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
"Terrible news, sir! People are installing our OS!"
"Quick! To the Applejet!"
Note to mods: I'm probably being sarcastic.
No, they probably would not. What is your point?
Slagborr
Apple is not minor league engineering department attached to a powerhouse marketing deparment.
It's also attached to a powerhouse legal department.
Think Different !!!
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.
I agree, Jobs HAD to know this would happen. I think everyone did the moment that it was rumored. I don't see how Apple can hold people legally accountable for something that they should have predicted. Unless they were just fishing for lawsuits all along, but that's not very Apple-ish.
The belief that you know a thing is a most perfect way to prevent learning.
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.
Suing someone to stop them from doing something sometimes means they actually don't want anyone to do it. Apple has a very obvious reason to keep OS X off of generic PCs, and I'm sure they're happy to flex a little muscle when someone obviously broke their NDA and provided OS X x86 to someone else, gave a public demo of it, or provided info on it.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
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.
..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...
did anyone see it before it was removed? has it been reposted? sigh.... i always miss these things!
So let me get this straight...According to your line of thinking, If I park my car in a shitty neighborhood and it gets stolen, even though I knew there was a chance and put an alarm in my car, I shouldn't have any legal recourse and the thief is not legally liable??
It's obvious YANAL...
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
Yes, they want people to buy Apple made hardware, not install it on their dell's. And, its kind of a dumb question, if Apple didn't have any intention of releasing it on x86, then the people that are doing this wouldn't have the x86 port of os x to run, so none of this would matter (they are just taking the developer preview of osx x86 and running it on non apple hardware, and I bet they got it off bitorrent too)
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
Someone said it at last. [best computer since my old Amiga]. OK so I paraphased somewhat. This is how I feel about my Mac PowerBook. Best computer I had since my A1200. It just kinda has the same slick feel.
Is that a ding I hear? GET BACK IN THE MAGIC HOUSE!!!
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.
I'm not saying that the theif was not wrong, but that you should have known better. also, the osX on x86 thing is a far cry from theft.
The belief that you know a thing is a most perfect way to prevent learning.
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! --
Should I be annoyed that I was tagged a 'troll', or elated since you guys gave a +4 funny to that asschode's "Don't mean a thing if it ain't got Quartz Extreme"...
Waaaaa! Don't knock a *nix or we'll beat you senseless with our mod points!
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>
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.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly. It just works, without getting in the way. The OS and apps have that extra bit of polish and pizzazz to make them special. The OS provides everything you need to interact with the hardware too, no crappy third party DVD burning apps, for example.
...
Nothing I used to like more as a teenager than a night on the A1200 with DPaint 4.5 and Blitz Basic 2 creating yet another silly game, or even sometimes nearly serious software. I was late for school more than once the next day
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.
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.
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.
Should Apple have predicted that rolling out a bunch of Apple Stores with glass windows would result in thieves breaking those windows and stealing iPods?
And should such a postulated inevitability make breaking in to Apple Stores to steal goods socially acceptable?
The "OS X on x86 thing" is not "a far cry from theft," if you define theft as 'taking something that does does not belong to you, without payment, solely for your own amusement'.
We are not talking about getting Darwin code that has been released as open source running on PCs, we are talking about people trying to steal a pirate copy of the OS X Intel developer preview, and trying to make it run on PCs that were purchased with Windows (in most cases).
These people are paying Microsoft to run OS X, which is kind of lame. If you want to see innovation, you need to support innovative companies. If you want all software to be free, you should use free software exclusively.
Running Linux on an Xbox is repurposing hardware (despite MS' losing money on the deal through speculative loss leader pricing). Running pirate commercial software on your cheap PC is not really a comparable endeavor.
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 guess the only thing to say then is that you are a sexist.
check out the best blog ever:
http://oehlberg.com
``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.
I agree.
/. is making stains in their pants to run OSX86 on a cheap box, doesn't mean the rest of the world is. The average computer user may not care what they're using, so long as they can surf the net, check email, and heck, maybe watch movies.
Some people seem to think that the Slashdot community represents the whole world. So, just because 90% of
Windows/Microsoft has too much market share, sure. If Apple were to change their target audience, I'm sure they could get a major chunk of it too. They'd probably have to ditch their quality standards though.
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!"
And not very intelligent.
I work tech support for Apple. I can say with sincerity that I get at least 3x more men than women calling in.
*sarcasm*
Call me sexist, but obviously women know how to work computers much better than men.
Just like driving a car:
(D) to go forward
(R) to go backward
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.
