Apple Sends Hidden Message to Hackers?

RetrogradeMotion writes "The OSx86 Project is reporting on a hidden message to hackers in Apple's new MacBook Pro. The new Intel-based OS X contains a file named 'Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext' and is accompanied by the message, 'The purpose of this Apple software is to protect Apple copyrighted materials from unauthorized copying and use.' The file is not present in either the PowerPC version of OS X or the Intel version shipped to developers last year. While Apple has sent messages to hackers before, is this a tounge-in-cheek introduction to the anticipated (and hated) Trusted Platform Module? Is locking down OS X a strategic necessity or a missed opportunity?" Obviously a big maybe here, but a good story just the same.

Comments

Can't Apple be forced to release OS X for all x86?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall a company in the past that wouldn't sell you their software unless you purchased their hardrware. They were taken to court and forced to unbundle the OS from the Hardware since the OS was capable for running on other hardware. I can't recall the company name off hand but I feel someone will to do the same to Apple.

Twisted Thought

[freerangegeek]

What if that's the file that the TPM system uses to "sign" the OS? Essentially you have to have "/System/Library/Extensions/Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext" present on your system to boot OS X with exactly those contents. If you have it, it means you've got the warning in place and can't claim ignorance if sued for improper use of the OS.

Re:Twisted Thought

[gEvil (beta)]

If this were the case, it would have shades of their OS X 10.1 update CD debacle. Basically you could take the free 10.1 update CD [that you could walk into many CompUSAs and pick up off the counter] and convert it to a full 10.1 install CD. The update CDs had a file on them that basically flagged them as an update. If you imaged the disc, removed this file, then reburned it, it would act as a full 10.1 install CD.

Do hackers read .kext files?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they only read .knfo files.

Please Stop The Idiotic Questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do submitters always have to end their submission with the usual "Is this XXXX or is it YYYY?" It's so inane and pointless. Just submit the story without trying to inject your opinion with an idiotic question at the end.

I can see one day in a slashdot story: "Is this a sign from God or the mark of the beast?" Please stop. You make the baby Jesus cry.

Brian, there's a message in my Alphabet.

[Anonymous Coward]

It says ooooooooo.

Peter, those are Cheerios.

Re:Brian, there's a message in my Alphabet.

[wass]

My friend, back in 1997, claimed that sometime a few years earlier he and his friends were trying to hack some game on his Mac, so they were browsing the various files with a hex editor. Apparently one of the files, somewhere in the middle, had alot of text saying "blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah" for many 'pages', and at some point in the middle said "why are you reading this?"

Hell, maybe this example is even common knowledge amonst the slashdot crowd.

Re:Brian, there's a message in my Alphabet.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the winner of the inability to understand a fucking sentence award is Jester998!

Re:Brian, there's a message in my Alphabet.

[Carthag]

In the soundtrack for the Amiga game Lotus Esprit Turbo Challenge 2, composed by Barry Leitch, there's a sample saying "you will not copy this game". It's practically impossible to hear while playing, but if you get ahold of the .mod file, it's sample 2 or 3 (it's been a while since I loaded that one up). I remember reading rumors that it was originally supposed to say "kill your parents" but in the end they chickened out and went with the anti-copying message.

Ironically, the version I played back then was copied.

Re:Can't Apple be forced to release OS X for all x

[IntlHarvester]

It was IBM, but they were also under Anti-Trust scrutiny that placed a lot of restrictions on their business. Another example: They were forced to license things like ISA and VGA to PC clone manufacturers for a very low price.

Recursively funny

[houstonbofh]

Anyone else amused that they quoted the text saying not to "distribute or reproduce" any portion of the text? Hehe... Too late!

Dont steal Mac OS, steal Windows!

[CivilianHero]

'Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext' Ok... stealing Windows!

Microsofts reply

[Freaky Spook]

Microsoft announce an Aqua theme in Windows Vista.

It's due in part to user stupidity

[ShatteredDream]

Most computer users are stupid. They'd try to run OS X on a typical PC, it'd suck and then they'd do the typical stupid computer user thing which is to say "this software fucking sucks." Never mind that the software was targetted at a specific hardware platform, that's too much mental heavy lifting for the average, at least American, computer user. Apple has to prevent piracy of its OS if for no other reason than to protect the brand from the idiots out there who aren't smart enough to realize that OSX is DESIGNED to work primarily with one specific hardware set, but would have nothing stopping them from running OSX into the ground with everyone they know.

Re:It's due in part to user stupidity

[Giometrix]

I think he meant bigot, but he has a point. I also tend to think that the slashdot crowd really thinks too highly of itself. "Average computer users" aren't that dumb. Most people aren't going to plunk down the $100+ for an operating system without asking at least a salesperson a question first. Even if they are, I'm pretty sure that Apple will put a message at load time stating that software could not find the proper Apple hardware to run, and would probably inform them that they have to buy Mac hardware. Most people would say, "Oh, I made a stupid mistake" and either buy what they need, try to bring back the software (probably not going to happen anyway), or live with their stupid mistake.

Of course they want to keep it offa non-Macs!

[Diordna]

Think about it. One of the reasons Windows can be so annoying is that there are a bazillion different configurations. Apple can keep OS X running smoothly because they know exactly what's inside their machines. Once it gets put on a Dell, some idiot's going to complain about how buggy OS X is because it doesn't run on his own personal cobbled-together POS.

Re:Of course they want to keep it offa non-Macs!

[QuantumG]

Ahh, you poor fool. There is no concept of intellectual property, except that which was rejected in ancient times as terrible idea that would cause nothing but suffering. The copyright and patent systems of the world are based on the concept of utilitarianism where the goal is to encourage the creation of future works by securing limited monopolies to current creators. As such, any applications of those systems should be, and often used to be, reevaluated under the concept of what is the public interest. But those days are now over as the public interest has fallen to the special interests.

Re:Of course they want to keep it offa non-Macs!

[QuantumG]

Freedoms are not things that are granted by governments. If I need to explain this to you then you're beyond help.

Re:Of course they want to keep it offa non-Macs!

[QuantumG]

Rights are not granted by governments either! Some rights are guarenteed by the US constitution as a measure to prevent the states from enacting laws which violate those rights, but that does not mean that the citizens of the US have no other rights than those listed in the Bill of Rights. Quite the opposite.

What's in it for Apple to allow other hardware companies to sell OS X?

