When Apple has control over everything inside, support is far easier. One of the big problems PC makers face are all the third party add-ins. With margins being cut very low, support gets to be a very big cost to most manufacturers.
Yeah, and support from a self-proclaimed hobbyist is not likely to impress a lot of the people who might actually be interested in this box. It'll be strictly for tinkerers.
That said, I wish him well. Tinkerers get to have fun too. I can't imagine anyone blowing $2K on his little machine, but the stripped-down box fills a niche that Apple isn't interested in touching. It'll be a nice little toy for the gearhead who can scavenge parts from other machines lying around, or from surplus.
I see no way that Apple would allow this fellow to sell his iBox. He is essentially a clone maker who does not even pay Apple a license fee. I feel confident Apple has legal control on the use of Mac motherboards, and will prevent their use in a new product. Did not the clone makers buy Apple motherboards, and pay a license fee to boot?
I see no way that Apple would allow this fellow to sell his iBox. He is essentially a clone maker who does not even pay Apple a license fee. I feel confident Apple has legal control on the use of Mac motherboards, and will prevent their use in a new product. Did not the clone makers buy Apple motherboards, and pay a license fee to boot?
The clone arrangement was a little different. For one thing, this guy isn't shipping his machines with the OS installed. At the bare minimum, he isn't even shipping a machine with a CPU!
Apple sold motherboards directly to clone makers, which allowed them to exert some degree of control over how the boards were used. Whether Apple has control over motherboards they've already sold to someone else is another matter. There is a longstanding rule in IP law called Doctrine of First Sale, which states that the owner of IP can only set conditions when they sell the product to someone else. What that someone else does is not covered. This is why licenses exist: Because copyright law offers no protection after a sale, so the vendors turned to selling contracts for services, rather than selling the products directly.
Of course, the Doctrine of First Sale, like every principle of IP law, has been violently undermined in the last few years, so I don't honestly know if it still holds at all.
He will at worst be able to squeak by breaking even, and possibly be very successful. His site claims to already have received 200 requests for the machines. At $300 bucks a piece that is only $60K cash most of which will go towards his fixed costs. Even if he makes 20K net Apple will be able to shut him down with lawsuits. Defending lawsuits against a supercompany with their own legal department is EXTREMELY expensive, and his cash flow will not cover it. Even if the lawsuits are unsuccessful for Apple, it will cost much much much more than 20K to defend them. If Apple wants to shut this guy down they can by making him spend all his cash on lawsuits. His only hope is that Apple won't pursue legal action against him, or find a lawyer to defend him for free. Too bad because it is a cool idea.
. . . Apple sold motherboards directly to clone makers, which allowed them to exert some degree of control over how the boards were used. Whether Apple has control over motherboards they've already sold to someone else is another matter. . .
If Apple cannot go after Fraser for selling motherboards in a new product, they can go after the repair facilities who bought them in the first place as replacement parts. The article states he is, "using older, off-the-shelf parts made by Apple and sold to computer repair outfits as spare parts." Putting these in new products is not the intent of the original sale. Also, if Fraser did well, he would need a larger supply of such boards, which would have to come from Apple.
It's hard to believe Fraser made these plans public without talking to Apple first. He will look a little foolish when his idea gets shot down. If Apple wanted to sell motherboards for hobbyists and small scale computer builders, I think it would be a good idea. However, Apple would likely raise the price and bundle OS X with it. Apple would also be picky about which motherboards they would allow to be put in a new product.
Its a noble business plan but it probably won't be able to undercut the price of used apple hardware.
I have been loking into this, and it sounds pretty good. I can buy a headless "pizza box" mac, with an upgradable AGP slot, 1 pci slot, 4 ram slots, upgradable processor, all for $300.
Now, you may want more than barebones (just case, motherboard, and powersupply), in which case he is quoteing $600+ for the total system (case, motherboard, powersupply, processor 800MHz-1.3GHz, ram, video card, and HD.) Depending on how much ram, how fast of a processor, etc the price goes up, but $600 gets you a bootable system, running at 800MHz.
Now why can't Apple do something like this? They can get the parts cheaper than this guy (Apple buys in way more quantities). It would't really cut into the tower market, as this only has 1 PCI slot, and the chips could be on the lower end (think iMac speeds, with no L3 cache). And the iMacs still have that all in one market. Plus they woudln't need to make a new motherboard (as this project shows), so they could reuse similar parts.
If Apple cannot go after Fraser for selling motherboards in a new product, they can go after the repair facilities who bought them in the first place as replacement parts. The article states he is, "using older, off-the-shelf parts made by Apple and sold to computer repair outfits as spare parts." Putting these in new products is not the intent of the original sale.