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
-implement a rigorous technical lockdown of the software to the hardware (perhaps some software registration scheme)
-Think differently and open source the whole thing and don't care about it(crossing my fingers for this one)
-sue the bastards
There are a bunch of other things apple could have done too. Knowing that it would happen, why would apple decide to go down the path of creating OS X on x86 and then sue. Apple's plan was to take a similar strategy to the RIAA (sue the bastards). Some of us are in disbelief that apple would decide to go this route. Although apple being a corporation I am not that shocked.
check out the best blog ever:
http://oehlberg.com
OSX would never survive as an OS if it went open to the x86 platform at large.
This is just guesswork, but based on my own behavior, I think you're wrong. I know this; if x86 OS-X becomes available for whatever off-the-shelf hardware for $200 (approx. retail price of XP,) I will buy it. No question.
Windows has too much market share, and o one cares enough to relearn things.
I would put it in front of my wife and extended family based on reputation alone, if only to assure they can't make a hash of it like they do Microsoft products. In my experience, getting people to "relearn" enough to use OS-X is trivial. The kind of user that can't be bothered to learn new stuff is also the kind of user that could not give a damn which company created the GUI they use to read email.
Apple makes boatloads off of their hardware
It is entirely possible to make "boatloads" selling software. The fact is you and I don't really know why Apple is moving to Intel CPUs. You speculate that they got jacked in the ass by IBM. I suppose that means they got a new vendor because they were unhappy with the old one. That's really going out on a limb!. Consider the possibility that Apple agrees with me; moving to x86 is the first step toward an "open" OS-X.
Also, hardware support is a major issue. Everything would cease 'just working', which is a very nice benefit of osx.
I think you exaggerate; making the transition isn't that difficult and nothing will just cease. You "certify" the third parties and slowly accumulate compatibility. That's how IBM lost its PC business to the rest of the world. Apple is a credible vendor for whom the better hardware vendors already work to port their products. Moving to x86 dramatically lowers the bar for all vendors.
Microsoft owns the PC market. They have only one way to go, and that's down. OS-X is just the kind of product that could make it happen.
For years I have listened to slash-snotters speak with towering authority about Apple's commitment to PowerPC's superiority. Today, with apparently equal credibility, the locals claim a hardware independent OS-X is a metaphysical impossibility. We'll see.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
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.
Can you tell me the name of your boss? I want to tell him how you think making money and getting paid for your work is evil so he can stop paying you.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Well you have some vague and unscientific evidence supporting your claim. As a slashdot reader this is enough for me to form my opinion. I'll go ahead and agree with you.
check out the best blog ever:
http://oehlberg.com
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.
You mean like BeOS? Amiga? Palm? Apple '94 licensing? Yeah the road to giving your OS away is paved with such stellar sucesses.
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.
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
Hacking it is one thing... blabbing about it to the whole world is quite another. And you just knew that it would get plastered all over every geek site on the planet (and maybe a few beyond the asteroid belt). Apple saw a big-fat NDA violation here and they are going after the folks that did it. It is just like the thinksecret bit, someone can't keep their mouth shut and then all hell breaks loose.
This msg is brought to you by the letter 'W'.. for Worthless Wuss
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.
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
You people just like spreading FUD like this don't you? I know how you think because I used to be one if you. You are jealous of mac users and wish you could either pirate or buy OS X for you PC.
Why don't you guys wait until the Intel macs arrive? Are you all that desperate to run OS X? Can't you buy an iBook off of Ebay to try out OS X?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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
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.
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.*
You forgot Linux!
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.
a very disengenuous argument.
the false issue of being that people who install bought and paid for copies of osx86 (in 1-2 years)will automatically ask for and get apple's support. they don't want support and apple has the right to deny support. they don't have the right to prevent lawful uses of purchased software.
apple's OSX86 software will always work perfectly on apple hardware and will be supported ONLY on apple hardware. apple will continue to make the same amount of money or more. once apple sells a customer a copy of OSX, it becomes the CUSTOMER'S COPY. the customer then has the right, moral and especially legal to install that software on any computer they wish. the customer doesn't have the right to demand support for unapproved configurations.
in the above scenario, apple continues to sell apple hardware and osx86 and supports customers who buy them particular config.
what you're saying is very illogical as i've tried to show. there isn't any real honest reason to prevent BOUGHT copies of osx86 to be used on the customer's choice of computer.
the EULA says so. what a wonderful argument.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
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!
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.
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
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
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.
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.
You mean like expecting a steady supply of chips so that they could sell competitively performing machines without angering customers with long delays?
I don't know if you're a Mac user but if you are you probably didn't have to wait THREE MONTHS to be shipped a PowerMac G5 like I did last year. Apple couldn't get the chips. IBM couldn't get the yield up to sufficient quantities.