Who cares? What's in it for us to allow Apple the power to control what we can and can't do with OS X? If Apple wants to sell a product then they need someone to sell it to and as long as software consumers continue to accept these "no rights but those we allow" stance currently offered by Apple and other software companies they will continue to make money. So I say, why stand for it?

Re:Of course they want to keep it offa non-Macs!

[pomo monster]

I hate to break it to you, but there's no "concept," as you put it, of real property either. These are just convenient labels we apply to things in order to make life more pleasant for ourselves by enabling commerce and facilitating the creation of common grounds. I think some guy named Saussure elaborates on this idea using more academic (read: continental philosophers') jargon, if you're that kind of guy.

Re:Of course they want to keep it offa non-Macs!

[QuantumG]

Imagine a world where food can be made in an inexpensive solar powered replicator but people still starve because the software used by these devices is "protected" by copyright and DRM. That's the argument for "Intellectual Property". If you're for IP then you're for the complete control over a work by the owner of that work. If that's not your position, if you can imagine just one situation where the owner of the work should not have complete control over that work then, please, don't use the term. The decisions we make now about infinitely reproducable software will determine what is acceptable to our children's children when everything is infinitely reproducable. Already the idea that officials should have the right to invade our homes to ensure we are abiding by licensing agreements is considered reasonable to most people.

Re:Of course they want to keep it offa non-Macs!

[shark72]

"Imagine a world where food can be made in an inexpensive solar powered replicator but people still starve because the software used by these devices is "protected" by copyright and DRM. That's the argument for "Intellectual Property"."

That's a textbook definition of a straw man argument. Nobody who wants the right to make money off of their ideas also wants people to starve. Shame on you for even implying that.

"If you're for IP then you're for the complete control over a work by the owner of that work.

And when George Bush and his ilk use the "if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists," line, it's obvious bullshit, too.

If you want to save some money by buying a cheap Intel PC at Wal-Mart and installing OSX on it rather than paying Apple's high margins, then groovy -- go for it, if that's what you want to do. This makes you a careful consumer, not some crusader for human rights. If you'd rather keep the money for yourself, than give it to some purveyor of computing hardware or operating system software or record company or film studio, and this fits with your moral compass, then you're simply looking out for your own bottom line. It's saving a few bucks, not the Montomery Freedom March.

Re:Of course they want to keep it offa non-Macs!

[lasindi]

Who cares? What's in it for us to allow Apple the power to control what we can and can't do with OS X?

What's in it for you is that you get to use their software. For the vast majority of Apple's customers, this is perfectly acceptable; they merely want to use OS X, and they don't particularly care whether Apple, Dell, or their techie friend built it.

Since Apple built OS X, they get to choose the terms under which they distribute it. If those terms are unacceptable to you, feel free to use another operating system.

If Apple wants to sell a product then they need someone to sell it to and as long as software consumers continue to accept these "no rights but those we allow" stance currently offered by Apple and other software companies they will continue to make money. So I say, why stand for it?

You don't have to stand for it. Use Linux or BSD (or even Windows, if all you're concerned about is using generic x86 boxes). The reason people "stand for it" is that they see the value of using OS X to be greater than the value of using their operating system on different hardware configurations (for most people, the latter has practically zero value because they don't care).

The point is that most people just want to *use* software, not tinker with it. The software companies you mention will continue restricting user's rights as long as this is true, and because nerds will always represent a small minority of the general public, it always will be true.

Re:Of course they want to keep it offa non-Macs!

[Thomas Miconi]

If you're for IP then you're for the complete control over a work by the owner of that work.

And if you're for "normal" property, then you're for the complete control over a physical item by the owner of that item. To follow on your example, if someone is having a heart attack and theirs friends ask if they can use your car to drive him to the closest hospital, obviously you'll just have to say "uh, no, that's MY car, that's MY petrol, I paid for it, get lost". Cos you see, obviously that's what "property" means. If you don't feel that way then obviously you don't support property, so stop using the term !

</sarcasm>

Thomas-

why bother

[fermion]

One problem with using a full commidity system is one them has to go to great and often silly lengths to make it look non comodity, else everyone else just copyies it. If Apple wants to limit Mac OS use to Apple equipment, then Apple should just say it won't support anyone who is not using Apple equpipment. Honestly, the foray into non-Apple hardware proved that cost cutting merely causes problems. I don't know anyone who bought one of those non-Apple machines that did not have big problems.

Now, with regard to the text in question
software is to protect Apple copyrighted materials from unauthorized copying and use.
this could merely indicate that Apple is going get more aggressive about insuring that the OS in use is indeed paid for. That is, if a single user copy is bought, then it is only used on the single computer. I have no problems with this, as a five user edition can be acquired for less than Windows XP. Now, if this copy protection becomes too much of hassle and wastes my time, such as typing in long serial numbers, I will likely be looking for an OS with less hassle.

But the facts remains that the move to intel will expose Apple to a greater risk of unlicensed use of thier product, and they are likely to react accordingly, no matter how silly. I hope they don't make me pay for an extra chip to manage thier shrinkage issue. I hope that it is a simple matter of registering the machine and the serial of the software at Apple, as they appear to do now, and then just leave us alone. Honestly, if I wish to install one of my licensing of Mac OS on an extra PC, and I cannot, then I am likley to an become an irate customer. And given how ambivilant many of us are about the move to intel, I would hope that Apple would think long and hard about transforming that ambivilance to outright annoyance.

Re:why bother

[IntlHarvester]

It does make sense. Right now the vast majority of OS X users are Mac owners, so they "protect their investment" by heading onto the internet and saying great things about the software. Some pirate, on the other hand, has nothing invested in it, and will play with it for 10 minutes before starting talking crap about it. (Because unlike what Mac users tell you, nothing's perfect.)

It's the Doom 3 Effect -- Millions of people bittorrented the game 3 days before it hit retail shelves, and then felt like they had to justify the reason they didn't want to pay for it. So the overwhelming reaction was negative. Meanwhile, Half-Life 2 was DRM delivered to paying customers, who of course had a overwhelmingly positive reaction.

Re:why bother

[Senjutsu]

It's the Doom 3 Effect -- Millions of people bittorrented the game 3 days before it hit retail shelves, and then felt like they had to justify the reason they didn't want to pay for it. So the overwhelming reaction was negative. Meanwhile, Half-Life 2 was DRM delivered to paying customers, who of course had a overwhelmingly positive reaction.

Yes, that's a much more rational and likely explanation for the opinions on those two games than the fact that Half-Life 2 was good game and that Doom III was a pretty tech demo with shit game-play.

