We've always been intrigued by the
EFI-X dongle that fools OS X into running on stock Intel machines, Software Update and all, and now it looks like
the company a company called EFi-X USA is taking things one step further -- it's planning on shipping pre-built machines capable of running Apple's OS. The EFi-X Millennium 4 will sport an overclocked 3.8GHz Core 2 Quad, 4GB of RAM, and a GeForce 8800 GTS graphics card in an Antec P180 case, all for $1,899 plus the $199 EFi-X dongle. The idea is to avoid any Psystar-style legal troubles by leaving the purchase and installation of OS X up to the end user, but apparently no one at EFi-X USA has talked to a lawyer or even read our
previous posts on the matter, since Apple's lawsuit against Psystar turns as much on
contributory and induced copyright infringement as it does on Psystar's direct violation of Apple's OS X EULA. In other words, it's illegal to sell a product expressly designed to allow customers to infringe copyrights -- a principle Napster and Grokster made famous, you'll recall. Plus we're pretty certain there's a DMCA argument in there since the EFi-X dongle circumvents Apple's protections on OS X -- the validity of which Psystar is actually testing in its
revised countersuit. We'll see how it goes -- we're seriously worried that these companies are doing far more harm to the OSx86 scene than good.
P.S.- Oh, and honestly, Apple, if you want this entire headache to go away, all you have to do is produce a reasonably-priced, configurable midrange tower. Think about it.
Update: We've just been pinged by the original EFi-X team, who tell us that EFi-X USA has nothing to do with them, that they have no plans to sell actual machines, and that they strongly disapprove of EFi-X USA. Shades of
Psystar's use of netkas's work on OSx86 without permission, we'd say -- shady shady.
[Thanks, Mark]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Big GIANT Balls @ Dec 12th 2008 11:37AM
FIRST!
Apple has done it again!
Bobby @ Dec 12th 2008 11:42AM
OSX is Unix meaning it does not belong to evil company but to us.
Evil company is one should be prosecuted not EFIX
000000 @ Dec 12th 2008 11:44AM
Apple has done what again?
Big GIANT Balls @ Dec 12th 2008 11:45AM
Sure, UNIX is open, but Apple pays a lot of money to develop OS X and should have the right to do with it whatever they want. If you don't like it, use Linux, Windows, the probably upcoming Google OS, or whatever else you want. OS X isn't good enough to put all this trouble into when you can simply run Windows on whatever you want.
Big GIANT Balls @ Dec 12th 2008 11:46AM
@000000,
Sucked my balls. That's what.
Fernando @ Dec 12th 2008 11:48AM
Oh yeah they take UNIX's useless to the regular non geek user's interface and superb security model and invest millions of dollars into making it usable to the regular user. Yeah god forbid they try to make some money back on their investment and hard work. Also last time I checked Apple is not the only company doing this either. If you want real support from any of the major Linux/Unix distros you will have to pay. So you people need to either A) stop crying about it or B) do something about it. Go out and make your own OS and create your own company and make your own hardware.
Kris120890 @ Dec 12th 2008 11:50AM
You haven't a sufficient age to achieved puberty thus allowing apple to find them and suck them.
max @ Dec 12th 2008 11:56AM
What EFi-X is basically doing is arguing that they can sell you the gun as long as you provide your own bullets.
therefore when you add them together the combination is both "crazy loud" and legally devastating
CmmanderCrisp @ Dec 12th 2008 12:29PM
I am sorry, but you keep trolling trying to get first posts, please stop. Also, UNIX is not open, UNIX is a specific system that is based directly off of the AT&T Time Sharing system, this includes Solaris, Novell, OS X, and BSD. Linux is not UNIX, it is a compatible kernel to the UNIX system, which is open and was developed independently, containing no true ties to any actual UNIX system. Apple has the rights to do as they choose with their intellectual property, if they want their OS on their proprietary hardware, so be it. I am not saying I don't support EFI-X I am just saying that it is not anything to be said that a company would defend its own property from usage outside of the License Agreement.
Joe Rogan @ Dec 12th 2008 1:02PM
I miss iEye
charles willis @ Dec 12th 2008 1:17PM
You know what? I am so sick of PC people hating on Apple cause they make stable machines. You know I was thinking the other day cause I teach graphic design at a high school, all on pcs, and I have about three computer crashes a day. I think to myself man, I am so glad I have an apple. I would be anything to have a stable computer as a mac. So all you haters out ther shut up and just enjoy your cheap crashing machines.
