Another Mac clone maker spotted on eBay

Another boring desktop for sale on eBay, except that this one runs Apple's Mac OS X Leopard.

(Credit: Chris555 (via eBay))

Another entrepreneur is trying their hand at selling unsanctioned Mac OS X desktops.

AppleInsider spotted an eBay listing on Tuesday for a generic desktop tower running Mac OS X Leopard, weeks after Psystar made a very public show of defying Apple's licensing agreement for Leopard with its Open Computer. "Chris555" is selling the unbranded desktop for a fixed price of $549.99, plus $50 shipping and handling.

Is this the latest in a wave of Mac clone makers emboldened by Psystar? Apple has remained silent on the issue to this point, but lawyers think the company would have a good chance of enforcing its end-user licensing agreement against companies trying to make a profit on Mac OS X computers. The agreement says the operating system can only be installed on a single Apple-labeled computer.

Apple has left the OS X hacking community pretty much undisturbed, but it will be interesting to see how long it waits before taking action against commercial providers of its operating system.

[BlackMicro]

Why...

Why should Apple respond? These are lousy PC's. People will soon
realize you get what you pay for and not purchase them. No way to
update, no Apple support, these are not for normal consumers.
You geeks know better... build your own. I'm not sure what market
there is for these? Apple should let it ride. The market will correct
it self.

[rapier1]

actually

There is a way to update them - its just turned off by default. To
get an update all you need to do is click on 'Software Update' and it
works. They have the automatic update disabled in order to keep
everyone from getting screwed if Apple release a 'fix' that
intentionally breaks the system.

[jeffxbaker]

and what are macs

they are PC's running OSX. you get what you pay for and if you buy a mac, your buying a PC with a huge markup on the hardware. OSX has very limited hardware support compared to Windows so apple is selling you a lie - just a PC with hardware compatible with their OS.

[Arrgster]

would be silly for apple

Apple making an issue of it would be like MS making a issue out of people putting windows on white boxes. MS is the monster it is today because of clones and if apple takes a lesson from history by letting their os grow.. well so much for MS monopoly..

I know Apple is a "hardware" company but perhaps it's time for them to be both.

[fokkwp]

Update will break it

Apple will first try to release an update that will break the clones. The clone makers most likely will not issue a patch. That should pretty much wrap it up. And anyway, until the cloners make a load of money there won't be enough for Apple to sue for. Any way you look at it, Apple needs to let the situation ripen a bit. Unless, of course, Apple is secretly doing for Mac OS what General Mills does for Cheerio O's: sell a cheap competitor under a generic brand so they can own two markets.

[erictheruler]

This same argument has been made and lost By IBM

I am so tired of seeing this go on and on Compaq did the same thing in the early 80's they made a clone of the IBM PC. Purist were up in arms and legal challenges were threatened and HP/Compaq lives on today. If they release an update it will be cracked just like they did on the Iphone I love my macbook as much as the next guy but I buy a cheaper one if they came out with one. I'm guess I am not Brand Purist.

[Thomas, David]

They are not clones

A clone would include all the capabilities of a similar system.

- Bluetooth won't work? It's not a clone
- WiFi won't work? It's not a clone
- Sync won't work right? It's not a clone

When hardware, and an operating system are designed to work together, and they
don't tell you exactly what those things are, or what future addresses or ports are
for, OF COURSE an update may not work on a hand-built computer! Calling this an
intentional bricking in advance is dumb, and ignores the previous experiences of
those of us who had Apple sanctioned clones. The previous manufacturers (of that
time) decided to do a few things outside the guidelines to get instant performance
gains over existing Macs, guess what, all of a sudden there were support problems.
The first few changes were simple and had no effect, but that emboldened the
clone makers to take more chances, and they had hoped Apple would cave, and
begin changing their OS design to suit them. It did NOT happen, just the opposite,
it was shut down.

These so-called clones are great hobby machines, but anyone who wanted to
could build their own. The truly bad thing here is they are being sold, with the
idea, that they are actual consumer computers that will run OSX the way it's
intended. They don't from the get go, because they are NOT clones.

