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. "
This really isn't all that surprising. Apple wants to have a stranglehold on their OS. If they don't maintain that stranglehold, then issues with non-Apple hardware will begin to crop up. When those issues crop up, they'll make headlines. Those headlines will then damage Apple's reputation. Remember, Apple is a complete solution provider, not just a software provider.
That being said, I keep kicking around in my head the concept of Apple allowing other PC manufacturers to build OS X compatible machines. While Apple attempts to stand for quality, it might be feasible for them to license their software to others. That way there could be the "cheap PC" version of OS X, and Apple would still make money with little damage to their rep. I can't quite decide whether it's a *good* idea, though. Once they start licensing to other manufacturers, they lose a modicum of control over their quality control.
Microsoft gets away with it because the majority of their users are either stupid or don't care. Apple, OTOH, is still in a vulnerable position. Their growth has been enormous, but one wrong move on their part could bring the whole stack of cards tumbling down.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If Apple really wants to lock its software to its hardware, why doesn't it just make the core architecture so proprietary and so unusual that the software running on it simply cannot boot on standard machines? Let me put my foot in my mouth: wouldn't, say, neglecting to enable A20 make installation on many Intels a right royal pain?
I mean, by similar analogy, has anyone succeeded booting the IRIX 6.5 installer on a Sony PlayStation?
In the past, Apple relied on their intallation software to verify they were running on an Apple machine. I was able to load OS 9.2.2 on my Mac clone by using a patched installer. It ran fine, despite the lack of official support and the technical violation of the EULA.
I can't decide if this post is interesting, funny, insightful, or flamebait.
More likely that they'll do the following * Use Open Firmware
* Lock it to their custom Northbridge as they usually do
Actually, no. I wrote this last week during WWDC to keep my readers/friends informed as to what the switch will mean. Apple will not be using Open Firmware.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
People have speculated about MS doing something similar in order to better control the platform, enable more meaningful DRM, and reduce Linux platform choices. In the MS context, the idea of restricted hardware has generally been written off as anticompetitive and evil.
So when Apple creates that "big brother" ad again, maybe the hammer should be thrown at a screen of Steve Jobs talking.
You cannot, I repeat CANNOT, have your cake and eat it too.
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
What about the revenue from millions of OS X installations?
Apple makes next to nothing on its software sales. In fact, some of its products are sold at a loss. The lion's share of Apple's revenue comes from hardware sales.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
I expect to see something similar.. a copyright string in the PC BIOS. Were Dell, Gateway, whatever to write this string in their BIOS, Apple would have no end to the possible lawsuits it would open up.
AH, but what if the manufacturers incorporated a user-customizable string in the BIOS much like the "asset tag" settings we have now?
Trolling is a art,
The cost of software is development cost. The cost of selling another copy of the software is minimal. If you are selling software at a *loss*, then increasing volume can make your same price point not a loss.
Someone else, somewhere, sorry for the vagueness, said 75% of Apple's revenue is from hardware sales. Let's suppose this is true. Let's suppose that 25% of revenue comes from software sales.
.... if they were to stop selling hardware and doubled their software sales, would they be as profitable as now?
Suppose they gave away the hardware, that is, the sticker price was $0. Suppose also that marginal costs of software are also 0, so they could easily produce 10 times or 100 times as much software for no additional cost. Well, there would be manuals and boxes, but it wouldn't be like hardware.
Seems to me that selling 4 times as much software would provide all the revenue they currently get. And I suspect that increasing sales four fold would nto be particularly difficult if OS X could run on pretty much any x86 machine.
And if they stopped producing hardware altogether, a lot of the staff would be unnecessary. There would be a significant drop in R&D costs, thus requiring a lot less fotware to be sold to make up for the lack of hardware sales.
I wonder
Infuriate left and right
Ciao
I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the current Apple supporters would still buy Apple hardware.
And I'd be willing to bet that many people who buy Apple hardware now resent the premium pricing, especially in the enterprise. If a cheaper alternative were available Apple would see a serious dent in their hardware sales.
