EFi-X USA to sell pre-made PCs as do-it-yourself Mac clones - Page 5

Apple did have a $1500 G5 tower, less than five years ago. If you forgo one processor module, a real Mac Pro can be had for only a little more than the product in this story.

Market share isn't that important to them. Making a net profit is. The low end machines are often low margin ones too.


Apple can litigate more than one case at a time.


From what I understand, DMCA covers circumvention of copy protection measures. Are DMCA concerns even in that lawsuit? I don't think Apple uses copy protection for the OS just yet. From what I hear, a computer with EFI firmware is all that's needed to install the OS. From what I see, where Psystar really got into trouble was modifying Apple's OS updates, which is copyright infringement, not a copy protection issue.


I think it is more like they know what is best for them. Unfortunately, it's to the point that they don't want any overlap between products. Having a little more overlap is not bad, the part that is bad is having a dozen models with very little differentiation.


I think the point is about local support, not that all Apple support hails from the US. Don't you get local support? I've heard Apple has a call center in Ireland. I don't know about anywhere else. And you can bring the machine in if you are near an Apple store.


It's Apple's product, they put it in. Whether they wanted to do that is a different matter.


I think using forums would be called getting a biased sample - you're reading the loudest people, not a random sampling of everyone.


Depending on what you're talking about here. The original mention of FileMaker was bout the activation hassles, having to call in order to get the authorization code to get a program running. All the programs you mention do require serial numbers, but they don't phone home. It's definitely not like the current windows activation system.


That's being unhelpful.


That person earned ten days off for the personal insults.

Only the machines people thought were built as clones. The EFI-X will still be available, you just need to build your own machine like someone did:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/12/e...ents/16087893/

You will notice he says the same thing people keep saying over and over. He wants something more than a Mini, less than a Mac Pro but the iMac is out of the question so there's only the DIY option left.

Would it be possible to put that chip into an older Mac and bring it up to date? I would like to use Leopard (Snow Leopard) on my 800 MHz G4. (You can tell that I am 'technically challenged'.)
If someone sold plans to build a Hackintosh using the EFI-X chip, would that be illegal?
What if they just put those plans on a blog and didn't get paid for it? Would that be illegal?

The more combinations of hardware that Apple have to support, the worse will be the experience for all. Streamlined design is good for quality.

No, of course not. Selling plans would be stupid, though, as it's dead simple to build a computer that is Mac-compatible.

Yes, if the plans included instructions on how to build the EFi-X dongle and if Apple wanted to pursue the matter, I'd suggest Apple would have very little difficulty arguing (successfully) in court to have the information taken down. Aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime is also a crime.

yes, agree but when Jobs said that Apple didn't know how to make a computer that costs $500 that isn't a heap of junk...

he missed a piece out....

the bit about Apple making $300 !

Not dead simple for someone who's "technically challenged". But I probably could do it with some direction.
What about my other question? Could an older G4 be updated using EFI-X?

Just because there is a demand for something doesn't mean Apple is required to meet it.

You want a cheaper hardware solution? Go buy a PC and run Windows or Linux on it. The only business Apple needs is the premium end of the market. If you're not part of that demographic, that's just tough.

Much of the $400-Dell segment of the market would love to run OS X. That doesn't mean Apple has to make them happy. Standards are standards. Apple wants to make a net profit. Dealing at the low end of the market will not only dilute the Apple brand, it will also result in lower margins.

And the way to deal with these clone makers and copycats is to just keep litigating, and they can fight this war on several fronts at the same time. They're very good at that. And more power to them.

If Apple does decide to offer a netbook or midrange tower solution, be prepared to pay on the same scale as you would pay for any other product. Twice the price for twice the computing experience. As it should be.

The EFI-X chip and Hackintosh are not illegal to download or install. And posting the code is not illegal either, if so Apple would have wasted no time in serving a C&D like they've done before for cases which were illegal, Psystar.

Having said that, using the OS on a non-Apple box violates Apple's License Agreement with the user. You should only install such software for research and educational purposes and not for running your business. On the flip-side, these agreements can mean many things, for example, when Safari for Windows was released, according to the Agreement you can only install it on an Apple box running Apple's OS! Another example, according to Microsoft's license agreement, if you do not agree with the license you can return Windows for a full refund, yet no one is willing to take Windows back, checkout this website.