Re:why bother

[IntlHarvester]

Well, I thought they were both good games. I just thought it was funny that the hive mind decided Doom 3 was super boring, while driving an airboat around doing nothing for 15 minutes was the height of game design.

Re:why bother

[GaryPatterson]

That's a pretty contrived argument.

If the customer has bought an Apple computer and then copies the OS from one Mac to another, then I agree with your point.

If, as I feel is vastly more likely, the customer copies OS X without ever purchasing either a single copy or anything from Apple, then the customer has no right to complain to Apple, and is not in fact a customer at all.

It'd be nice to think that all pirates are just pirating between copies they own. A bit naive though.

Re:why bother

[Crizp]

Driving a boat for 15 mins in HL2 was more eye-pleasing than walking through dark, dark hallways for 5 minutes in Doom 3.

I liked both too - Doom 3 was seriously scary a few times if played on a large screen at night with surround sound at full blast. It reminded me of playing Doom 1 all those years ago. However, the darkness got a bit boring after a while. Without the flashlight mod it became almost unplayable after a while.

HL2, on the other hand, had a much better storyline - no matter how linear the gameplay - and, IMHO, prettier / more realistic graphics and physics. It made you care about some of the characters, like a good movie or book does. The Doom storyline has been rehashed so many times it's not even fun as a joke anymore.

Re:why bother

[PhunkySchtuff]

You just don't get it, do you?
Apple aren't selling you an OS that will potentially run on a PC.
They are selling you a turn-key solution. They are selling you something that works out-of-the-box.
They are selling you the end-user experience.

A Mac is not a Mac because of the chips inside it, a Mac is the whole shebang - the _quality_ of the hardware, the integration of the software, the whole user experience.

There is no way known it will be as simple as entering a serial number to run it on your whitebox PC. This just ain't gonna happen. Apple aren't at all interested in supporting your BogoComm WinModem and your SuperWin ATA to PS/2 bridge adapter. They support OS X on a known hardware base platform and it makes everyone's life easier. Apple are happy as they have a known target to develop for. Users are happy because they know it will Just Work (tm) and Techs/Developers are happy because it's easier to support a known configuration.

If you're likely to become irate that you can't install OS X on your PC then you're not the target market for Apple's product anyway.

Re:Apple Sends Hidden Message to Hackers?

[Jugalator]

I wouldn't call it very "hidden" though. Here I was thinking of something ROT13 encrypted, or at least baked into a TPM-related file. Not a file they've dropped into /System/Library/Extensions/Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext as XML. Actually, since it was in XML, I have to wonder if it's not intended to show up at some place in the OS as a warning.

Re:Can't Apple be forced to release OS X for all x

[nurb432]

Except in that case there was some unfair monopoly issues involved.

In apples case, the market share is far to small to be even considered for that.. So they can bundle as much as they want.

Legality of Apple tying software to hardware.

[GnuPooh]

OK I've asked a couple lawyers and they all seem to agree. If Apple sells their OS separately on their website (which they do)*. They can't legal say that you can only use their software their hardware. The other side of course is you need to break the DMCA to use it on any other hardware. I'd really like to see someone challege Apple in court. I don't think they can legally say you can buy their OS, but can only use it on their hardware.

* Currently, they only sell the PPC version, but let's assume they'll offer the next release to Intel Mac users.

Re:Legality of Apple tying software to hardware.

[mrchaotica]

Currently, they only sell the PPC version, but let's assume they'll offer the next release to Intel Mac users.

You could challenge them now, if you bought a non-Apple PPC (e.g. Pegasos or Amiga).

Re:Legality of Apple tying software to hardware.

[E8086]

If that's the case, it sounds a lot like the garage door opener and Lexmark ink cartrige arguements, both rejected. You can only use our remote with our door opener, you can only use our ink cartriges with our printers. Both tried to "encrypt" the devices to claim protection under the DMCA(anti-napster act) to stop the generic device makers and both failed. Now it seems Apple could be trying to prevent the use if its software on generic PC hardware. To challenge this in court, assuming you've legally purchased the software and have all the receipts and paperwork all should have to do is use "to use on generic hardware" in the right places and make it look like Apple is trying some anti-competition practices.

Re:Legality of Apple tying software to hardware.

[martinX]

But would Michael Dell do all those handjobs himself?

A better message would have been:

[kadathseeker]

Keep up the good work! Thanks guys, without you jumping on every Winblows exploit, we would never have gotten where we are today. Linux and OS X for a brighter future! - The Apple Team

Idiotic comment about unbundling software

[hellfire]

I recall a company in the past that wouldn't sell you their software unless you purchased their hardrware. They were taken to court and forced to unbundle the OS from the Hardware since the OS was capable for running on other hardware. I can't recall the company name off hand but I feel someone will to do the same to Apple.

People who don't understand monopoly law should have their fingers hacked off so they don't post such stupid comments.

Look, I know some people like to bash Apple because they tie the OS to the hardware. Bash away on that argument I don't care, on several levels you are right. But your not so subtle implication is that somehow Apple's situation is the same as Microsoft's is a fundamental lack of brain matter for anyone who's posted on slashdot.

Apple is NOT a monopoly, Microsoft IS a monopoly. The first step to understanding monopolies is quite simply that the rules change once you are a monopoly. Monopolies wield incredible power and pervert the forces of a free market into something that is definitely not a free market. Everyone argument ever made that is anti-Microsoft is based on this premise. Bassed on that, Microsoft's actions are typically illegal, while Apple's actions at worst are quite simply immoral. It doesn't make them any less annoying, but under law they aren't illegal, because market forces have the opportunity to break that bundling package if someone with a better business model (that's not illegal) comes along.

Go back to the shallow end of the gene pool where you belong. John Dvorak has a seat next to him waiting for you.

Re:Idiotic comment about unbundling software

[ethanrider]

People who don't understand monopoly law should have their fingers hacked off so they don't post such stupid comments.

Clearly they should be shot on site, in case they learn to type with their elbows.

Re:Idiotic comment about unbundling software

[Catbeller]

No.

Judge Penfield Jackson's finding of fact declared Microsoft a monopoly. The issue is settled. Done. Finished.