IBM had also told Apple they could supply a 3GHz part within a year of the initial launch in 2003. It's now 2005 and they still cannot.
Yes, they announced dual core within weeks of Jobs' bombshell (everyone knew they were coming anyway). But no, they are not shipping. When they finally do, there's every indication someone like me who might want to buy one would experience deja vu with the extreme shipping delays.
And for the actual reason that prompted the (arguably difficult) Intel transition to start:
IBM failed to produce a low-power, low-heat variant that wasn't severely reduced in performance. Intel have excellently performing low-power chips. Enough said.
If that situation is "Apple throwing it's weight" around, like many others, I think you've been doing too much armchair speculation and not enough real world observation.
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???
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?
Well done! :-)
(is that a penny I hear dropping?)
already.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
Uh, you quite clearly are sexist. "We all know it's true"? What the hell?
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
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.
Yes, there is a very good reason to prevent OS X from being run on just any computer: Apple is not in the business of selling operating systems. That's an even worse business model today than it was during the times of Be, NeXT, and so on. For one, they're not going to unseat Microsoft regardless of how good their product is, and the vast majority of people (including many Slashdotters who claim "I'd pay for it!") are going to pirate it. That's not a very good market to be in as an innovator. It costs way too much money to be more than a copycat, and for Apple, that money comes from selling hardware.
If OS X is so great, why isn't it worth paying for the hardware to go with it? Obviously, to you it's not worth even the price of a Mini.
If I'm Apple, I keep the DRM but also stick some weird chips in the new machines (say, a G3) and use them for some critical system component. You "I bought the 10.5 upgrade, and I can do whatever I want with it!" people would then have to go suck it. Seriously, you weren't going to give Apple much if any money anyway, so what rational reason do they have for serving you and your sense of self-entitlement?
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.
And they'd jump ship to...what, exactly? Windows? As much as the idea of x86 may turn some people off toward the brand, those same people are exactly the sort that see an inherent value to the other things Apple provides, so Macs are still a better option in their mind, x86 or not.
± 29 dB
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.)
The iPod is dominating the MP3 player market but eventually it's growth will plateau. It's going to take more work to keep their lead in the future than it was to get it in the first place. It is silly then to claim that Apple can go ahead and screw over it's computer hardware division by letting any old PC run OSX. The Mac still makes a lot of money for the company, consider not just hardware sales but software, hardware, and services sold for Macs.
Last quarter Apple made about $241m on iTMS, iPod accessories, and other assorted music services. They made $611m on peripherals, software, and other services. That is six hundred million dollars on non-music related stuff with Macs holding a much smaller portion of the computer market than the iPod and iTMS hold in the music market. The revenue from the iPod and other music-related products is nothing to sneeze at, in fact it is tremendous but it can't carry the whole company. It also can't be relied upon to be there in the future. This year the iPod has had phenomenal sales but next the market could completely crap out.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I've always seen Apple as company selling pretty things to women who want to send email.
And you've always been shallow and ignorant in making that assessment. They make some other stuff that you seem to have overlooked.
They're picking on geeks with the desire to hack and make stuff work!
No, they're picking on geeks with a willingness to break NDAs, pirate pre-release operating systems, and not pay for anything.
Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
As long as the outside looks OK.
--I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
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.
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/
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.
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/
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.
Interesting, what exactly would you say those road-blocks were as opposed to developing on Linux or Windows? Is it things you're simply not used to, or things which are worse?
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
>I've always seen Apple as company selling pretty >things to women who want to send email.
And of course, we all know that geeks are the very definition of Manliness!
Don't make it easy to use or work out of the box, the women might start using it.
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.
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.
mostly things which are far worse.
the fact that carbon apps are a second class citizen on osx (despite all handwaving claims to the contrary). there are many OSX features simply not available under carbon that are available under cocoa -- not because it is unfeasible to do so but because apple deliberately chooses not to provide them.
the choice to armtwist developers into using objc is a huge mistake, (that decision alone nearly killed NeXT). so apple provided carbon, but it is halfheartedly supported. its sorta like a punishment for the insolence of developers who dare to use c/c++, who do not follow the one true steve jobs path to developer enlightenment.
lots of standard development tools like cvs/svn are simply not available on osx without having to jump through the hurdles of fink. and even then a lot of critical tools are only available in the unstable branch -- a pita to enable in fink. osx is shipping with a halfassed selection of development tools -- simply not acceptable.