Volker @ Dec 12th 2008 2:00PM
charles willis @ You know what i hate? Stupid people complaining about how PC's crash every other day and what not. Seriously, quit it. There is something wrong with your shit. I have multiple PC's at home, a Mac and an Fedora Core box running a server. None of them cause me any headaches. Well I lie, my Macbook's battery recently went dead so now it's a makeshift Mac mini. So please, stop bitching about PC's and Macs, and this is better than that.. blah blah blah. Each one has their problems, none are perfect, but to say that PC's crash every other day is totally BS! Please answer this question... If they are so problematic as you claim, why is it that almost every server environment in the world runs Windows 2000, 2003 server? huh huh huh? Oh, and i work in a massive DC, you know how many of our clients (400+) run Mac hardware? Zero.
thedesolate1 @ Dec 12th 2008 2:04PM
OSX86 was cool when it was a relatively small community and apple didnt seem hell bent on putting a stop to it because they probably figured it would be good publicity to convert people to mac. Considering all the hoops you have to jump through to get it to work on your machine and the relatively small amount of retail branded intel machines that supported it, apple probably didn't see it as a huge threat. And it wasn't.... you can tell by the huge increase in apple hardware sales over the past year. Things like these piss me off because now somebody is trying to profit from something hackers made to be available for free and are now really trying to cut into apples sales witch in the long run may make apple reconsider their handling of the OSX86 project.
pavlindrom @ Dec 12th 2008 11:38AM
The name is too close to eFix...
Fix what?
CJ @ Dec 12th 2008 12:47PM
Fix it so that arrogant Apple fanboys will shut up when they realise that OSX can be run on any machine.
Jimmy Jones @ Dec 12th 2008 11:38AM
I say just open up the "closed monopolized" madness and everyone will be happy!
Fernando @ Dec 12th 2008 11:42AM
Ummm 7% Market share compared to 90% market share. Yeah that's definitely a monopoly.
Lee @ Dec 12th 2008 11:52AM
I'm happy someone said it! Apple is a TRUE monopoly. They REQUIRE you to buy THEIR hardware to run THEIR operation system, and bar you from running the os on any other hardware. That is a monopoly. Microsoft having market share doesn't not constitute a monopoly because there are choices; Linux, Mac OSX, BSD, OS/2, but Apple gives you NO choice! What is I want to run the OS but I don't want to buy their OVERPRICED hardware, I can't! Where are the antitrust lawyers! This monopoly must be brought down!
Jimmy Jones @ Dec 12th 2008 11:52AM
Did you forgot to add all the millions of all the i-Products that makes the AAPL share sum up to about $100?
PyRo1509 @ Dec 12th 2008 11:52AM
He is referring to apples monopoly of douche
Adam K @ Dec 12th 2008 11:57AM
When will you realize size doesn't matter. It's how you use it.
Microsoft has a huge marketshare for two reasons 1) it is available for and can run on the vast majority of the world's hardware, and 2) its platform is widely developed for. Until Apple starts to loosen restrictions on hardware (or makes a platform worth developing for), it will be perceived as monopolistic and unreasonable.
sean dailey @ Dec 12th 2008 11:57AM
so, you're saying apple has a monopoly over it's own product? that makes tons of sense.
ethana2 @ Dec 12th 2008 12:06PM
I define a monopoly more in terms of behavior than market share.
If Intel has 95% of the market and they're not trying to pull any crap, guess what?
They have 95% of the market, good for them.
The above, of course, isn't a real life scenario, but you get the idea.
If Apple has 9% of the market and they're already pulling monopolistic crap left and right, well screw them; let the osx86 machines roll.
basroil @ Dec 12th 2008 12:09PM
@fernando, yes, that can be a monopoly. In this case it's a monopoly of os-x based computers due to their closed system. For it not to be a monopoly, they would either have to offer a different operating system on their machines (linux, windows, etc) or allow their operating system to be installed elsewhere. First option would not yield any extra profits, as all mac equipment is far from the best (sonys have better laptop design, size, and features, dells have better business support, acer has higher spec'd stuff at lower price, etc), and the second option would actually decrease mac sales, where apple makes the largest chunk of profit.
matt @ Dec 12th 2008 12:20PM
I am not an Apple fan, but it is not a monopoly - they are bundling two goods, which they are within their rights to do. You do not expect to play Mario on a Playstation or Xbox, why do you assume you have a right to use OS X on whatever hardware you want?
Apple are very unlikely to release a mid-priced Mac simply because it would dilute their brand as a relatively exclusive, ostentatious product - get used to it.
Just use Linux if you want flexibility - I use it exclusively and it is easy enough for my computer illiterate parents to use as well.
Jimmy Jones @ Dec 12th 2008 12:52PM
@ Matt, you're not making -1 sense. Think about your analogy and re-post your comment!
