Slashdot Mirror
Apple to Lock OSXi to Apple Hardware
spac writes "It seems that Apple has chosen to use the Trusted Platform Module chip to ensure that Mac OS X can only run on Apple Hardware. The report from vnunet states that the chips contain a unique identifier, which can be used to determine the manufacturer of a PC as well as facilities for data encryption. "
Apple, might be changing their system design , but they are CERTAINLY not changing their business model.
Were there any people out there with a clue who DIDNT think this would happen ?
Expect software workarounds (Darwin is OS afterall) or "Mod Chips" about 1 week after release.
while this is true, the single biggest reason for this obvious move is this: apple is a hardware company.
since the mac came out, and even before, apple has been using revenue from hardware sales to support os development. if millions of home users stampede to emachines discount boxes for their os x platform then, apple's real source of revenue will dissappear.
and then there'll be no os x.
2 1337 4 u!
Seriously though, this is a reasonable move for Apple to ensure that the look, feel and reliability of the MacOS does not become corrupted for some users who may want to install OS X on "lower quality hardware".
I think a more likely explanation is that they want to continue grossly overcharging for Apple hardware to increase their profits. People pay extra for Apple stuff, and they know this. Why would they cut themselves out of that by allowing third-party hardware?
All three seem reasonable to me. The combination would definatly stop the casual users (until someone figured how to simulate it all in a VMWare type environment, which I would think would take awhile).
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Maybe you didn't read the previous article. It clearly argues that Apple will benefit from allowing piracy now, with the development version, and then locking down the OS with later versions. In other words, when they release their own hardware, which is what this article discusses.
Tell me you didn't read either article, but felt qualified to snipe. You did write a post referring to both, FortKnox...
Just because a post refers to another Slashdot article, and criticizes an editor, doesn't mean it's insightful.
In my opinion, I expect that there will be some contingent of shady users attempting to hack OS X to run on commodity hardware. I actually look forward to this, but I think that Apple will care little about this because of the small number of users who will bother with this. If installing OS X on commodity hardware is possible, but non-trivial, Apple stands to lose very little (and perhaps even gain a tiny bit more market share from the /. crowd).
Can you show us some examples of hardware that *spec for spec* is grossly overpriced compared to name brand PC box sellers?
Apple isn't grossly overcharging for most of its hardware. This is a myth. Yes, it is more expensive, and you can dig and find some dirt cheap-ass PC to compare it to argue how horrible the pricing is, but the reality is that Apple's prices are fairly competitive, when you factor in not just a barebones system, but the software and additional functionality .. especially in the mid-to-high end of the market.
And if you don't like their prices -- don't buy a Mac. What? You want the full Mac experience but don't want to pay for it? So you want the full BMW M6 driving experience, but want to pay the cost of a Ford Focus? That's your problem, not Apple's (or BMW).
I really don't consider the Apple pricing to be unreasonable considering the fit and finish of the components. The pricing of Powermacs is in line with Opteron and Xeon workstations, but is generally quieter.
The Powermac's case uses 1/8" thick aluminum sheet for the side plates, 3/32" thick between them. Heck, even the Mac mini uses a pound of aluminum. The components inside these things look top-notch to me, without the corner cutting known to the budget PC industry.
apple is a hardware company
Apple is a platform company. Apple brand is based on a user "experience". Both the hardware and software are designed as complimentary components to an integrated platform. Seperating the hardware and software will hurt the Apple brand as a whole.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Though interesting as this info is, I can't find a reference anywhere in this analysis that validates Gartner's claims. I think this should be taken with a large grain of Sodium Nitrate.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
I suggest maybe you spend some time in the trenches of the software industry. You statement is laughable on it's face.
]additional[/i] software sales is if they sold the software for less than the price of delivery
Wrong, just plain wrong.
Software today has a cost that grows with each copy sold. Software today is virtually never "done".
Prime example: you have 100 users of a software package, and you sell it. A user finds a security bug. You fix it in a few days, test it, and e-mail the users the fix. Problem solved. No extra cost. Now, you have 8 million users. A user find a security bug. You fix it in a few days, and 8 million users download it from your site. The patch is only 250K, small by most standards, that's a big chunk of bandwidth. You are obligated to support that patch. It breaks some stuff. Your phone lines are jammed. People are pissed. But still, it cost you nothing other than a few bucks in bandwidth and maybe a little goodwill.
