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. "

Comments

And someone DIDNT Know this was coming ?

[MajorDick]

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.

It will be no surprise if Apple does this

[ichbinderharlekin]

Apple is in a bit of a unique position right now. Apple is both a hardware and a software company. Their revenues from each are highly dependent on the other. Without Mac OS X and Apple's line of professional tools (Final Cut, Logic, et cetera) their hardware is practically useless. Without their hardware, there is a much larger task in optimizing the software, not to mention the lower revenues (which for a company the size of Apple is a big deal). Locking Mac OS X down to Apple hardware is something Apple will have to do, at least in the near term. As their market share changes this may become unneccesary, but even then I expect the greatest revenues to result from the combination of hardware and software.

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).

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[mmeister]

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).

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[servognome]

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.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[danheskett]

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.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[wiredlogic]

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.