Ignatius @ Dec 12th 2008 1:13PM
Wait a second here, it's illegal to sell products that expressly allow the violation of copyright laws?
Might as well outlaw PCs altogether, since you can violate copyright laws left and right with torrents.
matt @ Dec 12th 2008 2:58PM
@Jimmy Jones
I'm not entirely sure what you think is wrong with my analogy - Nintendo limits it's software to be used with particular hardware, just as Apple limits the use of OS X to it's hardware. If I am mistaken in the analogy I apologise, but please explain my mistake.
Anyway, the difference between a monopoly and bundling is obvious. A company has a monopoly if it has majority control of a market, which for OS X is the general OS market (of which they have less than 10%). Bundling involves selling different products in conjunction with one another, sometimes the different products can be bought separately (albeit for a higher price), but this need not be the case and such bundling is legal. On the other hand monopoly abuse is illegal.
The simple fact is that if you do not want Apple hardware, you don't have to buy it and there is alternative software you can use. Apple, however, is not obliged to sell you their software to be used on other hardware. I personally do not like such restrictive bundling, but it is simply incorrect to suggest that it is a monopoly.
EJ @ Dec 12th 2008 3:51PM
It's not a Monopoly. Apple have the monopoly in the Apple maket? Give me a break. If you don't like the terms don't buy the bloody product. Quit whining. Quite happily typing this on XP on my MacBook :op
adrian @ Dec 12th 2008 4:00PM
I say people have a choice. Pay for Apple hardware plus OS X and all the Apple updates/support with it, Or take a risk and buy some third party hardware and hope that it still works with future versions of OS X or use Linux or Windows. I know where I would put my money. Which ever way you look at it most people know the score with Apple and how they tie their hardware and OS together so stop complaining.
Jimmy Jones @ Dec 12th 2008 5:12PM
@Matt
Your analogy is not up to the par in your 1st comment .......
"You do not expect to play Mario on a Playstation or Xbox, why do you assume you have a right to use OS X on whatever hardware you want?"
Why do Apple assume they have the right to lock me down to their hardware? iPhone, iTouch + iTunes? and then shuts down any software (open source) that unlocks the device? Why do they keep pushing out updates to lock down the device[iPhone]? Why do they feel the need to charge for Service Packs? Perhaps, you already answered few of these ?s in your second reply but this is my line of reasoning..
And no, I'm not anti-Apply but just because they have 10% market share or whatever percentage doesn't exonerate them from monopolistic practices... If this was M$, the whole world will jump and cry [I know that much].....and M$ will never hear the last of it...
Yes, I do not own a Zune or iPhone or iTouch but I do OWN Archos 5 and I'm loving it. It's like McDonalds (I'm lovin' it).
I do believe end-users (consumers) should have some level of freedom as to what they want to do with their hardwares once they pay the premium price......whether it is Apple or not.
doug @ Dec 12th 2008 9:30PM
Maybe Snow Leopard will be that product. Doubt it, but who knows.
Scott @ Dec 12th 2008 11:40AM
"P.S.- Oh, and honestly, Apple, if you want this entire headache to go away, all you have to do is produce a reasonably-priced, configurable midrange tower. Think about it."
Well said!
Tinu @ Dec 12th 2008 11:52AM
Apple and "reasonably-priced" don't go together. If it is reasonably priced with an apple logo on it, it's probably a duplicate.
engadget @ Dec 12th 2008 12:00PM
My thoughts exactly. I've been a big Mac fan for years, but recently built myself a PC because I wanted the ability to add multiple internal hard drives, dual optical drives, and an internal SD card reader. The cheapest Mac Pro costs almost $3000. My PC cost me less than $500 and has every feature I wanted--except the ability to run OS X. But there was no way I was paying 6x as much to run OS X.
Josh @ Dec 12th 2008 12:16PM
@engadget
yeah and in every other way your $500 computer was exactly the same as that $3000 Mac Pro right? God you are such a tool.
rattyuk @ Dec 12th 2008 12:21PM
"P.S.- Oh, and honestly, Apple, if you want this entire headache to go away, all you have to do is produce a reasonably-priced, configurable midrange tower. Think about it."
And it won't do a fucking thing - all those who are complaining would NEVER buy one. The point of all this "Apple blah blah blah moan wimper" fanboi crap is just that. If you can't afford to buy a Mac - don't buy one. If you can and you want one then buy one.
Rampant whining like this is just not going to make Apple do a thing.
oinquer @ Dec 12th 2008 12:21PM
Steve Jobs sends fax Mark : You know that PS rant you did about Apple in EFi-X topic??
Yeah, you think it was funny?
You're Fired!
