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?
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, even though they make so much money of their hardware, I'm sure they'll realize how cool it is and embrace their os, most copies of which are stolen developer previews, running on hardware that they make nothing off of.
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.
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...
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
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.
I would still buy another Power Mac over anything put out by Dell. Just open the cases of each and tell me which one you'd rather have.
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
``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.
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
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.
will Apple have to shut down sites like this, once there's no more obvious developer NDA's to claim.
I mean, if people are buying OS X, then modifying their legal copies to work on a generic x86 box, what law have they broken? How will Apple shut down sites describing this process? Will it be a DMCA violation to edit config files in the OS, or patch a binary, to allow your OS to run on another machine?
To me, it's like modifying Windows to run on a Sparc or something (nearly impossible without recompiling source, I know, but same idea).
Conversely, selling 20 million $200 operating systems every 2 years is better than selling 1 million $1000 computers, considering the margins leave about $250 profit.
M$ learned this lesson a long time ago, only chumps sell hardware. The profit margin on a cdr and small pamphlet is much higher.
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
It's additionally fishy that they took their first action against a French site when so many American sites were doing the same thing. It's like they waited for the info to get out, wanted everyone talking about it, then made some sort of action against a foe far from the center of the limelight and in another country, which only steps up the difficulty in achieving success.
It's pretty clear that Apple, usually quick draw McGraw with the legal complaints, sat on this one because they saw the benefit of these copies getting out and getting people talking and excited about OS X.
To satisfy the curiosity of the millions of PC owners who might like to try OS X, Apple should sell an unsupported version of OS X for $19.95. It would be a stripped-down, unoptimized version of OS X able to run on almost any x86 hardware, similar to Windows booted in "safe mode."
Many advantages to this approach:
- Simplifies things for PC users who want to try OS X (they don't have to hack the OS)
- Greatly expands the audience of PC users who can try OS X (most users can't or don't have time to hack OS X)
- Apple actually makes a little money off these people's curiosity
- Apple doesn't have to worry about supporting thousands of different PC configurations
- Gives Apple an opportunity to provide a "switch incentive": the PC user will get their $19.95 refunded when they buy a Mac
Accompanying the unsupported version of OS X should be a really slick glossy brochure explaining the many ways in which the full, supported version is superior. (For example, the unsupported version probably won't come with Quartz Extreme. It should probably ship with crippled versions of the iLife apps.)
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
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.
The difference here is that the Xbox was shipping hardware, whereas the PowerMacs the developer's build of OS X ships on is intended for developers only. Granted, neither company is going to be entirely happy that their hardware's been exploited, but then again, Apple only had their developers (which are going to be far, far fewer in number than the potential number of Xbox users who could crack that security) to worry about.
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
But they make just as much money from selling 10 copies of OS X for $100, as selling 1 PC for $1000.
An OS they could probably sell at least 10x more easily, because there are thousands of PCs out there running Intel hardware already, and it should be much easier to convince people to put up $100 to try an alternate, superior OS than to throw away their machine and buy a whole new setup for $1000 a piece... that's thousands of potential customers for an OS offering, if they can just get a reputation of being better than Windows.
Most PC users are not going to be switching to macs anytime soon, Apple could would not likely to be selling these people thousand dollar machines -- they are deluding themselves if they think they will want to do that. (Most people would probably more readily dive for Linux than want to go out and buy all new hardware)
It could be much more profitable to capitalize on a special version of their OS too, make sure the version that runs on their own hardware is faster, more efficient, and includes more features... converts to their OS would then be encouraged to transition to Apple's hardware to gain more speed and the extra capabilities; whereas, for people with small budgets -- getting an off-the-shelf x86 system and slapping Apple's "starter" OS on it would be good for basic needs.
you're assuming there's no profit from stamping OSX on a circular piece of polycarbonate plastic and putting it in a cardboard box and selling it for $129.
You're assuming that people will pay for the OS, instead of pirating it.
Piracy doesn't dent MS's revenues, since they get the Dells and HPs of the world to pay them for every box they ship. Apple doesn't have that luxury.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
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
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
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.
I'm thinking that the majority of slashdot readers have never actually worked for a proprietary software company.
Contrary to popular believe on slashdot, software is not a money printing machine. On the surface it may look like software has a near 90% margin with economies of scale but the readers here seem to forget about hidden costs such as support and "free" upgrades and patches.
Compared to hardware, software has a great deal of after market costs associated with it.
I would argue that software can end up having a lower margin than hardware after all of the after market costs are factored in.
I've worked in technical support dealing with software issues in the past and I'm also a developer of in-house software for a major multi-national organization. I can tell you that software is neither cheap to develop or maintain.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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...
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."
Guess what? They don't care. And they don't want to sell you a lisence. They want to sell you a Macintosh computer. They are not intersted in supporting third-party PCs and never have been. Ever.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
Well which one? Adobe? Microsoft? Or were you referring to the guy that made the program to bid 3 seconds before my ebay auction expires? It is possible to make more money in software than hardware.
