduces the value of any illegal clone. There is no doubt they will continue to lock things down, my apologies for implying otherwise. However, I don’t think Apple is diluted into thinking any measure they take will stop the inevitable from happening.

Actually, people who work in the IT sector here in Asia know how much it really cost to put together something like this. The people selling 500 dollar PC will not settle for anything below a 50% markup on the entire unit including the OS .

If you have never been to the IT hub of Asia, you really will be amazed at the "grey market" vendors and how much they get actually get the hardware for. I baught a 2.8ghz processor for 150USD 3 yrs ago and still going strong at 3.2ghz. I imagine the fastest P4 today can be baught for just under 150USD and the person buying by the 100's will get a very good discount. Sometimes it makes you wonder if you really paid the right price on your hardware, dudn't it?

Now think about the normal 9-5 people buying this system for 500 bones but actually cost 250.. It's a pretty good profit if you ask me.

My expectation is that virtualization in Leopard, and the OS itself, will be much more dependant on EFI, and Apple specific EFI modules, than 10.4.

Yes, my thoughts exactly which is one reason why I am trying to encourage this community to switch to EFI:

http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=13493

http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=17067

"PowerPC G6 Macintosh", "Apple G6 Macintosh-Clone Computer", seriously, it sounds {censored} as f***.

Yeah, I thinking about calling these guys up and asking them if they could thrown in a can of Cheese Whiz to make it more appetizing.

Well, if Apple is smart they will legitimize the clones by using the courts to stop those who infringe by OS copying and they then sell a legal OS for the clones, for something like Win XP sells for, complete with their dual booter, They can make a standard items out of it....stores would love it. It would remove the stores from the risk of selling OS copies. Businesses would love it...most businesses will not use clone software and the high price of Apple hardware has kept their numbers down for years.

After all, look at how rich Microsoft got selling an OS(plus some other stuff).

Apple could also sell a boot bios....another high profit item.

That way Apple would get a piece of the action on many clones sold as long as they kept their lawyers busy writing letters to enforce their rights.

This would have the dual function of:

1 Increasing the critical mass of Apple compatible hgardware out there...very important

2 Bringing Apple a reasonable profit on every clone sold

I realize the technical nature of this forum, which is excellent, but I feel a lot of the business is not being addressed here. Over half, as in MOST PC's are actually "White Box" generic, not Dell, HP, add top 10 & you get under 1/2 shipping PC's... and even MS is aware that while they charge per OS on even cheap boxen, most say India, China, are not paying anything... and they can't afford to anyway!

MS & Intel make all the $ on a $499 PC. ( obviously they are huge companies ) Over 1/2 the cost... Dell is having big problems in offering dirt cheap boxes, and hoping to upsell, which has not translated well of late... Portable computers represent like 40% of PC's sold. You cannot make one at Fry's, can you? Dell has a $599 Laptop which loses $ on every sale... they say it's marketshare move, so losing $ this Quarter also, in a long term strategy ( loyal 2 dell?) Market doesn't see it either...

So now, while I know desktops sell more units than portables, these high end desktops, laptops are over 80% of profits... the low end is a distribution channel for MS/Intel - no one else makes a penny... So, Apple isn't concerned about $500 PC's - Mac Mini has dual processor and less ugly... but largely wants to avoid losing money in a race to bankruptcy...

That said, looking at where companies earn money, Dell bought Alienware so they can sell desktops for $5,000, not a lot of units, but the only profitable part of this market... Gateway went under.... selling in the low end... IBM sold off it's PC business which never earned a profit in a decade... it sold PC's to offer the rest of a computer contract, and made over 50% income on "services". Now Lenovo is not IBM... it's suicide... untenable....like getting seniority as a suicide bomber.... it's a very small field....LOL

So, Apple has said (over & over) they have chosen to compete in the profitable part of the biz. No sub $500, why lose $ on every unit? Yet the high end, may be only a small part of the millions of PC's sold, but ALL the profit... This was over 500 million profit last Q, iPod also stays away from super cheap bottom feeders... let them fight over pennies... if they want features, there is competition there....

If you look at the desktop PC market as the barren wasteland of financial ruin, it has been for a while.... and laptops are larger & larger % of computers.... there seems almost zero risk in licensing dirt cheap PC's that are not profitable ( unless subsidized distribution by foreign govt's Japan, Korea, Taiwan, China)

So, why not sell OS X @ $129? Low end cant afford this in $299 PC's, but Apple pays all R&D from just retail OS sales - pays for itself @ 2million easily.... it's likely not a threat to Apple in places people can afford to, buy Apple, and in places they cannot, make something.....