The only issue is how the Department of Justice will enforce monopoly oversight. They simply won't, being composed of regulators chosen for the ideological hatred of monopoly regulation. THAT case is closed as well for at least twelve years, given that a Democratic administration is at least two years away AND they'd require ten years to bring a new case to its conclusion. The Republicans could take back the Presidency and the Congress in ten years (given that they will lose both in the next four), so ten years is pretty impossible as a target for case settlement. AND the democrats are pretty Republican in their business oversight, anyway. And the courts are packed solid with Federalist Society judges and their ideological fellow travellers; hell, Alito alone makes antitrust dead in this country for the next thirty years -- maybe longer, if you consider life extension tech will come out in the next thirty years as well. We may see some of the current younger members of the Supreme Court stick around for fifty years or more.

Microsoft may be a monopoly, but they might as well pretend that they aren't, because the law is a dead letter now.

Re:Idiotic comment about unbundling software

[TrumpetPower!]

ethanrider wrote:

Clearly they should be shot on site, in case they learn to type with their elbows.

Actually, they should be taken off-site to be shot--it's easier to clean up that way.

Cheers,

b&

P.S. Dig the hole first.

Re:Idiotic comment about unbundling software

[spongebue]

This deserves an obligatory Simpsons quote...

"We're sorry, the fingers you have used to dial are too fat." -Operator on phone

Re:Idiotic comment about unbundling software

[Macgrrl]

Clearly they should be shot on site, in case they learn to type with their elbows.

[load pedant mode]Shot on site - as in before they leave the premesis, or shot on sight - as in immediately upon being identified?[unload pedant mode]

Re:Idiotic comment about unbundling software

[I Like Pudding]

Why does the parent poster claim that Microsoft is a monopoly yet Apple isn't?

Because the parent poster is not fucking retarded.

Re:Idiotic comment about unbundling software

[heinousjay]

I liken this situation to a joke I heard from Jon Stewart. It's not exactly parallel, but I think it makes the point.

Jon asked the crowd if anyone supported legalizing marijuana. A giant cheer erupted, and it was quite evident that the overwhelming feeling in the room was "definitely." Jon paused (impeccable timing, that man) and said, "Why? Are you having trouble finding it?"

Re:Idiotic comment about unbundling software

[dcam]

Clearly they should be shot on site, in case they learn to type with their elbows.

Which site? The site of the crimes? That would certainly be appropriate, however what if they see you coming and run away? Do you have to drag them back to their computer before shooting them?

Re:Idiotic comment about unbundling software

[dotgain]

Come on mods. My point is: What dictionary.com define monopoly as has nothing to do with what a monopoly is legally defined as.

Re:Idiotic comment about unbundling software

[forkazoo]

Oh, he meant "site." Otherwise, blind people wouldn't be allowed to go around shooting everybody they thought didn't understand all the fine points of monopoly law. Requiring sight is badly discriminatory. As long as you open it up to anybody who can shoot somebody before they leave, you should be legally clear.

Re:Idiotic comment about unbundling software

[g0at]

"Premesis"? It always amuses me when somebody points out someone's egregious spelling error and then promptly makes one of their own.

-b

Re:Idiotic comment about unbundling software

[ickoonite]

It always amuses me when somebody points out someone's egregious spelling error and then promptly makes one of their own.

In fairness, and for the sake of pedantry, the grandparent was not actually pointing out a spelling error in the great-grandparent's post, rather just seeking clarification as to which meaning was intended. This seems prudent, given that the average Slashdotter's spelling skills are especially poor of late.

iqu :)

Legal Clones?

[QuantumG]

Can some Apple officiados tell me whether or not it was legal to make PPC-based Mac clones without needing some special license from Apple? I vaguely remember something about a court case or 10 where clone makers were told they could sell machines with OS-X preinstalled so long as they used no Apple logos on their promotions and made it clear to their customers that they were indeed buying a clone. Wouldn't the same rulings apply if Dell wanted to ship Intel-based Mac clones with OS-X preinstalled? Not that I imagine they would.

No finesse

[commodoresloat]

Cute message but of course it's not hidden in any way; it lacks the finesse and charm of the "Stolen © Apple" easter egg (described at the second link in the article summary, for those who didn't RTFA). Too bad nobody ever copied the ROM on the early Macs and get busted; it would have been a pretty hilarious moment in Apple legal history for someone to bring that message up on the screen during a trial. This would serve the same purpose if it wasn't so obvious; then again, perhaps there is a hidden version of the same message just waiting to be popped open at the right time....

revenge of the clones

[commodoresloat]

Honestly, the foray into non-Apple hardware proved that cost cutting merely causes problems. I don't know anyone who bought one of those non-Apple machines that did not have big problems.

I have the exact opposite experience; I don't remember anyone with big problems with any of the clones. I'm still a proud owner of a Power Computing Power Tower Pro 225... never had a hardware problem with the computer itself in about 10 years of ownership (and about 5 years of daily use). It was a dream compared to its Apple-branded sibling the 9500 and it benchmarked faster at the same speed CPUs. Great advertising too. I also administered another clone, UMAX J700 I believe; it wasn't nearly as sweet but it gave me no trouble in terms of hardware. And I never heard anything but praise for the Daystar Millennium (I think that's what they were called) which could sport up to 4 PPC chips (though not a lot of software would use all CPUs at the time). There probably were some crappy clones out too but they didn't do as well.

Re:revenge of the clones

[aristotle-dude]

That's nice. Apple was bleeding money before the clones were cancelled. It is not in Apple's best interest to do the clone thing. They loose the hardware margins and gain a huge amount of support costs. Apple had to support all of those Clone users for "free".

MSFT is in a different position. They have the OEMs by the balls but do not actually make any hardware themselves.

At this point...

[greyrose111]

it's an absolute necessity to lock down OS X from PC use. Apple has, after a series of costly mistakes (i.e. believing that a major corporation like IBM would actually spend money to actively develop a chip that has less that 4% market share) backed themselves into a corner when it comes to software and hardware development. Not to say they aren't good at either of those, but they now serve a very focused and very concentrated user base, consisting mainly of schools and, of course, artists of every kind. The cost is that to continue making the products they do, they must charge a relative premium.
        And if their (excellent) software were suddenly available for the $350 dollar PC you bought from dell (don't tell me no one in their right mind would dare put the holy OS X on a dell... there are enough people not in their right mind to make that common practice) their computer market would be cut in half because frankly; every school, business and especially those poor ass artists, would love to run a safer and more creative friendly platform on a cheaper computer.
        Now, maybe they could make more money if they just dropped computer development completely, but I think someone over at Apple believes that they can start to take some more serious market share back... and with the Intel Macs, it looks as though they can.

Re:At this point...

