Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X on x86 Videos Get Apple's Attention
RetrogradeMotion writes "The OSx86 Project is reporting that Apple has served a legal notice to MacBidouille, a French news site that posted videos and instructions on running Mac OS X on x86 hardware . You can find an English translation of the MacBidouille notice on the OSx86Project's forums. This is the first known legal action by Apple regarding the hacked version of OS X and calls into doubt the future of other news sites, similar to the OSx86 Project." Slashdot previously covered the story of hacking Mac OS X onto non-Apple hardware and followed up again a few days later.
Is that new-speak for duped?
and give me some freakin' nvidia kexts that work, dammit.
Apple is going to have YEARS of this ahead of them... I'm just waiting for Apple Jobs to have about 300 postings for "Piracy Specialist" to open up. M$ has to have an entire building just for their piracy group.
-nick
Would they really care about sueing people over this if they had no intention of releasing a version specifically for x86 hardware?
We knew it would come eventually.
"Terrible news, sir! People are installing our OS!"
"Quick! To the Applejet!"
Note to mods: I'm probably being sarcastic.
Like they didn't expect it at all...
Anybody who is surprised by this is/was just plain naive....
Error 407 - No creative sig found
Apple: We're fine with 5% market share thank you very much, and we'd appreciate it if you would stop being so productive on our behalf.
This is dumb beyond words. Just suck it up, Apple. Everyone knows you're a software company.
Apple is not minor league engineering department attached to a powerhouse marketing deparment.
It's also attached to a powerhouse legal department.
Think Different !!!
it had to start some time, however I think (as well as many others) that it's silly for apple to stop something like this, I think they should just up and release the X86 version of their software and go straight for the whitebox market, releasing their Intel Based machines at a later time. Obviously they need to do some threats to for their business model running. But Id say it's time to change, and to "Think Diffrent"ly than a closed system. Let DELL and IBM (Lenovo) sell OSX as an option, and keep on making excelent hardware. I know I have considered Downloading and running the Onoffical OSX for x86, but if it were Legally Available I would but it right away.
Is it illegal to post this sort of information? If not, can Apple convince a judge that posting this information is harming them, and thus win a civil suit? I doubt it.
Multiplying Apple's piracy rate by 86 since 2005. .. but multiplying floats 0.86 times faster.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Given how fast Apple's legal department is capable of acting, it's a little odd that it took this long. I was speculating with a friend that Apple probably wants to make sure that the hype has time to take hold before it cracks down. It's interesting how they have to do a balancing act between being too heavy-handed and making sure that people keep talking about their products.
It would have been relatively simple for Apple to personalize each copy of OS X Intel that it sent out to developers. I find it pretty strange that we haven't heard about legal action against whomever distributed their copy. Perhaps Apple purposely didn't watermark the installers so the balance could tilt towards hype without them having to sue a developer.
it should be noted there is an English translationversion of MacBidoulille always available. Just go to www.hardmac.com instead of MacBidoulle.
Ubiquitous piracy made Microsoft Windows big and Linux a contender. It's hard enough to get people to try another operating system when it's free.
Not that I'm supporting piracy, because I'm not, but at this point you'd have to be a nut to grab something like this (not necessarily stable, anybody could have altered it) and install it on your system, with the risk of losing whatever else you've got on there. The kind of nut that could be an excellent customer down the road if Apple capitalized on this fanaticism and offered legit demos of the technology in lieu of the illegal downloads already out there.
I suppose it wouldn't jive with their strategy of keeping their innovations under wraps until release, but as long as the toothpaste is out of the tube you get better results with the carrot than the stick.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
..to those running OSx86 on non Intel GMA900 hardware?
It don't mean a thing if it aint got Quartz Extreme
doo wop!
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
When has Apple been frivolous with their IP? They have already sued people for distributing Tiger over BitTorrent, and that was for an OS that would only run on hardware that they had sold.
They should just dump the engineering part altogether. Just market products that can't meet the demand of their market because they don't actually exist and then when competitors start producing copycats sue them. Now that's Thinking Different.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
First Apple looses iPod's patent to Microsoft. Stupidest corporate move in recent memory. Then they go Intel and complain when someone figures out how to use it on Intel hardware. People this is the freaking corporate control everything mentality that Apple has. They are like the religous right, our way or no way. Only they try to look cool and act hip all the while ramming it up your a**. They should just release OS X for all vendors and give MS some desktop competition because Linux will run the backend.
did anyone see it before it was removed? has it been reposted? sigh.... i always miss these things!
You may argue to the contrary, but it's the margins made on hw sales that keep the company nice and profitable. If all of a sudden you can install OSX on any generic PC, there go the profits (modulo the iPods).
I expect to see Apple defend this quite vigorously until they either succeed or it becomes overwhelmingly apparent that they cannot.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_c ontent&task=view&id=27&Itemid=2
I know Apple likes DRM, but usually not just for an empty power trip. As a business risk, the hype about OSX86 threatens Apple only by possibly inhibiting buyers of new Macs who might wait to reinstall over Windows on their existing HW, or some other cheap (commodity) x86 PC. Otherwise, the hype is making Apple seem much more "with-it" than its specialty x86 port would justify. Boosting its stock price, getting new customers who will get a Mac now, or a Mac86 when it's out, getting aboard the train as it passes their station, now that it looks like their kind of ride.
However, Apple is always most jealous of rumors of actual product intros. If they were planning to release OSX86 for generic PCs, they might very well go after these sites to manage the launch better with prelaunch secrecy. The intense interest in commodity OSX86 generated by these videos also serves to increase the demand, which therefore increases Apple's likelihood of releasing such an unbound OS.
This move offers all kinds of reasons to believe that dualbooting Windows/Mac will be reality in the foreseeable future. That also means VMWare Mac/Windows/Linux instances, all onscreen at once, on some kind of 14THz P12.
--
make install -not war
The question is this: If you could buy the OSX for X86, would you still buy Apple hardware?
Apple doesn't want to sell you a $100 operating system, they want to sell you a $1000 computer. If you can buy a $400 computer from Dell and load OSX onto it, Apple makes less money.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
With its latest cease and desist order, Apple demonstrated its new iLawyer program. A method the corporation hopes to use for protecting itself against any forseeable legal disputes in a method that's easy for users to understand. The new, friendly interface speaks English instead of lawyerese and comes dressed in a soft white suit.
Elsewhere, Microsoft claims to have patented the underlying concept of using lawyers as a high-level communications protocol.
~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
http://img162.imageshack.us/my.php?image=untitledk eke3xi.jpg
to the bit-torrent /p2p mobile...!
this is like stopping a flood. And the OS isn't even out officially yet.
Link to their english translation. http://hardmac.com/news/2005-08-17/#4367
The Stone Age did not end because humans ran out of stones. - William McDonough
That would be a iHouse legal department. They've just sent out 1! legal notis, not like they're takeing on the European Union or singlehandedly changing US law.
Recently we had an article on /. about circumventing xbox security. This looks the same to me on apple. I think they need to fix the problem rather than suing don't you all think?
``It amazing in what regular intervals Apple comes up with reasons for me not to buy an iPod or a Mac.''
What? Because they don't like someone publishing instructions for pirating their acclaimed software? OS X was solely responsible for a lot of mindshare of Apple among computer enthusiasts. How would you like it if somebody posted instructions for getting your main asset for free, circumventing the restrictions you have imposed on it?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
patented by MSFT.
C'est dommage pour la Pomme, mais si tout le monde peut utiliser ca, c'est tres cher pour la Pomme.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Welcome to x86 land. Please leave all expectations at the door.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If that link doesn't work, <a href="http://img162.imageshack.us/my.php?image=un<nobr>t<wbr></wbr></nobr> itledkeke3xi.jpg">here you go!</a>
Before someone might take down that sire for some reason we need to set up mirrors or even better distribute the instructions on the various P2P systems. The more the merrier. Thanks for your help.
will Apple have to shut down sites like this, once there's no more obvious developer NDA's to claim.