"Also, if they switch, then they start over with a marketshare of 0%, and have to fight against Windows brand recognition, and against the people that depend on certain parts or apps in windows. Not cool."
The ipod & itunes are increasing apple's brand recognition. As for fighting Microsoft, apple doesn't have to destroy Microsoft in order to succeed. Apple has less than 5% of the computer market. If they sold 5% of the computers after the switch they would be doing great for apple. As for starting out with 0% marketshare, I'm sure those who currently have a mac will completely forget apple when they see a dell running Microsoft.
check out the best blog ever:
http://oehlberg.com
:::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.
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.
There are several problems with this.
You're missing that little step 3 where Apple finds a way to increase its OS market share by 20x, especially considering this will literally have to happen over Microsoft's dead body.
M$ learned this lesson a long time ago, only chumps sell hardware.
Dell and Apple both seem to be making money from hardware. While Microsoft's position is undoubtedly lucrative, not everybody can or should be making money under the same business model.
Actually the G4 holds 8 HDDs unmodified. each of the 3 lower trays can be double stacked and there is the 3.5 under the optical drive and space immediately above the optical drive.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Linux doesn't beat Windows in every respect (and neither does MacOS X), but it's quite a bit cheaper than either. Why has it been so hard to convince people to even try Linux, and why doesn't MacOS X suffer the same problems?
Most people would probably more readily dive for Linux than want to go out and buy all new hardware
Nonsense. If this was the case, everybody would be running Linux now. The fact is that people are far more willing to continue using their old computer (which is why Windows 98 is still not quite dead), or buy a new computer. Linux is a distant third choice (and so is a Mac), in terms of popularity.
for people with small budgets -- getting an off-the-shelf x86 system and slapping Apple's "starter" OS on it would be good for basic needs.
Wouldn't people with these really small budgets rather run a free beer OS? Besides, even $300 Dell boxes come with Windows.
Wow, you are so out of it.
Apple is a hardware company first and foremost. But they also have a part of them that makes straight up software like the apps you mentioned. OSX does not fall in the later.
OSX is made to sell the hardware. They make the other apps to make money and maintain viability.
If they were to ditch the hardware and sell OSX as a stand alone, it would carry prices higher then their pro-apps. OSX is priced simply to keep things moving and selling hardware.
And no, the benefit of going intel is not to repackage other peoples mainboards in a pretty case. They did it so they can have a real supplier who delivers product. Apple will still make very custom boards just like they always have. They do that for a reason, to make a good box. They have no interest in making ATX hack jobs like the developer boxes. Besides, creating their own boards is a non-issue to them. It's not hard for them, they have done it for ages, and they still use companies like ASUS as manufactures for them anyways.
Its doubtful you will even see intel sockets in the intel macs. Expect cpus to be on daughter cards and such the same as they are today.
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 is a monopoly in the Apple market? WTF, so any company is a monopoly as long as you define "the market" in terms of that company's products? I guess that makes McDonalds a monopoly - in the market for McDonalds food. And Gap is a monopoly in the market for Gap clothing. And so on.
If Apple controls "the system" on their hardware, why can you delete OS X and install Linux on a PPC Mac?
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.
They are not intersted in supporting third-party PCs and never have been. Ever.
Ever? Seems like you forgot about the clones era.
Apple is a monopoly in the Apple market.
I nominate that for the "dumb-ass statement of the month" award.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
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
Because if Joe Blow goes round to his cousin John Doe's house to watch a game, and is looking to buy a new computer, is Joe going to be more or less interested in Apple if John tells him OS X has been nothing but trouble on his white-box x86.
Apple's whole philosophy is "it just works" - they want to be able to control the hardware so they can be 100% sure that all their boxes work as they should without having to support every piece of hardware under the sun, especially as this would mean running into the same problems with a lack of support or hardware specs from manufacturers that Linux has over the years.
To your average man-on-the-street, all computers are the same - Apples might come with shinier boxes, but a computer is a computer - and if he sees OS X running poorly on a white-box x86, he's going to assume it's the fault of the OS.
Apple don't want that. It damages their image.
You could argue that they could, quite easily, make more money selling OS X to all and sundry than they can by guarding their 5% of the market and locking the OS to the hardware, but that's just the Apple way, and they're being successful with it. Why should they change a profitable business structure?
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
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
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.
This is such a stupid argument to me. One of the wealthiest companies on earth (Microsoft) didn't get rich selling hardware. You can say there different markets - but that doesn't matter - fact is Apple's biggest competitor is Microsoft and they don't make hardware at all.
Look at the hardware companies who made money on just hardware. Commodore (don't knock them - they used one of the largest computer manufacturer in Europe ti'll the day they went backrupt), SGI, SUN, Compaq, Gateway etc etc - all of these companies are either gone or marginialized by cheap "windows" hardware.
Finally - Apple should just raise the price of their OS until it is profitable.
Why a few weeks though?
Do you have to buy a new motherboard to get the chipset with Intel based ethernet / sound / video?