[windowpain]

Microsoft never sold a PC in its life and its market capitalization is four times that of Apple. When is Apple going to wake up and realize they could grow a lot bigger if they got over their obsession with selling high-margin computers and licensed an even higher margin OS to PC makers. It didn't work the first time they tried it because they did it half-assed.

Without stooping to Microsoft's business practices it could still be "first among (un)equals" in hardware for the Mac platform just as Microsoft has the lead in office suites and certain other apps on the Windows plaform. IBM screwed up by letting MSFT control the OS. Apple could BE the Microsoft of the Mac OS world. They've already avoided many of MSFTs biggest mistakes (the Registry, DLL hell). They could enforce stringent standards to keep the Mac's much vaunted integration of hardware and software. How? Not just in the licensing terms but those companies whose hardware doesn't toe the line, will be unable to attract market share.

There's no need or reason to license the iPod stuff except for compatible equpment (like automakers who pay the iPod tax to make their car audio equipment iPod compaptible.) Apple can keep that as its private preserve.

Once again Apple is "failing up." Their great sales and innovative products hide the fact that they could do much, much, better if they revamped their business model by copy the best aspects of Microsoft's model.

That's another reason for Microsoft's tremendous success. They're not ashamed to copy things that work. Apple is to suffused with a snobby not-invented-here attitude.

Re:At this point...

[jbolden]

Microsoft's success has pretty much always been based on winning price wars. They won the OS battle by having the cheapest OS combined with cheap hardware. They won the office suite battle by selling for around 30% of what the compitition was selling for. They made huge progress on the server front by being much cheaper than Oracle, Sun....

How is Apple supposed to win on that front? Apple has never shown the ability to outperform companies like Dell with respect to logistics. Apple has never shown an ability to offer the best value for the money in a mature market (according the the mainstream). What Apple has shown is an ability to out innovate.

Re:At this point...

[IntlHarvester]

Judging by the developer builds, a very large percentage -- around 50% -- of new PCs are capable of running OS X (with maybe minor problems like the sound chip). The days of PC hardware being really diverse are long gone.

Microsoft's OEM program basically requires that all of the hardware drivers are certified by them. Something along those lines, except Apple could afford to be more strict. I don't think they'll do it for years though.

Logical Thought: Apple & Hardware Profits

[reporter]

Apple management wants to protect its hardware profits, so Apple lawyers are threatening to sue anyone who attempts to hack the Mac OS onto some common PC hardware.

Here's the rest of the story. The hardware that goes into personal computers built by Dell, Lenovo, etc. is dirt cheap, and the profit margins are ultra-thin. Meanwhile the x86 Macs command a price premium because Apple builds them. If everyone could run the new Mac OS on an regular PC, who would want to buy the x86 Macs?

Hence, Apple management is flashing its lawyers in front of all the hackers.

Apple management will fail in its attempts to thwart the hackers. The hackers are clever, and some web site in Mongolia will soon feature a new download that enables you to run the new Mac OS on a regular PC. Are there extradition agreements between Mongolia and the USA?

Given that Apple management has embraced the x86, Jobs and his ilk should just admit that the value of Apple is its OS and jettison the hardware business. Apple could morph into a pure software house specializing in multimedia OSes, software for music gadgets like iPods and Sony MP3 players, etc. Sony just builds the hardware and licenses Apple's software for the new Sony MP3 players.

Re:Can't Apple be forced to release OS X for all x

[Malor]

I don't think that's true. I believe ISA was simply reverse engineered, I don't think it was ever licensed by anybody. That was the whole point to the PS/2 and the Micro Channel architecture... it was something IBM actually owned and COULD license. They had this vision of a piece of every PC out there, but MCA was complex, expensive to implement, and then expensive to license on top of that. So, for the most part, the industry just went around them, with EISA (never broadly taken up), VESA Local Bus for graphics, and then eventually PCI. Micro Channel died a quiet death.

I don't think anyone has ever attempted to license VGA, either. NVidia and ATI license out their modern 3D chips to third parties, but basic VGA functionality is, to my best knowledge, a completely free specification, and always has been.

Re:Say what?

[dotgain]

When plausible ignorance is claimed, sometimes a lesser sentence will be handed down, it really depends on whether the person can reasonably claim ignorance.

As far as running pirated software on a computer goes, it would be almost impossible to convince your judge of ignorance.

So I agree with you pretty much, I just have to make the point that while ignorance is no excuse for misdemeanour, it has been used to afford a lesser sentence in some cases.

publicly perform?

[JourneyExpertApe]

You may not copy, modify, reverse engineer, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, transfer or redistribute this file, in whole or in part.

"For this next song, we're going to play 'Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext'." WTF?

Re:Logical Thought: Apple & Hardware Profits

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple could morph into a pure software house specializing in multimedia OSes

And instantly be crushed by Microsoft.

It worked for MP3's

[l0ungeb0y]

Every iPod has a sticker that says "Don't Steal Music". And we all know iPod users are the least likely to steal. This is obviously because Apple users in general always pay attention to little lables like this. And by touching anything Apple, even their code, by proxy makes you an Apple user, it's like a disease, it's catchy.

I believe anyone hoping to see OS X running on non-Apple hardware is gonna be SOL now.

Re:Can't Apple be forced to release OS X for all x

[adrianmonk]

I recall a company in the past that wouldn't sell you their software unless you purchased their hardrware. They were taken to court and forced to unbundle the OS from the Hardware since the OS was capable for running on other hardware.

If this were the case, it wouldn't be any different than things were before the transition to x86. There were, and still, other machines available that run on the PowerPC (or the mostly-compatible POWER) architecture other than Macs, so this issue already existed.

In fact, it has existed from the very beginning, because even back before the transition to PowerPC, Macs ran on Motorola 680x0 processors, and there were other machines that would have been capable of running Mac OS back then. I had an Amiga (also a 68k processor), and there was some company back then that sold a board that allowed you to take ROMs out of a dead Mac and put them on their board, and then you could boot Mac OS up as a task under AmigaDOS. And it worked just fine. If I recall correctly, at first people were buying ROMs from Apple parts dealers, and Apple got angry about this and made it so the ROMs were no longer available, and they may have even threatened to sue, although I can't remember.

Re:Can't Apple be forced to release OS X for all x

[IntlHarvester]

No, ISA was under a government-mandated Reasonable And Non-Discrimatory hardware license program which dated from the minicomputer wars of the 1970s. Every PC clone vendor paid IBM several dollars per PC up until the late 1990s when the patents finally expired.