I mean, if people are buying OS X, then modifying their legal copies to work on a generic x86 box, what law have they broken? How will Apple shut down sites describing this process? Will it be a DMCA violation to edit config files in the OS, or patch a binary, to allow your OS to run on another machine?
To me, it's like modifying Windows to run on a Sparc or something (nearly impossible without recompiling source, I know, but same idea).
Conversely, selling 20 million $200 operating systems every 2 years is better than selling 1 million $1000 computers, considering the margins leave about $250 profit.
M$ learned this lesson a long time ago, only chumps sell hardware. The profit margin on a cdr and small pamphlet is much higher.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
It's additionally fishy that they took their first action against a French site when so many American sites were doing the same thing. It's like they waited for the info to get out, wanted everyone talking about it, then made some sort of action against a foe far from the center of the limelight and in another country, which only steps up the difficulty in achieving success.
It's pretty clear that Apple, usually quick draw McGraw with the legal complaints, sat on this one because they saw the benefit of these copies getting out and getting people talking and excited about OS X.
To satisfy the curiosity of the millions of PC owners who might like to try OS X, Apple should sell an unsupported version of OS X for $19.95. It would be a stripped-down, unoptimized version of OS X able to run on almost any x86 hardware, similar to Windows booted in "safe mode."
Many advantages to this approach:
- Simplifies things for PC users who want to try OS X (they don't have to hack the OS)
- Greatly expands the audience of PC users who can try OS X (most users can't or don't have time to hack OS X)
- Apple actually makes a little money off these people's curiosity
- Apple doesn't have to worry about supporting thousands of different PC configurations
- Gives Apple an opportunity to provide a "switch incentive": the PC user will get their $19.95 refunded when they buy a Mac
Accompanying the unsupported version of OS X should be a really slick glossy brochure explaining the many ways in which the full, supported version is superior. (For example, the unsupported version probably won't come with Quartz Extreme. It should probably ship with crippled versions of the iLife apps.)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Apple *could* sell Mac OS X to run on any normal PC and make a profit, if they created a "lite" version which comes with very little "functionality", selling each stripped "function" for £15-30 and then put a "premium" version on there Mac hardware.
Seriously this sort of thing really damages my opinion of the companies who do it.
I've always seen Apple as company selling pretty things to women who want to send email. (brand me sexist if you like but we all know it's true) A sort of cute and cuddly company, not focused on tech like the linux/open source world and not ruthlessly focused on world domination like M$.
I don't buy Apple stuff coz it's never worth the money but I didn't hate them.....
This sort of thing make me hate them.
Who are they going after?
What harm has been done to them?
They're picking on geeks with the desire to hack and make stuff work!
This is the market they should be trying to grab away from microsoft and open source.
Karma: Bad. Calmer, good.
the last thing Apple wants is for the Open source community to go crazy on OS-X and make an OS-11 before Apple has a chance to even release computers running X-86 hardware...
-- Betting on the survival of the media industry is a serious risk. I advise investing elsewhere.
People would actually buy OS X in a heart beat. Actually, I don't care all that much for the hardware; but OS X on the other hand is a different story.
I would easily pay 200 perhaps 250 for OS X.
Tis a shame.
It's also attached to a powerhouse legal department.
Oh, you mean the one that forgot to patent the iPod for 6 months, and now has to pay royalities to Microsoft, who sneaked in a bullshit patent? You mean that legal powerhouse?
Or do you mean the legal department that did not negotiate quantity ship incentives into their PPC contract, making apple suffer the loss of shortages in IBM's chip fab? THAT legal powerhouse?
Why can't Apple make a 400 dollar computer?
Oh, it does.
Of course, you're referring to their hardware engineering, not their software engineering. Poopoo on their silicon all you want, I'll even help in a few areas. However, the mere fact that so many geeks are working desparately to run their OS on commodity hardware testifies to the fact that their applications and operating system departments are anything but minor-league.
And immediately people would have a bad impression of OSX because it didn't work well on the hardware they happened to have.
There's no way Apple could do this without actually ensuring that drivers work and all the rest. Further, why on earth would Apple want to sell a $120 product for $20? Hello?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I agree. The correct way is a Live DVD that can't run from the HD but lets you access the network, play in iCal and maybe iLife apps, and more. THAT would get converts. Especially if it was free or $5 or something like that.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
And after PC owners install it, they will conclude that OS X is stripped-down, unoptimized and poorly supported. That's exactly the opposite of the image Apple would like for OSX.
my blog
I don't see any carpenters bitching about do-it-yourself manuals. Why not, when pretty much all the information someone needs to make their own furniture, even pieces that are exactly like those in catalogs, is freely available?
Because most people don't want to make their own furniture, even if it's just following directions. Only a few people who are really into carpentry will build their own. The vast majority of people will go ahead and pay to have someone else do it rather than get their hands dirty.
FTA:
Indeed, for every OSX version hacked and installed on a PC it will be for Apple one lost OSX license, and potentially a Mac computer not sold.
Yeah, a $2000 computer.
I would pay $300 for OSX on x86 over $2000 hardware (PowerMac G5) anyday. I personally think iLife is the best thing since sliced bread, and the only reason I have converted is the price of hardware which I require.
That's so BeOS that it wouldn't work.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't French copyright law a great deal more lenient than most other places or am I think of a country in Scandinavia?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Except a lot of people will be turned off by such a crippled OS. Look how well Windows XP Starter Edition (or whatever it was called) did. Apple wouldn't risk tarnishing their image in such a way.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
According to their IRC channel (#OSx86 on irc.r-type.ca), they are back up but going very slow. Slashdot effect at it's lowest.. can't we do better? :D
My take is a bit different: I'd like to see Apple offer a Knoppix-like bootable DVD w/ OS X and iLife. It would let folks try Apple's stuff out on hardware they already have. I realize driver issues would cause Apple some grief, but I think it'd be worth it to create the ultimate wedge to get people to switch.
I think it testifies more to the fact that geeks like to do interesting or amusing random stuff with computers that no one else has done before.
Idiots.
We've heard before about companies going broke because of a wrong decision.
And this is one of them.
If Apple wants me to spend $1000-1500 for a new computer that's lower spec'd than what I can build myself, they're going to have to let me try it out first on my current system. $129 is almost an impulse buy for me. $1000? Not so much.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
Here Apple has people wanting to run their OS so badly on Intel hardware that they're hacking apart betas to do it, and running systems with no native applications yet.
A savvy business person might realize that there's an opportunity to be selling the Mac OS now. But not Apple. They'd rather serve lawsuits to try and stop some of their most enthusistic fans. Heaven forbid that we (Apple) ever lose control over who's allowed to run Tiger. The SJ-RDF has got to really be running overtime on this.
It's not trolling or flamebait to speak the truth.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
``I don't see any carpenters bitching about do-it-yourself manuals. Why not, when pretty much all the information someone needs to make their own furniture, even pieces that are exactly like those in catalogs, is freely available?''
Because it isn't like that. The analogy here is between OS X and a piece of fashionable design furniture. Sure, people can make their own furniture, but when they start imitating the design that some company invested lots of money in perfecting, that company is not going to like it.
If they then post instructions by which even less skilled people can get the design furniture in their houses, the company might well decide to take action.
With OS X, the situation is even worse, as copying the software virtually doesn't take any effort, whereas making furniture definitely takes some time (and tools, and whatnot).
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Thats an awesome idea. Though what I would do is make it just as snappy (rather than crippled or w/out quartz) but have it run in a mode that doesn't allow the install of any apps and have the only thing that can run be safari and user setting adjustments etc etc i.e. just the os.
