OSx86 Cracked Again

The Cardboard God writes "The OSx86 Project is reporting that the intrepid hacker 'Maxxuss' has once again eluded Apple's security methods and cracked the latest release of Mac OS X for Intel, or 'OSx86', to run on standard x86 PCs. It seems Apple just can't win this eternal struggle with the hackers, as 10.4.4 included beefed up security designed to prevent similar hacking methods used on beta releases of the operating system. Is this a blessing for Apple, or simply a nuisance?"

Comments

Nuisance.

[pwnage]

It's more of a nuisance. Even Steve Jobs once famously declared that "anything with a key can be cracked," (or words to that effect). A cracked OS X will play mostly to the geek types, while yielding publicity dividends with the rest of the Wintel crowd. Average consumers will continue to buy whatever OS they choose retail.

If you replace enough files...

[daveschroeder]

...and are willing to wait some period of time after any official Apple release, you'll always be able to make Mac OS X (Intel) work on non-Apple hardware.

The patch replaces the following files:

- AppleSMBIOS
- ATSServer
- diskimages-helper
- Dock
- Finder
- loginwindow
- mach_kernel
- mds
- SystemUIServer
- translate
- translated

So, as long as you have no shame and don't mind running Mac OS X in a state that is completely unsupported, with a different kernel (!), modified in unknown ways, and in a state that won't be able to be updated with any OS or security updates from Apple (until they themselves are cracked), perpetually repeating this scenario ad nauseum, and also have no problems either:

- pirating Mac OS X, which is the current only way of obtaining Mac OS X (Intel), and

- seem to think that a commercial manufacturer's wishes for its products amount to nothing (e.g., via the EULA, perhaps claiming EULAs aren't enforceable in your jurisdiction)

...then I'm sure you'll be able to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware indefinitely.

Is this actually surprising?

Someday, Apple - you know, the entity that has invested billions of dollars, all told, and countless thousands upon thousands of manhours in the development of Mac OS X and its associated products - may choose to partner with specific x86 vendors and specific hardware products to allow Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware at some point in the future. But for now, I love the editorial slant of x86project.org:

What this means is that Apple's best attempts to secure their OS have, ultimately, failed. For its best efforts, the company is unable to lock OS X to their hardware. Without doubt, this will have profound impacts on the company's future as running OSx86 on a PC becomes less a hacker's trick and more mainstream. When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that's certainly the future we're looking at.

This also opens a host of new questions for Apple, OS X, and the PC users who love it. Will this mark the beginning of Apple's legal endeavors to keep OS X locked down? Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?

Time will tell. Things keep getting more exciting. Stay Tuned.

"When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD"? I'm sorry, but even if you claim they're just "telling it like it is", that attitude has absolutely no respect for the hard work of others. Forget copyright. Forget the DMCA. What about just pure ethics? I suppose if one is a relativist, they might ask, "Ethics? By whose standards?"

And again: if you change enough of Mac OS X, of course you'll be able to get it to work on non-Apple hardware. It will take some reverse engineering and time, but it will always happen. This doesn't mean TPM is any less "secure" for its purposes. Ironically, it actually validates TPM: trusted computing is designed to make a platform just that: trusted, and operating in a predictable state. This hack job on Mac OS X (Intel) is anything but.

I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system. Apple has every right to choose that as the mechanism for selling its product. Even if Mac OS X (Intel) is sold standalone (as it may be in the form of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard).

Re:If you replace enough files...

[Jherek Carnelian]

I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system. Apple has every right to choose that as the mechanism for selling its product.

I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen. DigitalConvergence has every right to choose the mechanism for selling its product.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[Reality Master 101]

I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm on board that just "downloading a DVD" is unethical, but if I BUY an official copy of OS/X, then who the hell is Steve Jobs to tell me what I can or can't do with it?

This is one of the main reasons I dislike Apple as a company: the arrogance. Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't play on an iPod (e.g., suing Real). Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy. Frankly, screw Steve!

Apple could be so much more successful if they would stop being such a-hole control freaks and just sell their products and embrace people wanting to use THE SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT THEY FREAKING OWN the way the want to.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[Kjella]

- pirating Mac OS X, which is the current only way of obtaining Mac OS X (Intel), and

I don't know if they ship an "universal" upgrade, but if you have a legal license for OS X (for example from an old Mac) and a legal OS X upgrade to 10.4.4 that can upgrade it to a "dual-platform" OS X version, then you have a valid license. Bundling the hardware and OS is illegal in many places (I know at least in Germany the courts stuck Microsofts OEM license down) and whatever the EULA says is null and void. Theoretically you should be able to move your OS X license (paid in full) to a generic x86 machine. In any case, this seems to replace so much of OS X "under the hood" that I really wouldn't want to try...

Re:If you replace enough files...

[daveschroeder]

I think the problem here is twofold.

1. Apple may never release a standalone copy of Mac OS X (Intel) that you can actually buy without purchasing a machine. With Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard), this may occur, but it is not yet guaranteed. In this scenario, I don't think there is any excusable way in any jurisdiction to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, since you *must* pirate Mac OS X to do so.

1a. To extend on the above, some people might justify their action by buying a copy of Mac OS X (PowerPC), and reasoning that they've "paid" for Mac OS X, and that therefore it's then okay to pirate Mac OS X (Intel) and use it as they wish. However, that's not an acceptable argument since it's not the same product.

2. Even if a standalone version of Mac OS X (Intel) (or a universal release of Mac OS X) is released at some point, I don't think you can get completely in the clear with your argument. Sure, it's just bits on a plastic disc. You should be able to install it on your Mac, run over it with your car, do nothing with it, juggle it, wipe your ass with it, or even hack it and install it on your PC. Right? Sure, I'm with you. I understand the argument you're making. But, like it or not, this hurts Apple. *You* might not think it hurts Apple, but the only people in the position to *decide* that it hurts Apple - i.e., Apple - have decided that it *does* hurt Apple. Whether it's because of business model or arbitrary decision, that's their decision to make. And if there is law in certain countries/jurisdictions that allows companies to make that kind of determination, I do not see how operating within the bounds of law to protect oneself from injury - whether you are a person or a corporation - is inappropriate.

To ratchet this argument down to being a little more practical, I'd submit that Mac OS X's pricepoint is predicated on the assumption that it's associated with Apple hardware, and that there will be continuing purchases of Apple hardware by satisfied customers running Mac OS X on Apple hardware, ostensibly becausse the quality, attention to detail, and software/hardware integration is so pleasant, and myriad other reasons. Apple loses this control when Mac OS X is not run on Apple hardware. Now, you might say, "tough shit." And in some locales in the world, the government might also agree with you. Great. Congratulations. But that still doesn't change the fundamental truth to what I've just said.

I see it as just a semblance of respect for the work of others.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[TheSpoom]

Devil's Advocate: You've almost certainly never owned any software, unless you coded it yourself. It was licensed to you, and legally Steve Jobs has the power to dictate everything about how, when, where, and on what you run his sortware.

In other news: This has never stopped me from running any software the way I want to use it.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[rainman_bc]

Apple could be so much more successful

Let's take a trip in the way back machine for moment.

Once upon a time, Apple tried to open up its system to being cloned, and only achieved 7% market share.

Then Jobs came back, stopped allowing the Mac to be cloned, and introduced the iMac to the world. Jobs saved Apple and brought them to profitability.

So who's correct? You or Jobs?

Re:If you replace enough files...

[fupeg]

Apple may never release a standalone copy of Mac OS X (Intel) that you can actually buy without purchasing a machine.