[kylecca]

1. still apple software 2. not apple hardware

[kylecca]

apple software + not apple hardware = makes a clone

[Travis Ernst]

All the buyer has to do is purchase a copy of system. Same as Mac users had to do that wished to partition their drives and install Windblows so they could duel boot and choose on bootup what OS to go into. We don't have to run the programs in a "shell" to run windows programs, thus it's faster. You can buy a 5 or 10 user license for system; however I don't recall Apple having a "home" license to install on multi systems from the same DVD. Site licenses are more for offices and COSTLY. In most cases we don't have to worry with it being installed on Apples machines already, and only needing upgrades (auto update).

[danielszabo1981]

perceived problem will be short-lived. box will be bricked after one patch. if people REALLy wanted to do some good for the mac community, they'd create mac compatible vid-cards and drivers for the sealed up imacs.

get me an 8800gtx 512er or 1gigger that works in an imac, and i'll buy it today.

[jkeels]

Well, this is interesting. First of all Apple makes great hardware. The only problem is the tremendous price premium for it. I think a middle road here would be nice. For instance, Apple could consider allowing Dell, Gateway, Sony, HP to build and sell Apple Certified hardware. However, in order to be certified it would have to fit within apple's strict guidelines to avoid compatability and support issues. If the company's ventured far enough away to cause problems then the Apple certification would be pulled out from under them. This way the experience would be virtually as good as on a real Apple computer. Now, will Apple do this? Probably not unless they start losing a significant portion of hardware sales to these low end clone guys. THEN they might consider it. I think it would be a good thing and would help make an Apple OS X compliant system affordable for more people. For one thing, Apple's hardware sales would be reduced (though not eliminated) and they would be able to sell more copies of OS X which might actually result in increased profits. They would definitely be a greater competitor to Microsoft at that point.

[Thomas, David]

For those who actually think, running the OS at less than what it does, on hardware that has less in what it does as well, still consider these clones ... you are in dire need of an education. Since you probably won't even look up the definition of a clone, I will paste it here for you.

verb [http:// trans. |http:// trans. ]
propagate (an organism or cell) as a clone : of the hundreds of new plants cloned, the best ones are selected.
? make an identical copy of.
? Biochemistry replicate (a fragment of DNA placed in an organism) so that there is enough to analyze or use in protein production.
? illegally copy the security codes from (a mobile phone) to one or more others as a way of obtaining free calls.

The one you should be interested in is "identical copy".

[Wolfie2k5]

Tis a moot point...

Clicking on the link leads to a dead link.

[arocon]

I would not consider myself a close follower of the PC vs. Mac dynamic, so I think this offers me a little more objectivity. I own both apple and pc systems. One of the most glaring observations I can make is that while OSX has its benefits its not infallible. Its not so much that I am a huge fan of XP or vista, far from it, but it seems that the only people who are passionate enough to praise their computer or it's operating system are mac owners. These are the people who identify with the apple brand, see themselves as part of some 'mac' culture, and ultimately believe that using a mac in some way defines them as a person. There is really only one word to describe people who exalt the apple brand to anyone who will listen. That word is pathetic. My computer or its operating system no more to defines me as a person than the brand of toilet paper i use, or the type of underwear i buy. I believe both of these things, like your choice of computer, should certainly be used, but not discussed in casual conversation. After a day at work, I don't want to have to listen to a someone at the gym spout off about Apple's superiority and why everyone should switch to Mac because 'Microsoft is evil.' People capable of using any computer should be able to separate the hype generated by the brand's marketing from what they are really buying....a tool to make their lives easier. Apple would be Microsoft if they could. They are a for profit company doing everything possible to make money, gain a larger market share, and with that, an increase in power and influence. In many ways apple is a more dangerous entity than Microsoft. They are more vertically integrated, maintaining a monopoly over software, hardware, repair services and solid control over personal audio and video devices, and the media content . Having just this past year branched into telecom. And this finally brings me close to the initial impetus for writing. If the OSX is, as so many people are willing to scream from the nearest hilltop, a superior product to anything else on the market, why wouldn't Apple license it to run on other machines. I can understand that they want it to run on a system with a basic level of performance, for the customer to receive the full OSX experience, but most computers today are capable of doing this. The decision on which an OS is used should be an option afforded to the customer. The only explanation for this reluctance is that Apple is generating so much revenue from overcharging, not only for computer hardware that, in and of itself is non-competitive, but also for AppleCare, and the excessive number of accessories pushed by the brand. The ability to maintain the massive amount of revenue generated from these sources is solely granted by their stranglehold on OSX. At some point, the public will become wise to this paradigm, and become irritated by it. When that day comes Apple will, undoubtedly bow to public pressure and release either a watered down version of OSX for non-Apple machines, or license a legitimate version it to a couple of PC manufacturers as jkeels alluded to; with some sort of certification. I think the production of these machines may ultimately prove to be a positive thing if it results in Apple loosening restrictions on OSX. Doing this would save me the headaches that result from people who know very little about computers preaching the superiority of Apple in a nearly evangelical way and doing it as apple pulls the wool further over their eyes. By the way, if it is of any interest, and it shouldn't be, I wrote this commentary from my MacbookPro.