You don't want to alienate those users by trying to make them pay.
I would seriously suggest seeing if M$'s anti-piracy division shares the same view. How are people going to alienate them? Most people can't make the switch (training costs, support, etc) normally, why would they all of a sudden be able to out of spite?
Oh, I didn't get rich by writing a lot of checks!
Microsoft makes everyone pay. That's the bottom line.
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
The versions people are getting running are fully functional and faster than some G5 machines.
What purpose would it serve to put their product in the $20 and under bin and show that it really does suck (since most people "hate apple").
Why not sell the full version for full price and don't do any tech support for the people installing it on their white box machines?
They make money, don't spend money on support, their product gets a larger userbase, and they finally get the attention THEY DESERVE.
Get paid to code OSS
way to go, sparky. good codin'.
and give some freakin' money to the shareware authors of products you "use", dammit.
If by "fixed link" you meant "I suck at the Internet," then you'd be right. Is preview broken again?
I'm always amazed when I see companies suing people over things like this. How is it even possible that a crime is being committed by showing this video? Yes, of course it's copyright infringement to unlawfully download a copy of OS X beta, but to show a video of it? If I posted a picture of someones computer screen playing an illegally downloaded DVD, a crime has been committed?
What if I show a video of someone committing a crime with a Colt pistol. Should I be sued by Colt? Or am I missing a big point here?
Perhaps most importantly, isn't it pretty UnAmerican(TM) to hold the view of "As an American company, we support freedom of speech and expression, except when it involves someone doing something we don't like with our product?" Don't we let Nazis express their opinions if they want to, even though sane people are against them?
Maybe I'm missing the point.
If so what combined percentage shares/vote do they have these days?
-just curious
It's also why I use Linux. Whether it's software or hardware, a monopoly is a monopoly.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
You aren't much of a geek then. Cygwin works excellently.
Blar.
They left it out there in the wild just long enough to prove how well they could do it.
Why not sell the full version for full price and don't do any tech support for the people installing it on their white box machines?
Because it would be a crapshoot whether the full version would work well with any given hardware configuration. People don't like paying full price for a crapshoot. The "safe mode-like" version, on the other hand, would have an excellent chance of working with their hardware.
It's hard to underestimate the public's intelligence, but I think you people are doing it when you suggest that the users would totally ignore the glossy brochure that I described in the grandparent post, and conclude that OS X on a Mac would suck as much as the $19.95 trial version for PCs.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Sell the hardware for typical-x86-hardware-markup prices, and sell the software for what you think you can get for it, on BOTH x86 and PowerPC platforms.
Remember Apple, the market for commodity-x86-based MacOS is very large, and if you play your cards right, you too can
BE A CAPITALIST!
SELL!
PROFIT!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
...there's interest being shown toward running your OS on generic Intel-based hardware, and you release the hounds???!? Goddamnit, John Scully was right to fire you.
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
I'd definitely be closer to considering an Apple if I could actually try it out, first. I'm certainly not going to make a $1000+ investment sight-unseen, and I've certainly never seen OSX (I don't live in NYC or SF or LA).
I don't respond to AC's.
Apple is going to have YEARS of this ahead of them.
No. This is only possible now because the dev systems are using off the shelf parts. This dev version of OS X is the only one that will run correctly on generic PCs. Once Apple starts shipping proprieatary non-PC/AT architecture hardware OS X will expect and require that hardware.
Intel CPUs, and even Intel PCI chipsets and embedded Video, do not make a system PC/AT compatible. Apple has lots of opportunity for customization and they certainly have the know how after decades of making their own motherboards.
(Yes, I already posted this, but it really fits as a reply to your post.)
__________________
To satisfy the curiosity of the millions of PC owners who might like to try OS X, Apple should sell an unsupported version of OS X for $19.95. It would be a stripped-down, unoptimized version of OS X able to run on almost any x86 hardware, similar to Windows booted in "safe mode."
Many advantages to this approach:
- Simplifies things for PC users who want to try OS X (they don't have to hack the OS)
- Greatly expands the audience of PC users who can try OS X (most users can't or don't have time to hack OS X)
- Apple actually makes a little money off these people's curiosity
- Apple doesn't have to worry about supporting thousands of different PC configurations
- Gives Apple an opportunity to provide a "switch incentive": the PC user will get their $19.95 refunded when they buy a Mac
Accompanying the unsupported version of OS X should be a really slick glossy brochure explaining the many ways in which the full, supported version is superior. (For example, the unsupported version probably won't come with Quartz Extreme. It should probably ship with crippled versions of the iLife apps.)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Get real jobs and get the fuck out of your parents basement already.
If you feel that "you" are entitled to be paid for the work that you do, you should feel obligated to pay for the work of others in kind if you make use of the products and services they provide.
If you cannot work for free then you should not expect software, music or movies for free either or for companies to provide support for hardware they did not sell or licence.
If you do not like the licence terms of a product, don't use it. You cannot use that as an excuse to pirate software.
Remember, even open source software can have terms that you must agree to in order to use it.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
thats about the stupid thing ive heard since they decided to stick OS X on x86
The second one.
Just so all of you know, this isn't the first legal action Apple has taken in relation to the leak of Tiger x86. I pulled the DVD iso that was on various torrent sites as soon as these rumours started weeks ago, and after downloading and burning the iso I got Goatse'd on bootup. I found it mildly humorous, that is until I received a cease and desist order from my ISP in relation to that SPECIFIC torrent. Funny thing is, unless Apple is the copyright holder for the Goatse image, the only thing they could have possibly hit me with was conspiracy. That is unless Jobs is the Goatse guy...
I worked for a group of a company before that sold software. We charged $20k for a runtime license and $120k for a developer license. We also sold services because the software was not easy for developers to work with. Now I work for a company that gives it's software away, but charges for services. We have a much larger customer base and it's growing every day. My old company is not doing so well, almost half the people are charging to overhead. If they started giving their software away, they would have a large number of customers clamoring for support and improvements. What is my point? Maybe Apple should evaluate where they are today and where they could be tomorrow. If they offered OS XI for x86, I would buy it (not steal it.) Windows is at a precarious point right now, and there are a lot of people who love their iPods... Maybe they charge double for open x86 licenses, or maybe they offer it to other hardware vendors at a reduced rate. I am not a business guy, but I think if you hold your products too tightly then you risk losing your share.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Hey, BeOS Personal Edition is what led me to linux years ago.
Oh Yeah!!! It's Windows PE on STEROIDS!!!
You ignore the fact that having to support every questionably piece of PC hardware would make their software less reliable and reduce their competitive edge and reduce the number of people willing to switch.
:::I realize driver issues would cause Apple some grief, but I think it'd be worth it to create the ultimate wedge to get people to switch.:::
:)
They could mitigate that problem by including excellent generic drivers for NICs and being able to load drivers on the fly from their website by having the OS transmit the PnP ID of the unknown devices. Of course, I wouldn't care to speculate on the bandwidth requirements of such a scheme. I must admit that it would take some uber skills to pull off.
Actually, if they could make something like this work seamlessly, that would be sufficient grounds to consider switching right off the bat.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Seriously, why are companies so litigious these days? Why try to control what your customers do with your product after you buy it? Why put limits where limits where never there?
Putting genies back in bottles is very difficult - and I wonder how long business people will look at that model as a viable way to make money. Did Apple actually think they would be able to prevent the totally inevitable result of their port to x86?
-- $G
I understand this is funny, but we should be reinforcing and encouraging good behaviour instead of continuously punishing for past bad behaviour.
t ml
http://www.pioneerthinking.com/gd_reinforcement.h
Instead of saying "Is that new-speak for duped?" you should say, "I applaud the Slashdot editor who did a good job by taking the time to link to previous articles for our reading convenience".
Really.
There are several problems with this.