Umm, you're talking about Apple here. They release a new version of their OS every ~18 months. They always make a big production about it, praising its new features, better performance, etc. so that all the Mac users will go out and shell out $120+ for the new OS. They've been doing this for years. If they stopped selling retail versions of their new OS, it would be a huge loss of revenue.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm on board that just "downloading a DVD" is unethical, but if I BUY an official copy of OS/X, then who the hell is Steve Jobs to tell me what I can or can't do with it?

I agree with you in principal, but OS X for x86 is only available with the purchase of an imac right now (as far as I know) and while it is possible that you might want to take that one license and install it on a different machine while wiping the imac, don't think it is likely. I'm all in favor of hacking the OS and researching, but I'm more than a little leery that this will lead to just another way to get crappy warez versions of OS X hacked up to work on generic boxes without paying for a license. Right now it is just that, a concern. I don't see anything that has been inappropriate yet.

This is one of the main reasons I dislike Apple as a company: the arrogance. Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't play on an iPod (e.g., suing Real). Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy. Frankly, screw Steve!

And here is where you lost me. When did Apple sue Real? As far as I know there has only been one lawsuit and it was Real suing Apple. What Apple did do was change the DRM authentication on the iPods to stop Real's hack from working, but seeing as Real was using Apple's servers to do the authentication I don't think anyone can really fault them for that. It was a very legitimate security and support concern. Hell, I wouldn't let my competitor's use my servers to authenticate their DRM either.

Apple could be so much more successful if they would stop being such a-hole control freaks and just sell their products and embrace people wanting to use THE SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT THEY FREAKING OWN the way the want to.

Apple is very successful now and not because they operate using a simplistic view of the market. They are in a market dominated by a monopoly and they can only compete by maintaining a complete vertical chain on their own. Apple sells computers because they can't survive selling software and because they make more money that way. They use software as a differentiator, but they are not an OS company, they are a hardware company. Selling OS X for intel would be huge financial loss. The OS market, like it or not, is basically the pre-installed OS market. MS has that market locked down. Apple can only sell pre-installs on their own hardware. The secondary market of installs after the fact is a small one for the tech savvy. A lot of Apple's customers would be included, but not a significant share of the market. Operating in such a commodity business Apple would have to grab nearly 40% of the market just to break even with the hardware sales losses they would endure. It is just not very likely. I'd like OS X for generic hardware as much as the next guy, but not at the cost of Apple going out of business and it no longer being available in the future. Sorry but a lot of people have looked at this business case including Apple and it just doesn't make sense for them.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[rthille]

excusable way in any jurisdiction to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, since you *must* pirate Mac OS X to do so.

Not exactly. You could buy an intel mac, and run linux on it, while running OSX on your white-box.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[Slappytron]

Good post, but I don't think Apple cares about people's ethics. They want to make money, and OSX in the wild helps their cause. Any exposure is good exposure. Try out OSX for free, but the catch is you have to live with stability problems, hardware incompatibility, no updates, etc. The solution? Go out and buy a Mac! Oh, and don't weep for Apple. If you want to talk about ethics, let's talk about the Eminem ad and Intel ad being ripoffs of a Lugz and Postal Service video, respectively. Nobody's a saint... except for maybe daveshroeder.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[Thrudheim]

Sure, but that DVD you buy won't run on your machine, at least not now, and you have no right to force Apple sell you one that does. Playstation owners can buy Xbox games and can do with them what they want, but they won't work on the Playstation, nor would anyone expect them too.

Granted, machines made by Apple are now very close in architecture to machines made by other PC manufacturers, one key exception being use of EFI rather than BIOS, but that does not increase the obligation on Apple to write software that is guaranteed to work on machines that it does not make.

Apple is writing an OS that runs on it's hardware set. If it were to sell a box with software to install on generic PCs, it would open up a huge support load due to the enormous number of combinations of possible components. Perhaps Apple will chose to do this down the road once the transition to Intel-based machines has been completed. Right now, however, Apple has a lot on its plate just to make sure OS X runs well on Intel machines with known sets of components. Drivers are still not available for many printers, scanners, and so forth, for example.

You seem to assume that Apple would chase you down for buying a legal copy of OS X and hacking it to run on your machine. I doubt that Apple could do much to stop you from doing this or would they even try. Note that Apple does not even require licensing keys on its OS and consumer-level software. They are not as much of control freaks as you seem to think. It's just that Apple survives by making hardware. Allowing licensing of the OS nearly drove the company into bankruptcy in the 1990s. Before they go out and sell an install kit for generic PCs out there, they have to be very sure of the economics of it, including the certainty of added support costs and the possibility of lower hardware sales.

I believe that once Apple is in a position where they can profit from licensing the OS to a PC manufacturer like Dell, they will do it, and they will do it carefully. That time has not come yet.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[daveschroeder]

I fail to understand why people are using such sophistry to justify this.

Do you really think that people will be doing that? Not to mention that the license also doesn't allow that. I'm only assuming you are giving some credence to the license here since you seem to be subscribing to the one-to-one idea in terms of operating systems on hardware.

But if you own it and think you can do whatever you want with it, why should you even follow the one-to-one principle? You should be able to do whatever you want to do with it, and install it on as many machines as you want, right?

If not, why not? Why buy multiple copies for multiple machines? It's only the "license" that is preventing you from doing otherwise...

Re:If you replace enough files...

[Overly Critical Guy]

Ethics doesn't come into play in a piracy discussion. People will ALWAYS invent new justifications to wiggle out of the undeniable truth that piracy is unethical, and that you're preventing the people who made the work from getting paid that day.

In the music piracy world, it's "the RIAA made us do it!" In the PC game world, it's "the greedy publishers made us do it!" Always something to blame for your getting free shit except yourself.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

If not, why not? Why buy multiple copies for multiple machines? It's only the "license" that is preventing you from doing otherwise...

And the licence is justified because.....?

Software doesn't just want to be free, one must go to extraordinary lengths to make it un-free. If Apple want to put some ridiculous EULA in their shrink-wrapped software, fine. Expect me to laugh at it while I do whatever the hell I please with my purchase in the privacy of my own home.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[Fordiman]

"*You* might not think it hurts Apple, but the only people in the position to *decide* that it hurts Apple - i.e., Apple - have decided that it *does* hurt Apple."

I've arbitrarily decided that your post hurts me. Do I get to have a gaggle of fanboys bitch at you now?

Re:If you replace enough files...

[daveschroeder]

And the licence is justified because.....?

Broadly, because we live in a society based on the rule of law and respect for the property and work of others - including intangibles like "intellectual" property and work.

Software doesn't just want to be free, one must go to extraordinary lengths to make it un-free. If Apple want to put some ridiculous EULA in their shrink-wrapped software, fine. Expect me to laugh at it while I do whatever the hell I please with my purchase in the privacy of my own home.

Ok, humor me, here: so, you should be able to install it on as many machines as you wish, too? Say, 10? 100? If not, why not?

You don't "own" Mac OS X. Apple is granting you a license to use it under a legal framework in various jurisdictions, including one that is at least marginally clearly defined in the US. What you "own" is a ~5" circle-shaped piece of plastic and a cardboard box. If you have no respect for the license, fine; but then, why buy it at all? Why not just pirate it in the first place?

Re:If you replace enough files...

[ewhac]

I'm sorry, but one of your "fundamental truths" is nothing of the kind.

Sure, it's just bits on a plastic disc. You should be able to install it on your Mac, run over it with your car, do nothing with it, juggle it, wipe your ass with it, or even hack it and install it on your PC. Right? Sure, I'm with you. I understand the argument you're making. But, like it or not, this hurts Apple. *You* might not think it hurts Apple, but the only people in the position to *decide* that it hurts Apple - i.e., Apple - have decided that it *does* hurt Apple. Whether it's because of business model or arbitrary decision, that's their decision to make.