Apple could quash all of this simply, and heres how:

What are the would be cloners selling? they are selling reasonable, and somewhat expandable towers. Make a mac mini that is 2x the height, and uses desktop HDDs (2 slots), desktop ram, and PCI express x16 graphics and sell it for $800-1200.

If I want 2 24 inch displays for things like writing iphone apps, tasks that are real estate pigs, but not necessarily resource hogs:, don't make me buy an 8 core mac pro!

And heres another point, How dare Apple charge $3000+ for a "professional" product that fails to support SLI for the 2 high end video card options.

Apple could add a column in their Product Matrix:

Make the Core i7 Xeon for their Mac Pro Line.

Make a Desktop from this column off Intel's product sheet:

http://www.intel.com/products/proces...e2duo+tab_spec

Set up a Mid-tower structure that hits the E8400, E8500 and E8600 Processors.

You could extend their viability for later products by moving future Mac minis to support those CPUs as the next series of Mid-tower systems moves up to the QuadCore:

http://www.intel.com/products/proces...ifications.htm

Then after that move the Mid-tower up to the Core i7 baseline:

http://www.intel.com/products/proces...ifications.htm

Set their price equal to the iMac lineup.

People with pre-existing LCD Monitors will buy the Mid-tower while others will buy the iMac.

The Mac Pro market won't be compromised and the Mac mini will steadily improve while being enough for a lot of business users and not enough for gamers or professional users needing more beef.

The trick is to make sure that they stagger the CPU/motherboard structure to keep that consistency as Nehalem moves forward and gets replaced.

The Mid-towers will have the advantage of expandability and GPU options not open to the iMac and thus make them more attractive for that mid-tier user/gamer/developer/college student who isn't interested in a Laptop--or needs a desktop to compliment their portable needs.

Dimwit or not, he's got a point.

Design aside (and it is great design, but some people simply don't care), Macs are using same drives, memory modules, CPUs, graphics cards as other PCs. If info I've picked up somewhere is correct, motherboards for Macs are made by Foxcon, one of the biggest manufacturers of PC components. I wonder if Mac motherboards are at all different from same chipset motherboards Foxcon is making for PC brands.

Even if they have separate production line, with different design layout... question remains if quality is any different.

Are you an authority on the contents and intellectual property ownership of the code used in the EFi-X dongle and the EFI used in Apple's computers? I'll bet a fair smudgeon that Apple uses a custom EFI and that the installer on the Mac OS X DVD requires some specific characteristics of Apple's custom EFI.

As expressed in discussion groups such as this, some people thought Apple did waste time in striking back at Psystar, but choosing if and when to strike is entirely Apple's prerogative.


Put another way, installing/copying Mac OS X onto a non-Apple computer does not conform to the EULA. If the user doesn't have a different bona fide license to perform such an install, then it may be illegal and Apple could rightfully pursue and possibly win a legal action against them. Whether it would be worth Apple's while to pursue legal action is another question.


An installation for such limited purposes as you describe might not be allowed under the law either, depending on the country you're in and how well you can shuck and jive. For instance, defensible "research and educational purposes" might only include studying how to use and support Mac OS X, not the use of Mac OS X as a platform for writing your term paper in English class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "updated," but the EFI-X dongle probably wouldn't do anything if you plugged it into a PPC Mac.

I've worked on many hobby projects and bought many hobby kits and I'm familiar with the law when it comes to creating and sharing code. Apple does not have any authority in chasing after anyone that creates middleware such as EFi-X. The problem arises when someone does something like Psystar. You can create code or hardware that allows OS X to run on any hardware and Apple won't have a leg to stand on in court. However, if you modify the OS X code and sell the modified code for profit then you have a problem, or if you create a bundle and sell it as a Mac compatible hardware, thereby riding Apple's success, you'll also have a problem and Apple will hunt you down even if you don't have a registered company.

Look at the iPhone as the perfect example, hackers do not provide you with the modified code to install on your iPhone, that would be illegal. Instead they give you the software that modifies the code on your iPhone, and that software is completely legal although it was made to modify Apple's copyrighted code. You can post and use that code for experimentation and educational purposes but you can't legally use it for business.

You watch and see, Apple cannot argue the EFi-X and if they try to take this case to court they'll lose it. The best they can do is give them a big bag of money.

The first two lines of the link you supplied explains what I was saying exactly
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.

I was inquiring whether you were an authority on such topics as what the EFi-X dongle actually does, what the Mac OS X boot loader looks for in the EFI. For example, you've not addressed whether EFi-X violates any copyright.


