New Motherboard Promises Out-of-the-Box Hackintosh Support

[Wreckem]

Originally Posted by Zaap

You keep saying that, but that QUO board IS a Gigabyte motherboard. That's the issue, not their standard motherboards that just happen to work with OSX. Purposefully manufacturing something for someone else to sell as a product to circumvent Apple's copyrights wouldn't let Gigabyte off the hook. (And I'm sure they know that, so it's why I'm doubting the whole thing is real in the first place.)

We are talking about a commercial enterprise and therefore it does become something that Apple could go after. Again, read up on the Pystar case; courts have already ruled on the matter and as I said it went far beyond merely selling a system with OSX on it. Anyone who thinks they can make a commercial effort out of OSx86 could easily be sued based on the judgements in the Pystar case, which was pretty broad. Has nothing to do with individuals Hackintoshing their own systems by the way, only with businesses trying to commercialize it.

Gigabyte is the contracted manufacturer(allegedly) of the board. They are producing it for another company. Plus, the most likely scenario is, they are manufacturing the boards without custom EFI, bootloaders, etc. The custom EFI, bootloaders, etc is likely done by Quo after Quo recieves the motherboards from Gigabyte. Again Gigabyte is just making hardware that uses commonly avalible universially compatible components. Gigabyte isn't liable for what others do with the hardware they create.

Gigabyte is a huge company, they have in house counsel and likely outside counsel. I am positive they dot their i's and cross their t's. You are extremely naive if you don't think their lawyers went over this issue already. Thats if this product actually exists and is being manufactured on contract by Gigabyte.

As for end users, technically anyone hackintoshing is violating Apple's copyrights, Apple's EULA, and possibly the DCMA(its a gray area because of the aforementioned legal jailbreaking of phones). Commercialization has nothing to do with any of the above. Apple could go after end users. They won't because its ineffective and more or less impossible. Plus it would be a PR nightmare and piss off die hard Apple users.

[Zaap]

Originally Posted by Wreckem

The custom EFI, bootloaders, etc is likely done by Quo after Quo recieves the motherboards from Gigabyte.

Which is exactly what pystar was ordered by a court not to do under threat of suit from Apple with Rebel EFI.

QUO's problem is, they're either (as you say) trying to sell something common as unique- or their only real selling point is Hackintosh compatibility (let's stop pretending there's any real market for this for Windows and Linux users- there really isn't. Virtually every motherboard runs Windows and Linux.) So QUO's whole selling point is a device that can violate Apple's copyrights- exactly something they can be gone after legally for, as already set by the pystar case.

You're the naive one to think that if/when that all goes down, Apple wouldn't have some sort of talk with Gigabyte for selling a tool that allowed someone else to do this. You act like Apple isn't a company that aggressively protects its property.

The way it currently works, no one can touch Gigabyte because their boards just happen, one after the other, to be able to run OSX fairly easily. The OSx86 community does all the work- not for commercial gain- and releases the information and results to Hackintoshers. No one can really be faulted in that.

But Gigabyte custom-making a product that's real purpose is to enable another company to violate Apple's copyrights (and again, let's all just PRETEND that's not the selling point for QUO in this) to capitalize on commercially- it's probably going a step too far. If it succeeds to any great length, I don't believe Apple will turn a blind eye to it. The whole thing just draws unneeded attention on Gigabyte's products being able to run OSX. And worst of all, it's all unnessiary since all of this is possible already.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the fact that Apple can't sue individual Hackintoshers, as if anyone was saying they would. That's not the issue. The issue is, there's other much easier ways of putting the kibosh on the whole thing, such as using their clout to convince Gigabyte that it's more profitable to NOT make OSX compatible boards than to make them. It wouldn't be a stretch for Apple in the least, as they have a history of bending other companies to their will.

Again Gigabyte is just making hardware that uses commonly avalible universially compatible components. Gigabyte isn't liable for what others do with the hardware they create.

When it's a bunch of random hackers just using their products independently to violate Apple's copyrights, yes, you're right. If it's commercial transaction that a judge can be made to believe only existed from the start to create a tool to violate Apple's copyrights for profit- then that's not the same thing.

[vailr]

The only board feature that would:
a: actually make it more easily Hackintoshable & b: make it more of an Apple legal target would be: ship it with a customized bios that's specifically an "OSX friendly" bios.
Maybe Quo could skirt around any Apple legalities by selling the board with a plain vanilla Gigabyte bios. And offer on their web site a 2nd "OSX friendly" flashable bios for download. Or even supply a bios editing software tool that any end-user could utilize to self-mod their own bios.