No, it's not their decision to make.

Ford doesn't get to say that you can only fill their cars with Chevron gas. Sony doesn't get to say you can only put CDs from Sony/Columbia Records into their CD players. SBC/Qwest/BellSouth don't get to say you can only connect Panasonic phones to their lines. Certainly, they can recommend those things, but they cannot force compliance with those wishes, since they lack standing to do so.

Likewise, once you've lawfully obtained a copy of MacOS-X, Apple loses all rights to dictate how that copy may be used. Certainly, they recommend you run it on Apple hardware. But if you can get it to run on something else, they have no legitimate right to complain about it (although they can refuse to support you).

They cannot demonstrate harm to their business (because there isn't any). But even if they could, it doesn't matter. The sustainability of Apple's business model is entirely Apple's responsibility, not the consumer's. It was transparently obvious to most people back in the Irrationally Exuberant Dot-Com days that offering free overnight shipping on all items was unsustainable. Was it therefore the responsibility of the customers to eschew the free shipping, since taking advantage of it would materially damage the businesses they professed to support? Of course not.

Apple was founded by hackers. They've been around long enough to know that people will do unusual things with their products. This is to be embraced and celebrated, not criminalized. If someone wants to take MacOS-X and get it to run on a boring beige box, that is manifestly their own business. This is reality, a reality that Apple was instrumental in creating. It is therefore Apple's responsbility to learn how to live in it.

Schwab

Re:If you replace enough files...

[daveschroeder]

I'm surprised at the number of people who couldn't read between the lines here.

I'm well aware that Intel-based Macs are shipping, thank you.

But anyway, yes, you do have to "pirate" it. As far as Apple is concerned, installing it on non-Apple hardware, installing it on more than one machine, or obtaining it without purchasing it are all equally violative of the license. Therefore, if it's "pirating" it to download it from BitTorrent, it's just the same when you decide to install it on your PC, or even another Mac, just as it's "pirating" it when you buy one copy of OS X for PowerPC and install it on 5 Power Macs at home. If you personally think downloading it is "wrong", but taking the copy that came with your Intel-based Mac and also installing it on your PC is "okay", that's only because of your own arbitrary moral sense, not anything based on logic. Because if that's okay, it's just as okay to download it and install it on as many machines as you wish.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[yo_tuco]

"Microsoft has rarely (if ever) used the lawsuit as a weapon."

Oh, ask David Zamos, a poor college student, who was under attack from Microsoft. http://clevescene.com/issues/2005-03-30/news/featu re_print.html And the best part, he WON all by himself.

-

Re:If you replace enough files...

[Moofie]

"Broadly, because we live in a society based on the rule of law and respect for the property and work of others"

You're begging the question. If your statement were true, there would be no discussion. Clearly, some members of society disagree that intellectual property is similar to physical property.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[LordKazan]

Incorrect - you own A COPY of Mac OS/X - you have all property rights involved in owning ONE COPY of anything of which there are many copies - you can make non-infringing personal copies (IE backup copies, storage on different medium), you can sell it to someone else (as long as you destroy, or transfer with it, all of your backup copies), etc.

In reply to the grandparent post - sophistry or not it points out that your unversal statement "you MUST pirate" is invalid.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[Raffaello]

Likewise, once you've lawfully obtained a copy of MacOS-X, Apple loses all rights to dictate how that copy may be used.

You never lawfully obtain a copy of Mac OS X to do with whatever you wish.

You only lawfully enter into a license agreement with Apple, the terms of which require you to run Mac OS X on Apple hardware.

Just in case any readers are unaware of this fact, it is perfectly legal for you to agree to a license that removes rights you would otherwise have. You may have the right to do anything you like with certain products in the absence of a license agreement governing your purchase. But it is perfectly legal for a vendor to sell a product by means of a license agreement which removes rights you would otherwise have had. When you agree to the license, you are bound by it, including those portions that restrict or remove rights you would otherwise have had in the absence of the license agreement. If you don't like the license agreement you are free not to purchase the product, or to return it for a refund. You are not legally entitled to unilaterally rewrite the terms of the license agreement to suit your desires.

You may dislike the fact that you never lawfully obtained a copy of Mac OS X to do with whatever you wish, but there is no ambiguity about your situation as far as the law is concerned. A recent federal court ruling has upheld click-through EULAs. As far as US law is concerned, they are fully valid license agreements, including terms that restrict or remove rights which purchasers normally have in the absence of such agreements. Click through EULAs were specifically ruled to waive fair use rights. (see page 23 of the linked decision)

Re:If you replace enough files...

[javaxman]

This is why standards are important, genius. Write your operating system against commonly-known hardware standards, and it works. If the standards-based OS breaks, it's the hardware's fault, and would be easily provable so. That's why Windows works on all the "hacked-up systems" of the world.

Ummm... is that really so ?

Let me ask, does Linux work on all variety of laptop out there ? Does it support all of the video cards that Windows does ?

Let me answer: No. It does not. Do you know why Windows supports all of those graphics cards and other strange little devices out there that Linux does not?

Again, let me answer : it's because the hardware manufacturers make sure the drivers are written. That's right; it's not as if Microsoft is out there writing device drivers for every video card out there. As to standards, which standard? There are so many to choose from... DirectX ? Sure, Apple should license that from Microsoft... WTF are you talking about? That's not even right, or probably doable, and it's still video card makers who write drivers for Microsoft, or "partner" or otherwise pay Microsoft to support their hardware...

WTF? What standards are you talking about here? How do you think this stuff works?

You are right about one thing, though... the blame is properly placed with the hardware makers... and I'm not so sure Windows works on "all of the hacked-up systems" out there... certainly it doesn't without third-party device drivers. It's those drivers that are at the heart of this issue, and if you think they're all working on some sort of magic, open standards, or that Microsoft writes or funds the creation of all of those drivers... pass the pipe, please...

Re:If you replace enough files...

[Gr8Apes]

You don't "own" Mac OS X. Apple is granting you a license to use it under a legal framework in various jurisdictions, including one that is at least marginally clearly defined in the US. What you "own" is a ~5" circle-shaped piece of plastic and a cardboard box. If you have no respect for the license, fine; but then, why buy it at all? Why not just pirate it in the first place?

I don't own it? Really? I suppose I don't "own" a book either. Hint: I do. Just because Apple chooses to place certain things in a EULA doesn't make them law.

Now, there's certain things I cannot do with either, such as I can't replicate it for distribution or publicly display it. Those are copyright infringements. But, I can pretty much do anything else with it - make duplicates, tear them up, whatever.

That tearing up one is key, because I can assemble them later to recreate, or create a slight variation of the original. As long as it's for my personal use, I'm 100% legal. This is actually a supporting argument for those with the OSx86 project. Of course, they're probably in violation of some part of the DMCA, but that only applies in the USA.

Going back to the EULAs, judges have found some of the restriction clauses unenforceable, especially those that violate existing law. My personal favorite is the EULA clause I happened to read once that stated something along the lines of "may install only on 1 computer once". No exceptions for backups, mirrored disks that could be broken, whatever. "Once". Of course, all EULAs include the clause "if any part of this EULA is considered unenforcable, the remainder will remain.... blah blah blah" or something to that effect.

Is it any wonder people ignore EULAs when using them personally? The original intent of EULAs was to protect the providing company from litigation, near as I can recall. This is supported by the large number of EULAs that all included a list of suitable uses and things they weren't suited for. (e.g., Sun's Java clause about lack of suitability for life-support systems)

Re:If you replace enough files...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Undeniable my ass. So-called "piracy" (i.e. sharing of information) is all but unethical -in fact, i find it *highly* ethical, and I find anything that hurts it highly unethical.