[open-mind]

Your facade of indifference is a clever tactic, but not very convincing. It seems your entire huge post was mostly designed to disparage or cast doubt on Apple's ethics, goals, products, and customers.

[arocon]

I would not consider myself a close follower of the PC vs. Mac dynamic, so I think this offers me a little more objectivity. I own both apple and pc systems. One of the most glaring observations I can make is that while OSX has its benefits its not infallible. Its not so much that I am a huge fan of XP or vista, far from it, but it seems that the only people who are passionate enough to praise their computer or it's operating system are mac owners. These are the people who identify with the apple brand, see themselves as part of some 'mac' culture, and ultimately believe that using a mac in some way defines them as a person. There is really only one word to describe people who exalt the apple brand to anyone who will listen. That word is pathetic. My computer or its operating system no more to defines me as a person than the brand of toilet paper i use, or the type of underwear i buy. I believe both of these things, like your choice of computer, should certainly be used, but not discussed in casual conversation. After a day at work, I don't want to have to listen to a someone at the gym spout off about Apple's superiority and why everyone should switch to Mac because 'Microsoft is evil.' People capable of using any computer should be able to separate the hype generated by the brand's marketing from what they are really buying....a tool to make their lives easier. Apple would be Microsoft if they could. They are a for profit company doing everything possible to make money, gain a larger market share, and with that, an increase in power and influence. In many ways apple is a more dangerous entity than Microsoft. They are more vertically integrated, maintaining a monopoly over software, hardware, repair services and solid control over personal audio and video devices, and the media content . Having just this past year branched into telecom. And this finally brings me close to the initial impetus for writing. If the OSX is, as so many people are willing to scream from the nearest hilltop, a superior product to anything else on the market, why wouldn't Apple license it to run on other machines. I can understand that they want it to run on a system with a basic level of performance, for the customer to receive the full OSX experience, but most computers today are capable of doing this. The decision on which an OS is used should be an option afforded to the customer. The only explanation for this reluctance is that Apple is generating so much revenue from overcharging, not only for computer hardware that, in and of itself is non-competitive, but also for AppleCare, and the excessive number of accessories pushed by the brand. The ability to maintain the massive amount of revenue generated from these sources is solely granted by their stranglehold on OSX. At some point, the public will become wise to this paradigm, and become irritated by it. When that day comes Apple will, undoubtedly bow to public pressure and release either a watered down version of OSX for non-Apple machines, or license a legitimate version it to a couple of PC manufacturers as jkeels alluded to; with some sort of certification. I think the production of these machines may ultimately prove to be a positive thing if it results in Apple loosening restrictions on OSX. Doing this would save me the headaches that result from people who know very little about computers preaching the superiority of Apple in a nearly evangelical way and doing it as apple pulls the wool further over their eyes. By the way, if it is of any interest, and it shouldn't be, I wrote this commentary from my MacbookPro.

[arocon]

