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

Not will use, but *might* use

[BWJones]

The first sentence in the linked article says "Apple COULD use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip to ensure that only Mac computers can run its OS X operating system, according to a news analysis from Gartner." emphasis mine.

While I do not doubt this will in fact be the case, I would appreciate more accurate reporting on the part of the Slashdot editors to ensure that submitters are not spreading misinformation. In fact, if you click on the Gartner new analysis linked in the vnunet article, you will find no mention of the "security chip" being quoted by this article so we have nested lousy reporting. Yeah, yeah, I must be new here. Ha ha

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". Apple prides itself on a quality user experience that approaches a luxury product. Everything from the appearance of the fonts to the way consumers interact with the interface needs to remain consistently "high quality" and I am sure Apple will make efforts to preserve this experience.

As well as providing for an OS "lock" on hardware, the implementation of such chips will also allow for stronger security as well as enabling one of the features that Hollywood has been demanding before Internet distribution of movies will be allowed by the studios.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[Frymaster]

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".

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.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[DrEldarion]

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?

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[michael.creasy]

enabling one of the features that Hollywood has been demanding before Internet distribution of movies will be allowed by the studios
Really?
Both MovieLink and CinemaNow are both distributing movies on the web with Hollywood's consent.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[J Barnes]

I think you're right on the money with regards to content protection.

As much as apple claims that they don't see a market for portable video, I believe that is exactly what they are driving themselves towards. It's obvious that iPod is their premiere device, and to keep that product fresh and desirable as a lifestyle accessory, they're going to have to eventually incorporate video.

Incorporating video will then beget the potential for an online iTunes Video Store, and thus more revenue and market share for apple.

Apple has constantly said there is no market for portable video because the content isn't there. The truth is more likely that the assurance isn't there yet to guarantee that hollywood/broadcast companies will retain some sense of control of their product. A rigid hardware/software solution to ensure the protection of content will facilitate the partnership between Apple and media at large.

Apple has to build a cop to guard the door before they can open the video store.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[rayde]

there's just no end to the "apple is a hardware company" posts in the last week.

but i disagree with you. *nothing* is going to create a situation where "there'll be no os x." There are far too many people who are firmly entrenched into Mac OS X.. your comment is absurd. Even if Cupertino fell into the Pacific, the Apple community would keep OS X going.

I believe Apple will grow substantially by opening Mac OS X to commodity hardware. how much revenue will apple honestly bring in on hardware in the long-term? there is a small, one-time margin on hardware sales. they then make money continuously by selling upgrades to their operating system and to their other software assets.

IMHO Apple will foster long-term growth by embracing the larger installed hardware base of the Intel platform. My prediction, however, is that it will begin as a closed system, branching quickly into licensed partners... eg a Gateway or HP or SGI (who knows?) box that is Mac OS X Certified. But success in this area (which I believe is a given) will dictate that Apple open themselves up to the wider clone market, the Computer Shopper types.

I suppose we'll all just have to wait and see how long Apple sticks to being a "hardware company". :)

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[BVis]

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.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[nickscalise]

Can you show us some examples of hardware that *spec for spec* is grossly overpriced compared to name brand PC box sellers?

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

[Jeff DeMaagd]

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.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[donny77]

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.

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

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

if millions of home users stampede to emachines discount boxes

Typical home users will do no such thing, they like to have a supported platform.

For get all untrusted computing platform crap - all Apple has to do is say "OSX is only supported on boxes x, y and z" and then only the fringe will go to emachines (or homebrew) and try to run it on non apple hardware.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[ivano]

I wonder how many people will buy Apple hardware to run Windows (1%, 10%?).

Ciao

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

[MKalus]

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.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[IdahoEv]

I would appreciate more accurate reporting on the part of the Slashdot editors

Dream on, Kemosabe.

Slashdot's editors have never applied journalistic integrity standards to themselves, and never will. Given the amount of traffic /. receives despite the lack of any kind of journalistic integrity, the marketplace has told them they don't need it.

They make money by the boatload doing what they're doing. There's no evidence that integrity would improve their situation. QED.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[Jayfar]

The only way a company can lose money on additional software sales is if they sold the software for less than the price of delivery. Software development is a fixed cost. Once it is finished, additional sales are pure profit minus distribution costs.