I find it pretty strange that we haven't heard about legal action against whomever distributed their copy.
Unless it was Bill Gates. I'm sure the Microsoft Office development team has plenty of x86 Macs in their facility.
Now, that would be a fun lawsuit to watch.
sort of like windows xp starter edition, affectionately known as crippled crap edition.
the software vendor's rights ends where my wallet begins.
people who say otherwise either don't understand the issue or understand it too well... they don't want you to have any property rights.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Yes, those regular intervals are amazing.
I seriously doubt the money or market share that Apple would make would compensate for the droves of programmers it would take to create and protect a "crippled" version of mac os x.
If you are honestly interested in the product, you can head down to your local vendor (compusa, best buy, fry's, et al.) and check out the real deal.
Seriously, $20?
That worth less than 1/2 hour of my time.
The words "sell" and "unsupported" are rarely connected in customers' minds.
Too late. I'll be enjoying mac osx on x86, fully working I might add, in just a few weeks time. There is very little Apple can do to stop this from working for people who really want to do it. I wont mind paying for the OS, but thank God I wont have to pay for the hardware.
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
Back in 1997, Microsoft purchased something like $150 million of non-voting stock in Apple. Thus, they get no votes. Just money.
That said, I think Microsoft has since divested itself of Apple stock.
you didn't address the core issue. that being what rights a company has in preventing a lawfully bought copy of software from being installed on the choice of computer the customer wants.
and after you have enumerated that right(s), ask yourself if that is reasonable. and if so, reasonable by most people's understanding of commerce or by a corportation's understanding.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Apple has just made a big mistake .... now that it is possible to have OSX on pc, why would people pay $20 or even $1 when you can get a torrent in less than an afternoon ? And if it is still complicated for the large public (but not obviously for geeks and kitties), imagine the P2P available versions in 6 months like a bootable DVD where you just have to click ? Why people would not use illegal OSX like they do with XP ???? $20 is not a solution, there is no commercial solution now for Apple. They are thinking about put a chip on hardware that interacts with OS (a palladium flavor ???) to make impossible to run OSX on different hardware than apple (but it's still crackable anyway :-)
Apple's just another DMCA-wielding jackbooted thug, just like Blizzard, Diebold, and the like. Surprise, surprise.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Back when MS bought a bunch of Mac shares they were specifically buying only non-voting shares. They have long since sold off pretty much all that stock.
My first PC was a Packard Bell, and it took every penny I had to afford it. When it began having problems almost right away I didn't have any money left to get it fixed. The only way I could keep it running was to learn how to work on the damn thing myself.
That turned out to be the start of my computer geekdom (C-64 and Amiga aside). That little piece of crap forced me to begin building the valuable skills that have since become the foundation of my lousy IT career!
-Cybrex
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
To satisfy the curiosity of the millions of PC owners who might like to try OS X
What millions of PC users? How many people, other than slashdot geeks, have the slightest interest in trying out another OS, much less a stripped-down version with the best features disabled or removed? One that requires the purchase of a new computer to get those features enabled.
Seriously, most people don't care in the slightest. They might buy a Mac if they're getting a new machine, but they're never going to go out and buy a trial CD to try running the OS on an existing machine to see if they like it.
Remember that the clones almost killed Apple.
:) The closure of the clone licensing program did not lead directly to any increase in marketshare or profits for Apple. The clones were introduced long after Apple had lost their place and become a very minor player in the market. Apple did not show any upward momentum until almost two years later when they introduced the iMac. The consolidation of their product line and the radical departure from the norm embodied by products like the iMac are what brought Apple back from the dead, NOT closing the cloning licensing program. The two-year cloning experiment made no reasonable impact (that's right, it was only two years).
I hear this often enough, but it's really a groundless assumption with little basis in reality, if not revisionist.
When Jobs returned to Apple, he recognised that the clone program was introduced long after it would have been an effective agent in increasing marketshare for Macs. He first attempted to renegotiate the clone manufacturers' license to increase Apple's royalty an utterly unreasonable amount, and when the cloners rejected the offer Jobs ceased licensing of all future Apple products and bought Power Computing, the largest of the cloners, rather than continue negotiations. Let it never be that said sour grapes are a foreign flavour to Steve Jobs.
In fact, ironically it's FAR more likely that IBM clones contributed more to what "almost killed Apple" than Mac clones. Well, that and Apple consistantly failed to advance their product line in any significant way during those years and introduced new products that were actually LESS featureful than their earlier models.
Microsoft is no longer invested in Apple.
When they were invested, they were non-voting shares.
seSales, Point of Sale software for OS X.
It really annoys me when people karma whore with stale arguments everyone agrees with but which actually have little to do with the subject at hand.
piracy is a red herring.
I doubt this will be a particularly popular view on the situation, but here's how I see it:
- People with the Intel transition kits are under NDA
- The VAST majority of people installing Tiger on off-the-shelf Intel hardware are doing it using pirated copies
- Installing OS X on said Intel hardware is against the clickwrap license
- Instructing people how to obtain said pirated goods and then specifically do something that's against both NDA and license agreements is quite far over the top.
There's a lot of sites out there that are posting Torrent links and how-to videos that are basically forcing Apple's hand in this matter.
What the hell do you expect Apple to do? Not defend their IP when sites get that far out of line? The way the legal system works, Apple *has* to respond, even if they don't want to.
Anyone who doesn't think that the Intel compiles of OS X over the last 5 years hasn't been running on off-the-shelf boxes in Cupertino is seriously naïve. Of course Apple knew it was possible to do this.
Not sure if anyone noticed, but in a completely legal way to discuss and develop for x86 stuff, check out the Darwinports list of x86-related ports.
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Is Apple TRYING to alienate would-be customers?
When it goes retail I'd buy it if I can install it on my own PC, but I won't be buying an Apple-branded PC. They'll probably end up using lowest-bidder-of-the-day motherboards and power supplies like they did with the G5 towers.
DISCLAIMER: I'm both a Mac and Linux/OSS user, a big proponent of OpenSource and Free Software, sometimes developer, own purely Apple machines, use an iPod, etc.
This is pure pirating. For a lot of reasons. First of all, almost every single site I've seen is either promoting or even directly linking to torrents and other P2P references of the Developer's version of Mac OS X Intel. Second, this is indeed a Developer's version of the software. I'm pretty confident that all developers that have been able to get a hold (legally) of the OS had to do so signing a strict NDA, which (again, with no certainty proof but pretty confident of) would probably prohibites them of using it for any purposes other than the porting and testing of their applications, which of course doesn't include trying to run it on non-Apple hardware (which I guess is explicitly forbidden), or discusing and sharing these methods with other fellow developers.
Apple trying to pull the plug on these sites comes as no surprise, even if thousands of hundreds of users would love to run OS X on their PCs, as it finally is _their_ (Apple's) product, they hold all the intelectual property to it and anyone wanting to use it will have to agree to their conditions to do so.
I would expect a similar reaction if there appears some highly publisized websites teaching and offering videos on tax evading practices, of course the IRS (or the equivalent organization on whatever country that happens) would eventually chase them.
Articulos para gente geek: Poleras, linux, libros y mas
theres no evidence apple couldn't thrive on its software. its so dumb when people bring up the clones. i suppose someone could counter with mac clones having actually been available for five years previous to the official licensing, but those clones NEVER WENT ANYWHERE and contribute nothing to the argument. ill just quote wikipedia: ...from 1986 to 1991, several manufacturers created Macintosh clones, obtaining their ROMs by actually purchasing one of Apple's Macintosh computers and removing from it the required parts, then installing those parts in the clone's case. This resulted in very expensive clones that never were popular, and Apple could safely say that its share of the Macintosh computer market was not in danger.