If the doctrine holds, it doesn't matter what Apple wants the person to do with the board. The point of the doctrine is that once the sale is made, the seller cedes control, and what protection there is is provided by IP law, which protects against unauthorized publication (piracy) but not against resale. I can't say for sure that the doctrine still applies, though.
Quote:
It's hard to believe Fraser made these plans public without talking to Apple first. He will look a little foolish when his idea gets shot down.
He's probably hoping that by getting the word out, and by publicly stating his good intentions, Apple will look bad by shutting him down. It's an interesting gambit, to be sure.
Does everyone remember what happened to the third-party company that was putting SuperDrives into eMacs? Apple put a stop to it and a short while later they came out with SuperDrive eMacs of their own.
Now, either Apple recognized a good and popular thing and decided to get on top of it OR they already had SuperDrive eMacs in the works and did not want their sales hurt.
Either way, Apple controls Apple hardware.
If the headless Mac is SUCH a popular and obvious thing, Apple will come out with one. They won't do it exactly the way everyone wants, but they'll do what's right for the company and its philosophy.
Which is, not coincidentally, one of the (now threatened) bedrock assumptions of IP law.
Of course, nothing prevents Apple from making someone's life unpleasant, or threatening to. The mere expense of a lawsuit can be enough to shut someone down, even if they're technically in the right. For a reseller, or someone dependent on Apple in some way, it might not even take that.
Quote:
If the headless Mac is SUCH a popular and obvious thing, Apple will come out with one. They won't do it exactly the way everyone wants, but they'll do what's right for the company and its philosophy.
If it's not, however, I'm hoping they leave this guy alone to fill a niche that they themselves aren't interested in. It's not like he's going head to head against Apple's bread and butter machines the way the clone makers were...
I think it is a good idea, but very, very flawed. He is relying on old tech, and thus will always be behind the curve. People buying new machines won't be tempted. Also if people are looking for a 'starter machine' like a G3, unless the price is very, bery cheap (In the UK <£150-200) people will just buy and old Mac for the same money, and take up the benefit of full documentation and support... It is a noble idea, but a very limited market.
I also very much suspect that Apple has enough patents on the parts (gigabit motherbaords esp.), and indeed on the IP of how they are put together and combined with other parts, to bury this guy for good, extraordinarily deeply should they so choose.
If he does get off the ground, I expect to see 'Fedayeen Steve' onto him before he can scream for help...
If the doctrine holds, it doesn't matter what Apple wants the person to do with the board. The point of the doctrine is that once the sale is made, the seller cedes control, and what protection there is is provided by IP law, which protects against unauthorized publication (piracy) but not against resale. I can't say for sure that the doctrine still applies, though.
This is only a guess, but the situation may be covered by contract law. Likely, Apple will sell replacement motherboards only to those who enter into a contract about what they can do with the boards. Putting them into new products is likely a breach of contract. If I were running Apple, this is the approach I would use.
Quote:
He's probably hoping that by getting the word out, and by publicly stating his good intentions, Apple will look bad by shutting him down. It's an interesting gambit, to be sure.
You're probably right. I hope Apple begins to see the advantage of small operations like this and moves to integrate them into their marketing strategy. The problem with Fraser's operation is that Apple only sells a motherboard, no OS. Many or most will simply install a copy of the OS from another Mac. If Apple regulated this activity, they could bundle OS X with each board sold and charge accordingly.
The benefit to Apple would be to get into some low end markets without support costs of selling the whole system. The little custom shops would support their products, and Apple would get the sale of a motherboard with OS X. Apple would warranty the motherboards to the shops making these custom, Mac-like computers. Since Apple gets to choose which motherboards they will sell this way, they can easily avoid head to head competition.
This falls under the category of "gray market" sales. All Apple has to do to shut this down is send a letter out to all it's Apple certified dealers threatening to drop them if they sell to this guy. All Apple has to do to find out who is selling to him is to buy one and check serial numbers.
well what if Apple did follow through with this thought?
would anyone buy an Apple-branded pizza box? Apple could be using this as a "sit back and let's see what happens" and then if there is enough demand, they will bring out a pizza of their own.
it could happen . and not necessarily with old h/w either . or maybe it could . i love speculation
Educational markets love these type of deals. Since there is a consistent lack of funds, we end up doing our own hardware support over time anyways, as long as the motherboards and component boards are Apple compliant and the same throughout a model for a period of time, I would buy 50-100, outfit a department or lab and carry a few spare.
I have been begging Apple to do something like this for two years, since monitors outlast CPUs and the towers are too large when space is constrained.