Wrong in both cases. In both cases the person doing the fixes lost the opportunity to do other work. The time spent on the fixes is lost forever to the engineers. If it is a really significant bug it could take dozens or a hundred people to prepare the fix - from programmers to testers to QA to legal to webmasters to documentation experts to channel partners to vendors to hardware suppliers to PR. All of which has a significant and non-trivial cost. Meanwhile, while your users are calling support - even if rare - your phone people are denied the opportunity to help another user which has a ral cost.
"Pure profit minus distribution" may have been true when software was updated once every 2 years, if that. But today, between bugfixes, securtiy updates, feature "fixes", etc software is not "done". It is very much an ongoing effort.
You are a Mac Zealot are you not? How dare you to defend Apple to produce something that is actually worth it's money?
Okay, all kidding aside: I agree. I look at my Powerbook, Powermac and Cinemadisplay and I do not feel like I got ripped off.
Three weeks ago I was arm deep in the guts of my cheapo Linux File Server and I once again realized just how ugly the majority of PCs are. The replacing of a harddisk alone takes forever, on the Powermac? 2 Seconds, slide in disk, plug in cables, lower lock. Done.
Memory? Same thing. Open Case (no Screwdriver), take out the plastic side panel, pull Fan Assembly, put in Memory, plug in Fan Assembly, put in side panels, power on.
On the PC? Unscrew case, remove the HDD Cage as the memory bank just HAPPNES to be half way under it, make sure to unplug all cables because they are running all across the main board, then put in memory and reverse the whole thing. Takes me roughly 4x as long to upgrade the RAM in a standard PC than in the Mac.
But I guess some peoples time is just not worth anything.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Apple is a software company who makes money off their hardware.
are we honestly saying that software should have an inflated cost because they didn't finish the process during the beta stage. I understand that you can't find every bug, but claiming that developers are LOSING something when they debug is bunk. Developers often spend many hours debugging code, and it's not time that should have went elsewhere.
Remove *your pants* to send me email.
I don't say that I'm necessarily right about that, just take it as food for thought.
Yet one key aspect of that "interface" is the scroll wheel, which is hardware, just as one key aspect of the original Macintosh GUI is the hardware mouse. I find these hardware versus software arguments silly, because to me Apple is a company that is able to solve problems either in hardware or software. Therefore they are both.
Keep drinking the coolaide Mac boy.
I am amazed at all the mindless Mac zealots raving about how OS X will be available on commodity hardware and how this will be so great for Apple. Guess what, it won't. Steve Jobs said Apple will be the only hardware OS X will officially run on. Plus the move puts Apple in the same playing field philosophically as Linux and windows. It remains to be seen if Apple's philosophy will be adopted by anyone in the buy it cheap crowd. So lets be honest cheap is not a selling point of Apple nor will it ever be. I will be very surprised and happy if some of Apple's Philosophies get adopted by the current Intel PC crowd, but I am not holding my breath. Also every pro Mac industry rag is saying how this is such a good move for Apple to use Intel because they have the better processor road map. Guess what, they don't. IBM will continue to make superior processors in the long run. Unfortunately they had to delay on some deliverables to Apple because a small market segment called the gamming industry needed a new chip and that is where IBM spent their resources. You won't see any major game console using Intel as their main processor for the next decade. Why you ask? because IBM has a better, cheaper, faster processor road map than Intel. Not a general purpose processor you say? Well it still remains to be seen if Intel will produce superior processors than IBM in the next several years except in the mobile arena.
This move is terribly risky and everyone is mindlessly coating it with a spoon full of sugar. I hope it goes well for Apple but I have to admit that it might not. This is not a slam dunk for Apples short term viability. The only significant reason Apple is moving to Intel is because they were no longer competitive in the mobile market and they could not weather any erosion of their share. So Steve did the only thing he could, he gave IBM the finger and made the phone call to Intel. Smart? yes with an exclamation but not without risks to their desktop market. I will agree completely with Apple making gains in the mobile market because of this move but their other segments will most likely suffer. To what extent I nor anyone else could predict. I will be among the rest to lift my glass and cheer Apple when they have had a successful transition but I will not mindlessly proclaim success when they have just only begun this monumental task.
The truth suffers more from convictions than from lies.