For Lock-in strategy, DRM isn't really a good idea.... see iTunes, iPod, ITMS as a perfect strategy - you have no choice to easily replace that on no name MP3 players... and people choose iPods. Simply offering what no one else will....

Just FYI

So, why not sell OS X @ $129?

Again, I think it is quite obvious that Apple will inevitably license OS X.

Here are the questions that I think are most relevant:

(1) Will Steve Jobs permit the licensing OS X?

(2) How is Microsoft likely to respond to OS X licensing?

(3) Can licensed OS X achive a significant market share, like 30%, of over the long term?.

Again, I think it is quite obvious that Apple will inevitably license OS X.

It goes further than licensing just the OS. EFI will slowly transfer parts of what was in the OS back to firmware. To run OSX you'll need Apple firmware. To get Apple firmware, you'll need to run an Apple approved platform - and to get an Apple approved platform, you'll likely have to license an Apple hardware design -- all leading up to an IMac with a Dell(1) sticker on it (or for the white box crowd, an Asus(2) mobo claiming "Made for Apple") and more income for Apple.

.1 - Insert PC vendor of choice here.

.2 - Insert motherboard manufacture of choice here.

That said, I have serious doubts about Apple ever entering OSX into the white box market. Even allowing other OEMs to produce Macs could seriously effect the perceived value of a Mac.

I still find it improbable that Apple will ever license OS X out to any white box manufacturer. It's not going to happen. The fact remains that marketshare would not increase by a large enough margin.

The cloners will either be stamped out by Apple legal or by Apple locking the OS tighter and tighter.

It goes further than licensing just the OS. EFI will slowly transfer parts of what was in the OS back to firmware. To run OSX you'll need Apple firmware. To get Apple firmware, you'll need to run an Apple approved platform...

This is what I mean by _licensing_ OS X, as opposed to just selling it for any PC. I am not not talking about "white boxes" but rather licensing the likes of Sony, HP and Dell to use Apple's firmware to Mac-clones with OS X.

- and to get an Apple approved platform, you'll likely have to license an Apple hardware design -- all leading up to an IMac with a Dell(1) sticker on it (or for the white box crowd, an Asus(2) mobo claiming ...

I think you are missing the significant of the fact that Apple has gotten out of the motherboard and chipset design business and now relies on Intel to do that work.

I still find it improbable that Apple will ever license OS X out to any white box manufacturer. It's not going to happen. The fact remains that marketshare would not increase by a large enough margin.

It might not happen while Steve Jobs is running Apple, but it is bound to happen. To understand this all you have to do is realize that the money is in it. Specifically, Microsoft has proven (if nothing else) which business model is better. That is of course licensing (or selling) the OS, while letting Dell-like companies try to wring profit out the intensively competitive hardware business.

Moreover, it is likely that switching to Intel is part of a larger Apple strategy to license OS X.

I am sure lots of people still do not get this, so here are a few more hints:

(1) Silicon Graphics declared bankruptcy this week: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14535154.htm Compare its business model with Apple's.

(2) When NeXT began failing it selling hardware and switch to being a software only business to survive.

It might not happen while Steve Jobs is running Apple, but it is bound to happen. To understand this all you have to do is realize that the money is in it. Specifically, Microsoft has proven (if nothing else) which business model is better. That is of course licensing (or selling) the OS, while letting Dell-like companies try to wring profit out the intensively competitive hardware business.

 

Moreover, it is likely that switching to Intel is part of a larger Apple strategy to license OS X.

 

I am sure lots of people still do not get this, so here are a few more hints:

 

(1) Silicon Graphics declared bankruptcy this week: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/14535154.htm Compare its business model with Apple's.

 

(2) When NeXT began failing it selling hardware and switch to being a software only business to survive.

Do you realize the irony of using NeXT to support your argument? NeXT Step's attempt and failure to remain profitable as a software only business is precisely why Jobs will never do it.

You guys can wish it all you want but it is not going to happen.

If the macbooks are anything to go by, the Intel powered towers Apple releases will be price competitive with other "similarly configured" PCs even before factoring in the software and that it comes with a pro level OS.

If all this materializes, your arguments in favour of licensing will all but disappear especially if they come out with faster chips on the mac towers before everyone else and perform better under windows (from motherboard tweaks) than similarly configured PCs.