IBM supposedly developed MicroChannel several years earlier and sat on it until they could get the Reagan DOJ to let them out of their consent decrees. That's why MCA was not under RND licensing (ie, not only was it more expensive, IBM could have used it to force clone vendors to buy OS/2.)

Too bad

[jridley]

I've never given Microsoft any money if I could help it, but I'd be happy to pay for an OS X that would run on the computers I have. But that's just it, I HAVE hardware. I don't want to buy any more. I like having hardware that will run whatever OS I care to boot to.

I suppose the question is whether Apple's X86 hardware will boot Windows (not just run it in a window or emulate it) - then the apple hardware might be the generic platform to run Win/Linux/OS X.

Re:Too bad

[MochaMan]

And one more article that seems to indicate it will be possible with Vista, but that XP would require some tricks to get working. I would suspect that if Linux does not yet support it, it will very quickly.

Diagnostic output on an Intel iMac

[daveschroeder]

Here's the output of system_profiler, ioreg, and kextstat on an Intel-based iMac:

http://appleintelfaq.com/#17.6

Of note in ioreg:

| +-o TPM

And kextstat:

83 0 0x20a15000 0x3000 0x2000 com.apple.Dont_Steal_Mac_OS_X (4.0.0)

Re:Needs a Coral link...

[compgenius3]

Do you even know what a fucknut is?

Funnier file name

[bersl2]

'Dont Steal Mac OS X.kthnx'

Re:Funnier file name

[pintomp3]

or how about "Dont Steal Mac OS X.mmmk"

Re:Can't Apple be forced to release OS X for all x

[IntlHarvester]

Yes, we missed out on paying a huge IBM tax on single-user machines that would have been intentionally crippled to keep them away from IBM's midrange systems. That would have been great.

Instead, PCs developed real server hardware and real server OSes (including Linux and Windows NT), that IBM would never have provided (and didn't, until the market forced them to change their ways).

Slightly offtopic

[Britz]

This is slightly offtopic, but I just looked into buying one of those cool Mac Mini computers. I would use it as a server and would put Debian on it (not because I think it is better, but because I am more familiar with it) so I had to do what every Linux user has to do before buying hard ware, I checked if it is supported (nowdays with changing wlan chipsets without changing the name of the wlan product one has to dig really hard).

Anyways, there was information about the fact that the wlan module for the Mac Mini was not supported. That strikes me as odd. I thought Apple took a lot of work from the BSD project and used it for free in their OS. But they don't even bother to give something back by opening their hardware specs so the people that wrote/write BSD can use their OS on Apple hardware? I mean I wouldn't steal something. I would even have to buy a bundled version of their OS that I wouldn't use anyways. I would pay the Apple tax. I just would like to use a different OS.

Anyone care to comment?

Re:Slightly offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the infamous Broadcom chipset, used in the Airport Express module and Mac desktops for several years now. Broadcom publishes virtually nothing about their WLAN chipsets, and does not respond to requests for information about them.

This isn't realyl Apple's fault for the lack of disclosure, but is their fault for sticking with such a tight-lipped vendor.

Also, you have to remember that this is the *point* of the BSD license.

Re:Slightly offtopic

[demon]

But they don't even bother to give something back by opening their hardware specs so the people that wrote/write BSD can use their OS on Apple hardware?

Well, if you really want to call it "theirs". The wireless chipset that the "Airport Extreme" cards are built around are produced by Broadcom - and Broadcom has had a multitude of excuses why they can't release open drivers. If you open up your Apple hardware, you'll notice a lot of chips made by other companies, and they're bound to the conditions of the license they acquired use of the technology under. It'd be nice if they could release specs, I agree - but this is one situation where my and your desire on it is irrelevant to them.

What's keeping Apple off regular PC's? Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone's been wondering why Microsoft is going to keep producing Office for five more years, and it's really pretty simple. Apple agreed not to let Mac OS run on regular PCs for the same duration. As long as they keep it tied to their hardware, Microsoft really has no worries about a Windows competitor.

Re:Can't Apple be forced to release OS X for all x

[tm2b]

I had an Amiga (also a 68k processor), and there was some company back then that sold a board that allowed you to take ROMs out of a dead Mac and put them on their board, and then you could boot Mac OS up as a task under AmigaDOS.

LOL. Yep, that was the EMPLANT, and worked really well. The main problem with the product was that the company's president (Jim Drew) would consistently absurdly overpromise on the newsgroup (to the point where people were maintaining a huge file called "Jim Drew's lies"). The product itself was pretty solid, except that it turned out that despite Jim Drew's claims that the board had a custom magic emulation engine, really wasn't much more than a glorified dongle with serial ports and a socket to read the Mac ROMs.

At some point later, Christian Bauer released Shapeshifter to compete with EMPLANT, and then after Jim Drew claimed that Shapeshifter was stealing EMPLANT ip (which kind of put the lie to his earlier claims that the card held the emulation engine) released the GPLed Basilisk II, which is still usable on modern hardware - emulating the MCM680x0 Mac under Windows, x86 Linux and Unixes, and PPC Mac OS X.

In any case, if I recall correctly the ROM wasn't even used directly... you could obtain a ROM image on the net if you didn't have one to rip with the card.

Re:Can't Apple be forced to release OS X for all x

[ThaFooz]

Can't Apple be forced to release OS X for all x86?

It would be nice to be able to run OSX on the desktop without buying new hardware, I've been quite happy with it on the laptop. But I fear that supporting the near-infinite number of configurations would introduce stability problems and slow Apple's rate of development... which is a big reason that its attractive in the first place.

Honestly, the only reason I'd want to run OSX on generic x86 is simply because I don't like ANY of Apple's desktop setups. The Mac Mini is underpowered with a G4 and 64 meg video card, I don't like the concept of married Computers/Displays a la iMac, and the PowerMac is kind of overkill for my purposes. I mean, am I really the only one that wants (one) reasonable CPU & a nice (upgradable) video card of occasional gaming in a seperate tower so that I can upgrade thie display seperatley and use the machine as a server when its outlived its usefullness as a desktop?

I love GNU

[Cyno]

Windows is alright and OSX is pretty, but I love GNU.

I've noticed, Microsoft sure spends a lot of time and money patching their OS and making sure hackers like me can't easily activate it when we move our harddrives between PCs. And Apple has been trying hard to keep me from copying any of those songs my friends purchase from iTunes. And now OSX will only run on Apple x86 hardware, even though it may have drivers for another PC and be able to run just find on it. Some people might even be willing to pay the $130 retail price to be able to use it. But that's not for me.