So you just want that copy of OSX-x86 because it represents free information? You will what, examine the coding and disseminate the ideas which it spawns? Or you will use it to surf the web, listen to music, play games, burn CDs, and various other day-to-day tasks that involve using it as a tool instead of just 'information'?

If the former, you have my apologies for jumping to conclusions. If the latter, don't hide behind 'ethical information sharing' -- it's still stealing.

Re:If you replace enough files...

[rcs1000]

To be fair, it's a little more complicated than that.

For a start, the world does not end at San Diego and Rhode Island. There are those of us who live overseas, and where the law on EULAs is by no means clear.

Firstly, a EULA is - supposed to be - a contract. The licensor agrees to let you use their software so long as you abide by certain rules, i.e. the terms of the EULA. Yet a EULA is a pretty odd contract. Traditionally a contract requires "offer, acceptance, and consideration". Yet there is no consideration involved. The consideration happened when the purchaser entered into a legal agreement with the retailer to buy the product. So, in any normal sense (and at least outside of the US), a EULA is not a contract.

But bear with me a second. Let us assume that a EULA is a legally binding contract. Unfortunately, some people cannot enter into contracts. Children, for example, cannot sign their life away. If a child clicks "I Accept", then it binds them to the terms of the EULA not one bit. (That does not mean a child can run off hundreds of copies of World of Warcraft; that's not breach of contract, that's infringement of copyright.) So a child, or a minor, or anyone not legally able to sign contracts could happily hack away.

Similarly, there are issues - which the federal court fails to deal with - concerning sale rights. If I sell a computer with legally purchased software pre-installed, then the purchaser has not clicked on "I Agree". How can they be bound by the terms of the EULA?

This is a much more complex area than people commonly realise. But one thing remains certain: Apple does not have an absolue monopoly in determining what every legal purchaser of OS X can do with their copy.

Apple is a hardware company

[Anonymous Coward]

It will not be good for Apple. Apple makes it's money from it's hardware. They make good software to sell that hardware. The OS alone will drastically reduce revenue.

Cache

[Anonymous Coward]

Coral Cache of link
Posted anonymously to avoid karma whoring, so feel free to mod this up.

Well, it's a "nuisance".

[Pantero Blanco]

Even if something results in a gain for someone, if they feel it's a nuisance, it's a nuisance.

At this point it probably doesn't make much of a difference, as you have to jump through hoops to get it running. In a few years, now...we'll have to wait and see.

Stopping someone from cracking this sort of thing by strengthening the protection won't work simply because of the number of skillful people hammering at it. I expect more of a shift towards nailing the people who crack it and tell others how to the wall.

Slashdoted . . .

[anandpur]

Happy Valentines Day... from Maxxuss.

The hacking guru has announced preliminary patches for Apple's latest release of OS X for Intel, version 10.4.4. According to his website, http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/
This is a preliminary release of my Patch Solution for the official Mac OS X on the Intel platform. Ultimately, it would allow you to run this Mac OS X release on a generic x86 computer (SSE2 required).

There's still a lot of work and documentation to do, like support for SSE2-only CPUs, a proper installation procedure and a PPF patch. However, if you like to play around, this will get you started.
The significance of this event is huge. While many users were able to run OSx86 on their PCs last summer, the general feeling was that Apple hadn't implemented their final security solution. That much was true.

Onlookers have told us that 10.4.4 is a serious step forward in security, utilizing many of the same technologies as the 10.4.1 and 10.4.3, as well as the obfuscated code that Apple filed a patent for a few months ago.Few expected this final version - or at least the version that shipped with the first Macintels - to be easy to hack.

What this means is that Apple's best attempts to secure their OS have, ultimately, failed. For its best efforts, the company is unable to lock OS X to their hardware. Without doubt, this will have profound impacts on the company's future as running OSx86 on a PC becomes less a hacker's trick and more mainstream. When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that's certainly the future we're looking at.

This also opens a host of new questions for Apple, OS X, and the PC users who love it. Will this mark the beginning of Apple's legal endeavors to keep OS X locked down? Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?

Time will tell. Things keep getting more exciting. Stay Tuned.

Apple Appliances?

[QuantumFTL]

I wonder sometimes, with things like the iPod and the iMac's new FrontRow if Apple isn't slowly heading towards "information appliances" as its primary method of support, rather than simply a PC competitor with a nice interface.

Maybe in a few years it won't matter if OS X runs on commodity boxes, as Apple won't really be competing with them as their main business. Apple/TiVo anyone?

Curse

[kannibal_klown]

Don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE to get OSX running on my PC. It would be an early birthday present.

But if the process is easy, Joe Sixpack will look at Apple like they do Microsoft: "it keeps crashing"

I doubt Apple has any drivers written for even the more common hardware out there. Chipsets, NICs, video cards, sound cards, etc. Sure, you might be able to get it running in a beige box, but too many will be outside of OSX's driver realm.

Of course, this will lead to normal users saying "Gollleee, now I can run OH ESS EKKS on my Walmart laptop by downloading it from the torrent thingeee." The next thing you know, they're cursing Apple's name as being a bunch of programmer hacks.

Re:Curse

[Jherek Carnelian]

But if the process is easy, Joe Sixpack will look at Apple like they do Microsoft: "it keeps crashing"

No matter how easy - short of retail packaging, Joe Sixpack, by definition, ain't going to be installing it in the first place.
The secret is safe!

Re:Curse

[mpeg4codec]

The drivers are in the Darwin kernel, which they've been supporting on the x86 platform for quite some time. You can even download an install disc from Apple's open source site.

While I haven't played with it in a long while, I recall it supporting most of my core hardware, out of the box. Common things like NICs and chipsets should probably be relatively well-supported, though I'd doubt they'd have the latest and greatest graphics cards working in non-Vesa. Other less common devices probably meet the same fate.

It almost seems.......

[8127972]

......That Apple is letting people outside it's organization be coders and beta testers to get OS X security issues out of their distro. Then they'll annouce that they've "magically" hardened the OS to make it less crackable so they can continue to rake in the profits from selling hardware.

But that's likely my tinfoil conspiracy hat talking.

Who's less worse?

[Douglas Simmons]

This article is a little hard on Apple. I've never been hired to clean out an Apple clogged with malware or viruses, meanwhile MS is my moneymaker. Pound for pound, wouldn't you agree that Apple has one way or another done a much better job in security in general? Even taking into account that MS is somehow a bigger target?

Why bother?

[HateBreeder]

Why should apple bother with "security measures" that actively prevent users from running OSX on regular (non-apple) PCs in the first place?

Apple should just declare that they will not provide any support and anyone installing it is doing it on his/her own risk...

An officially unsupported OS will always be crippled compared to the supported one,
It'll crash, it won't have proper driver support and it won't be updated nearly as fast.

Users would eventually figure that using OSX on regular, unsupported PCs is too much trouble and would thus cease from doing so.

Not a big deal

[ZachPruckowski]

It's not going to affect Apple's bottom line. Until someone with only moderate computer skills as opposed to advanced computer skills can pull this off, it'll have exactly no appeal. And Apple's going to break whatever they do with every update. Sure, it's nice for the few hundred people who do it, but otherwise, it's not a serious threat to Apple.

The won't release it easily

[sucker_muts]

From TFA:
"Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?"

I don't think so, Apple wants to produce a quality product, and can control the hardware and the OS, so it's fairly easy to make it a very stable product.