OK, so when will MacOSX be "finished"? Or is 10.4 the final release ever?

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[pertinax18]

Your statement is so completely and utterly untrue it amazes me. PC hardware is the business where profit margins continue to shrink, being a software company is still incredibly profitable (see MS, Adobe, Google etc). I think if Jobs would get off his high horse and actually cede some control over his little empire, Apple would stand to earn a ton more money. Imagine, OSX competing directly with Windows XP for the average user. Picture this: a consumer walks into Best Buy or wherever and sees 2 identically priced and spec'd machines, 1 running OSX, 1 running XP. What do you think they will choose?

Personally, I think Apple locking into their proprietory hardware is a bad move, and all about Jobs being an insane control freak. Maybe back in the clone years, when Apple actually was a hardware company they almost went under due to allowing 3rd party Macs, but today it is a totally different environment.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[diamondsw]

More like they are a business and they would like to remain in business.

As for their hardware being "grossly overpriced", you haven't actually looked at their lineup in the last several years, have you? We've been over it a million times here, and for a comparable computer (yes, this means no leaving out wireless, firewire, and all of those things Mac users use and take for granted), their consumer line is either in-line with the PC or better (Mac Mini, especially). Their pro line is not as competitive (Powerbooks, especially) which is why this whole Intel shift started in the first place.

If you want a bare bones box without Firewire, wireless, Gigabit ethernet, etc, fine - go build one and enjoy it. But don't expect Apple to build you one and don't cloud the argument by lowballing PC hardware prices.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[tanguyr]

In both cases the person doing the fixes lost the opportunity to do other work.

Yeah, but they also lost the opportunity to create new bugs, so it's break even ;)

g,d&r!

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[ostone]

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.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[Dolda2000]

Seperating the hardware and software will hurt the Apple brand as a whole.Seperating the hardware and software will hurt the Apple brand as a whole.

On a related twist, seperating the browser and operating system will hurt the Microsoft brand as a whole.

I don't say that I'm necessarily right about that, just take it as food for thought.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[rgmoore]

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.

I don't think that's really true. Balancing the possible loss of hardware profits is the potential gain of enormous software profits. Think about how many people right now are incredibly frustrated with Windows viruses and spyware. Many of those people would be eager to shell out good money for a highly functional, good looking OS that doesn't suffer from those problems, and Apple is in a perfect position to sell it to them. Apple has a real chance to increase their OS market share by an order of magnitude, and the potential profits from that are far greater than any loss of hardware revenue they'd be likely to suffer.

I think that the real problem is that Microsoft would crush Apple like a bug if they tried. Any OS is only as good as the applications it runs, and OSX still depends heavily on Microsoft applications like Office. Microsoft has only to let the release of Office for OSXi slip indefinitely to destroy its market. It doesn't even matter that Microsoft would easily lose Apple's inevitable anti-trust suit, since both sides know that the company would be long dead before any final judgment. Apple will never go head to head with Windows as long as Microsoft is holding a gun to their head.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[Afrosheen]

Probably less than 5%. Like I said last week, Apple has a very narrow focus and their core market is creative professionals. You buy Apple hardware to run MacOS and because there's a certain cachet in owning a Mac. And to avoid viruses, spyware, and all the other crap that plagues Windows users.

I could see someone doing mission critical stuff having a dual-boot box, but someone buying Ap-tel hardware to run Windows is just out of the question. If you want a cheap box, you buy a Dell, Gateway, whatever. If you want a hot rod, you get an Alienware. Apple probably won't sell more than a handful of their boxen to Windows users (that intend to use it only for Windows). Apple never has been able to compete on price, they're just not big enough. When they do, their hardware ends up being significantly slower and lower spec'ed than comparable Intel hardware. Even with them using commodity hardware, they'll assert the Apple Hardware Tax to supplement OSX development, so it'll remain consistently more expensive than your average PC beige box.

So to summarize, almost nobody will buy these boxen specifically for Windows only.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[mmeister]

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.

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.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[dreamt]

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.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[Queer Boy]

Your crystal ball is funky. Shake it up and wait for the snow to settle this time.