Microsoft is a platform company. Microsoft brand is based on a user "experience". Both the browser and OS are designed as complimentary components to an integrated platform. Seperating Internet Explorer and Windows will hurt the Microsoft brand as a whole.
Oh, the irony.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
I wonder how many people will buy Apple hardware to run Windows (1%, 10%?).
I actually think it would be much higher, if you consider people wanting to dual-boot. I personally have been interested in getting an OS-X box, but can't really leave Windows behind. I see many people dual booting their machines. Look at how many Linux people keep their machines dual-booted for games, or [insert use here]. Now look at how many people don't use linux because its "too hard to use". Now, look at how many people would like to have a stable user-friendly Unix box, but need windows for something.
Maybe in the 80s and 90s yes. Or perhaps you are referring to Apple the record label.
I might buy the statement that Apple's core G5 market is creative professionals.
I don't believe movie makers and professional designers are buying up all those iMacs and Mac minis and iBooks. Creative professionals may have been Apple's focus previously, but that market was sewn up years ago.
I suspect Apple is more interested in the average home computer user, Mom and Pop, Gramp and Gran who for years have routinely thrown out their ancient (read 3 or more years old), spyware-laden, disposable Windows machines. For a lot of my average home customers (I work for an ISP) Apple has made it VERY easy for them to chuck the PC/CPU, keep everything else and slide in a Mac mini, a copy of OfficeMac and all of a sudden I never hear from them again. Funny how little technical support our Mac users need.
There have been "licensees".
There is a huge difference.
When IBM lost the clone battles Phoenix & everyone else were free to offer reverse-engineered work-alike PCs. Not just "mostly alike", just alike. Buy the same MS or whomever OS, install the same Lotus 123 or whathaveyou, it's all a commodity.
IBM later tried to recapture the market by redefining it with MicroChannel, their proprietary & well defended next-gen bus architecture. But the ISA market was too big and had enough momentum that IBM's efforts were doomed and look, 25 years later they're out of the PC market they helped create not having made a profit at it in years.
On the other hand Apple, after a few early skirmishes, never lost control of their products. Their architecture didn't lend itself to easy reengineering and there was rarely an eager alternative OS vender around to make non-MacOS boxes viable. Be, Yellow Dog, etc. never were more then novelties.
What Apple did do was, under contracted terms, sell their proprietary system ROMs & MacOS 7 to third parties for a licensing fee and per-unit compensation. The idea was that these nimbler & more aggressive partners would expand the Mac into markets Apple wasn't interested in or where it was unable to compete effectively (usually cost or distribution-wise).
However instead companies like Power Computing turned around and cannibalized Apple's domestic bread-&-butter Mac market by offering similar systems at price points slightly below Apples.
A few did expand the Mac into new markets - high-end multi-processor, etc. but by-and-large it was a financial disaster for Apple. They were already suffering from extremely poor supply chain management, a shrinking market, and high R&D costs; to then start supplying direct competitors with products that undercut their own was disastrous.
So when the opportunity arose with a new MacOS to change terms Apple did - they bought back their licenses and shut down the program. Most folks agree if they hadn't the company wouldn't have lasted another year.
What has changed since then? Not much.
Apple now does charge for their OS upgrades, but makes no effort to enforce this. They've leveraged their R&D by adopting more standard components, adopting & using some open source code & development, and now moving to Intel-associated motherboards & CPUs. But to date they make their profit on selling the hardware & the rest is mostly part of the package.
So, Mac-clones?
Probably not. Apple is unlike Wintel - they sell the hardware and the OS: There's no advantage to their opening either end to competition. Heck for protection they could build their OS so it does something as trivial as look for an Apple-encoded string in a system firmware and sue the bagoobers outta anyone who tries to fake that.
Beyond that Apple has a long history of innovating in fundamental ways. While the development boxes they're shipping out now may be based on plain-jane Intel tech there's no promises that substantial parts of the Mactels won't be something fresh 'n funky - clever memory architecture, bus design, whatever - intractable hardware/OS interactions that homers & cloners can't easily reverse-engineer.
Time will tell, but Apple, it's officers & engineers, aren't stoopid; they're likely not looking to start giving away their crown jewels and undercutting their fiduciary responsibility no matter how many geek fan-boys want MacOS X on their hopped up Athlon-with-fins box. Me, I'll be looking forward to buying a Mactel someday, and not giving a damn what's inside of it as long as it-just-works.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.