It might be illegal to provide the jailbreak. The legality hasn't been tested.

As mentioned previously, "research and educational" purposes might only be defensible in so far as one is learning how to use and support iPhone technology. Any other use, such as personal use, would go beyond "fair use."



"Scholarship or review" doesn't seem to describe what the EFi-X proponents in this discussion seem to be clamoring for. And I believe courts have also upheld licensing restrictions that many people would characterize as limiting fair use.

Not illegal to provide a jailbreak because, it's the user's responsibility not the provider's.


Doesn't matter.

Give it up already, you lost, thanks to you!!
Anyway, wait and see. Apple may find a smart way for SL to cut-out EFi-X but it won't happen in a court room.

You clearly wouldn't know if it mattered and jailbreaking an iPhone may not be so similar to the EFi-X issue as you'd like to think. For example, the question of what the dongle is and does has not been answered--at least not to my knowledge in this forum.


Yes, Wikipedia is a highly cited reference in the field of law. Even more so than Black's dictionary.

Regardless, if you have even a modicum of patience, you might read section 7. "Common misunderstandings":


* Any use that seems fair is fair use.

* Noncommercial use is invariably fair.

* Strict adherence to fair use protects you from being sued.

* ...binding agreements such as contracts or license agreements may take precedence over fair use rights.

* If you're selling for profit, it's not fair use.

I second this.

I thought Windows Vista SP1 was going to support EFI? Of course, Vista was supposed to at launch and didn't. Anyone know the status on this?

Now is a rare chance to increase market share. Which I would note to the person laughing about this overtaking Microsoft, increasing market share doesn't mean that - hombrephaty never suggested overtaking Microsoft. So lay off!

Microsoft is about to close the "Vista hole" with Windows 7. I've used recent builds of 7.

It isn't Leopard, but it's a world of difference from Vista. It is stable and very usable.

Apple would be foolish not to fill a couple more niches and get a few more switchers before 7 arrives.

Next I want you to claim to be a gamer and "happy". Go.

You forget my friend those who regularly upgrade are among the minority. I sincerely doubt a high enough percentage of the affected users would would make enough noise to even noticeable on most forums.

Besides, people who bought machines in late '05 are seeing this happen already. Snow Leopard (10.6) will be Intel only. Point me to the riots.

EFiX calls it a "Boot Processing Unit" or BPU. Basically, it's a bootable USB device that is the first "drive" booted when you start the PC. It then presents an EFI interface to the other drives in the system, tweaked to look exactly like what OS X expects to see (although you can install any OS on it, not that there would be any point to that).

Here's an interview with a couple of people who created EFiX. It's a fascinating little gizmo.

Wrong. You don't know what Extensible Firmware Interface is, do you? It's Intel's replacement to the BIOS, an outdated 80s concept. Apple switched to EFI with the Intel Macs, every Intel Mac uses EFI.

Windows Vista was originally planned to launch with EFI support. I believe Vista SP1 may have it now. Windows 7 most certainly will.

That is all they're providing in that module and it is perfectly legal for them to do so. People may have legitimate need for the module without OS X in mind, for beyond these two well known operating systems, there are others out there that support EFI. We are too self centered here. Mac OS X requires no modification to run on a system with EFI.

The IP issue here is therefore not the module, but encouraging users to break their EULAs by advertising OS X compatibility.

Their duplicity about who should and who should not be able to sell computers capable of running Mac OS X is noteworthy--and silly. (They obviously feel it's OK for them to do so. ;-) And what they claim is legal might only be legal under certain limited circumstances. We are also still left with an incomplete description--basically no information about how the dongle interacts with Mac OS X.

Porsche doesn't make sub-$35K sports cars...same dilemma.

The solution is to simply buy used. A used Porsche, or a used Mac Pro tower.



By some reports, 70% of all sales are currently laptops. Just how "huge" do you think that your slice-of-a-slice-of-a-slice is really going to be?

Don't forget that all of those that really want a lower cost yet still respectable Mac tower can simply buy used: a dual-dual core 2.7GHz G5 with 4.5GM RAM just sold last night on eBay for less than $1000.



The last time that I looked, the Dell equivalent of the default configuration Mac Pro cost $4000, which is a mere $1000 more than the "overpriced" Apple.