If I want it I know I can get it. You see, I have friends that know all about Windows XP activation and how to get around it. And they know all about OSX and how to crack it too. I can even steal music from iTunes. But why don't I?

Because I love GNU. I love the effort a bunch of people are putting into this system. And you know something? None of that effort, none of that time or money is going towards DRM or any lockin/lockout, activation, CD-KEY authorization or other form of authoritarian copy prevention technology that might one day cost me time and money when I try to use the software in a way other than its original intended purpose. Plus we get access to the source code. And on top of all of that, we get the right to modify and resell it.

I'd love to see Microsoft or Apple compete with that. But I know they won't. They can't. Capitalism won't let them. Not until its too late.

Re:Logical Thought: Apple & Hardware Profits

[Anonymous Coward]

A huge portion of what makes the Mac OS X so valuable is the user experience that goes with it. A decent portion of the user experience lies in the hardware integration, and in the quality of the hardware on which it runs. If I had OS X running on my previous laptop (Toshiba Satellite 3000-something, I think), for instance... It was a great laptop, but the hardware is just not the same caliber as that which Apple sells. More importantly, OS X is not DESIGNED for the Toshiba Satellite line, nor is the Satellite designed for OS X. Apple has no control over the environment in which the system is running and therefore opens their system up to decreased responsiveness or even stability, as the case may be.

Excellent software on shoddy hardware still makes for a poor user experience.

Hackers are irrelevant

[AHumbleOpinion]

Apple management will fail in its attempts to thwart the hackers.

The hackers and a handful of tech savy users that want OS X on generic hardware are irrelevant. All Apple needs to do is prevent someone with the skills of an average user from being able to get Mac OS X working reliably on generic hardware. The generic PCs running Mac OS X will be novelties, more conversation pieces than serious work environments. There will not be a robust set of drivers, merely what ships on geniune Apple hardware. Apple can break the hack used to get it to work every system software update. It will be a somewhat unreliable machine, unavailable for days at a time while hackers reverse engineer and workaround the latest software update. Will they do so, sure, but it will be irrelevant to mainstream users.

Re:Logical Thought: Apple & Hardware Profits

[Snowmit]

McDonalds

Way OT

[IntlHarvester]

Actually, I think Half-Life's major innovation was putting a girl in the game that didn't have blatantly polygonal boobies. The storyline itself was almost entirely missing -- "Gordon. Good to see you. Now go somewhere else ... but take the back way!" in front of a standard post-apocolyptic backdrop.

Hostile, hostile, hostile

[jpardey]

The grandfather post said nothing about monopolies, just binding software to specific hardware. Two different things. It seems to me that the point was that if you buy a piece of software, you buy a right to run it on whatever you want. Hence, emulators are not illegal, but roms are.

Perhaps you should read a post before posting a hysterical comeback with eugenic overtones. I'll go play in the shallow end, you and ESR can do what you please in the patio section.

Re:Is Apple substituting scarcity for design?

[CottonEyedJoe]

No... Apple would be more than happy not to be "scarce". They'd be pleased as punch if eveyone went out and bought a Mac. And thats the key. They dont want you running OSX on your eMachines Wal-Mart special. I recall hearing something about them not even making a boxed version of OSX intel (thus tying the OS to the machine you bought it with). For the umpteenth time... Apple is a hardware company. Apple makes the bulk of their money selling computers and iPods. Steve Jobs has been down the road of killing a hardware platform before in order to sell its software (which is just what many here are calling for, those too young to remember). I would not expect it to happen again. Would you pay $400 for a student license for OSX? Well, very few did. When Apple kills its hardware business to focus on sales of OSX, you'd be wise to consider selling your Apple stock.

Re:Logical Thought: Apple & Hardware Profits

[CODiNE]

Here's the rest of the story. The hardware that goes into personal computers built by Dell, Lenovo, etc. is dirt cheap, and the profit margins are ultra-thin. Meanwhile the x86 Macs command a price premium because Apple builds them. If everyone could run the new Mac OS on an regular PC, who would want to buy the x86 Macs?

But the real story is the one that nobody seems to notice, for the last 15 years Microsoft has made all the profits that the computer resellers should have been making. Their large bulk is entirely made up of the razor-thin margins everybody else accepts for them. Bill Gates brags about brining the PC "ecosystem" to the world, cheap commodity computers that you can throw together and whip out of almost anything. What he doesn't mention is that he planned the whole thing back when Microsoft first sold DOS to IBM... we'll profit from everybody else's hard work. Everytime you see a hardware manufacturer go out of business, it's just a few hundred million MS got instead of them. The world was suckered in by them, if we had kept the old model of different companies making different operating systems the world could have been much nicer these days and the internet would definitely be more standardized. Imagine if MS hadn't killed BE... instead of Intel and MS ruling the desktop market for so long and forcing single threaded high-Megahurtz toaster oven computers on the world, we could have had BeOS 7 systems with Quad PPC chips with 4 cores on each by now. Imagine if Amiga could have stayed profitable... this whole stupid soap-opera episode of D'oh! Finally making the Pentium M could have been avoided. There's be a lot more nice OS' out there and some great hardware choices but... commodity won, and so did Bill. I really hope Apple can get people to think about quality once again.

Re:That's not the main reason

[Paradise Pete]

In return, Microsoft will continue giving Apple free money

I don't know what money you're talking about, but if it's in return for something then it's not free.

Re:Can't Apple be forced to release OS X for all x

[tkrotchko]

"No, ISA was under a government-mandated Reasonable And Non-Discrimatory hardware license program which dated from the minicomputer wars of the 1970s."

I'll just disagree in a friendly way with you.

When MCA came out it was covered with dozens of patents and it had to be licensed. However, a condition of licensing was that you had to agree to pay back royalties on ISA on every PC you ever shipped. I recall that for the most part, IBM was simply looking for other companies to acknowledge that ISA was owned by IBM and didn't in fact look for back royalties.

As a result, nobody licensed MCA with two exceptions... one was Tandy, the other one escapes my mind at the moment.

In fact Wikipedia seems to agree with me (for what it's worth):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Channel_archite cture (Marketshare Issues):

"A final problem was that IBM had lost control of the hardware market for PCs. Anyone could create an ISA card and plug it into any ISA bus-equiped computer. While it was thought that by creating a new standard, IBM would regain control via the required licencing. As patents can take 3 years or more, only those relating to ISA could be licensed when MCA announced. Patents on important Micro Channel features, such as Plug and Play automatic configuration, were not granted to IBM until after PCI had replaced MCA in the marketplace."