without fink i dont think i'd be developing on osx at all. but why the fuck is it up to third parties to have to shore up osx in order to make it a usable development platform? apple should be doing this, and they completely dropped the ball.
xcode is a crashy fragile pos which explodes with internal errors at the slightest provocation. i can't explain the immense joy that comes from having xcode spontaneously explode from merely twiddling project compiler settings in the gui. thats not even counting that xcode has the worst interface ever.
apple managed to break even the simplest tools like pico, so serious developers are forced to go out and recompile these tools from source in order to repair the damage apple did to them.
many of apple's development tools (packagemaker is a good example) have no concept of cwd, which makes them a pain in the ass to script. and there's no good reason for it either other than apple laziness.
and then there's the supremely retarded stuff like some of non-gui-related OSX API being linked at the hip with the GUI for no good reason -- some lowlevel os calls fail unless someone is logged in to the desktop, being logged in via ssh even as administrator is not sufficient. So you need vnc as well as ssh in order to run some character-only-applications. It's pretty obvious apple has no clue about headless servers.
i could go on and on, suffice to say i have to jump through NONE of these hurdles to develop on win32 or linux.
the only "simply not used to" was bundles, but that's easily scripted at least. it is however poorly documented as apple expects you to be exclusively using the GUI tools to manually build stuff, and never scripting it.
I really don't se how this comment makes me a sexist.
I was implying that women are, in general, less interested in tech than men. That is just a fact.
There are certainly FAR less female geeks than male. Why? Because women are, in general, not interested.
I'll accept that my opinions of Apple are based on little more than marketing campaigns, my person (limited) experience of Apple users and what I read in the tech press. But that is exactly my point!
This display of legal muscle lowers my opinion and makes me less likely to consider Apple an good alternative.
I realise I've probably been flamed by apple zealots and maybe that's fair, but I don't think my comments are sexist.
Karma: Bad. Calmer, good.
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.
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!!
Apple choose to switch to the x86 and their OS will eventually run on it. They should stop whining and se the possibilities.
I don't understand people, who are ready to give up their basic consumer freedom, just to have some (pretty spiffy) computer manufacturer survive.
When I buy a sweater, I can choose to wear it my self or give it to my dog to chew. When I buy a book, I can choose to read it or to split it and glue the pages to the wall.
When I buy an OS, I want to choose which machine should be able to boot it.
regards
PiCz.
.
------- Look mum! I have posted another Slashdot comment! --------
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!
This definition ought to get you started on the right track to better understanding yourself. It nearly quotes your "Women are, in general, ..." statement.
But heh, you wanna live your life judging people not as individuals, but because of the group they are born into, that's your thing. Perhaps when you start viewing people as individuals, you will be ready to join the "adults" group, one group that no one is born into.
But I digress...It is clear from your statements and your own admissions that you are ignorant when it comes to Apple as a corporation. Rather than flame you for it, I invite you to, at the risk of changing your mind, check out Apple's website and learn more about them as a company and the products they invent and sell. You will find that their website offers both non-technical and highly technical information. You may also better understand how Apple has reinvented itself from the company it was to a company admired, not admonished, by the likes of those technical males on Slashdot, and the women who blindly follow them.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Desiring a shell is one thing, but a development environment...yeah...cygwin isn't that.
Blar.
Because that would involve paying $1800 for a PC that will undoubtedly be slower than my current one, and judging from the current DRM-mania would be unupgradable for the most part. As for eBay. No. I'd rather pay $120 for an OS and run it on my current computers than pay $500 for a 5 year old slow-as-a-dead-dog laptop that still costs that much because it has a fancy neon blue Apple on it.
OMG SOEMOEN SI H4X0RING MAI B0X3N!1!
> 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)
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
I hope the pure irony of a ban on flag burning in a country whose first enumerated right in its Bill of Rights is freedom of speech isn't lost on our leaders.
I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
Firstly, I don't believe that men or women are better over all. But it can't be denied that, as a generalisation, each has their own strong an weak point. The reasons for this may be to do with upbringing but it's still the case.
Secondly, society and language do reflect the differences between the sexes I would hope that this isn't used unfairly against anyone.
Third, I certainly don't hate women.
Notice all the generalisations I made there? That brings me to my last point (of defence, because I'm clearly on trial here)
I DO treat people as individuals when I meet them. And I do make generalisations about groups of people.
We all generalise and stereotype all the time. We also know that the generalisations don't apply to every individual of a given group.
For instance: I'm young, male and a geek. The stereotype for me is that I live with my parents, have no social skills, no girlfriend.
This generalisation is reinforced over and over again in the media, even on slashdot, and no one says a word. I'm fine with that even if it's not true of me (which is debateable), I recognise that it holds for a majority.