APPLE TRIED CLONING. APPLE MAKES THEIR MONEY FROM SELLING HARDWARE.

Apple is not a hardware company but that's where they make their money. If licensing the OS was so profitable, why didn't it work the first time around?

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[deacon]

Can you show us some examples of hardware that *spec for spec* is grossly overpriced compared to name brand PC box sellers?

I'm glad you asked!

apple store:

Apple Memory Module 2.0GB PC3200 ECC DDR 2x1.0GB DIMMS Apple Memory Module 2.0GB PC3200 ECC DDR 2x1.0GB DIMMS

Price $1,000.00

from newegg:

CORSAIR XMS Extreme Memory Speed Series, (Twin Pack) 184 Pin 2GB(1GBx2) ECC Registered DDR PC-3200 -Retail

Price: $332.00

On the other hand, I did recently use the free itunes for windows to turn an ancient pc into a standalone jukebox, and I have to give apple credit, it works great, nice interface, logical behaviour. I just feed it new CD's occasionally (from the heaps that litter the space around the stereo amp) while it plays the party shuffle of music that is already loaded.

I still have not figured out how to "reshuffle" the party shuffle deck, so to speak, but even though my bias is generally anti-apple, I am assuming that the option is there somewhere, and I must give them praise where praise is due.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[joebubba]

Apple has a very narrow focus???

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.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[rayde]

they tried cloning when they had no compelling operating system to drive sales. this is not 1996, when Mac OS 8 was clunking around on niche clone hardware.

this is 2005, the masses (read: the geeks) have finally accepted Mac OS X as a competent operating system, and many who use it find it superior to windows. comparing this situation to Apple's earlier flirtation with clones fails to recognize the dramatically changed environment.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[pomo monster]

Some people might happily pay 3x the price in order not to have to stare at the Dell logo for eight hours a day, especially considering that the rest of the monitor is almost as ugly as the logo.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[BVis]

Don't you think there is a reason Apple sends out a $179 OSX update every single year?

You must mean AU$ or CDN$. I see a price of $129 on store.apple.com right now.

Look how infrequently Microsoft releases paid OS updates.

That's part of the problem. I bet most windows users would pay for an OS that's updated more often than every 4 years or so (excluding security patches). (Anyone seen Longhorn?)

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[bastion_xx]

You mean $129 every 18 months or so. Well worth every penny, at least every other upgrade.

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[Kintalis]

I still have not figured out how to "reshuffle" the party shuffle deck, so to speak, but even though my bias is generally anti-apple, I am assuming that the option is there somewhere, and I must give them praise where praise is due.
The circular button in the top-right corner becomes a Refresh button in the Party Shuffle view. Wasn't immediately obvious to me either, but fairly easy once you know where to look. --K

Re:Not will use, but *might* use

[Petrushka]

I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.

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 ...

vague..

[jabella]

Apple could use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip to ensure that only Mac computers can run its OS X operating system, according to a news analysis from Gartner.

*snip*

A spokeswoman for the TPG confirmed to vnunet.com that there is nothing preventing Apple from implementing the module

it doesn't sound like apple's 'chosen' anything at all yet...?

But... but...

[FortKnox]

... how is apple going to profit from piracy?

Tell me you didn't read this, and then the posted article. You did post both, Taco, cause you are the editor of both....

Re:But... but...

[harvardslacker]

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.

Re:But... but...

[ubuntu]

Tell me you didn't read this, and then the posted article. You did post both, Taco, cause you are the editor of both....

I hate to tell you this, but Taco died a few years ago. Shortly after he was married, he experienced what the ancients called "sex". This strange phenomenon caused his geekish brain to explode in confusion as reality as he knew it consumed itself.

What you call "Taco" is now actually a bot written in Visual Basic by Cowboy Neal, which explains the posting irregularities. If Neal would have used Perl or Python, none of this would have happened.

Cowboy Neal is aware of this problem and promises it will be fixed in Taco2.0.