If they would want to release a version that runs on all (intel) x86 PC's they won't be able to have as much stability and quality control at all, and might give end users a bad feeling about this producs just as lots of people are annoyed with those driver issues that plague the Windows world (in terms of stability)...

Of course Apple can't win

[Weaselmancer]

They're new to x86. Hackers have been here for *decades*.

Welcome to the mainstream, Apple.

Exposure

[johndeerejedi]

Well, unless the procedure is easy to do, it's very unlikely to dent Apple's sales because many of the people who buy Macs don't want a hack job and will continue to buy a refined product. People who enjoy tweaking their systems and people who like to do this sort of thing who normally wouldn't get exposure to OS X will play with it and maybe they will like what they see. This in turn may lead them to buy a genuine Mac, or at least maybe buy, develop, or support OS X software.

I see this kind of like the DRM in iTunes. It's almost trivial to bypass, but good enough to keep an honest person honest. Building a bulletproof DRM is rather futile because people determined to do it will hammer it down eventually. I think Apple may have a similar philosophy here--good enough to keep honest people honest, or at least those who just want to use it, not build it (listen to music or use the computer).

Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it

[sterno]

The fact of the matter is that Apple doesn't really care about people running OSX on a non-apple system. It's money in their pocket either way. What they want to avoid is having a bunch of white box manufacturers and Dell selling $400 PC's pre-installed with the OS. By making an honest effort to prevent install on non-apple platforms, they can prevent any sort of commercial competition on the hardware side.

So yeah, a few geeks will get OSX running on their PC's. They'll struggle with getting drivers to work correctly on non-blessed hardware, but generally feel cool. The rest of the world will buy Apples when they want to run OSX.

But one interesting twist on this: if I was looking to buy Apple hardware in hopes of having a dual boot OSX system this might change my mind. To my knowledge nobody has managed to get XP to run on Apple's hardware, but OSX is apparently running on non-apple hardware. That might all change with Vista coming out soon, but in the mean time running OSX on non-apple systems might be the better option.

Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it

[Overly Critical Guy]

The fact of the matter is that Apple doesn't really care about people running OSX on a non-apple system.

They don't? Why would OS X have security measures then? Steve Jobs himself has spoken out against such "theft."

It's money in their pocket either way.

How is it money in their pocket when someone pirates a cracked DVD of OS X? Apple isn't getting a cent. It's just more freeloaders who don't want to pay for stuff and think that's a valid reason to pirate everything under the sun.

Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it

[pwnage]

Yeah, but Apple's already said that they won't support running OS X on any white box machine, and if the only way to do it is via a torrent, hack, or other seedy mechanism (that's going to break with each update), where's the danger?

Sure, there is an undercurrent of folks who won't pay for anything, or will run it "just 'cause they can," but at the end of the day those people want to use it without hassle, they'll make a hardware switch. If they don't, it's revenue that Apple wouldn't have booked anyway.

Think about it. You can get free music from wherever you want. So why is iTunes such a success? It's because people will pay for perceived value: convenience, safety, support, whatever.

That's why I switched from technology to marketing! :-) Plus the girls are cuter.

Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it

[cosmo7]

I suppose the fact that Apple doesn't make hardware

Your approach to debate reminds me of my ex-wife.

Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it

[jocknerd]

That is theoretical only. He hasn't tried it.

Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it

[Psykechan]

So what you're telling me is that someone who would pirate an OS would pay for software?

Something about this doesn't make sense...

Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it

[damiam]

And the people that have tried it say it doesn't work.

Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it

[StikyPad]

How is it money in their pocket when someone pirates a cracked DVD of OS X? Apple isn't getting a cent. It's just more freeloaders who don't want to pay for stuff and think that's a valid reason to pirate everything under the sun.

I think the theory is that a larger install base provides incentive for third parties to produce software, starting a feedback cycle. With more (better?) software, it would increase the popularity of the platform, which would lead to more software, etc. The impetus has to come from somewhere. In the short term, it doesn't really hurt Apple for people to install OS-X, and in the long term, it could work to their advantage. That's one of the theories behind the popularity of Windows anyway.

Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it

[njh]

So free software (FOSS) doesn't exist? And it doesn't make any wealth?

Your argument is so flawed, that I can't believe it is still consistently raised as a legitimate defense of proprietary software.

Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

Imagine that everyone has a duplicator. All new car development would cease because no automobile manufacturer would undertake the engineering effort required to produce new and improved models

No automobile manufacturer would undertake the marketin..., er, um, I meant to say, undertake the engineering effort required to produce new models?

Maybe this would be a good thing?

Everyone could duplicate their own cars? Why wouldn't this be good for everyone?

Open source cars?

Maybe the existing auto makers would create legislation to prevent copying of their designs. Fine.

I predict that open source car designs would emerge that anyone could download and use. Eventually these would advance beyond just being usable to being right on the coattails of proprietary car designs.

Please don't steal Apple's OS. Or the RIAA's music. If you use it, pay what is being asked for it. (Including open source.) If you don't like the price, pick something else.

Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it

[wirelessbuzzers]

This is not quite true. Assuming he actually wouldn't have bought the Lamborghini, which is pretty reasonable for most people, he definitely isn't actually hurting the manufacturer. However, he probably would have bought some other car instead, so he is hurting Ford, or Toyota, or Honda, or whatever company.

Therefore, your argument does not apply particularly well in the software world or in the music world. Suppose someone pirates Windows, but he would have run Linux otherwise. That person isn't particularly hurting the Linux community unless he would have contributed. He's also not hurting Microsoft if he wouldn't have bought Windows anyway. Similarly, with music, inferior music generally does not come at lower prices, so pirates of Good Band X certainly wouldn't have bought Less-Good Band Y.

The reason that piracy usually does hurt software (and arguably music) companies is that while the pirates wouldn't have bought all the stuff they pirated, they probably would have bought some of it. Most of the ones that say they wouldn't are lying, plain and simple. Therefore, if the extra press created by more copies of the pirated stuff floating around isn't enough to cancel the lost sales (and it isn't if everyone pirates everything), then the companies lose money.

In this case, it's unclear. If you buy OS X and run it illegally on a Dell laptop or something, Apple doesn't get the margin on the sales of whatever Mac you would have bought, but they do get the margin on OS X, which is nearly the full price you paid. Depending on the margins and on the number of people who would have actually bought the Mac, Apple may be better off here. However, Apple is certainly not making money if you copy OS X and run it illegally, unless you decide that you love it but want better the driver support you'd get with a real Mac.

Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it

[vux984]

You make it sound like there is a contradiction. There really isn't one.

A certain level of piracy is good for a product. The real "cost" is low as the people doing it wouldn't have bought anything anyway, and if they are coming away with positive impressions of the product its effectively advertising. You could almost write it off as an expense.

Widespread piracy on the otherhand damages the product, as it directly negatively impacts on the companies bottom line. So no one in software development is going to advocate piracy, but well know that a little bit "in the right places" will actually help sales.

A kid who pirates Citrix Metaframe Server for his home will be comfortable recommending it when he's an IT consultant, a web developer with a pirated copy of photoshop on his home PC will never try the Gimp, thus helping protecting Adobe's lock on the legal copy at work. And his 10 year old kid will use that pirated copy of photoshop too when he draws moustaches on the family photos -- perpetuating the brand lock in.

Ditto MS Office ... if everyone suddenly had to decide between buying a $500 copy of MSOffice, or trying OO.org oo.org adoption would take off, and once they're using it at home, it will start making in roads at work, as people realize that they could save $25,000 on MS Office licenses by not having a full blown copy of office on every desk where all its doing on most of them is writing to-do lists, resume's, and the odd memo.