"Steve Jobs goes back to his EEE PC and leaves his I-Fax'ial sending the faxes."
Michael @ Dec 12th 2008 12:25PM
Apple needs to do more than just offer a mid-range tower, such as not forcing the end user into a corner when it comes to hardware upgrades. Video cards for example. A friend of mine insisted that any video card could be used in a mac pro, which just isn't true. The PC relies on its ability to upgrade easily and give people options that one just can't receive on a mac.
A mid-range tower would have about the same effect on the market as the mac mini did if it can't be easily upgraded. Besides, look at the mini now. It's well above its introduced price point now. Why would a mid-range tower ever get a reasonable price point ($1000 seems the most reasonable for a mac) if the mini can't stick to its originally intended price point?
catachip @ Dec 12th 2008 12:25PM
Funny, I configured this Mac Pro on the website just now, for $2,299... $2,149 with educational discount. Please don't spread lies.
One 2.8GHZ Quad-Core Intel Xeon
2GB (2x1GB)
320GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB
One 16x SuperDrive
Apple Mighty Mouse
Apple Keyboard + User's Guide
AMiSH PiRATE @ Dec 12th 2008 12:34PM
Engadget just made a dig at apple. Are cats going to marry dogs now?
dantheman99 @ Dec 12th 2008 12:39PM
@ Josh
Engadgets point was not that he could build a machine comparable to a mac pro for $500, but that he needed a machine that could be easily upgraded (add extra hard drives, optical drives, etc). He wanted a mac, but the only machine that could be easily upgraded was a mac pro that would cost him $3000 plus and provide way more power than what he was looking for. Since Apple offered no mid-range tower, he was forced to build a pretty decent pc for $500 that could fulfill his needs. I think that was pretty easy to understand. I guess that makes you the tool.
EMoShunz @ Dec 12th 2008 12:59PM
hackers will hack. doesn't matter. i'm one of the very few people i know who actually pays for software, microsoft, apple or otherwise. people even run cracked versions of $80 software instead of paying for something legit, so "price" has little to do with it.
Nick @ Dec 12th 2008 1:02PM
@catachip
That graphics card is horrid. It was a late 06 entry level card.
kal326 @ Dec 12th 2008 1:37PM
@catachip
Xeon E5440 716.99
SuperMicro MBD-X7DCA 279.99
2GB ram DDR2 Reg/ECC 67.99
320GB HD 49.99
2600XT 49.99
Antec P180 149.99
PC Power Cool 610 EPS12 94.99
DVDRW 24.99
KB Mouse 20
Total= 1454.92
At that price you could buy a copy of OSX, Vista, and a EFi-X usb key to run OSX and still save over buying a base Mac Pro with Educational discount and have it be completely upgradable. Pricing grabbed from Newegg. Sadly the Xeon is the most expensive part.
mabhatter @ Dec 12th 2008 5:30PM
Ironically if you run Windows under boot camp on a Mac Pro you CAN use regular PC Video cards, it's well documented, but OSX can't see them! All most hobbyists want is something that can use third party video as a refresh... something Apple seems hell-bent no not allowing even for their expensive Mac Pros anymore.
On one hand, computers are appliances now, laptops have topped the 50% mark and will only grow more. MOST computer buyers NEVER OPEN THE CASE... I've seen dozens from friends and family and they've never been opened to let out the dust bunnies. If the majority of buyers aren't upgrading, and they hate doing it if they have to, why should companies add the expensive of extra parts nobody uses and testing for compatibility nobody will use? Not to mention they can make smaller, cooler machines and get more sales. I think monitors are the main expensive component people don't want to upgrade. And people like the choice between desktop or TV room now.
I'm thinking even Apple is going to drop iMac because built in LCDs are very wasteful if you can't reuse them in broken computers and that's lots of scrap parts they get stuck with. They will pull out something headless, but still glued shut like the Apple TV, to match those 24" displays with integrated cording they just released. Apple wants to support the "now" to keep people buying. That means they will pull every unnecessary bit out of the machines, and make them from better stuff so they work until they're too broken to fix, but also so they don't make customers feel guilty about buying new every 3 years because more bits are glass and metal, not plastic for the landfill.
james kachan @ Dec 12th 2008 11:40AM
the ps comment was perfect
mac mini? nah...
how about a macpro mini.
better.
gaforces @ Dec 12th 2008 11:41AM
Who gives a crap about apple ...
Samboini @ Dec 12th 2008 12:15PM
I'm no Apple fanboy but you're heading towards a flaming.
JerkfacedFed @ Dec 12th 2008 1:28PM
ditto, their computers are completely useless for anything but final cut, yet cost more than double anything else on the market