Apple's engineering department is in software. The hardware is from others and put together by others and packaged for Apple. Just as Dell, Compaq, HP, Emachine, Sony, and many others are. Apple is no different from MS in this area. Where they differ is Apple only allows or supports their software on a very specific set of hardware while MS does not set these artifical restrictions. Mod as troll but I'd like to hear opinions on why you'd think I am wrong instead.
/. is BS. Listen, start posting "real news". And real information. I like to think I am learning something when I read something.
People are hacking on the Mattel Juice Box and home routers as well, your opinion of not "minor league" must be set very low.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
I guess that the guys who hacked it to place on an unauthorized Intel box purchased their copy? Probably not! There is no profit in something that people steal.
Indeed
Imagine how long it will take until someone cracks the stripped-down edition and make it so that it works just like the full version of OSX.
I don't like to sit. Sitting is for people who like to sit.
Interesting question, but you're asking it far too early.
The truth seems to be that we just don't know what Apple's long term strategy on OS X is. They may indeed go for software only sales on standard boxes, or they may go for locked-down software only for their boxes.
The immediate strategy seems to be the latter. Will that still be the case in two years? Who knows?
We *do* know that this is not an issue of a legitimately bought copy being installed on commodity hardware. It's an issue of illegal copies being installed in direct infringement of Apple's IP rights. Not a single copy has been sold, legitimately or otherwise. Even the developer boxes are leased out, being still Apple property in both hardware and software.
The core issue is that people are pirating software. Unless Apple want to lose their IP rights through inaction, they must respond, even if only to crucify the developers responsible and shut down the torrents as much as possible.
Technically, I'm not sure if this solution is feasible. But, you'd think that it is not only feasible but would be desireable for Apple and perhaps even to developers. It would be invisible--in theory--to end users.
The solution is that with every Intel based Mac there should be a PPC chip dedicated to running part of the OS. For instance, for the Quicktime layer alone. Since so much depends on QTime in the multimedia area of the OS, having a cool co-processor of sorts that is a PPC chip would prevent pirates from just running any subsequent versions of the Mac OS. They'd have to pony up to play.
And, if Apple were smart they'd offer to sell a PCI card with a PPC chip to those brave souls who want to run OS X on their "generic" PCs, those built by the end user or bought from a company. The performance of an add-on PPC chipw wouldn't be as great as having it on board the logic board but even if the end user were pirating the OS, Apple would get some scratch for the PCI card.
You just can't pirate hardware like you can with software. If Apple were smart--and the iPod wasn't a fluke, you know-- iy already realizes that there needs to be something to differentiate their *hardware* + software offerings from what others could supply. At worst, if Apple took my gratis advice it would have to compete with 3rd party upgraders, like Daystar Tech. This would be better than competing directly with Dell or MS.
The benefits would be completely obvious right down to the bottom line.
Let's face it, if people are willing to pay $400 bucks for graphics cards, then a hundred to $200 for a relatively speedy, perhaps upgradable, PPC PCI card wouldn't be a totally bad idea. Though, for the Mac logic board, knowing Apple, they'd solder the PPC chip to the board, locking down the speed of that extra chip. Heck, a cool running G4 would do. It would also bypass the need for having Rosetta do everything or the Intel chip do everything.
If Apple does this, it'll make the fourth idea i've suggested on the Internets that ended up being a real product from Apple. I'm poorer for it.
G'night.
Recently the US passed an amendment that allows ban on flag-burning.
Does it mean displaying a video of a burning flag is illegal? We're facing the same issue on this topic.
He wasn't replying to you.
c id=13343852
:-)
He was replying to this: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=159326&
The way moderation suppresses stupid comments and then shows higher rated replies to stupid comments as replies to higher rated parents or grandparents is lame, and causes posts like yours above.
Now your indignation will be moderated up for really addressing nothing and basically agreeing with the person you are slamming that NDAs are different from licenses and copyrights (and their infringement or contributory infringement).
Cheers!
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Who here really wants OSX on their PC? Why? Is there a poll somewhere where we can get an idea of how many people actually seriously want to buy & use OSX on a PC? Why???
You can sleep at night firm in the knowledge that anyone who continues to post info on how to steal OSX 86 is going to lose their website. It is just a matter of how Apple approaches them --with a Cease & Desist, or with an Order To Show Cause, requiring the party to respond legally. Those complete idiots who not only defy the Cease & Desist order, but also trot it out onto their websites and Slashdot to further harm Apple's PR are probably going to lose their houses, cars and have crap planted in Google about them for all time so they can't get jobs doing anything requiring an employer's trust. But that's just my opinion...a couple decades of watching Apple destroy people who mess with it in this way, that's all.
Isn't OSX based on UNIX and subject to the Open Source Community's whims? Thoughts, comments corrections welcome. http://www.apple.com/opensource/
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're co
It is always interesting to see the Mac fans on slashdot. Just think, if there were a story today on the RIAA cracking down on Bit Torrent users, there would be nobody modded up for agreeing that the RIAA should do anything about it. For whatever reason, on Slashdot it is only okay for Apple to use DRM and sue people. I have to say that I don't think Apple could get anywhere near 50% marketshare by just relasing the OS right now. People are used to using what works and they are creatures of habbit. For the love of God I can't get my Mom to stop using IE and click on Firefox (yes I could play with the shortcut, but that's not the point). While OSX would be a godsend for her computer skills, I cannot imagine her actually taking the effort even if OSX would copy all Windows shortcuts and make sure all of her current programs worked automagically with no risk at all. I think they are right to go with branded hardware first. That said, I want to run the damn OS on whatever I have lying around. I will pay for it, but I would like that option. I think people like me can appreciate that it wouldn't be supported, but why can't I at least try. Plus, as much as I want to support Apple, I sort of have a no Intel policy and like customizing my desktop PCs. I was really sad to see them go that way. With the markup they make on their hardware, they have no excuse. Though I do appreciate the marketing aspect of the Intel name. And hey whether its Apple branded hardware or not Mac heads, just remember, "Dude you're getting a Dell!"
And that really worked out well for Be, now, didn't it?
Sirrah, you are a boor and a snake and you have gotten my main asset for free, circumventing the restrictions I have imposed on it. Prepare to die like the mangy cur you are.
already.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
Your ideas intrigue me Sir, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
minor league engineering department attached to a powerhouse marketing deparment.
Are you posting this from 1995? If not, are you serious? Most engineering departments can only dream of being so effective.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
When will the dummies here realize that this has nothing to do with X86, or PowerPC or the PC commodity market.
It's about selling Macs stupid !
Contrary to popular belief Apple does not want you to run OSX on your crappy Dell computer, they don't get 'peripheral' sales like FinalCut or Appleworks, period.
If you are so cheap as to buy a Dell, ripp off a copy of MacOSX86 then you are very unlikely to buy anything from apple or be anything more than a pain in the butt to apple.
And for those with the "support more devices" mentaility, get real ! Apple doesn't give a shit about all your hokey USB devices or friggin busted ass wireless cards, they just give a shit about their own Apple-based hardware.
People : A Mac is a Mac whether it has an intel chip in it or an X86 chip in it. It doesn't change the economics of apple or the Mac one fucking bit. Get used to it.
Intel Macs will be no cheaper than PPC macs, guess what, it wasn't the CPU holding up the price, it was the design, fabrication and quality, and that aint going nowhere.
So for all the "WTF OMG D00D U H4V 2 C T415" moron crowd here, go back to your Dells and your busted ass windows install and go and cry, cuz apple doesn't give a shit about you, never did and never will.
On the other hand Apple does give a shit about me. In my life I have had purchased 6 powerbooks (2 for g/friend) 4 for me, and around 7 other macs, from old classics to my current 2ghz dual G5 and 1.25ghz PowerBook.