But too much piracy is a 'bad thing'. I'd say that once the piracy extends past the "reasonable fair use" threshold its moved into 'bad' territory.

Oh, and drunk drivers do have a positive effect on making roads safer. We wouldn't have organizations like MADD etc working to promote driver education, dry grads, parent involvement with their teenagers, and whatnot were it not for drunk drivers. Unfortunately, unlike piracy, the cost of even a single drunk driving incident is far too high to say that any benefits are worth it.

That's the difference. The -cost- of limited piracy is negligible. If people couldn't pirate they simply wouldn't use it. So nobody is really harmed by it -- as long as it stays at that scale.

so we have a release version of OSx86 cracked

[petermgreen]

and that means apple can't decide to take the approach of deliberately breaking compatibility with older versions anywhere near as easilly as they could with a beta!

Actually, it's

[Golias]

marketing.

Cracked OSX environments can float around. They'll make almost no impact on sales, as they will be completley unsupported and a royal PITA to keep patched. Meanwhile, it will mean a lot of hackers out there who would otherwise not touch an Apple computer a close, personal look at what they are missing out on. If a tiny fraction of those people like what they see, more Macs get sold.

Meanwhile, Apple only needs to apply just enough security that non-hardcore hackers will consider OSx86 to be not worth the hassle, especially when the Intel-based Macs (so far) offer fairly similar ! for the $ to the other major brands.

Re:Actually, it's

[utlemming]

Except now spyware/virus writers/etc can produce their malicous wares with out having to buy a Mac. They can now run it in a virtual environment on the hardware they already own. It would be worth there effort to make sure that they don't want it out just for security reasons.

Re:Actually, it's

[Golias]

Oh noes!!1!!!theloneliestnumberthatyou'lleverdo!!!

You make it sound like Malware writers had no access to Macs over the past 20 years. Behold my lack of worry.

Re:Actually, it's

[xaque]

I wrote a virus for Mac OS X... Here it is:

rm -rf /

Now just put it in a text file, make it executable, and run it on your system with root privileges, please...

OS-X under Xen?

[Animats]

The ability to run OS-X in a Xen partition would be a big win. It's probably easier than making it run on native hardware - you only need enough drivers to to talk to Xen.

Apple is at risk for an "illegal tying" lawsuit if they insist that their operating system run only on their hardware. IBM lost that issue decades ago, which is why there are IBM-compatible mainframes.

What a great Valentines day!!

[dwhittington]

What a great Valentines day! First I find out my new MacBook will have a 2GHz processor. Then, I find out that OSX can once again be loaded on every x86 box in my house. Now if VMware would just make an announcement today.

I wonder who Maxxus is...

[Doomedsnowball]

Back when I worked at Apple and they were splitting the OS X project into multiple releases spread out over many years... The Apple AIX team was busy hacking Linux to run on the Mac hardware. So, it's not like they haven't don't similar actions in the past. But it makes you wonder if Maxxus is an ex-Apple/Intel-crossover programmer that was so pervasive back in '96. I know that most of the core code hasn't changed in the ten years it's been around.

Wait till it's selling to release the crack!

[thedarb]

So you super hackers out there, you are only helping Apple secure the OS, helping them lock it tighter and tighter to their hardware. By releasing these cracks now, you give Apple an education, a lesson plan to learn from, so that they can do it better next time. If you wait until after OS X for Intel is out and *then* release the crack for it, then Apple will have a hell of a time stopping it. Don't release your cracks now, for goodness sakes. Wait until it's for sale, on the shelves. Please stop teaching Apple how to lock it down better. :)

Both nuisance and blessing... mostly nuisance.

[javaxman]

If Apple's hardware were really a lot more expensive than competing hardware, it would be a really serious nuisance, as there'd be a larger number of people willing to run a seriously hacked-up system in order to avoid paying extra.

However, when you look at Dell's Core Duo laptop and Apple's Core Duo laptop... the differences aren't much. That's the big win for Apple in switching to Intel hardware- the systems are really comparable and fairly easily similarly priced.

People hacking OS X to run on non-Apple Intel hardware *is* a blessing in a sense, because those who do go through the extra hassle to install OS X on non-Apple hardware are certainly asserting, beyond their hacking ( or simple file-sharing ) skills, that OS X is a really, really worthy bit of software to have... and they'll find, I suspect, that some things, in particular Software Update, won't play nicely at all with their very non-standard system. They're a seriously small number of people, probably, and are folks who either wouldn't for whatever reason buy *either* a Dell or an Apple system ( because it's all about building it yourself ), or, quite possibly, they're buying Apple hardware or software already ( don't you think the folks who worked out how to do this bought Apple hardware in order to do so ? ) in which case... well, let's just say Apple doesn't exactly go to great lengths to keep you from installing the same copy of OS X on multiple Apple machines... it's just not something they're worried about preventing. The notion that hacked x86 systems amount to try-before-you buy is probably not unfounded.

In short, while it's interesting to us geeks, it's not exactly a threat to Apple's business model... in a very real way, the fact that someone would want to do this pays quite a compliment to Apple's software, and is not terribly significant otherwise... just normal and likely small-scale software piracy, really.

As a third-party OS X software developer, it's just another ( small, likely ) set of machines I might be able to sell software or online services to, so it's all good for everyone except maybe Apple, and it's just not a big deal to them either, since hacked versions of OS X aren't going to be installed on over 1% of existing Windows PCs any time soon.

generic hardware != unstable

[slackaddict]

Is SuSE Linux unstable because there isn't a "gold standard" or "official" machine that will run it? Is Slackware any less stable or usable because I didn't get a PC from Pat Volkerding with Slackware pre-installed? Is FreeBSD more stable on a Dell or a HP?

I reject the argument that being able to run MacOS on any generic x86 box will hurt Apple in terms of stability or image. Sure, you might be running a slick looking OS on a beige box, but that doesn't mean that it won't be any less stable than official Apple hardware. (That is, unless Apple intentionally cripples their OS...)

Re:generic hardware != unstable

[DA-MAN]

I reject the argument that being able to run MacOS on any generic x86 box will hurt Apple in terms of stability or image.

Then you're living in a dream world. The majority of Windows crashes these days come from spyware infestations, rootkits and viruses. But before these became big problems, the majority of the crashes came from "bad third party drivers" according to most reports.

Apple is not big enough to maintain drivers for all hardware available on the PC market. Microsoft, for all their market success, hasn't been able to get a grasp on that.

Remember that Linux has a bigger desktop market share than Apple, and we've not been able to get Broadcom wireless support without resorting to tricks like ndiswrapper. If you think Apple will be able to hold vendors by the balls like Microsoft, you're crazy.

Re:Curse -- I disagree

[ThousandStars]

Your argument is built on a faulty premise, because I doubt Apple will let the process become easy. I already wrote a comment about how this will probably be a net benefit to Apple.

"Normal" buyers of Wal*Mart PCs won't have the technical acumen to install cracked versions of OS X and they probably won't have the inclination to do so anyway. Even if they did try, they would probably be less inclined to blame Apple because they won't have any expectation that OS X will run on generic PCs anyway.

Don't be so dismissive of generic hardware.

[argent]

I would pay more for OS X on a Thinkpad.

I don't like Apple's laptops, at all, and I'm not much of a fan of any of Apple's hardware.

Not that I'm gouing to run out and get a Thinkpad and install cracked OS X on it, but sheesh... Apple's hardware choices really suck.

Virtualization in general would be a big win.

[pschmied]

As I wrote earlier Apple would be well to do to relieve some of this pent-up desire for OS X and capitalize on it by releasing a VMWare image that is sufficiently locked down for their own peace of mind.