I would not consider myself a close follower of the PC vs. Mac dynamic, so I think this offers me a little more objectivity. I own both apple and pc systems. One of the most glaring observations I can make is that while OSX has its benefits its not infallible. Its not so much that I am a huge fan of XP or vista, far from it, but it seems that the only people who are passionate enough to praise their computer or it's operating system are mac owners. These are the people who identify with the apple brand, see themselves as part of some 'mac' culture, and ultimately believe that using a mac in some way defines them as a person. There is really only one word to describe people who exalt the apple brand to anyone who will listen. That word is pathetic. My computer or its operating system no more to defines me as a person than the brand of toilet paper i use, or the type of underwear i buy. I believe both of these things, like your choice of computer, should certainly be used, but not discussed in casual conversation. After a day at work, I don't want to have to listen to a someone at the gym spout off about Apple's superiority and why everyone should switch to Mac because 'Microsoft is evil.' People capable of using any computer should be able to separate the hype generated by the brand's marketing from what they are really buying....a tool to make their lives easier. Apple would be Microsoft if they could. They are a for profit company doing everything possible to make money, gain a larger market share, and with that, an increase in power and influence. In many ways apple is a more dangerous entity than Microsoft. They are more vertically integrated, maintaining a monopoly over software, hardware, repair services and solid control over personal audio and video devices, and the media content . Having just this past year branched into telecom. And this finally brings me close to the initial impetus for writing. If the OSX is, as so many people are willing to scream from the nearest hilltop, a superior product to anything else on the market, why wouldn't Apple license it to run on other machines. I can understand that they want it to run on a system with a basic level of performance, for the customer to receive the full OSX experience, but most computers today are capable of doing this. The decision on which an OS is used should be an option afforded to the customer. The only explanation for this reluctance is that Apple is generating so much revenue from overcharging, not only for computer hardware that, in and of itself is non-competitive, but also for AppleCare, and the excessive number of accessories pushed by the brand. The ability to maintain the massive amount of revenue generated from these sources is solely granted by their stranglehold on OSX. At some point, the public will become wise to this paradigm, and become irritated by it. When that day comes Apple will, undoubtedly bow to public pressure and release either a watered down version of OSX for non-Apple machines, or license a legitimate version it to a couple of PC manufacturers as jkeels alluded to; with some sort of certification. I think the production of these machines may ultimately prove to be a positive thing if it results in Apple loosening restrictions on OSX. Doing this would save me the headaches that result from people who know very little about computers preaching the superiority of Apple in a nearly evangelical way and doing it as apple pulls the wool further over their eyes. By the way, if it is of any interest, and it shouldn't be, I wrote this commentary from my MacbookPro.

[arocon]

I would not consider myself a close follower of the PC vs. Mac dynamic, so I think this offers me a little more objectivity. I own both apple and pc systems. One of the most glaring observations I can make is that while OSX has its benefits its not infallible. Its not so much that I am a huge fan of XP or vista, far from it, but it seems that the only people who are passionate enough to praise their computer or it's operating system are mac owners. These are the people who identify with the apple brand, see themselves as part of some 'mac' culture, and ultimately believe that using a mac in some way defines them as a person. There is really only one word to describe people who exalt the apple brand to anyone who will listen. That word is pathetic. My computer or its operating system no more to defines me as a person than the brand of toilet paper i use, or the type of underwear i buy. I believe both of these things, like your choice of computer, should certainly be used, but not discussed in casual conversation. After a day at work, I don't want to have to listen to a someone at the gym spout off about Apple's superiority and why everyone should switch to Mac because 'Microsoft is evil.' People capable of using any computer should be able to separate the hype generated by the brand's marketing from what they are really buying....a tool to make their lives easier. Apple would be Microsoft if they could. They are a for profit company doing everything possible to make money, gain a larger market share, and with that, an increase in power and influence. In many ways apple is a more dangerous entity than Microsoft. They are more vertically integrated, maintaining a monopoly over software, hardware, repair services and solid control over personal audio and video devices, and the media content . Having just this past year branched into telecom. And this finally brings me close to the initial impetus for writing. If the OSX is, as so many people are willing to scream from the nearest hilltop, a superior product to anything else on the market, why wouldn't Apple license it to run on other machines. I can understand that they want it to run on a system with a basic level of performance, for the customer to receive the full OSX experience, but most computers today are capable of doing this. The decision on which an OS is used should be an option afforded to the customer. The only explanation for this reluctance is that Apple is generating so much revenue from overcharging, not only for computer hardware that, in and of itself is non-competitive, but also for AppleCare, and the excessive number of accessories pushed by the brand. The ability to maintain the massive amount of revenue generated from these sources is solely granted by their stranglehold on OSX. At some point, the public will become wise to this paradigm, and become irritated by it. When that day comes Apple will, undoubtedly bow to public pressure and release either a watered down version of OSX for non-Apple machines, or license a legitimate version it to a couple of PC manufacturers as jkeels alluded to; with some sort of certification. I think the production of these machines may ultimately prove to be a positive thing if it results in Apple loosening restrictions on OSX. Doing this would save me the headaches that result from people who know very little about computers preaching the superiority of Apple in a nearly evangelical way and doing it as apple pulls the wool further over their eyes. By the way, if it is of any interest, and it shouldn't be, I wrote this commentary from my MacbookPro.