Not surprising

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Re:Not surprising

[pootypeople]

I think you've hit on one thing, and Apple's already got a good partner for this- They've been playing very nicely with HP. If they keep their current deal with HP intact and build on some systems building (I'm thinking the mini), they could really increase their market share quickly. Honestly, I love this whole story because I'm hoping Apple will realize they've got an opportunity here to start the all out OS war we've needed to have for years. If you don't believe that- how much innovation has occured over at Microsoft since Win 2k? Hell, the version number of XP makes it pretty darn clear. Microsoft certainly doesn't see enough threats around to seriously develop their software, which while it's allowed them to make windows more secure, hasn't pushed them to work on some of the things Apple does better (less feature bloat, better memory handling). I dunno. I'm just tired of seeing both major OS makers sit back and release incremental upgrades every year or so and collect mad cash for doing next to nothing. A real knock-down, drag-out fight for the souls of x86 pcs is just what the computing industry needs.
At least, I think so.
james

Re:Not surprising

[PSC]

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.

What scares me about the idea of Apple incorporating TPM (which, right now, is just speculation, mind you) is that ultimately, TPM is about control. It is about who is in charge of the computer system you bought. It brings up the question who really owns "your" computer, and in this sense, OSX would set a precedence - one year ahead of Longhorn, who's incidentally gonna drop the "my" part of "my computer" - maybe because thanks to DRM and TPM, it no longer is "my" computer. Apple's motives for using the TPM (if they choose to) may or may not be noble. (Like sparing the user the frustrating experience of an unstable OSX, in favour of no OSX at all.)

John Gilmore once said, "Be vary glad that your PC is insecure - it means that after you buy it, you can break into it and install whatever software you want. What YOU want, not what Sony or Warner or AOL wants."

The TPM is about who is in control of your computer. And I don't want neither Sony, nor Warner, nor AOL, nor Microsoft (Longhorn), nor Apple, in control of my computer. I want to be in control of my computer.

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'll be the first UNCRACKABLE hardware tie-in

[b00m3rang]

Good luck!

Honestly though, if the net outcome is that Macs get faster processors, and more often, that could be a good thing.

Shock! Horror! Sensationalist /. headline

[Space cowboy]

According to TFA...

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment for this story, saying that the company it is not yet ready to reveal product specifications

In other words, the whole thing is based around two facts we already knew: Apple wants to restrict OSX to Apple machines, and there is a chip on the motherboards that can be used for this.

Uh, people, there's a chip in a G5 that can do the same. The server version of OSX is reputed to use it, but I've installed the same OSX DVD on more than one Apple box before...

So, the entire article can be summed up as 'Apple might use DRM to secure their OS'. Whoopy-doo.

Simon

Misleading summary

[Have Blue]

The article states that Apple COULD do this, not that they will definitely do this. This is a RUMOR. Is it too much to ask that the editors confirm that the summary is consistent with the article next time? We'll have to start checking even the summary for goatse links now.

More likely that they'll do the following

[Anonymous Coward]

* Use Open Firmware
* Lock it to their custom Northbridge as they usually do

Yeah, I like how speculation turns into fact here on Slashdot...

"Apple could use the Trusted Platform..."

Re:More likely that they'll do the following

[BWJones]

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.

Re:More likely that they'll do the following

[grub]

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?

That would require "editing"

[cprincipe]

You know, review of all the available material and a careful consideration of it before publishing.

That was part of my theory

[MBCook]

As another person posted, the article says "could". That said, here is how I think they will/might do it. A three pronged approach.

1. Trusted Computing - A chip that normal motherboards don't have that you can check against to make sure only Apple motherboards will run it. This will keep out the casual users.
2. OpenFirmware/EFI - I'm hoping for OpenFirmware, but ANYTHING other than the standard old BIOS. This would keep out casual users too. They'd have to write their own BIOS for their motherboard (or find one somewhere) because it would be different. Apple brought us USB (Intel made it, Apple made it a success), Apple got rid of the floppy, maybe Apple can get rid of the BIOS.
3. Signed Kernel - I wouldn't be suprised to see Apple use some kind of integrety check on the kernel during boot. The idea is you can still run any OS you want, but OS X (as part of startup) would check the kernel (again, maybe using the trusted computing stuff) to make sure it hasn't been modified. That way if people try to modify it to get around ideas 1 or 2, OS X wouldn't boot.