The audience for OS X grows to anyone who can run VMWare player, they get Windows users into an Apple product upgrade cycle (upgrade to real hardware!), they still get to control the user experience the way they want to (no b0rked hacked video drivers), and best of all they get to grow their developer base.

Seems like a win-win.

-Peter

anti-competitive bundling (OS-PC)

[GodWasAnAlien]

If microsoft started selling PC hardware, then locked all other PC's out with OS modifications, that would probably be illegal and anti-competitive, and they would be forced to unbundle the two.

But somehow Apple can get away with this, why is this? Because they less of a monopoly?

Re:anti-competitive bundling (OS-PC)

[frankie]

If Apple had 90%, 80%, or even just approaching 50% of PC marketshare, we could start talking about antitrust concerns. Until then, go away.

Re:anti-competitive bundling (OS-PC)

[a.koepke]

There is a difference here.

Apple has been making hardware for a long time and that is their primary business, making computer hardware. The fact that they have developed a brilliant OS to run on their hardware is another issue. Naturally this OS is only available on their hardware.

Now, Microsoft has been making software for a long time and this is their primary business. They do make some hardware but not full computers. If they move into that area they wouldn't be able to do anti-competitive things like making their software only run on their hardware.

MS software has previously ran on all PC hardware, to change this would be anti-competitive. MacOS has never before ran on PC hardware.

Re:anti-competitive bundling (OS-PC)

[noidentity]

"But somehow Apple can get away with this, why is this? Because they less of a monopoly?"

Re-read the "mono" part of "monopoly" again. Either one company has a monopoly, or none do. Last time I checked, Apple sales made up less than 10% of the PC market.

Make up your own mind.

[tkrotchko]

"The new MacBooks [...] offer as much or more bang for the buck as anything in the Windows world"

These are probably made in the same factory as Macbooks:

http://us.acer.com/acerpanam/page4.do?dau22.oid=14 568&UserCtxParam=0&GroupCtxParam=0&dctx1=25&Countr yISOCtxParam=US&LanguageISOCtxParam=en&crc=1074370 188

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1907007,00.as p
http://www.pcmag.com/compare_products/0,1943,,00.a sp?a=168245,168244,168264,163762,167102&pt=2&sid=1 565

Intel Duo
2Ghz processor
120GB HD
256M graphics memory (Radeon)
DVD+/-R - DL
battery life 3:47

List price: $2500
Street price: $2400

Hopefully, the Macbook has a 4 hour battery life.

Own a PS2? Xbox or Gamecube?

[Myriad]

This is one of the main reasons I dislike Apple as a company: the arrogance. Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't play on an iPod (e.g., suing Real). Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy. Frankly, screw Steve!

Apple could be so much more successful if they would stop being such a-hole control freaks and just sell their products and embrace people wanting to use THE SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT THEY FREAKING OWN the way the want to.

Do you own a PS2? Nintendo DS? Or any console for that matter?

If so welcome to the world of not necessarily being able to use your software/hardware in a way you'd like.

OSX is tied to Mac hardware. Consoles are locked down from running arbitrary software. Why? Because in both cases one doesn't make enough money without the thing it's tied to.

A console doesn't have the margins to be viable independently. In a Windows world OSX probably couldn't compete as an OS alone and generate enough money.

You can say that the they should sell them at a price point where they are viable... but I'd suggest such a price point likely doesn't exist!

An Xbox 360 sells for around $400 - at a loss! If MS charged say $600 instead, how many less machines would actually sell? Would there be enough penetration it make it worth while for the software developers time to develop for it?

How much would OSX cost to be profitable on its own? How reliable would it be running on unknown combinations of commodity hardware?

Now I agree that it should be legal for you to modify your hardware/software locks to run as you see fit. That will dissuade enough people that the market remains viable. I don't think, however, that you should bitch that the locks are there to begin with!

Blockwars: free, multiplayer game.

Very, very simple....

[gdamore]

Its really, really simple.

MacOS X is licensed to run on one computer, and one computer only. Now, if you bought MacOS X to run on your MAC, and then installed it on your PC -- I surely hope you deinstalled it from your MAC. Because if you didn't you'd be in violation of your EULA.

Apple is certainly going to try very, very hard to prevent folks from running MacOS on non-Apple h/w, because lets face it, MacOS is just a vehicle to sell hardware. You can argue that you should be able to purchase a Mac, throw the h/w away, and then put MacOS on your PC. Of course, you'd still be violating the EULA.

Apple has a right to try to make it "hard" to do this -- you're trying to use the product in a way that it is not sold for. I'd do the same if I were Apple, precisely to prevent folks from pirating it, unless I was prepared to shift gears into being a *software* company. (And then I'd probably try to come up with another solution, ala XP's hated activation.)

Even if Apple starts selling MacOS X separately, they have every right to have a EULA that requires it to run on Apple hardware. And they have a right to reasonable technical measures to ensure that you're not in violation of the EULA. (The caveat here is that I think they need to disclose the requirement "only for use with Apple hardware" on the packaging.)

If you don't like that requirement, then vote with your feet and don't buy it. Certainly, don't *steal* it buy pirating it.

And that's really what it comes down to, isn't it? Folks aren't happy because Apple wants to make money on hardware, and they've come up with a nify OS for it. While I agree it would be nice to run that nifty OS on some other hardware, I cannot force it. So, if I want to use the OS, I have to pay the piper ...err Apple. Too rich for my blood? Live without. (And ultimately, that's the choice I've made. I don't have a MAC, and as nice as MacOS seems, I actually prefer to use Solaris. So I'm no Apple fanboy.)

Btw, I feel the same way about DRM'd media. If the media companies properly disclose any use limitations, then we the consumers have no *rights* to do otherwise with the content. Don't like it, don't buy it, and don't use it.

The there is no god-given right to use MacOS X, nor is there one to watch a given movie on your personal computer. Either live with the licensing restrictions or go elsewhere. (And for pete's sake, don't pirate. Show some strength in your convictions if you're going to proclaim the evilness of DRMd content.)

Re:Very, very simple....

[WhiteWolf666]

Not that simple. May I point you at history?

http://www.jmusheneaux.com/01.htm#1a

IBM only wanted DOS to run on PCs. Official, IBM branded PCs.

Compaq decided to reverse engineer the PC bios, in order to offer 100% PC compatible machines. They succeded, and won the lawsuit. This is a benchmark case in computing.

Now, the legal issues were different. I'm not sure what the IBM EULA was. Either way, I suspect that the portions of the EULA specifying what hardware you can use the software on are not enforceable; otherwise, we'd see Apple going after the PearPC people, and we'd see Apple going after Maxxuss.

Sure, they can make it hard. But I suspect if someone actually built a 100% compatible Apple "clone", apple would be powerless to stop it.

Re:Very, very simple....

[gdamore]

I'm not sure the IBM case is relevant. IBM probably didn't have an EULA that required IBM DOS to run on IBM hardware. In any case, MS-DOS was available separately (not sure when MS released their edition of DOS, though), and wouldn't have had such an EULA (microsoft being a s/w company had no reason to promote IBM's PC lock-in). To some extent the case here predates shrink-wrap license agreements anyway. (Also, IBM *published* the BIOS source code, but under very limited terms!)

If someone built a 100% Mac clone, it would be legal. But would it be legal to run MacOS on it? Probably not? EULAs stipulate no more than one copy on a computer a time. Some EULAs stipulate you can't use the software for "life-threatening" purposes (nuclear power, weapons, or aircraft control as an example.) GPLv3 has all kinds of license restrictions in it. Why couldn't Apple's EULA just as well stipulate a hardware restriction? I don't see a fundamental legal difference here. Its their code, they can license it under whatever terms they see fit.