I've looked at building such a box and a motherboard that supports everything is quite cheap. Add a low-end P4, a cheap case, a PSU and you're in business with a custom-made Mac!
However, you do know that even with it running and all hardware supported, it's still a pre-release developer edition of the OS. That is, intended for developers like Adobe to port their apps across, not as a stable daily use OS.
The final x86 release may use quite different protection, that may not even run on the same chipsets. The reason this one has been so easily hacked, is that the developer machines use standard Intel chipsets so that their limited run (probably less than a few hundred have been sold) is cheap to manufacture.
So yes, with just a few hundred bucks of components, you're saving about half the cost of a Mac Mini. However, it may be stuck running a partially functional developer release, so just be warned.
Cost of a DVD or set of CD's : 5 bucks
Cost of a Manual and a nice little box : 5 bucks
Retail cost of an OS: 139.99 - 299.99
profit margin: 1300-2900%
Confusing the difference between markup and margin - priceless.
The Stone Age did not end because humans ran out of stones. - William McDonough
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.
They are tools used by professionals and serve as an incentive for those professionals to buy the latest and most expensive Apple hardware to run it. Rarely will you see professionals buying pro apps with out buying new hardware to run it on.
You mention the price of those apps but you fail to realize that the software sales account for a small percentage of revenue and profit on the balance sheet. Just take a look at any of AAPL's quarterly reports.
Software upgrades are again small potatoes compared to hardware sales and I would like to point out that the hardware comes with OS X and iLife for "free".
Software development costs for non-pro apps are subsidized by hardware sales. The price you pay for upgrades are just that, "upgrade" pricing.
Apple offers the first version free with your hardware purchase and subsequent versions cost money.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
It's not the absolute wealth. It's never the absolute wealth. Neither is it the sales. It's the money made from the money used. I.e. the margins and the rate of return. Which would you prefer investing $1 million and getting $1000 back or investing $100,000 and getting $200 back? In that respect Apple's getting it absolutely right. Being a relatively low volume premium product manufacturer. It's simple economics.
Try this: Apple is neither a hardware company nor a software company. Apple sells a service called "vertical integration." The hardware, OS, middleware, userland, and network services all fit together in a single package that Just Works, Right Out Of The Box.
IBM is in the same business in enterprise space, and it's done pretty well for them. For that matter, Red Hat also sells vertical integration, it just services a shorter stack.. only OS, middleware and userland.
Yes, Apple makes most of its profits from the hardware, just like Red Hat makes most of its profits from circles of plastic. That doesn't make Apple exclusively a 'hardware' company, though. It does, however, mean that Apple wants to protect the part of its integration stack that brings in the bulk of the money, and supports development across the rest of the stack.
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/
There's a balance between the extra sales you gain from selling to non Apple hardware users and the support nightmare of having hardware specifications you don't control. The advantage that Apple has with OS-X only running on their hardware is that they know their hardware intimately. They have a reputation and having people complain because OS-X doesn't run on their particular brand of motherboard etc will not help it one iota. Have you seen the number of drivers there are on a windows install disk?
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.
>Ever? Seems like you forgot about the clones era.
Let me get this right - you are supporting the theft of software and then claiming that is where Apple's revenue will come from - and you are calling me "cartooney"?
First, I believe that open source software is going to become the standard throughout the world. An interesting thing about it is that is that mostly it is free. If Apple were to go to a pure software model as you suggest, how to you propose they make money by competing against "Free"? While I am not Microsoft supporter, I do understand their predicament. They are fighting the same thing. And because software is going the commodity route very quickly (witness the growth of Linux and BSD), I say that Apple going the pure software route is a sure path to oblivion.
And, why is selling hardware a losing battle? It is a product and they can make one of the best-if not the best-hardware products on the planet. Why cannot they continue doing this? Hardware is not going to become free (like software can) anytime soon. Not, that is, if you actually follow the laws and buy your hardware. However, if you support smashing store windows and grabbing your hardware in the real world as you do figuratively smashing windows and grabbing software for free (software you are supposed to pay for), then I can see why you might think that hardware sales will go away.
Sony and Microsoft have learned that software is profitable so long as people actually pay for it. Sony, also knows that controlling the entire experience is important to quality of the experience. That is why there are no licensed builders of the PlayStation - Sony builds them all. And why they aggressively go after anyone that provides software that allows playing of their profit maker (the software) on anything but their hardware. You may not be familiar with it, but Connectix, an emulation company, used to make a product that allowed the playing of PS/2 games on the Mac. It was extremely cool software. But Sony shut it down with legal action as soon as they possibly could. Sony knows that they can allow that to happen. You obviously don't get it though.
At this point... WRONG!
The development version of OS X on x86 is Apple's property. That equipment is leased to developers. If you're hacking it you're nothing but a pirate at worst, and breaking your contract with Apple at best.
Begun, this clone war has.
I'm not a smorgasbord.
In the end, most people go shopping based on the sticker price.
Oh sure. That's why most of the vehicles on the road are Kia Spectras. That's why not many people buy SUVs, whose capabilities they never or practically never need or use.
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.