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).

Why use TPM instead of wildly proprietary?

[ettlz]

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?

hey, let's make stuff up!

[illtron]

I'm convinced that /. readers generally read on a third-grade level. Let's look at what that actually said...

Apple could use the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip to ensure that only Mac computers can run its OS X operating system, according to a news analysis from Gartner.

They could. Yeah. I could have told you that.

And here's the analysis from Gartner:

The x86 Mac OS will run only on Apple hardware, possibly with enforcement through Trusted Platform Module technology.

So basically Apple has not chosen anything. Learn to read before you submit your crap to Slashdot, people. Is that so much to ask?

That's not what Apple used to do

[Indiana Joe]

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.

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).

What about the reverse?

[mcgroarty]

It will be interesting to see if this works the other way around as well. Will Apple's hardware check for a signed loader and lock the hardware to only running their OS as well?

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.

Re:What about the reverse?

[davechen]

Apple VP Phil Schiller has said that they will not do anything to prevent someone from running Windows on their Intel machines.

Conspiracy!

[airrage]

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.

Re:Conspiracy!

[Jeff DeMaagd]

That figure of speech has never made sense to me. Why would I want to have a cake and not be able to eat it? Do I just want to let it sit and rot?

Anyhow, the "Big Brother" ad is 21 years old now. I can't imagine holding any person or company to a standard for that long, because it denies them a chance to change their opinion, for better or worse.

Already spoke about this year after year

[hacker]

There was a study a few years ago that asserted that OVER 65% of Microsoft Windows installations were pirated copies. This means that more than half of their market share is due to piracy.

If someone pirates Windows (or OSX) and puts it on their machine, they'll become comfortable with it. They'll use it. They'll tweak it. They'll download tools and applications to make it useful. They may even go upgrade the machine (RAM, vide card, whatever). They may even go PURCHASE applications for it.

The key here is, they're NOT using your competitor's OS on the same machine (in most cases). That gives you an advantage, even if you did lose the $129.00 sale on a Tiger purchase.

But back on track, I documented exactly this last week. Wow, some blogger reads Slashdot, takes our insight, writes up a blog as if he thought of it, and now he's famous?

Nice. This trend about using blogs to report the news, when blogs are nothing but plagarizing, content-recycling engines, is pretty hilarious.

Re:LOL

[Rude Turnip]

Windows 2000 didn't have Windows Product Activation ("WPA") and the "corporate" site license versions of XP don't have it either.

Re:Might as well post a Java counter...

[Usquebaugh]

Sure coz it's real easy to run Linux on the XBOX, right?

It's not that easy...

[Stalyn]

to crack hardware while software cracking is just a matter of time. Imagine you could get OS X to boot you still need to write a driver for your video card. Anyone who has used Linux knows how poor the open source drivers are for the latest brand of video cards. Also would these drivers be illegal? Who is going to write them? It's not like cracking a registration code where some college student or amature can use a hex editor. This is some serious stuff.

I'm sure people will be successful in getting OS X to boot on a non-native Apple intel. However what about sound cards, video cards, ethernet, wireless, mouse, etc. And would these attempts at non-native Apple driver production be illegal?

Answer: no

[daveschroeder]

Will Apple's hardware check for a signed loader and lock the hardware to only running their OS as well?

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

Re:Answer: no

[Colol]

Maybe you've heard of this operating system called Darwin. It's what Apple builds Mac OS X on top of. Included in the Darwin project's CVS repository are a variety of hardware drivers, including those for ... Mac touchpads! This is why there are a variety of enhanced touchpad drivers available for PowerBooks and iBooks.

It's not a simple port, but your development cycle's a lot shorter when you already have a fully working driver in front of you.

And with the exception of the most recent Powerbooks, the touch pad isn't "proprietary hardware." It's just another Synaptics touch pad. The same can be said for most of their machines' bits, actually -- really, Apple designs the motherboard, loads it up with mostly off-the-shelf parts (Motorola modems, TI firewire chipsets, Intel NICs), and that's that. Most of your "proprietary hardware" is stuff like the tilt sensor and the keyboard backlight controller, neither of which are particularly vital to have running under any OS. Why reinvent the wheel when a quality part already exists?

