Slashdot Mirror
Is Piracy the Pathway to Apple Profit?
An anonymous reader writes "Over at Apple Matters Chris Seibold writes an interesting piece hypothesizing that Apple's strategy may bank on people pirating OS X for their Intel boxes."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
...we might be using Machintoshes as PCs now. So, why not? It's never too late to start... but how long will it take before we get 50% Apple and 50% Windows market share?
Worked for MS :)
This may be more true than you think. Back in the days of Win3.1, there were rumors flying about of revealing Microsoft memos. According to these rumors, Microsoft recognized that Win3.1 was the most pirated piece of software ever. The memos also detailed that Win3.1 never would have reached its current level of popularity without rampant piracy.
I don't have any sources to back this one up, so take it with a grain of salt. But if true, it means that Microsoft recognized that they never would have made their fortune without pirates. A bit odd, no?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html
Key quote:
First of all, I remember reading that OSX will only work on the Apple computers, and while a crack may exist, one would have to wonder how long it will be until such a fix would be mostly bug free.
The other problem with that idea is that people are going to have to download new programs because being an intel computer of any type doesn't allow you to install the same software on Windows as you do on Unix. OSX is a BSD Unix system after all. This may not be a very good toy unless people are downloading it to make a complete switch pending any advancement in cross-platform software.
Lastly, how many people can you think of running pirated WindozeXP that were so impressed with the product that they bought it? It may work for CDs in a good number of cases, but I can't see that happening as much as this article hopes on an OS level. It may help to increase publicity, which will garner some increase in sales, but nothing like the fame achieved by The Grey Album.
If it works out for Apple in the end, then kudos, but with increased DRM practices and the great deal of elitism among the diehard mac fans, one would have to wonder about the possibility of two camps of mac fans if the piracy worked. Imageine authentic vs. underground fans disputing like Linux vs. BSD users sometimes do...
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
Apple also stated two other things. First, you will not be able to run OS X on a vanilla x86-based computer. Second, there will be nothing preventing Windows from running on the Apple computers and, it was stated, this is expected.
None of that means someone won't hack OS X into working on non-Apple machines. But everyone should be absolutely clear that Apple is moving to the x86 CPU architecture. Period. No Intel PPC. No Intel "Next Big Thing".
As for "stock hardware", most components in Macs now are the same components you find in x86-based PCs. The big difference is the architecture around the CPU. Interface cards use AGP/PCI bus. Memory is DIMM. Hard drive / DVD / CD is EIDE/SATA. I know I can buy off-the-shelf stuff to upgrade or replace many of the components in my iMac G5. Videocard manufacturers are still playing their games, though, by selling the same cards with different BIOS so they can charge a premium.
I wholeheartedly agree. They know you probably weren't gonna buy that tune you downloaded anyway. They know that tune might turn you on and get you to buy the artist's CDs (or not).
They also know that if it's that easy for consumers to get music directly, they become redundant. Their tactics are intended to retain control of the artists.
Just then the floating disembodied head of Colonel Sanders started yelling Everything You Know Is Wrong!-Weird Al
No, your statement was not a flame. There are several "incidents" that have helped to solidify Microsoft's dominanace, and piracy can most certainly be attributed to that.
The aformentioned incident about Windows 3.1 is most certainly valid. Look at how many people pirated numerous versions of Windows since the early 1990s. This allowed people to become familiar with the operating system. Then, when it came time for people to purchase a new system, what operating system do you think they would have gotten with it (assuming that they had a choice)? Some operating system that was unknown to the general populous, like OS/2, or something that they already knew well because they had been using a pirated version? Since the operating system came with the PC, Microsoft got a fee for that PC sale. So, whereas MS didn't profit from the initial piracy, they still made a sale later on and further addicted the user to Windows.
I still firmly believe that the "crack" for the Kinko's version of MS Office several years ago was planned. For those who don't know or don't remember, U.S. printing franchise Kinko's had a "special" 30-day, full-usage CD for MS Office (I forget the specific version) for something like $5. Shortly thereafter a crack was released that broke the 30-day protection. The change was a simple modification to a DLL file and a huge nuber of these discs were sold. I'm generally not a conspiracy theorist, but if there was a lot of concern for the "protection" of the "demo" software, Microsoft would (or should) have made it more difficult than a DLL file for protection. I also heard nothing afterwards about prosecuting the one who released the crack. So, for a few bucks per cracked disc, Microsoft snared how many hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of people into Microsoft Office. I'd just about guarantee that the vast majority of those people are still using a version of MS Office. Whether those versions are pirated or not is another matter, but I'll bet that many of them are not.
I really would like to know how much of Microsoft's current dominance is due to past piracy. I'll bet that Microsoft would not be anywhere close to where it is now if there was no such thing as software piracy.
And how many of us have pirated a number of games that we otherwise would not have bought but were so impressive that we purchased what was downloaded and/or purchased any of its sequels or expansion packs? I would think many of us.