Apple could sell off old G3 & G4 -based h/w and clear their inventories . besides, the sales of the 970 will create quite a handsome cash-flow so they could afford to cut margins. Appl might only buy the base machine, but how else are Apple going to clear inventory? And since the h/w would be cheap as mud to produce, why not ?
apple doesn't own these motherboards they aren't clearing any inventory.
He explains he's doing this as a hobby, not to get rich building cheap computers. As long as he can more or less break even -- which I imagine he can, if Apple stays off his ass -- I think he should do fine.
Geez, you know, if you guys weren't specifically writing "Apple" I would have sworn you were talking about MS.
Isn't that bad? I mean, just from reading these posts, it sure makes Apple look as bad as MS... swamping all competition in legal fees. Now, Apple hasn't actually DONE anything yet, but it says something that everyone fully expects them to.
Comments
Support
Support
Support
When Apple has control over everything inside, support is far easier. One of the big problems PC makers face are all the third party add-ins. With margins being cut very low, support gets to be a very big cost to most manufacturers.
Just my $.02
That said, I wish him well. Tinkerers get to have fun too.
Originally posted by snoopy
I see no way that Apple would allow this fellow to sell his iBox. He is essentially a clone maker who does not even pay Apple a license fee. I feel confident Apple has legal control on the use of Mac motherboards, and will prevent their use in a new product. Did not the clone makers buy Apple motherboards, and pay a license fee to boot?
The clone arrangement was a little different. For one thing, this guy isn't shipping his machines with the OS installed. At the bare minimum, he isn't even shipping a machine with a CPU!
Apple sold motherboards directly to clone makers, which allowed them to exert some degree of control over how the boards were used. Whether Apple has control over motherboards they've already sold to someone else is another matter. There is a longstanding rule in IP law called Doctrine of First Sale, which states that the owner of IP can only set conditions when they sell the product to someone else. What that someone else does is not covered. This is why licenses exist: Because copyright law offers no protection after a sale, so the vendors turned to selling contracts for services, rather than selling the products directly.
Of course, the Doctrine of First Sale, like every principle of IP law, has been violently undermined in the last few years, so I don't honestly know if it still holds at all.
Originally posted by Amorph
. . . Apple sold motherboards directly to clone makers, which allowed them to exert some degree of control over how the boards were used. Whether Apple has control over motherboards they've already sold to someone else is another matter. . .
If Apple cannot go after Fraser for selling motherboards in a new product, they can go after the repair facilities who bought them in the first place as replacement parts. The article states he is, "using older, off-the-shelf parts made by Apple and sold to computer repair outfits as spare parts." Putting these in new products is not the intent of the original sale. Also, if Fraser did well, he would need a larger supply of such boards, which would have to come from Apple.
It's hard to believe Fraser made these plans public without talking to Apple first. He will look a little foolish when his idea gets shot down. If Apple wanted to sell motherboards for hobbyists and small scale computer builders, I think it would be a good idea. However, Apple would likely raise the price and bundle OS X with it. Apple would also be picky about which motherboards they would allow to be put in a new product.
Originally posted by dfiler
Its a noble business plan but it probably won't be able to undercut the price of used apple hardware.
I have been loking into this, and it sounds pretty good. I can buy a headless "pizza box" mac, with an upgradable AGP slot, 1 pci slot, 4 ram slots, upgradable processor, all for $300.
Now, you may want more than barebones (just case, motherboard, and powersupply), in which case he is quoteing $600+ for the total system (case, motherboard, powersupply, processor 800MHz-1.3GHz, ram, video card, and HD.) Depending on how much ram, how fast of a processor, etc the price goes up, but $600 gets you a bootable system, running at 800MHz.
Now why can't Apple do something like this? They can get the parts cheaper than this guy (Apple buys in way more quantities). It would't really cut into the tower market, as this only has 1 PCI slot, and the chips could be on the lower end (think iMac speeds, with no L3 cache). And the iMacs still have that all in one market. Plus they woudln't need to make a new motherboard (as this project shows), so they could reuse similar parts.
Originally posted by snoopy
If Apple cannot go after Fraser for selling motherboards in a new product, they can go after the repair facilities who bought them in the first place as replacement parts. The article states he is, "using older, off-the-shelf parts made by Apple and sold to computer repair outfits as spare parts." Putting these in new products is not the intent of the original sale.
If the doctrine holds, it doesn't matter what Apple wants the person to do with the board. The point of the doctrine is that once the sale is made, the seller cedes control, and what protection there is is provided by IP law, which protects against unauthorized publication (piracy) but not against resale. I can't say for sure that the doctrine still applies, though.