And I'm with the other poster: a touchpad for gaming?! Surely you jest.

Is that legal?

[Richard_J_N]

I thought that this sort of tying of one product to another wasn't actually legal? Please correct me if I have misunderstood.

Re:Money.

[guidryp]

Easier/cheaper to use the standard architecture rather than re-invent the wheel.

They may also see the dual booting to windows as an advantage that brings in former windows users (like me).

Dress rehearsal for "hard" DRM

[C32]

This could be the first "major" hardware that includes solid, next-generation DRM.

It'll be interesting to see if it can/will be cracked as easily as some on this site believe..

As an EE-type person it appears to me that hardware can be protected to a much larger degree than today; after all the only reasons why the XBOX and various other consoles were cracked is because their pcbs included debug solder points and various busses were exposed on the surface layer..
Amateur mistakes that won't be made the second time around.

Re:I predict twenty solid minutes...

[musikit]

sry Dude. i own a G4 mac i am not interested in doing a a hack for OSXi.

Musikit
West Buttfuck, NJ (no really i am from NJ. although i aint a teenager)

...except for the fact that this is SPECULATION

[daveschroeder]

NOTHING (including Apple itself) says Apple WILL be using this.

The article says apple COULD or MIGHT use this to lock Mac OS X to its own hardware; nothing more. They have no inside or special information - they're simply speculating on how Apple MIGHT lock Mac OS X to its own hardware IF it so desired. Apple also MIGHT not do anything of the sort, and simply limit Mac OS X to Apple hardware via the EULA, non-support on non-Apple hardware, lack of drivers, etc. (And this is news how, exactly?)

Outdated

[flithm]

Apple is no longer a hardware company. You're living in the past, like they have been for the last 5 years.

Think about it. They don't make their own processors, graphics cards, memory, hard drives, fans, cords, peripherals, etc.

They get companies to make this stuff for them, they package it up, and sell it for a decent profit.

Aside from using a different architecture (which doesn't change the end user experience that much), the only thing that really sets a mac apart from a pc, is the software.

Apple is ALL ABOUT software. They themselves are now just starting to realize this.

Hell even the iPod... what truly separates it from other players? Yeah the hardware is good, and it looks slick, but it's the interface. And iTunes.

I guarantee you with OSX x86 in place, Apple's hardware business could completely dissapear and they will make more money than they ever have in the history of Apple computers.

Re:Outdated

[The_K4]

Hell even the iPod... what truly separates it from other players? Yeah the hardware is good, and it looks slick, but it's the interface.

Damn, and I thought it was the white headphones with the white cord......

Re:Outdated

[jocknerd]

Apple is a software company who makes money off their hardware.

Re:Outdated

[GlassHeart]

Hell even the iPod... what truly separates it from other players? Yeah the hardware is good, and it looks slick, but it's the interface.

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.

Re:Outdated

[Fred Ferrigno]

Apple sells hardware yes, but they don't just sell hardware. They sell the Apple experience.

Now, does it make more sense for Apple to sell that experience at $2000 a pop or at $100 a pop?

Apple sells computers with software that makes them unique and different than other computers. It gives them an edge over Dell and Gateway, who are their real competitors, not Microsoft. Switching to x86 lowers their cost, increases performance, and gives users the option to run Windows if they must. It makes sense. Letting other PCs run Mac OS, OTOH, destroys Apple's status as a premium brand will kill their hardware business.

I realize you really want to run OS X on your current box and the announcement has got you excited that it might happen, but it just isn't a sound business decision for Apple. I know what I'd want if I were an Apple shareholder - I'd want them to milk their premium brand, not give it away to their biggest competitors.

Re:Outdated

[Ath]

I'm with Steve on this one. The apple experience can most certainly translate to x86, and they will make tons of money from it.

If you believe that Steve thinks the Apple experience is only the software, you have not watched him for the last 25 years.

Personally, I do not care what components make up the inside of my 20 inch iMac G5. The machine is a thing of beauty, and when you add OS X on top of it is the best computing experience I have ever had.