I honestly think that there can be an argument made that piracy can under certain circumstances make a product more popular, and Microsoft's dominance is certainly what should be offered as proof of that. I would be willing to bet that Apple would be in the same situation. I know a number of people that I work with (myself included) who would love to work with OS X but are not willing to purchase an additional piece of hardware that we might not be interested in afterwards. But we'd be glad to try it out on one of my Athlon XP/64 systems.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Wow... Lots of bad mods today. But I totally agree. Back in "the day" (early-mid 90's), I tried out lots and lots and lots of pirated software. Today, I own copies of the best in every category that I currently use (my favorite small app that I bought because of seeing & using a pirated copy, is Textpad). All the rest that I played with that I didn't like ended up getting nuked. On top of that, in my days of being a developer, I ended up having my employers buy *lots and lots* of copies of various apps that I tried pirated copies of that I couldn't afford myself (like TOAD and more recently, XMLSpy). Take what I did and multiply that by millions of geeks and you have millions (or billions) of dollars of software sold, that wouldn't otherwise be sold (because I would have had no way to try them to see if they were worth using), because of piracy.
I don't respond to AC's.
A lot of code that we think of as OSX lives in things like Aqua, above the kernel level.
Exactly, above the kernel level... where it is already abstracted from the hardware.
More than visibility ... Apple is plenty visible. Matter of fact, Apple's rep has traditionally been higher among non-Mac users than among actual Mac bigots. Let's face it, Windows 3.1's success was due largely to mouse pointer envy, which is kind of like penis envy but not. DOS users wanted a mouse and some nifty icons and that's pretty much all Windows 3.1 gave them. Genius, really, when you think about it: Microsoft's marketing team managed to convince untold millions of lusers that that fifth-rate DOS shell called "Windows 3.1" was functionally competitive with a Macintosh. They did it again with Windows 95, and then again with Windows 98. Mindblowing.
... well. Goody for us, I'd say. I'd be more than willing to pay Apple for their operating system, I just never wanted to pay the premium for their hardware.
In any event, what Apple wants is so-called mindshare, where people get familiar with a product at school or at home. Once they get used to it, they then pressure their workplace to let them have it there as well, which is what Apple (and Microsoft) desperately need because the corporate market is where the big bucks are. Nothing more than a page out of Microsoft's book (as so many others have commented) and it's perfectly legitimate (think of it as we'll-look-the-other-way while you try-before-you-buy). I mean, one can choose to accept a certain degree of infringement of one's IP rights before releasing the lawyers. That is within a software vendor's rights. Sorta like shareware but not.
And this is a perfect example of the difference between true piracy and simple copyright infringement. Apple may (or may not) be willing to turn a blind eye towards individuals illegally copying it's software, as a business strategy intended to gain future market share. But you can bet your bottom dollar that a pirate outfit burning OSX discs by the hundreds of thousands and selling them for profit would attract a degree of legal lightning that would do the RIAA proud.
The mere thought of having to compete with a MacOS on a cheap Intel platform has given Hell, Gates & Co. nightmares for years. If it actually comes to pass
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Every development build for OS X ends up getting published on p2p networks within days. If Apple was cool with this, they wouldn't have a NDA covering access to development builds, and they wouldn't have sued the guy who obtained developer access via a real developer so that he could give Tiger away.
p g
But the Intel version isn't a DVD - it's only available as part of a $999 "package" that includes a PC mobo in a G5 case, that Apple is demanding back at the end of the year.
It's pretty hard to track a DVD sent to thousands of developers, but if Apple is charging developers $1000 each for access to the Intel hardware, it would be rather trivial to give each copy that goes out a watermark, so that if it gets released, it would be very easy to see who leaked it.
And since developers are in a special agreement to participate in the Intel dev package, Apple could very easily add substantial financial penalties to the contract if their copy got leaked.
Movies have similar watermarks to identify where pirated films are getting copied, but it would be so much easier for Apple to hide a chunk of code in each DVD to identify the very developer involved.
---
After Intel based Macs are available, the majority of users will find that modern Macs are not commodity PCs just because they share the Intel processor, and give up trying to install OS X after their PC fails to boot it from BIOS.
Even if Apple made Mac OS X very difficult to install on PC hardware, it seems like it would be fairly trivial to create a virtual machine for PCs that could run it. Such a product could not be commercial, because Apple said they wouldn't allow it.
Somewhat ironically, Apple enterprise tried to sell OpenStep for Intel and OpenStep for Windows for some time in 1997 after first purchasing NeXT, and couldn't find much interest. Of course, at the price they were asking, they are now basically throwing in a Intel Mac for free!
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/images/openstepcd.j
---
The few l33t haxxors who get Mac OS X running on a PC will have little effect on Apple's existing market, either in 'loss from piracy' or in 'viral spreading of OS X to create new demand.'
The Mac Mini, iBooks and PowerBooks are all quite popular among those who have bought them, including Linux users who buy them for their hardware features rather than the integration with OS X. All are running proprietary hardware unable to realistically run Windows today. If new versions also allow users access to the only reason wintel PCs need to exist (PC games), buying actual Apple hardware will be even more compelling.
Why buy a Dell system when you can get an Apple Mac that runs OS X for about the same price, and still run your old Windows software in a VM?