New face in Mac clone market plans high-end OS X desktops
A company called EFi-X USA (no, that's not a throwaway droid from Empire Strikes Back) apparently plans to take on Mac clone maker Psystar by bypassing the consumer market and jumping straight to the power user demographic.
(Credit:
EFi-X USA)
The machines it's prepping sound pretty nice, with a 3.8GHz Intel Core 2 Quad processor, 1TB storage on 7200 rpm drives, a 150GB 10k rpm system drive, 4GB of included RAM, and a GeForce 8800 GTS GPU.
What's more, according to AppleInsider, the company is planning to let consumers customize their machines, meaning that if the current crop of Mac Pros aren't what you're looking for, you can make up your own personalized system.
The systems will reportedly sell for $2,100, but that includes the proprietary EFi-X internal adapter that tricks OS X into thinking it's on a Mac. That's how this company plans to work the magic.
We haven't heard word from Apple's legal team yet, and we're not sure what the legal ramifications for such a dongle might be.
Apple has so far not dropped as big a hammer as it could have on Psystar. Currently the companies are in litigation over copyright infringement. We'll see how Apple responds to this new challenger.
With more than 15 years experience testing hardware (and being obsessed with it), Crave freelance writer Matt Hickey can tell the good gadgets from the great. He also has a keen eye for future technology trends. Matt has blogged for publications including TechCrunch, CrunchGear, and most recently, Gizmodo. E-mail Matt. 
Remember IBM? Remember how Compaq started the whole clone business by building a compatible BIOS? It's going to happen at some point. Obviously Apple believes they sell their machines for too high a price, or they'd not fear licensing it at all.
Alex Alexzander
People have been making Hackintoshes for years. Just go to Insanelymac.com and you can figure out how to do it yourself. The truth is that the Mac is now just a PC internally. Apple should really think about selling OSX to anyone who wants to install it on their PC's - There's great money to be made.
We've been violating it for years making Hackintoshes
That statement is incorrect http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.pdf Now Apple probably doesn't care about the handful of Hacinstoshers who actually do install illegally install OSX on some clone.
"by pithenumber December 13, 2008 3:17 PM PST
Who cares about Apple's F!@#$%^ EULA
We've been violating it for years making Hackintoshes"
Troll
That is true, but Apple could still have an argument due to the chip inside the computer that is purposely meant to allow OS X to run on generic hardware. It's the same argument the record companies make against P2P networks, even though the software developers themselves aren't encouraging piracy, the RIAA is still able to defeat them through the legal system.
So-called "hackintosh" systems basically use software emulation of the EFI environment that someone cobbled together.
People that design operating systems, hardware, or use OSs other than Windows (including Linux) may very well want the EFI in place of a BIOS, so the product has utility beyond running OS X, and is also not necessary to run OS X on a system (though, it does make it much easier).
Anyway, the comment that the device doesn't violate Apple's EULA is correct. The EULA specifies OS X can only be run on Apple systems, not that you cannot add EFI to your system. The person installing OS X would be responsible for any EULA violation (in locales, like the USA, where the EULA is actually binding -- it's not everywhere).
Finally the underground market is coming into the light.
It is slow and overpriced
The OS is really nice, that's why Hackintoshes are popular
I think he means Apple hardware sucks because it is over priced. It is exactly the same as any ol PC. The rest of the PC industry has not yet adopted EFI. THey still cling to BIOS. That's truly the only difference. Sooner or later the rest of tyhe industry will switch away from the 25 year old BIOS. There is nothing in the Mac that makes it special. The fact that many Mac users somehow cling to the belief that Apple uses choice hardware is pure none-sense.
Sorry to write this, but the truth is, you guys are buying Mac OSX for for more than $119. Industrial design and OSX are all you are getting for the sticker price. The hardware itself is nothing special at all. Personally, I don't think OSX is so great at all. I'd rather have Linux over OSX. And I do like Vista a lot. OSX seems like an expensive way to limit your choices, which makes no sense.
Alex Alexzander
Psystar has their own update servers
OR, increase piracy.
The first idea looks most likely to be used.
Buy one, copy, sell for $100, profit after 10 sold, and even at that price, consumers will bite
Get arrested for making illegal copies of software, get your narrow butt nailed to the wall by a judge, spend a few years of "quality time" with your 300-pound cellmate....
http://www.efixusa.com/
You are the troll here. UITD is merely stating a reality about the cost of hardware. That does not make him a troll. Get over yourself.
Alex
Good luck to them, but even if the EULA didn't obviously prohibit their plans, they're trying to break into an entrenched market. There would have to be a big price difference to make them at all competitive.
If Apple releases OSX for the Intel PC then i'd be more than happy to buy it.
Apple did release OSX for the Intel PC, you just need to buy a Mac with an "Intel Inside" :)
*shrugs* Like someone else said, why by a overpriced PC with a limiting O/S when I can buy a WinAmd (sorry, I despise Intel, only buy AMD) machine for a fraction of the cost? Especially since I do my own troubleshooting (hence I make sure all the systems in my house have updated virus scans, anti-spyware and use Mozilla) and hardly ever have an issue? I think in 6 years time I've gotten 3 viruses on a total of 10 systems.
However, I can't blame other computer manufacturers from moving into the Mac clones market, and I can't say I'm surprised. It gets around all those nasty legal issues by requiring the purchaser to accept the responsibility of installing Mac OS X. I also don't expect that the machines would be bricked by Apple updates either, as there's really not too much that Apple can look for in the machine that is unique to Hackintoshes - really, only the Core 2 Quad processor, and before too long Apple will start using those chips too. Everything else that Apple's OS can detect is a possible configuration of a Mac Pro.
- by BtmnHatesRbn December 15, 2008 8:51 AM PST
- If Apple were to allow clone makers, it'd be like this: Apple makes, designs and approves the hardware to be sold, with a "basic" version of OSX for these OEMs to use (i.e. Dell, HP, Sony, Lenovo, etc.), so the product will be inferior to Apple's own Mac brand, while being slightly high-priced. What this will do, though, is eliminate the problems associated with Wintel PCs since the Windows 3.0/MS-DOS 5 days, where every single possible configuration for every possible thing to connect to and use (from RAM to the keyboard) is eliminated. Also, it gives Apple control over their clone licensees. Case in point are the HP iPods, though Apple will not service these music players anymore, at all, nor will HP.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(38 Comments)Apple, despite the EULA or TOS, doesn't fully care about hacks until somebody tries to make a buck off of them. That's where Psystar crossed the line, on their own. And even to some degree, Apple hasn't really given a damn towards them. If EFi-X wants to try it, too, hey, more power to them.
As for the clone makers of the 1990s, like Motorola, Power Computing, Daystar and UMAX, some of these have put to shame Apple's own hardware at the time, and using XPostFacto, can or many run OSX, but I haven't done that to any of the ones I have lying around. The best one of these if the Daystar Genesis MP 800 (I think that's the correct model number), that, when using Sonnet upgrade CPUs, can run four G4 CPUs together. This is a great machine that we built at the place I use this at (sorry, the TOS of this place forbids me from mentioning them at forums and comments and the like), and we still use OS 9 on it for just running old-ass AVID video software, though I'd personally like to install, with XPostFacto, OSX 10.2 and iLife '04 and be slightly modern, but, alas, I don't own the hardware.
But under Apple's EULA, I'm not allowed to run Jaguar on the computer, but would Apple care?