Why do Apple give a shit about me ? Because they know (as well as I do) that I'll continue to plop down $2k on a nice laptop because of the quality, pedigree and functionality of these puppies, and guess what, an X86 processor doesn't make a shit of difference to me.
My programs will all still compile, my apps will all still work the same as they do now.
Actually Apple have to sue anyone putting their OS onto a X86 box... because it's the only thing they have they really have. Apple dont invent anymore, only innovate. When was the last time they had anything on their motherboards before a PC did? The only thing they can lay any claim to lately is their OS. It would actually make perfect business sense to just make their OS for PC as well. But it goes against this 70s mac-business sense. That by keeping seperate from the x86 world they can maintain some cult factor. This is just the start of the inevitable; the road to x86 land. The intel switch proves it. Apple need to keep up somehow.
"It's additionally fishy that they took their first action against a French site when so many American sites were doing the same thing."
Maybe because the French would surrender easier.
I'm willing to bet that there are more people ready to switch software (os) than hardware. I would.
Apple needs to think for a minute, Steve and his principals need re-thought (which he finally did on the one button mouse thing).
C'mon, that is way too mainstream and not very aesthetically dazzling. I'm sure they use an Applesaucer.
I'd look in the case of my Dell if it didn't require me to unplug so I could lay it sideways on my desk, which of course comes after I've cleared my desk of two keyboards (yeah, too cheap to buy a DVI KVM), camcorder, camera accessories, optical media, cell phone accessories, books, mail, blah blah blah. But, I can easily gaze starry eyed through the plexi-glass wall inside my G5 and see those four thousand dollars at work. Whoever approved the vertically hinged Dell cases with the top and bottom buttons needs a lesson in practical hardware design.
(No, emulation is not the same as hardware piracy. You can't emulate the physical functionality of a wireless card with software.)
what i believe apple will do will be use the x86 boxes for a while, giving software publishers time to optimise for x86, as well as in the background, sort out driver problems and the like. then when vista is about to hit the shelves, BAM!!! OSX is right beside it, ready to be installed on anyones PC (as long as it has at least sse2, or sse3)
As long as the outside looks OK.
--I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
You know the fine print you see when signing up for telephone or cable service? They're basically EULAs. They state that if you don't agree with the terms, then you have to stop using the service. Using their service means that you agree to their terms. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
EULAs are perfectly fine just as long they don't break existing laws. Of course EULAs aren't contracts. You would be insane to require every single person who bought software or signed up for telephone service to sign a contract at the same time. I doubt judges will throw out EULAs. They'll just throw out parts that are illegal.
BTW, just about every purchase includes an EULA. Return policies, etc. If you don't like their policies, then don't buy it.
I finally broke down and got an iBook. No more looking for OS X on x86 only to find "gnanananana....." or tubgirl..... I recommend it to others who want OS X. You won't be sorry.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
http://wiki.osx86project.org is down right now!
How about you try to get some unix packages and compile them under Cygwin and see how well it works :-P OTOH, under OS X almost all unix software compiles without (or with minor) modifications... Cygwin is a horrible mess. I still use it occasionally when there is no other alternative, though.
The interactive way to Go -- http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/
I wonder how much Apple/NEXT paid for "lifting" FreeBSD? We know how much Apple paid Xerox for "lifting" Xerox's GUI desktop. Where's the "honour among thieves" ?^)
similar to Windows booted in "safe mode."
Windows in safe mode is unusable for all but the most basic of system administration tasks, which is the point. You use it to remove/reinstall drivers that are causing problems booting normally.
No-one in their right mind tries to use it for day to day tasks; what would make this crippled version of OS X any different?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
http://news.com.com/Apple+OS+X+security+fix+busts+ 64-bit+support/2100-1002_3-5837406.html?tag=nefd.t op
/. accepts news that isn't a dupe.
My bit of news because I am too lazy to submit something. Heck, not like
Honestly, does anyone use an Apple server?
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
Things like Final Cut et al drive the adoption and the purchase of the hardware, it's an enabler for their core model.
It's just like Microsoft Consulting. You ask them to help you with a business problem they will, they'll even code up custom stuff for you, but it's all based on the Microsoft platform. The main purpose of MCS is to drive uptake of Windows and other Microsoft programs. That's their reason for being, the fact that the route they take is by consulting is incidental.
This is not new, it's the old razor and blades scenario.
I would love to have OS X on my Sony Vaio. I need Windows for some tasks, and would prefer to use OSX for others. My choices are:
1) An iBook/Powerbook running OSX and Winxp in slow, crap-ass, Virtual PC
2) Run OSX AND WinXP natively.
Hmmm.... tough decision...
See, I could do without OSX, so if I'm held to the wall and forced to choose, I gotta take Windows. I'd say the majority of Windows users are in that camp.
Let me ask all of Slashdot something:
Can you go and buy Mac OS X for X86 right now?
*waits for answer*
Quit yer fuckin bitchin then!
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
"Anyway, being typicaly French, they quickly surrendered and retired to eat crepes. In other news..."
Your post makes a lot of sense if you prefix it with "Tell Microsoft to shut the hell up about $10 per iPod or we'll..."
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Yes there you have it! The only reason 99.99% of the computer users today don't change to Mac/*inx OSes. The almost total elimination of OpenGl games for the x86 platform is and will be the number one reason peopel (like me) do not change. And yes there are games that don't req DirectX but they are not the majority. And this is why if Appel lanches OSx for vanilla x86 computer it will most likly fail. Don't underestimate the power of GAMES!
I'm sure Apple will never make a mistake like that again.
yeah because doing so was obviously so detrimental to linux. riiiiiiight.
only in the apple universe is choice a bad thing.
OS X is stripped-down, unoptimized and poorly supported.
And overpriced!
so much for all you morons saying "duhhh apple WANTED it to be hacked and run on non-apple hardware..duhh!"
and yes, it looks like ijet.
Bandwidth requirements are easy. They already work with Akamai to serve parts of apple.com, so this is essentially a solved problem.
The difficult part is getting 42 bazillion drivers written and tested. Whether Apple writes those drivers, or gets the device manufactures to do them, is irrelevant. The effort will have to be expended, not just for new devices, but for boatloads of legacy devices as well.
Basically, this is no different than the current situation. Some device supplier build Mac OS drivers, some don't, based on their prognosis of Mac OS market share. Getting more suppliers to build Mac OS drivers is a chicken-and-egg situation: the effort has to be expended before market share rises. Companies don't like doing this.
Ha ha! You're an ignorant Bushite!
Also, since Darwin is open source, new drivers are already coming along just fine. And apple already has nvidia, ati and intel graphics drivers, plenty of USB drivers.
Using a "MacOS X certified" system just like the one for windows and OS X preinstalled PC sales should eliminate most inconviniance of lacking drivers for ordinairy consumers.
They could mitigate that problem by including excellent generic drivers for NICs and being able to load drivers on the fly from their website by having the OS transmit the PnP ID of the unknown devices.
You do realize there is a slight logistical problem with using an internet website to get info on what driver to use for your network interface card right?
Other than that, I am all for more generic drivers. And not just for nic`s or pci stuff. I use them on windows all the time becouse they tend to be more up-to-date, better tested and less crap infested than their bundeled vendor counterparts...
When was the last time they had anything on their motherboards before a PC did?
FireWire 400 in 1999, and FireWire 800 in 2002.
If Apple has individually serialized each Developer Preview of OS X for x86 that they have given out, maybe they waited to get a copy of it themselves so that they can find out who leaked it and go after them, too?
I wish my lawn was emo, so it would cut itself.
What would IBM's reaction be to a video of someone hacking OS/2 to work on an iBook? Cease and desist letters? Maybe a lawsuit? Oh, man, I hit this one on the head!!