The clambering is from a very small - - but LOUD - - group. And we also have a Catch-22 because the crux of the argument demanding a mini-tower is because of their budget: they want to modernize in small incremental upgrade steps, which ultimately means that this demographic intends to buy _fewer_ new sets of hardware. So where's all of the tons of growth going to then come from?


First off, its not the MacPro that is threatened by an xMac, but rather, the iMac.

Second, since the facts are that desktops are ~30% of the market (and continuing to decline), the trend is towards laptops, so the xMac isn't in a growth segment. Since Mac buyers are also generally trend-setters, consider what that really means for the future of ALL desktops.




The first time that revenue from notebook PC sales passed that of desktop PCs at US retail stores happened back in May 2003. On a unit basis, the tipping point occurred in 2005 (cite).

If you want a 2007 link, try this one, which says:

In the second quarter (2007), U.S. retail desktop sales were down 10 percent compared to the same period last year, while notebook sales rose 43 percent over the same period, according to figures published in July (07) by Current Analysis West. The decline pushed the share of desktops for the total U.S. PC market down to an all-time low of 31 percent, with notebooks holding the remaining 69 percent. Translation: as of a year ago, the market segment that you're promoting was only 31% of the total market, and losing ground at a rate of 10% per year.

And for an additional piece of insight, this 23 month old article states:

Business buyers accounted for 77 percent of desktop sales during the period, with home users accounting for the remaining 23 percent.

As per the above, it seems reasonable to project that the total consumer desktop market is 23% of 31%, which is 7% of the total. That's already split that up amongst the mini, the iMac, and the MacPro ... and you want to split it further by adding the xMac?

Sure, I'd love to have a cheap xMac too, but naive wishful thinking isn't going to make it happen. It did make sense ~15 years ago (and we had 7600's), but it simply doesn't make economic sense today. Them's the breaks.


-hh

The reason this happens is there is no such thing as Apple hardware, Macs use identical PC chipsets from Intel & Nvidia, in the old days it was IBM non-X86 hardware which noone else used so it was easy to lock down osx.
The sad truth is with an EFIX Apple are screwed, even altering hardware now will not stop people continuing to use Leopard on PCs. Unless snow Leopard goes to town with activation and serial Apple are screwed.

What would it take to upgrade my G4 800 MHz Mac, so that I could use Leopard (Snow Leopard)?
SJ saw fit to cut Macs off from using Leopard (at 800 MHz). If it's possible to make a Hackintosh, what would I have to do to accomplish this using my old computer? New motherboard? And an
EFI-X dongle? What else?

But the $2300 1 cpu mac pro is overpriced next to 775 Xeon systems as 2 cpu board and FB-dimms add a lot of cost that you don't need.

The $2800 mac pro is priced good next to other systems but the video card is out of date next to them in cost terms.

The iMac will be good for some people IF IT HAD A MATE SCREEN also a easier to get to HD + room for 2 of them will help.

The imac will be better if screen size was not tied to cpu / gpu power so you can get a bigger screen with out paying for a faster cpu or get a smaller screen with better cpu / video power.

A $900 - $1200 - $1500 + range desktop system with a 2 cpu mac pro at $2300 + should work good with $1500 being 1 higher end cpu + good video card maybe even SLI or cross fire.

As you can have a high cpu power system and a good gameing system without the high cost of sever parts. With a good mid level desktop system.

You wouldn't be able to reuse ANYTHING from your G4. Nothing. Not even the case. You would basically have to make a PC from the approved motherboards listed on their site. use an ATX case, serial optical drive and a compatible graphics card and it should work with the EFI-x dongle. I've been an iMac G5 user for about 4 years... and if SL doesn't cut it on PPC I have to get a new computer when I upgrade. I don't know what I'll do if presented with the choice of a mini or Mac Pro. I'm not going the iMac (All in one) route again. No way.

EFI-X only works on Intel-based computers, EFI is not used on PPC Macs.

There is a way to bypass that limitation so you can use a newer version of OS X than Apple supports on the machine. I think the program was called Ex Post Facto or something like that, I think I have the name wrong because it doesn't show up on a search. I've never done it myself, and I don't know if it supports Leopard.

I really don't see it to be that big of a deal. I have a Leopard notebook and a Leopard capable tower, the tower is still running Tiger. I have a spare Leopard licence, but see no reason to spend any time installing it when I have a working Tiger installation.