My point is that generalisations are just that, they don't hold true for everyone, and of course people should be treated as individuals. I just don't think that generalising facts which are true for the majority (without discriminating any one person) is wrong.
Karma: Bad. Calmer, good.
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.
You're either ignorant or a liar if you truly believe things like "the only way to get cvs is an unstable branch through fink". Seriously. You're totally nuts. First of all, CVS is one of the many tools INCLUDED on the devkit. Tuned specifically for OS X. Second, you can compile the usual stable branch from source, exactly the same as you can on Linux. Third, I'd like a concrete example about OS calls failing in a headless environment. I think you're full of it.
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.
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.
So the only loss is from customers who would have bought Apple hardware, but now will buy generic and run OS X on it.
Now compare this to the size of the market they gain; the number of people who buy after market OS's, and want OS X, and aren't locked into Windows, and are willing to pay for it. Sorry, but that is a tiny market. All but a handful of OS sales are pre-installed OS's. The majority of the rest are upgrades, or alternative OS's for business offices. MS already has that market pretty well locked down with dozens of proprietary formats and protocols. Also, their sales staff is very good at making sales in that space and is as well connected as anyone. Apple is terrible at selling into that space. It really is a pretty weak proposition.
OKay.. great, you aren't a sexist. Hey, only you know you!
but what about the rest of what I said:
But I digress...It is clear from your statements and your own admissions that you are ignorant when it comes to Apple as a corporation. Rather than flame you for it, I invite you to, at the risk of changing your mind, check out Apple's website and learn more about them as a company and the products they invent and sell. You will find that their website offers both non-technical and highly technical information. You may also better understand how Apple has reinvented itself from the company it was to a company admired, not admonished, by the likes of those technical males on Slashdot, and the women who blindly follow them.
Any thoughts?
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Buy the iBook off of eBay?? Isn't it cheaper just to to go down to your local school auction? :)
R ENZY?SITE=PAPIT&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=home.htm
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/COMPUTER_F
.no
I've spent a little while looking at the website and I'll admit that there is some technical information on there.
I'll concede that the products can be good tech.
Look at the marketing though, the first thing I came to: Introducing Mighty Mouse; Single button looks, multibutton charm
Not only does it look good. It also does something too!!
Functionality tacked on as an after thought.
Look at the top ten "reasons to switch" most point out ease of use and stylish looks.
This is what I mean by cute and cuddly. It all seems geared towards people who want something to look good in their stylish minimalist apartments. Not people like me who would rather spend the money on what is inside the box.
I mentioned this originally in relation to the legal attacks (which apple has done more than once recently) that change my opinion from mild interest (in the cute and cuddly) to strong dislike.
Karma: Bad. Calmer, good.
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!
To me it's more like lending your new Dodge Viper to a 15 year old kid you randomly pick on the street, tell him to enjoy but return it tomorrow at the same spot and expect him to pay if it gets a scratch.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
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.
I think that the price is for the software more than for the hardware, really. The hardware is produced relatively cheaply. Apparently, Apple has deals with Adobe that include font packages with OSX that cost over $150 EACH, for about 50 fonts per package. Example: the Helvetica Neue font family.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
I'm glad you're being open minded about checking out the Apple products. I would say that the "Mighty Mouse" is the cheesiest (pardon the pun) marketing from Apple in their history. More impressive are pages like these.
I mentioned this originally in relation to the legal attacks (which apple has done more than once recently) that change my opinion from mild interest (in the cute and cuddly) to strong dislike.
Okay, so say more about that. What is it about "the legal attacks" that gives you such a "strong dislike" for Apple?
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
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.
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.h tml
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
God, what a pile of shit you are spewing.
CVS worked out of the box on my mac at work. CVS server set up and working in minutes, piece of piss.
Cocoa is the native Mac OS X environment. If getting to grips with Objective C is so hard for you (and yes, it is a bit of a bummer that choice is so limited, although Java had full bindings for Cocoa until recently as well), then what kind of developer are you?
Xcode ain't brilliant, but it is free. It is pretty damn good for free. It hasn't crashed on me yet.
Erm, nano came on my Mac OS X by default. nano is the stand-alone pico implementation.
Please provide an example of needing VNC running for a terminal application? I haven't run into one yet. Apple also provide their remote desktop functionality, but you don't even appear to know about it.
What I guess is that you've never even attempted to get to grips with developing on Mac OS X, you don't even know what basic tools the OS provides. Sheesh. Talk about talking bullshit.
Just rebutting blatant lies. If you have issues with the truth, then so be 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?