The author of the slashdot article says "This is the first known legal action by Apple regarding the hacked version of OS X and calls into doubt the future of other news sites, similar to the OSx86 Project."... What did he think Apple's reaction to this would be? I for one am totally SHOCKed at apple's new stance on hacking their products.. this is SOOO FRELLIN SHOCKING!!
I finally broke down and got an iBook. No more looking for OS X on x86 only to find "gnanananana....." or tubgirl..... I recommend it to others who want OS X. You won't be sorry.
I got a Mac Mini a while ago, but its slower than any of my other machines (maybe even slower than my Pentium2-266 machine). I imagine iBook is the same experience. I'm downloading the x86 vmware image mainly out of curiosity, but it might just be faster than a Mac Mini..
If I purchase some software, any software, I should be allowed to put it on any type of device I like. When I buy cheese at the store, they do not say 'you may only use this cheese with Wonder Bread (tm)'. Similarly, if I buy a music disc, I should have a undisputable right to copy that disc to my computer or whatever else to archive it and duplicate it in case of damage or loss.
Now that they are saying that hard copy piracy is the biggest threat (*sigh*), it makes me wonder why they never did anything back in the day of cassette tapes and double cassette boom box0rz. WTF is going on in this country? If I BUY something, I want it to be MINE!!!
And, P.S., Jobs did just about kill apple in the 80's because his marketting tactics suck, so then he went on and did the same thing to Pepsi before coming back to Apple and almost doing it again but thankfully someone stepped in and shut him up!
Long live OSX and FCP!! (now, if I could just get it installed on this #!*$ing Dell PoS!)
If I am making the same assumption, then it is this, that it is wrong to steal.
I am fine with the idea that if someone buys OS X and then decides to hack it and put it on a lawn mower, then that is their business. However, that is not usually where that ends. Those same people usually do not purchase anything and they are quick to "share" it with as many others as they possibly can. That is called stealing.
I also support Apple in trying to make hacking their operating system in this way as difficult as possible. Apple makes the money they need to develop things like OS X primarily through hardware sales. Just selling software would be the death of them and the end of OS X.
LICENSING.
Apple has, in the past, licensed their OS out to clone manufacturers and it failed horribly. Why? Because it was god awful timing.
Imagine the enormous profit Apple could make if it licensed out OSX to Dell/HP/Etc...
You guys are all bitching that Apple only makes a profit from their hardware. Ok, fine, that may be, but now that they are actually developing for the dominant platform they have absolutely no reason whatsoever to not milk it. Sure they can still sell their own stuff (to anyone dumb enough to buy it) but the real money for them would be from OEMs.
Rant aside, Apple is doing what they need to do to protect their IP, so I don't see why people are up in arms over this.
OMG SOEMOEN SI H4X0RING MAI B0X3N!1!
Desiring a shell is one thing, but a development environment...yeah...cygwin isn't that.
Blar.
Tech Support for OS/400 on AS/400 is even better. Well over 95% satisfaction for hardware and software support. Could this be because IBM controls the hardware and softare? Yes. The thing works. And it runs Linux, bitches.
Fact: Apple has copyright on their material.
Fact: Microsoft has copyright on their material.
Fact: RIAA, whether you like it or not, has copyright on their signed bands' material.
Observation: No less than (insert large number here)% of slashdot users think they're ENTITLED to every god damn thing for FREE.
Would you be pissed if someone used YOUR GPL work in a closed-source program? Would you want to do something about it? Say... litigation? So why the hell do you have a problem with big companies protecting their IP, if you would do the exact same thing if it was your work?
I hate the double standard the slashdot crowd has.
> Movie studios wonder why movie revenue is down...Many people have large TVs with decent audio. Why pay 50 bucks to see that when you can see it in your own home - without people talking over the movie?
I'm not sure that's the case. I have a pretty decent home theater setup with a projector, surround sound, etc. I still go to the movies when I see something that looks like it will be good. Yet, the number of mainstream movies I have seen this year has been pretty low, because not much actually looked very good. I have actually been to the "local" indie theater (http://musicboxtheatre.com/ ) that is 40 minutes away more than I have been to the AMC that's only 5 minutes away. I'll admit I have watched many more movies at home than I have seen at the theater, but they are mostly movies more than a couple of years old, that would not be in theaters anyway.
> Art is a commodity item - this is why people pay large sums of money to have 'the only one'. See 'Picasso'. You ask 'when did people stop viewing movies as a luxury item'? Do you *live* in North America? Movies are consumables.
You could go as far as to say that mainstream movies and music are not really even art. Their primary purpose is to make the companies that produce them money. When Terminator 4 recycles the plot of the first one yet again, but with new actors, is it really art? Or is it movie studio X trying to turn a bigger profit?
-- OpenVerse Visual Chat: http://openverse.com
Agreed. If I were to sell the software I was working on, I would provide not only the latest builds, but probably all the previous builds, all code revisions, blah blah blah. If they are buying the software they're buying the past and future development process ownership as well. Otherwise, they're just paying me royalties, for lack of a better term, for my allowing them to use the software within the terms of service and usage stated in a license agreement. Also, just because money has not exchanged hands does not mean that the licensor is no longer bound by an agreement. It just means that the price paid for X license is $0. Which means that unless the license gives freedom to do so, you're still bound to its terms as far as the usage (ie. no custom development / experimentation). A shame? Perhaps, in the name of innovation. But then business by and large exist to make money. Innovation is just something that every once in a while gets injected into a product to add to the value or competitive edge... rarely for innovation's sake.
Well, it worked for Microsoft ;)
Nah, just kidding, I don't know what MS is shipping these days.
(yes this can be compared with sex)
And I was wondering why I couldn't get to the osx86project.com website. I guess this explains it. Touché, Slashdot... touché!
Be interesting to see if AMD or other companies decide to take on Apple over it's effort to dictate which box one must use to run OS? Personally after 15 years of buying Apple products - I won't buy another Apple box. I am not interested in being "cool" - which is what Apple sells - coolness. Usability isn't even on Apple's radar! It's no surprise Apple turned to Intel. Intel is faster in every indepedent shoot done - when comparing for example Dell to G5s. I have had enough of Apple's bloated Quicktime Player as well. And will likely switch to Linux on a dual core AMD to do H.264 encoding (using Nero or something better). Be interesting to see if Apple survives the next of Moore's Law. It's obvious in Toronto that Apple is betting all of it's apples ;^0
on iPod. Apple has plaster iPod adds everywhere - can't walk a block without seeing one. One only advertises that much when sales are down!
Oy, I keep rereading that... In a post about "Apple," no less. The protective goggles, they do nothing!
Ubiquitous piracy made Microsoft Windows big and Linux a contender.
Okay, so let me just double check this: You think Microsoft's lenient approach to "piracy" is what made Windows big? Really, and truly? BSA and all that notwithstanding?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Begun, this clone war has.
I'm not a smorgasbord.
(Okay, I'm kidding. BeOS was killed far more by gross mismanagement than anything else.)
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
My power company is a monopoly, my local telephone service is a monopoly. Non-monopoly alternatives to these are not the same and very expensive.
yeah yeah, I know your point, but we do have monopolies in certain places because it would be a waste of resources to have more than 1 provider of certain expensive services. Often that's why we ostensibly have the government regulate these, but we've seen how well that works.
Gravity Sucks
Plenty more where they came from. Have you noticed how mother nature routinely wastes them in their millions ?
Apple isn't poised to take on Microsoft until they have their own, fully MS Office compatible, office suite. The moment Apple unties OS X from their own hardware, Microsoft will yank Office for OS X.
The web browser is ready. The presentation software is almost ready. The word processor has started. The biggest pieces missing are the spreadsheet and the Exchange client. (And note that last is an Exchange client and not an email program.) The database, however, doesn't seem to be on the drawing board. 'Tis a real pity that Apple didn't keep Hypercard up to date. Hypercard could have been the Access killer.