[arocon]

I would not consider myself a close follower of the PC vs. Mac dynamic, so I think this offers me a little more objectivity. I own both apple and pc systems. One of the most glaring observations I can make is that while OSX has its benefits its not infallible. Its not so much that I am a huge fan of XP or vista, far from it, but it seems that the only people who are passionate enough to praise their computer or it's operating system are mac owners. These are the people who identify with the apple brand, see themselves as part of some 'mac' culture, and ultimately believe that using a mac in some way defines them as a person. There is really only one word to describe people who exalt the apple brand to anyone who will listen. That word is pathetic. My computer or its operating system no more to defines me as a person than the brand of toilet paper i use, or the type of underwear i buy. I believe both of these things, like your choice of computer, should certainly be used, but not discussed in casual conversation. After a day at work, I don't want to have to listen to a someone at the gym spout off about Apple's superiority and why everyone should switch to Mac because 'Microsoft is evil.' People capable of using any computer should be able to separate the hype generated by the brand's marketing from what they are really buying....a tool to make their lives easier. Apple would be Microsoft if they could. They are a for profit company doing everything possible to make money, gain a larger market share, and with that, an increase in power and influence. In many ways apple is a more dangerous entity than Microsoft. They are more vertically integrated, maintaining a monopoly over software, hardware, repair services and solid control over personal audio and video devices, and the media content . Having just this past year branched into telecom. And this finally brings me close to the initial impetus for writing. If the OSX is, as so many people are willing to scream from the nearest hilltop, a superior product to anything else on the market, why wouldn't Apple license it to run on other machines. I can understand that they want it to run on a system with a basic level of performance, for the customer to receive the full OSX experience, but most computers today are capable of doing this. The decision on which an OS is used should be an option afforded to the customer. The only explanation for this reluctance is that Apple is generating so much revenue from overcharging, not only for computer hardware that, in and of itself is non-competitive, but also for AppleCare, and the excessive number of accessories pushed by the brand. The ability to maintain the massive amount of revenue generated from these sources is solely granted by their stranglehold on OSX. At some point, the public will become wise to this paradigm, and become irritated by it. When that day comes Apple will, undoubtedly bow to public pressure and release either a watered down version of OSX for non-Apple machines, or license a legitimate version it to a couple of PC manufacturers as jkeels alluded to; with some sort of certification. I think the production of these machines may ultimately prove to be a positive thing if it results in Apple loosening restrictions on OSX. Doing this would save me the headaches that result from people who know very little about computers preaching the superiority of Apple in a nearly evangelical way and doing it as apple pulls the wool further over their eyes. By the way, if it is of any interest, and it shouldn't be, I wrote this commentary from my MacbookPro.

[Beardiewierdie]

What a load of tosh. I've just bought a Macbook Pro after about 10 years using PCs. The computer is high-end, it's very easy to use, the emulation software for my Windows Apps works far better than my old 'puter, and the Mac doesn't crash like the old one either. I missed my old LCII, it was a great machine, way ahead of its time. I am delighted with this one now, because it does what it says on the tin - and is vastly superior to the dreary old PCs I have owned in the past 10 years. The last person seems to think this is a new argument - I was seduced by the cheap and cheerful PC only to find that it didn't do the job, kept on crashing, and ultimately proved to be one of the greatest sources of aggravation in my life because it kept on getting bunged up with all kinds of dross. My Mac is beyond that. That's why I keep telling people - buy a Mac - it's far superior to anything else on the market - and that's why it's worth the extra ££s. This argument has been going for well over 15 years now, and I fall hard on the Mac side. We may be "evangelistic" but I rue the day I bought a second-rate PC to replace my mac. I should have simply upgraded to a decent internet-ready mac machine. Now I have. And I'm much more relaxed about it. Because it works. And the old machine was high end but it was still a crappy PC. Macs rock. And they save you money and aggravation in the long run.