Apple is not just a hardware company and Apple is not just a software company. Overall, Jobs has returned Apple to his most basic passion which you stated. It is an experience. Many, many, many people who use Macs and OS X enjoy that experience quite a lot.

Re:Outdated

[budgenator]

I'd argue that considering how much I've spent on my wife Dell computer, Dell all-in-one scanner-fax-printer and Dell inject ink that they're just like HP, an ink company!

Re:Outdated

[Fred Ferrigno]

But it is going to happen. Jobs himself has said so.

He did? Link?

Funny, Apple VP Phil Schiller said the exact opposite.

Re:Outdated

[PsychoSid]

They are solutions sellers not hardware or software sellers. They will do whatever gets them the most business nothing more. Taking on MS will be bad.

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.

Re:Outdated

[cocoamix]

The interface?

By that logic, the iPod shuffle, having NO interface, should have flopped.

There's obviously something else at play here, though the white color no doubt plays an important part.

It's a little known fact that every Stormtrooper uniform has an iPod mounted on the back armor plate that plays the Imperial March over and over.

Hardware? Software!

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

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 .... if they were to stop selling hardware and doubled their software sales, would they be as profitable as now?

Re:Hardware? Software!

[Compulsion]

Actually, MS can make quite a few assumptions regarding the hardware underneath. Now Linux, on the other hand...

Always.. no, never forget to check your references

[halber_mensch]

According to TFA, the source for this information is 'Gartner', which has claimed:

The x86 Mac OS will run only on Apple hardware, possibly with enforcement through Trusted Platform Module technology.

Apple clearly does not plan to try to compete against Windows, which - though it will run on Intel-based Macintoshes - will not be supported by Apple. Nonetheless, many design-conscious Windows users may be willing to pay premium prices for Apple hardware.

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.

Probably EFI

[Paradox]

Best guess of what's going to be in these desktop boxes, given what we've been seeing on /., Ars, and what little info the macdevs have leaked.

1. Pentium M family. Yonah maybe, but possibly something further down the M family tree (which may or may not be ready yet).
   
2. Intel's EFI. In some ways, better than OpenFirmware. In some ways, worse. We know that the new macs are not going to use OpenFirmware. It's been confirmed.
   
3. Intel's privacy stuff, as mentioned in TFA. This isn't necessarily bad stuff used for media DRM. It's just a platform lock, which is annoying but hardly the end of the world.
   
4. It may be the end of integrated sound for Apple, but I'm not sure that this will be the case.
   

Hope this helps.

Journalist does this as well

[bstadil]

This trend about using blogs to report the news, when blogs are nothing but plagarizing, content-recycling engines, is pretty hilarious.

I understand your point but normal journalists has been doing this since forever. In the old days they read each others papers and rewrote the stories.

A few years ago I read a Danish major news paper along with NYT / Herald Tribune. You could find unaccredited articles in the Danish paper that were almost a verbatim translation of something I had read a few days earlier..

Same thing with regional papers. Blogs are just a faster medium.

Re:Yeah, but...

[jusdisgi]

will it run Linux?

I'd bet on it. At the announcement, they said they would ensure that OSX only ran on Apple hardware, but that they would not do anything to stop people from running Windows on Apple hardware. I think the quote even said "I'm sure a few people will do that" but I don't have it handy.

Now, they didn't mention Linux/BSD/etc., but I'd guess that if they expect a stock copy of XP to run, somebody will have Linux going on it the first night.

Re:ATTENTION APPLE

[Mistah Blue]

Get a clue, Apple could care less what you think. You are not their market. Go ahead and stay planted in 2005. Personally, I could care less. I deal with computers enough at work. At home I just want it to work. When my new PB 15" is ready to be replaced, I'll stick with Apple. Screw tinkering on Linux at home.

Damn

[lullabud]

That must be a great experience, it gets italics and quotes.

Your mileagle may vary

[killproc]

I don't know what kind of computers YOU build, but with my Antec case, I have none of the "EVIL" PC issues that you descibed.

To change out memory, I merely have to open the side of the case, turn the case on its side (big hardship there), and insert the RAM.