While a poster above pointed out that the software model has fixed costs, and the increase in sales of the OS software would be nearly pure profit after development costs are covered (this isn't the end of the costs associated with developing and selling an operating system, you still have to pay people to create updates, patches, and answer the support phones after the OS ships), even if Apple were to make $100 on each copy of OS X sold, they'd lose the >$100 amount of profit by not selling the Mac hardware to go with it. (Some Mac models' selling prices were 50% profit. I don't know if that's still the case [thinking of the Mac Plus days, I'm old] but I have to imagine that they still get more than $100 profit on each Mac sold.)
There's the caveat that any solution that allows OS X to run on commodity x86 hardware would involve a software/hardware hack of some kind. You might think that that would give the enterprise users some pause. But in a lot of cases, you'd be wrong. Given the choice between saving $1000 a seat by circumventing some DRM or paying the Mac premium, many companies will choose to save the money, which is a sure thing, versus the risk of being prosecuted under the DCMA (I'm guessing here, IANAL) for the hacks.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Now, if the rumor mill has it right and Apple goes with the Alpha, then I'm all for it. Otherwise they're selling junk with a pretty face.
I doubt Apple is going with the Alpha. But from a realistic point of view (as a developer), I really don't care what the processor is underneath as long as the compilers are optimized for it and it runs fast. And without revealing any details, I think Apple is on the right track.
Apple is going with the best chips available. The fact that the OS is mostly chip neutral means that if something else comes along, they might do that too (we developers will be pros at compiling for other chips by then -- and it really will be nothing more than a flipped switch). NeXTStep was running something like 4 different architectures in its day.
Initially, I was as shocked and appalled at Apple's announcement, but I've seen these things in action and even with the lac of OS optimizations and lack of top-end hardware, the machines performance was fairly impressive.
There is plenty of skanky stuff happening in any OS, especially one that needs to maintain compatibility -- but I do think that G5 never realized its potential and the cost to try and get IBM's attention on it is too high.
Uh, mac zealots aren't the ones saying that. We all think that OSX is too wonderful for the unwashed masses, and that every piece of hardware the Apple sells us is an bargain priced altar to our Lord Steve Jobs. The mere thought of a filthy, unworthy whitebox PC running the divine OS of Kings makes us cringe in horror, fearful of apocalypse brought upon us all for desecrating all that is insanely great.
It's those godless heathen business analysts and some of those smelly free software yuppies that are spouting off this OSX on everyday PC's blasphemy.
I sure do love that Apple Koolaide.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
How about this: George Lucas created THX sound as a standard for movie theatres. As far as I know they give out clear specs for what can/should be used as hardware and then if the theatre passes a final check they get the only one piece of hardware (I forgot what exactly it was), which puts them apart from the rest, which you cannot buy anywhere else. This could work for Apple as well: They give out clear requirements, test the Dell, HP, and whatever hardware and then give them the one thing that is missing (the 'Altivec-Unit' or something similar). This way they would still control the 'experience' and make money on the tests/licensing of approved hardware and the one piece of hardware that sets them apart from the mass PCs.
My wife brought up an interesting point last night. She was talking about a friend who buys books from the store, reads them and returns them. I was pretty indignant about this, and felt it was highly amoral. However, it occurred to me that it's very similar to software piracy, which I don't frown upon the same way. Anybody have any thoughts on this?
Both are amoral, and I don't approve of either. However, I would like you to replace the phrase "buys books from the store" with "borrows books from the library" and see how that might change things...
"They won't allow OS X to run on just about any PC"
:)
In the video I saw he said "enable", not "allow".
I don't know if this distinction is important but it does seem like a less "aggressive" term.
I myself use a powermac, and osx but one factor remains the biggest cash cow - the big corporate market and OEMs. A lot of the home market is pirated - come on admit it.
Without getting anything like exchange in the "big" corps Apple will never gain a huge market share. The same goes for Linux.
Damn that's a funny signature. First out-loud laugh I've had today. Sorry, I'm a language teacher. We're geeks too, just in a different way ...