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.
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
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.
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.
They had to expect it to happen, if they weren't then they're extremely naïve.
I'd love Mac OS X on Intel PCs. I don't care about getting a manky cheap-black-plastic laptop booting it, but a decent cheap desktop PC, yeah. As you get older you realise certain things - (1) I ain't got the time to get Gentoo to compile, (2) No way am I gonna lose my Unix shell, (3) Nor have I got the time to work out how certain things in Linux/FreeBSD now work since the last release I tried. Mac OS X is the OS for the productive geek, and the amount of desire there is for a generic x86 version shows that many many other people out there think the same thing.
And yes, I have a nice new 1.33GHz iBook here. 'Tis weird, but I'm more productive using it than any computer previous to this one until my old Amiga. It is my first ever Mac too. Used to hate the little buggers, nasty OS, crappy keyboards, boring interface.
http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_c ontent&task=view&id=27&Itemid=2
Not sure. Which one costs more? :)
In the end, most people go shopping based on the sticker price. That's why when you open up a dell it's not nearly as elegant.
I used to sell computers at an OfficeMax. We offered, amongst others, Compaq, and Packard Bell. The compaq system were always more expensive than the Packard Bells. When you opened up a Compaq, it was very cleanly layed out and labeled, and the Packard Bells were just frightening. In general the Packard Bells were the source of endless hardware problems.
But which one do you think we sold more of?
Now granted, Packard Bell was so poorly made that it's not an apples and oranges comparison here. But if Dell's are cheaper can run the same software, it could seriously hurt Apple's bottom line.
Remember that the clones almost killed Apple.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
as a software developer I find myself having to jump hurdles and roadblocks in OSX far more often than I do in win32 or linux.
with osx you do things steve jobs' way or you don't do it at all.
for daily use my mac mainly sits idle while all the productive stuff is in linux and doze. i use the mac for osx development, but man is it painful.
its also very frustrating all the hardware out there which simply wont work on macs, but will work fine with linux or doze.
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.
Then they go Intel and complain when someone figures out how to use it on Intel hardware.
You don't understand. Apple is only switching to Intel because they were getting jacked in the ass by IBM, and Intel had a good roadmap. It's not like they're advertising it as becoming compatibile with PC hardware. The idea is to have it all the same as before, closed hardware and everything, just now Intel happens to be making the cpu's. What these people are doing is getting it to run on PC's instead of 'Macs'
OSX would never survive as an OS if it went open to the x86 platform at large. Windows has too much market share, and o one cares enough to relearn things. Apple makes boatloads off of their hardware, and if they switched to being just a software company with an initial 0% marketshare, they would be fucked. Also, hardware support is a major issue. Everything would cease 'just working', which is a very nice benifit of osx.
If you have a problem with Apple wanting THEIR os which is designed to run only on THEIR hardware, and to take advantage of the less open architecture for greater interoperability with hardware, and putting it all into a complete package, then shutup and just don't buy it, and I'll enjoy OSX for myself thank you very much.
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.
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.
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.
If you could buy the OSX for X86, would you still buy Apple hardware?
I would eventually buy the Mac hardware, if all the hype is to be believed. It would be nice however if I could get OSX to run on the new hardware I already own. Me using OSX side by side with Windows would only benefit Apple, again if I am to believe all the noise. Sell me the OS now for $150 and profit while the OS wins me over. Otherwise, Apple gets nothing from me until I choose to upgrade my 1 year old pc. This would make the decision to switch easier for people like me. I care much more about how the OS works and whether or not it will run my existing applications than I do about shiny designer boxes.
The Stone Age did not end because humans ran out of stones. - William McDonough
Apple doesn't want to sell you a $100 operating system, they want to sell you a $1000 computer.
Well, they could sell 1 x $1000 computer = $1000...
or 50 x $100 OS = $5000.
Something does not compute in here...
In fairness, signs point to the reason having more to do with Apple throwing it's weight around like it was still 1997. Note that IBM announced improved PPC chips just weeks after Jobs revealed the Intel Macs.
The idea is to have it all the same as before, closed hardware and everything, just now Intel happens to be making the cpu's.
Every sign points to this not being the case. There's essentially zero closed hardware in a Mac as is anyway - you can, if you're determined enough, build a generic PPC machine and install OS X on it.
OSX would never survive as an OS if it went open to the x86 platform at large.
I'm not so sure about this, assuming that they kept making Macs and didn't just drop them.
A large part of Apples profits are from the iPod and iTunes. That won't go away. A signifigant portion of Apples current customers will stick with them, still buying Apple hardware, regardless of what they do. A portion will be upset of the switch to x86 and will ditch Apple for it - they'll be gone regardless of whether or not they support generic x86.
So the only loss is from customers who would have bought Apple hardware, but now will buy generic and run OS X on it. The question is if this amount of people is large enough that the additional revenue from the greater amount of switchers (low cost of entry, just like the Mini - but without the performance penalty) won't offset it.
I don't think Apple will do it, but I don't think it's an obvious cut & dried case of a loss, either. I think they *may* do it in a few years, if they see a market for it. They certainly wouldn't be starting over from 0 - the core of the Mac market won't be going away.
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.
You know I'm really sick of people saying Apple is a hardware company.
What are Logic, Final Cut, Motion, Shake, etc?
software.
And not cheap software at that.. logic 7 alone is in the region of £700, Final Cut is around £800, not to mention the miscellaneous charges here and there: iWork, OS Upgrades, Quicktime, ARD and more.
The main benefit of Apple 'switching' to the intel platform will be one to Apple. No longer do they have to do complicated main board design, nor even develop their own support chipsets.
The only thing they'll have to do now, is wrap someone elses logic board design up in a pretty box and ship it to their lovely brushed aluminium and glass retail stores.
Yes, I am a Mac owner/developer, but even I can see their hardware is more a support platform for their software, which is probably why they've been on a company buying craze. (see eMagic etc).
:::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.
Plus, the point of OSx86 is not to get OS X for free, it is to prove that OS X can be used on normal PCs. I believe that most users who have implemented the OSx86 install are more than willing to pay normal prices for a version of the OS which they can install on their own hardware.
Here are the instructions I used to get it running on my USB drive in my Intel system.
I would never have tried OSX except for this challenge. Obviously, it's not the most stable thing in the world... but it's mainly the challenge of hacking this little project together.
Is it practical? Only that people will explore OSX... and yes, some people will like it and switch. For me, however, it was just the challenge of showing my apple fan-boy buddies that I too can run OSx.
Which makes more money? Microsoft our apple? i'll give you a hint, it's not the fruit.
Oh and by the way, if Apple sold OSX for the PC, i know of 5 people right now that'd jump ship. Me included. I've tried this leaked version, and I'm already spending more time in OSX than in Windows...something i could never do with linux.
So let me get this straight:
Totals:
Dell: $999.00
Microsoft: $15.00 (or whatever)
Apple: $0.00
So you think Apple should let you pay Dell and Microsoft to run their OS, all while giving Apple not a single cent? You think this is what they should allow?
Don't you understand? All of this "running-OSX-on-Intel-today" means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the end-result of running OSX-for-Intel on the customized hardware Apple is designing with Intel.
All this does is provide Apple with an exact blueprint of where to lock down the OS even tighter, to prevent 'hacking' when they release it. Besides, with Intel's LaGrande chipset, the whole OS runs in a silicon-locked sandbox, separate from anything else, and strongly keyed to the silicon itself. You literally CANNOT get inside without the proper key.
All of this hacking around with OSX today on Intel today, is going to rapidly become very irrelevant when they release their own boxes.