It's hard to believe Fraser made these plans public without talking to Apple first. He will look a little foolish when his idea gets shot down.
He's probably hoping that by getting the word out, and by publicly stating his good intentions, Apple will look bad by shutting him down. It's an interesting gambit, to be sure.
Does everyone remember what happened to the third-party company that was putting SuperDrives into eMacs? Apple put a stop to it and a short while later they came out with SuperDrive eMacs of their own.
Now, either Apple recognized a good and popular thing and decided to get on top of it OR they already had SuperDrive eMacs in the works and did not want their sales hurt.
Either way, Apple controls Apple hardware.
If the headless Mac is SUCH a popular and obvious thing, Apple will come out with one. They won't do it exactly the way everyone wants, but they'll do what's right for the company and its philosophy.
Originally posted by clonenode
There are no original ideas.
Which is, not coincidentally, one of the (now threatened) bedrock assumptions of IP law.
Of course, nothing prevents Apple from making someone's life unpleasant, or threatening to. The mere expense of a lawsuit can be enough to shut someone down, even if they're technically in the right. For a reseller, or someone dependent on Apple in some way, it might not even take that.
If the headless Mac is SUCH a popular and obvious thing, Apple will come out with one. They won't do it exactly the way everyone wants, but they'll do what's right for the company and its philosophy.
If it's not, however, I'm hoping they leave this guy alone to fill a niche that they themselves aren't interested in. It's not like he's going head to head against Apple's bread and butter machines the way the clone makers were...
I also very much suspect that Apple has enough patents on the parts (gigabit motherbaords esp.), and indeed on the IP of how they are put together and combined with other parts, to bury this guy for good, extraordinarily deeply should they so choose.
If he does get off the ground, I expect to see 'Fedayeen Steve' onto him before he can scream for help...
Peace,
Marcus
Originally posted by Amorph
If the doctrine holds, it doesn't matter what Apple wants the person to do with the board. The point of the doctrine is that once the sale is made, the seller cedes control, and what protection there is is provided by IP law, which protects against unauthorized publication (piracy) but not against resale. I can't say for sure that the doctrine still applies, though.
This is only a guess, but the situation may be covered by contract law. Likely, Apple will sell replacement motherboards only to those who enter into a contract about what they can do with the boards. Putting them into new products is likely a breach of contract. If I were running Apple, this is the approach I would use.
He's probably hoping that by getting the word out, and by publicly stating his good intentions, Apple will look bad by shutting him down. It's an interesting gambit, to be sure.
You're probably right. I hope Apple begins to see the advantage of small operations like this and moves to integrate them into their marketing strategy. The problem with Fraser's operation is that Apple only sells a motherboard, no OS. Many or most will simply install a copy of the OS from another Mac. If Apple regulated this activity, they could bundle OS X with each board sold and charge accordingly.
The benefit to Apple would be to get into some low end markets without support costs of selling the whole system. The little custom shops would support their products, and Apple would get the sale of a motherboard with OS X. Apple would warranty the motherboards to the shops making these custom, Mac-like computers. Since Apple gets to choose which motherboards they will sell this way, they can easily avoid head to head competition.
No one will sell to him.
would anyone buy an Apple-branded pizza box? Apple could be using this as a "sit back and let's see what happens" and then if there is enough demand, they will bring out a pizza of their own.
it could happen . and not necessarily with old h/w either . or maybe it could . i love speculation
I have been begging Apple to do something like this for two years, since monitors outlast CPUs and the towers are too large when space is constrained.
Originally posted by g::masta
Apple could sell off old G3 & G4 -based h/w and clear their inventories . besides, the sales of the 970 will create quite a handsome cash-flow so they could afford to cut margins. Appl might only buy the base machine, but how else are Apple going to clear inventory? And since the h/w would be cheap as mud to produce, why not ?
apple doesn't own these motherboards they aren't clearing any inventory.
Originally posted by Nonsuch
He explains he's doing this as a hobby, not to get rich building cheap computers. As long as he can more or less break even -- which I imagine he can, if Apple stays off his ass -- I think he should do fine.
Not doing for profit
::snickers::
Isn't that bad? I mean, just from reading these posts, it sure makes Apple look as bad as MS... swamping all competition in legal fees. Now, Apple hasn't actually DONE anything yet, but it says something that everyone fully expects them to.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Geez, you know, if you guys weren't specifically writing "Apple" I would have sworn you were talking about MS.
Unfortunately, there's a real point to that. Apple have done their share of ham-handed, authoritarian bullying.
Exhibit A: http://www.thinksecret.com/news/dealercontracts.html