There's no duplicity. Their little device does nothing illegal. The fact that a person might use it to install OS X isn't their problem, as OS X's EULA is between the user and Apple.

CDonG4 / sdfisher
My mistake, yes my iMac is going on 3 years old, I bought in December 2005. I'll still be upset at being left behind.


The points you make above only strengthen the argument that the clone makers(re: Psystar) believe there is a demand for a computer Apple doesn't make and that they can make a profit doing so.

Think about it, consumers should know going in when buying a hackintosh they will not get Apple support, etc. yet these same clone makers think the market is big enough to make a profit.

bandalay's statement still stands, "It shows an underlying desire by a larger and larger segment of the population to have the Apple experience without paying for Apple hardware. The halo works."

That's exactly right. I would really love to buy and install OSX on my computer. I will *not* buy any of Apple's hardware - it is hugely overpriced in comparison to my home built PC. If Apple refuse to provide me with the product I want, I shall just have to find other ways to acquire and use it. It's Apple just cutting of their nose to spite their face, and their loss at the end of the day. I resent it being indicated that I am not the sort of customer Apple want - they are a business, they want (and need) me and my money more than I want their product.

Thanks guys. If I hadn't asked and you hadn't answered, I'd still be in the dark. This forum is a learning center for me. Learning from those "who have been there" is a lot better than manuals.

It seems you didn't read the interview.


That's your claim.


We really have no idea how the dongle works, so none of us can say it isn't a problem for EFi-X. But it seems you agree there are potential issues for people who use the dongle to install Mac OS X. And if those issues exist, the implications may spread all the way back to EFi-X.

Apple has habitually hamstrung the bottom-most tower configuration, which frequently makes them a poor value. In any event, going to Dell's website and configuring a Dell Precision R5400 to roughly equivalent specs, the Dell's price after $150 instant rebate is $2870, which means that its $570 more expensive than the stripped-bare $2300 Mac Pro.


And yet the price differentials of $500-$1000 versus the comparable Dell still aren't adequate enough margins with which to cover differences in upgrade prices on the video cards? Granted, Apple does want a whopping $2850 for the 1.5GB NVIDIA Quadro FX5600, but Dell's asking $3580 for the 4GB version. Even if we take the Dell's 1.5GB FX4800 for $1400, all this essentially does is make the prices roughly a wash: $5650 vs $5470.


I don't understand the Glossy/Matt screen issues either, so I'm not going to defend them.

For storage, the general dilemma here is that ~70% of buyers are laptop-oriented, not desktop, so there's pragmatically no real provision for a 2nd HD other than to go to Network storage (Time Capsule) and other aspects of "Cloud".

Similarly, I see that the users who are generally "running out" of space aren't particularly in the 'casual' power class, so we need to see to what degree we're looking at the 20% of the 80/20 rule (Pareto Principle).

FWIW, what I would personally like very much to see to help us out (yes, I'm a power user of sorts; still photography) is an easy & clean OS X Utility (Control Panel) that helps the Admin to painlessly relocate a "big" user account off of the boot drive onto secondary drive(s). This can be done at the Terminal prompt, but its not particularly painless - - plus you'll never know when a random OS update could break it.



I understand what you're asking for, but that's a Catch-22 requirement in some ways, plus you're asking for the return of the 1990s "Performa Line" problems of excessive proliferation, which drives manufacturing costs up in order to try to save you a dime or two. Until Apple is bigger than Dell, it simply doesn't make good business sense.



Ignore the gaming requirement and the middle of the iMac line does just fine ... although at $1500 and $1800, its just not at the price points you want.

Sure, I'd want them all to cost a lot less, but when it comes to choosing how to spend any free wishes laying around, a new Porsche 911 at a $35K price point is a vastly higher priority.

And personally, I don't have a particular beef with the $2700 price point for the Mac Pro, as I know that its a lot of rendering horsepower that I'll use(!) and that it will easily go 5 years, so it amortizes out to roughly $50/month.

And the question of being willing to pay more for "server grade" parts ultimately comes back to the question of how much do you believe that your data is worth.

In my case, the data that I want to preserve is personal photography and while its not my business, it is a serious hobby. In my case, the computer's costs can quickly pale in comparison to the other costs involved, such as the price of an airline ticket to wherever I'm taking a "Photo Safari" type of vacation. Back at home, I've already added 3TB worth of storage this year and really need to add 2TB more, in order to get fully redundant backups of my photos.


-hh