Apple might be ready to do this down the road. But for the immediately foreseeable future, OS X will remain tied to Apple hardware, even if for no other reason than Microsoft is still the 800lb gorilla in the market. Which also raises another point. Apple may have other reasons not to do this aside from pressure from Microsoft. Recall that Apple's last experiment with cloning didn't fare so well for Apple.
It had a slick Motif(tm)-based GUI, pinnable menus, user-selectable levels of complexity (with 1 being beginner and 4 being expert), scalable and rotatable fonts, preemptive multitasking, and two threads per process, and it could run in CGA (or Hercules!) mode on an XP-class box (pre-80286).
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Rather, Microsoft is a supplier to Apple's biggest competitors. That is a key distinction. Apple, at this point, wants to avoid face to face competition with Microsoft. Presently, it would be difficult (not impossible) for Apple to survive if Microsoft stopped shipping Office for OS X. Should Apple ever go toe-to-toe with Microsoft, that will probably happen.
But also note that Apple has been working on putting itself into a position that solves this problem for quite some time. It wasn't all that long ago that Microsoft could have essentially killed Apple by merely halting work in Internet Explorer for Macs. Apple has not only changed the landscape with regards to web browsing, but has begun to build its own office application stack. In the future, they may be ready to compete head on with Microsoft.
But for now, they want to avoid direct competition with Microsoft at all costs. Sure, Steve Jobs loves to slam Windows during his keynotes. But those barbs aren't really targetted at Microsoft, but at manufacturers that bundle Windows. Relatively few people intentionally buy Windows, but rather seek out hardware that ships with Windows.
Finally, our points about companies that make ``just hardware'' also holds for companies that make ``just software.'' Lotus, Borland, Word Perfect, PKWare, Metrowerks, Digital Research, Novell and a whole host of other pure software players are either gone or marginalized. This is a tendency, not of their respective portions of the IT market, but of the IT market as a whole as the industry matures. The same thing happened to the automotive industry in the fifties and sixties. Mature industries tend toward consolidation and the IT industry is following the same pattern as all previous industries.
Presently, the IT hardware industry has a normal profit margin of around 10%. The IT software industry has a normal profit margin of closer to 30%. So, I will concede that running a software firm is easier in certain aspects than running a hardware firm. But this doesn't mean that the Apples, Hewlett Packards, and Dells can't carve out profitable futures. Heck, some grocery chains are prospering and their normal profit margin is between 1% and 2%.
Can't they take the open source Linux drivers and modify them like they did to KHTML?
"For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
yeah because doing so was obviously so detrimental to linux. riiiiiiight.
If consumers were rushing to get Linux desktops you might have a point, they aren't, so you don't. If the fraction of the technically inclined who do install Linux were not frequently complaining about this device not working or not being supported, you might have a point, they do, so you don't. Now I'm not slamming Linux, I use it myself, but it's mostly a server platform and it's desktop userbase and Apple's are quite different. What Linux can get away with Apple can not.
only in the apple universe is choice a bad thing.
No, it works for many vendors. Having a selective list of supported devices does make life easier. Unless you are catering to hobbyists it doesn't really matter.
I think this is a smart move from apple, i think they will not sell the os standalone, but rather that they will be producing iMac's with a x86 processor instead of a ppc one and, with that theyll probably bring a new version of their os out which will allow native booting of (Windows) x86 binaries, which will solve the greatest problem of the OS: the lack of software available for it. Remember that windows has a share in apple, so they will probably help them to get windows libraries ported etc.
running Windows Vista on a $499.50 Dell El Cheapo. Sucker.
Hey, it's subjective. But it's also completely randomized, and I am drunk a lot at work ;-)
This is science in its purest form.
Just like driving a car:
(D) to go forward
(R) to go backward
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate.
This is about leaking a pre-release product into the wild. Now once Apple releases the new machines and new build of the OS to the PUBLIC, then you can see how they will react to that version getting out into the wild.
Right now all this talk is moot because this is not a PUBLIC release of the OS. Your rights to use this product are not being violated, this version is only supposed to be used for developers to recompile their apps and develop new software to work on the new machines when it is finally RELEASED next year. These few dumbass developers that released this should be tracked down and have their asses sued for violating the NDA.
Yeah, you could load the driver for your NIC "on the fly from their website" but something for some reason I just don't think that would work. I just can't figure out why. Oh, maybe its cause you need the driver for the NIC before your fricken networking will work!
They could mitigate that problem by including excellent generic drivers for NICs and
It's something not to read an article, but to not even read the post to which you reply... Great job!
you think you're clever but you're not.
Nobody is jealous of your overpriced Apple crap; pull out your head from Jobs' ass and try to see the world without RDF, you dumbass!
M$ has an entire building just for Piracy group? I wonder if SCO has one of those... Hmm... Maybe that's where they violated all the terms of the GPL at.
Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
I agree. The correct way is a Live DVD that can't run from the HD but lets you access the network, play in iCal and maybe iLife apps, and more. THAT would get converts. Especially if it was free or $5 or something like that.
Oh, and unlike what this article is about that popular, ubiquitous DVD would never be cracked. Never!
There's no 'on' position on the Slacker switch!
I believe you are right. However much of the advance in computer hardware was due the crazy upgrade cycle that computer games as doom, quake, half life and so on created in their time.
Apple's closed hardware would have been too slow moving, so their new products don't cannibalize their old products. And the games big bang would never happen.
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
If Apple charged the same price for their unsupported PC version as for their supported Mac version, Apple would never hear the end of the complaints.
And it just makes economic sense that, should they offer an unsupported version, they charge less for it. Their support costs would be nil, and they should pass some of those savings along to the customer.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
No, I understand that world view perfectly, because I used to be one of you. I ran Linux exclusively for six years, and I'm well aware of what it can and can't do. To be honest, it did take me awhile to realize what strong Kool-Aid you guys are drinking, and having recovered fully I can say that it's much, much stronger stuff than the Macheads brew. At least those guys get stuff done. You guys just sit around and rationalize it away as "if it can't be done with Free Software, it's not worth doing." You don't even see that your platform is mostly useless outside of back-office server stuff and microbenchmarks because you're so excited that the desktop stuff you have now sucks less than the stuff you had last year.
:-P
Wake up, people. You're losing the war. Linux isn't on the desktop because the politics keep it from being useful on the desktop. Nobody outside Slashdot cares *why* you can't play multimedia or *why* Fedora won't ship nVidia drivers or *why* you guys still don't have audio support that doesn't suck or *why* everything has to be crap all the time year after year after year. It's ridiculous. It doesn't get work done, and nobody cares about the religion.
I graduated and got a job, I can afford better now, and I don't put up with the half-finished stuff anymore. There's more to life than my computer, so I don't see the point of living this cult-like lifestyle when I can just own a Mac and put the time saved into something more useful. Like, say, writing code. Writing music. Trying to get laid. Hell, just go outside and play. It's good for you.
I think including generic NIC drivers means putting them on the OSX CD so they can use them to get the other ones.
Lots of speculations out there, but with this forthcoming Intel announcement, could it be that Apple will compile OS X for Intel to run on a 64-bit chip only? That would certainly put a dent in everyone's plans to hack it onto current off-the-shelf x86 hardware.
Also, it would not contradict Steve Jobs saying Apple would not prevent anyone from installing Windows on their machines. It'd only have to be a 64-bit version...
The future is in beta
But "their" OS is NeXt OS which is FreeBSD OS. Hardly something Apple made/developed.
If you work at that pet store you link to, there is an Apple Store where you can see Mac OS X in action less than 10 mi away in Durham. http://www.apple.com/retail/southpoint/week/200508 21.html
You might not be able to get complete Mac that can run latest OS X (10.4) for $65, but a couple of hundred could do it.
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
...but I swear I've scene you elsewhere.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?