Harddrives, CD/DVD Drives are a bit more complicated. I have to open the case (again using the handy side panel), turn the case on its side (horrors!), and, if I'm feeling froggy, use 4 screws to connect the slide rails to the side of the drive that allow me to insert or remove the drive from the case from the case front. Connect the cables. Done. Total of about 4 minutes.

I'm glad you like your Mac, but you really can't compare aan expensive PowerMac to an El Cheapo case that was poorly designed.

What I like about my PC is that I can add and or remove components without being held captive to a single hardware provider.

I am watching this issue very closely HOPING that Apple decides to offer the OS without strongarming the consumer to buy "Official Apple Hardware". I would love to run OSX at home, but again, I also want to have more control over my computer than Mr. Jobs has felt in the past was prudent.

I may be labeled a troll for this, but IMHO, selling OSX "AS AN OS" without hardware restrictions will be the only way we will have any competition on the desktop front. Linux just ain't there yet for the vast majority of computer users.

I say HA

[old-lady-whispering-]

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.

Re:I say HA

[cowscows]

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.

Doing it the THX way like George Lucas?

[solarcatcher]

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.

Apple was cheaper for me. (YMMV)

[Rimbo]

Short version for the impatient: I found Apple SFF (Small Form Factor) hardware to be 60% as expensive as equivalent Intel-based SFF hardware when shopping for a computer at the beginning of this year.

At the beginning of the year, I was looking for a replacement web server. Rimbosity.com was running on a P-233 MMX that was loud, had no APM support, and using significant amounts of electricity. It was in a full tower box that I bought back in the day when I equated the size of my computer with the manliness of my geekdom.

So I was looking for something small, quiet, and low-powered, but not a laptop since I saw it a waste to pay for the extra expenses of a battery, integrated LCD or keyboard. And while I'm upgrading, I might as well have a processor in the Gigahertz range.

Looking through the catalogs of (usually Pentium-M based) machines, I found that I could have a sufficient barebones system starting at about $300. That's without factory system testing, hard disk, processor or RAM. Adding those in, you end up with prices starting around $900 and easily hitting four figures. I could get stuff for less, but it meant cutting features (e.g. going to 700MHz or slower processors).

While I was looking, Apple announced the Mini. Micro-sized. 85W max power usage. The fan only runs when under heavy CPU load, and with a low-hit webserver, that would be "almost never." Cost? $500. The equivalent feature set in the PC world would have been on the high end of the $900-$1000 range (and that's assuming a Pentium M at 1.2 GHz is as fast as a G4 at 1.2 GHz, which is dubious).

There were other benefits. I don't have to bother installing Linux; I got SSH + Apache + PHP + firewall right out of the box by just clicking a few checkboxes. I got iLife '05, which I immediately installed on my old iBook. It took me a whole 30 minutes to get it out of the box and set up, including all Apache configuration and putting the new web site on. And Apple has a default 1 year warranty whereas the pre-built Intel SFF's have only 90 day warranties and the barebones systems have no warranty.

There were downsides. I had to buy a USB-Keyboard/Mouse adapter for my old input devices (about $25), and a USB-Parallel adapter for the printer (about $30). The USB-Parallel adapter doesn't always work with my old Laserjet IIIP. And my ability to administer OSX from the command line pales in comparison to my Linux command line wizardry, so I had to learn how to do VNC over SSH.

But I don't see "learning new things" as a cost as much as a benefit, and the cost of the extra hardware is still much less than what I'd have to pay to have an Intel-based PC of any quality in that price range.

Going low-power + Small Form Factor (SFF) had a significant impact on our electric bills. The room is quiet now -- you can't hear the Mini's hard drive spinning unless you open the closet door, step on your tip-toes, and listen really carefully, whereas the old web server kept a nice fan din throughout the living room. And with the space we saved, the wife was able to put her sewing equipment (machines, thread and all) in the vacated closet space.

I could have had that with an Intel-based SFF PC, but I would have had to pay $350 more up front for the same features and spend more time getting the system up and running.

So not only is it not true that Apple is more expensive, Apple hardware can be much cheaper if you're comparing equivalent systems.

"allow" versus "enable"

[argent]

"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. :)

No Mac clones

[maggard]

Macs have never had a 'clone market'.

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.