Re:No, Apple is being a hardware company, as usual

[pomo monster]

Apple could be any kind of company it wants. I'm sure they'd do fine, from a business perspective, if they ditched OS X tomorrow and began manufacturing commodity PCs. Just like they'd do fine converting their business to software-only. But in either case, there'd be no more Mac platform. In the one case, there'd be a Mac OS that everyone would use with manufacturer-included mushy keyboards and gaudy fifty-button mice with cords as thick as hangman's rope. Your hardware would arrive in a brown cardboard box full of packing peanuts. In the other, you'd have quality hardware (for which you paid the Apple-brand premium) on which you'd be running Windows or Linux... 'nuff said.

Your definition of "platform" fails to include the total user experience, which is exactly what Apple aims to do. The hardware on this platform is inseparable from the stuff that shows up on your display.

None of this implies that Apple can't license its platform to other manufacturers (or software developers, for that matter). Just that what Apple's selling is a platform, not "software" or "hardware." I guess this is all kind of abstract, anyway.

Re:Needs a Coral link...

[Overly Critical Guy]

This message is in a kernel extension (kext). I don't think this is a "hidden" message so much as it might be a kernel message that displays when OS X doesn't detect its own Apple hardware. When people start hacking OS X to run on generic PCs, I wonder if this message is what will display somewhere on bootup.

Apple's monopoly.

[kale77in]

But what about Apple's monopoly on COOL? What about THAT huh!

I say those damn monopolists should be forced to redesign the entire product lines of other manufacturers!

Then we'd ALL be better off.

Text in the code...

[Dirtside]

"seineeW erA setariP X SOcaM"

Re:Logical Thought: Apple & Hardware Profits

[curious.corn]

Hmm, I guess you've never tried to install Linux on an ASUS notebook. Today, three years later it might be an easier experience but believe me it used to be a royal pain. Wicked broken bioses that wouldn't sleep the machine when the lid closed, nasty bugs that would lock up the gfx hw so badly to require a cold restart, crappy P'n'P that wouldn't enumerate the attached hardware and make linux struggle when looking for it and stinky bioses that wouldn't properly shut down the PIC (or perhaps jitter some "lid open" signal, but that's not sw, it's plain bad hw) and wake windows 2000 when the laptop was sleeping... and presumably inside a bag.

I had to choose between a vertical solution where the same company designed both hardware and software and quickly nailed every single darn bug (not only security gaping maws) or a chaos of different hardwares only loosely following specs and hoping to fix 'em in software workarounds.

I bought an external firewire enclosure; it used to work fine but the damn chipset firmware decided to quit claiming it's fw id as by spec. Os X would refuse to sense the device unless, once in a while the signals would be stable enough to get the firmware to follow procedures. I had to wait for an xp64 fix that incidentally added the necessary firmware workarounds (IE increasing wait states during power up) to get the thing reliable on the mac. Hmm, and that was an add-on... imagine that multiplied for all peripherials in a regular pc. Apple takes the chore out of computing.

Apple is turn key. I bought a bluetooth thingie and the guy at the shop said: "hmm, I don't know, this device is a bit fussy I struggled a weekend and failed on a couple of XPs". I plugged it in, waited for Os X to bring the bluetooth portion alive and synced my address book within 5 minutes. The guy at the counter was close to tears; I was happy to have bought an Apple Powerbook with Os X.

Ok, I could choose a dell, run windows home and follow the program, but I'd be struggling with viruses, spywarez and surrendering 1 GHz and a RAM stick to Norton to get my job done. Or I could run Linux and curse the damn manufacturer for making cheap broken hardware and only provide software fixes for windows.

I still long for open, fully spec'd platforms, properly designed hardware modules and combinations and timely updates to fix deviations from the agreed standard. Today, by a bad approximation, that means using windows. Today, I won't run windows and I will happily pay 100for the privilege of better software bundled to neatly ironed hardware (where linux, btw, is a champ)

Apple Sends Message from their Homepage

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone seen the comments in the sidebar to the MacBook Pro page?

Old school unix hacking.

If that isn't a message to hackers I don't know what is..

Re:Apple is elvis, you idiots!

[teamhasnoi]

At least Windows runs on an OPEN HARDWARE PLATFORM.

At least for the next ten years, as MS is always that far behind copying Apple.

Apple sends hidden message to hackers.....

[saladasalad]

"Eat Popcorn, Drink Coca-Cola"

Blue Meanies

[Anonymous Coward]

In my middle school days, I decided to open up the Mac OS "System" file with a text editor one day (not even a hex editor), and saw, after a bunch of binary code misinterpreted as ASCII, the hidden message:

"Help! Help! We're being held prisoner in a system software factory!"

A Google search verifies that plenty of other people remember this too.

Why not run Linux on that Intel Mac?

[SuperKendall]

The TPM is used only to make sure it's OK to run OSX on that box...

Apple has publically stated they do not care if you run anything else (like Windows or Linux) on an Apple Intel box.

TPM you see, is a tool. And like any tool it can be used for good or for ill. Now while it's an open question of weather you having to work around it to run OS X on a non-Apple Intel box is for good or ill, it's certainly less annoying than if Apple had used TPM to lock the box down so that ONLY OS X could run on it.

Ignorance of the Law

[Pfhorrest]

I know this is highly tangential, but I see this phrase all over and it infuriates me...

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and it never has been.

But it *should* be. It is unjust to hold someone accountable for violations of rules they were unaware of. Modern law is so complex that no one (even people with many years of legal training) can be truly aware of them all - even professional lawyers use comprehensive reference texts regularly. Consequently we have a lot of people being held accountable for violations of esoteric codes they cannot reasonably be expected to know about. This is one of the fundamental problems of pretty much all modern governments, and it's not a very big improvement from the arbitrary rulings of the monarchs and dictators of non-constitutional governments past. I am sure that myself and almost every single person reading this is guilty of something that they are not aware of. This leads to a condition where everyone is a criminal and can always be brought up on charges of *something* if they annoy the powers that be enough - a situation just inviting government abuse of power.

The solution? Simple. Fewer (and simpler) laws, that have logical backing to support them and as such should seem common sense almost universally. Then you can expect people to know the law in full, and can be justified in holding them accountable to it.

Sorry again for the tangent. This subject is a pet peeve of mine.

Just like the iPod

[daniel_mcl]

If you open up the original iPod firmware in a hex editor with the proper number of columns, the first thing you see is an ASCII-Art stop sign and a scary legal message. This is nothing new.