[smackababy]

Originally Posted by Zaap

Which is exactly what pystar was ordered by a court not to do under threat of suit from Apple with Rebel EFI.

QUO's problem is, they're either (as you say) trying to sell something common as unique- or their only real selling point is Hackintosh compatibility (let's stop pretending there's any real market for this for Windows and Linux users- there really isn't. Virtually every motherboard runs Windows and Linux.) So QUO's whole selling point is a device that can violate Apple's copyrights- exactly something they can be gone after legally for, as already set by the pystar case.

You're the naive one to think that if/when that all goes down, Apple wouldn't have some sort of talk with Gigabyte for selling a tool that allowed someone else to do this. You act like Apple isn't a company that aggressively protects its property.

The way it currently works, no one can touch Gigabyte because their boards just happen, one after the other, to be able to run OSX fairly easily. The OSx86 community does all the work- not for commercial gain- and releases the information and results to Hackintoshers. No one can really be faulted in that.

But Gigabyte custom-making a product that's real purpose is to enable another company to violate Apple's copyrights (and again, let's all just PRETEND that's not the selling point for QUO in this) to capitalize on commercially- it's probably going a step too far. If it succeeds to any great length, I don't believe Apple will turn a blind eye to it. The whole thing just draws unneeded attention on Gigabyte's products being able to run OSX. And worst of all, it's all unnessiary since all of this is possible already.

I don't know why you keep bringing up the fact that Apple can't sue individual Hackintoshers, as if anyone was saying they would. That's not the issue. The issue is, there's other much easier ways of putting the kibosh on the whole thing, such as using their clout to convince Gigabyte that it's more profitable to NOT make OSX compatible boards than to make them. It wouldn't be a stretch for Apple in the least, as they have a history of bending other companies to their will.


When it's a bunch of random hackers just using their products independently to violate Apple's copyrights, yes, you're right. If it's commercial transaction that a judge can be made to believe only existed from the start to create a tool to violate Apple's copyrights for profit- then that's not the same thing.

Apple has no foot to stand on against Gigabyte though. They are not selling a tool to circumvent Apple's copyrights. They are selling hardware. Remember that case where some DVD ripping program was found guilty of reverse engineering copy protection to allow rips? Could the right holders sue the manufacturers of DVD burners? Of course not. The tool that is allowing the infringement is the custom bootloader. Unless Gigabyte is supply that to QUO, they are not held liable at all. Do you sue Ford because people break the law using cars they manufacture? Of course not.

[Zaap]

Originally Posted by smackababy

Could the right holders sue the manufacturers of DVD burners? Of course not.

Not sure this is the best example. Media companies have been able to place lots of copyright protection restrictions on consumer AV devices, like region controls, Macrovision copy protection, HDCP compliance, etc.

Is it such a stretch that if the motherboard industry allows it to become too blatant, Apple might seek to demand some sort of onboard copy-protection against installing their OS's?

[Wreckem]

Not sure if people have still been following this.

It is being OEMed by Gigabyte. Quo is currently raising funds for a production run on Kickstarter. Its ~$15k shy of its $87k goal in less than 3 days. They have two flavors of boards, one with bluetooth/wifi and one without. Only ~27 left out of the 200(100 of each). They look to be shipping in May(just the boards) and June(complete systems, sans os). So far Apple hasn't laid down the hammer.

I'd buy one but I am a m-itx/m-dtx person. I wish someone would do something like this with a m-dtx (or even m-itx) form factor. It would probably be to expensive to do one because there probably isn't enough market, but I basically wish someone would make a m-dtx form factor lga 2011 board that can be hackintoshed out of the box. Theres only one m-dtx lga 2011 board and its not hackintoshable. Its hard to get and is also around ~$375.

My next computer build is probably going to be my last, unless things drastically change in the desktop world. And the only reason I am building a new one is because I going to build a home server by cannabilsing my current Sandybridge system. My dream last build would be

IvyBridge-E
Mini-DTX Formfactor motherboard that is hackintoshible, overclockability isn't necessary for obvious reasons
32GB RAM
2 x 1TB Crucial M500s (1 for Windows and 1 for OSX)
Titan GTX

All in a mini-itx/mini-dtx chassis.

But thats all a pipe dream as I will likely have to settle for Haswell if I want to have a dual boot hackintosh in a SFF enclosure.

[Wreckem]

With 12 days remaing, Quo has raised $144k, and have had 341 motherboard pledges and 29 computers based on the motherboard pledges. 59 motherboard pledges remaining, with a crap ton of computer pledges remaining.

I still wish it was a mitx.