As far as PearPC goes, there is no leverage. PearPC isn't in violation of the terms (well, they might be, but that's a different problem), its the *end-users* who are in violation. Apple's case in court is very shaky at best.

It used to be that certain techniques could be used to reverse engineer for the purposes of e.g. building a clone. With DRM and DMCA, the rules have changed. If PearPC *reverse engineers* MacOS for the purposes of breaking the DRM, within the USA they could have big trouble with DMCA.

Of course, in jurisdictions where DMCA is not valid, Apple can't fight the cloners. But they can still go after end-users who violate the EULA.

Yeah sure

[rbarreira]

Yeah, because Apple can't hire x86 experts.

I don't see the problem...

[makoffee]

I can't afford a decent mac (yes I have a mini at work and it blows), but I can certanly afford a retail copy MacOS X and would gladly install it on my home PC if I could.

I don't understand why Apple is missing the boat here. I'm waving my $150 at you Steve Jobs come and get it. If you would just sell it to people you'd have the number one os in the world. (and #1 in my heart)

Just think of being able to ACTUALY choose your OS. Linux/Mac/Windows on the same hardware - Why not?

Re:I don't see the problem...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't understand why Apple is missing the boat here. I'm waving my $150 at you Steve Jobs come and get it.

I'll explain it. You and the several thousand others like you would cost more money for the free support and other missed opportunity cost than you would give. Basically, Apple offering OS X fort other hardware will cost them hardware sales since many people will buy other hardware now that they can run OS X on it. It will increase support costs in trying to deal with all that hardware. And Apple makes very little money selling OS X. They make their money selling hardware and in order to make the same amount of money they would have to capture 30-40% of the OS market. Since they are locked out of the pre-install market by MS's OEM pricing and since the non-preinstall market is about 5% of the market right now the chances of them even making the same amount of money as they do now are basically zero. I'd buy it too, but it just doesn't make sense for them to sell it.

Hackers are irrelevant, OS X on a PC a novelty

[AHumbleOpinion]

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 genuine 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.

Wouldn't work

[Kadin2048]

I think Apple realizes that letting people put OS X on commodity hardware isn't going to make it into the "dominant OS." There are still too many things tying people to Windows, and too many nasty weapons Microsoft could drag out if anyone ever started to threaten their core markets. Apple can't afford to challenge Microsoft directly.

What Apple suspects -- and what I believe -- is that OS X on commodity boxes would probably just cannibalize existing Apple sales, convert them to [whitebox NewEgg PC + pirated bittorrent copy of MacOS] "sales," and drive the company quickly out of business. And once Apple is gone, that would be the end of the line for MacOS. Microsoft would really have won.

I think it's also important to look back to 10 years or so ago, and remember that it was the same sort of 'commodity hardware' thinking that led to the CHRP and Mac Clone era. In retrospect, that came close to killing Apple -- and not surprisingly, when it became clear that other manufacturers' hardware running MacOS wasn't converting legions of Wintel users to Mac, but instead just drawing existing Apple customers to someplace else, Apple killed the clones. That's the historical lesson that I assume is forefront in the minds of everyone in Apple's management, and I doubt that they're going to repeat the mistake.

Apple's "magic smoke," it's jene se qua, that keeps customers coming back and paying that "Mac Tax," is based on a lot more than just the MacOS (which at the end of the day is really a pretty interface and HAL on top of BSD). It's utterly dependent on maintaining a tight control over the hardware and the software. It's not sustainable without that control, and that's why I think it'll be a cold day in hell before you see Apple willingly sell a retail version of MacOS for boxes that aren't theirs.

The retail boxes are technically upgrades

[AHumbleOpinion]

If they stopped selling retail versions of their new OS, it would be a huge loss of revenue.

The retail boxes are technically upgrades. The requirements include a computer that shipped from the factory with Mac OS. The GP is correct, if you are not running on a Mac it technically is piracy, you are using an upgrade as a full product.

Re:The retail boxes are technically upgrades

[IvanXQZ]

The retail boxes are technically upgrades. The requirements include a computer that shipped from the factory with Mac OS. The GP is correct, if you are not running on a Mac it technically is piracy, you are using an upgrade as a full product.

100% false. The retail boxes are full installers that run on any supported Mac, whether or not that Mac has any OS installed.

The only "upgrade" CD's are those that are bundled with computers which have an earlier OS pre-installed because the new OS was recently released. Sometimes you have to pay them $19.95 to have them send it to you if it didn't come in the box. They say "upgrade" clearly on the CD label.

The upgrade CD is also a full installer, no different than the retail box, but it refuses to install if it can't first find a drive with the previous or current OS on it. However, the new OS doesn't have to be installed on the same drive as the existing OS, meaning if you've got any computer with the previous or current OS installed, you can put it into Target (FireWire) disk mode, plug it into the machine you want to install onto, and the upgrade CD will let you proceed as usual.

So the retail kits are neither technically nor legally upgrades. You may well be right that Apple doesn't want to sell retail copies of the OS to someone who hasn't also spent money on Apple hardware, but that hardly makes it piracy or even an abuse of an upgrade to do so. Of course, before Intel Macs existed, it was impossible (or at least highly implausible) to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, so it's conceivable that when they release a retail version of Intel OS X (which they very likely will with 10.5), the license agreement may specify that you may only run it on Apple-manufactured hardware, and then you'll be in violation if you do otherwise. But that still doesn't make it piracy, or misusing an upgrade. It just puts you in violation of the EULA, whoop de do.

Apple has nothing to worry about...

[KutuluWare]

We tried to install this version of 3 different PCs, plus a VMWare and a VPC virtual machine. Both virtual machines blew up due to invalid or unimplemented operations, and the 3 real PCs all contained some piece of hardware (video card and CD-ROM drivers, specifically) that the installer claims were non-existant. If this is what they consider "just download a DVD and run it" then I'm changing careers before the tech support calls start coming in.

--K

It is about control

[db32]

Last I had read on the subject, their concern with OSX on the intel platform has little to do with competition. The major concern is that they want to control the hardware configuration so they can control the image they present. If you can just run out and buy OSX and slap it on any intel box with random hardware, there could be incompatabilities that makes their OS look unstable. They want to make sure that OSX ships only on hardware that is known to not have issues. This control also reduces support costs since they don't have to guess as to what chips are involved.

This is a good thing for Apple

[rocketpig]

Ultimately Apple had to have known that OSX would be cracked. Did they care? I don't think so. Sure, they used a few security measures to make sure that it wasn't extremely easy to do, but getting OSX into geeks' hands is a good thing, even if they don't pay for the OS. Why? Because if this crack becomes widespread, you can be sure that a bunch of cool little third party apps for OSX will follow as geeks find different ways to get OSX to do what they want.

This won't impact Apple's bottom line negatively because those same geeks wouldn't have used OSX if they needed to pay for it. But if it's free to them and they start writing apps for it, OSX only becomes more and more viable for the paying customer as these geeks spend some quality time with the OS.

And if people get Windows to boot on a Macbook, who knows... We might start seeing geeks running a Linux/XP/OSX Macbook, which would be the ultimate geek laptop due to OSX's ability to terminal into Unix. You'd have the ultimate quad-boot machine available.

Re:This is a good thing for Apple

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Missing one point.

Developing software for retail with an illegal copy of OSX is one way to get sued up the wazoo or even land in jail.

If your going to develop for OSX, then your going to own a Mac and own OSX as well.

All this will do is cause OSX to be distributed for free, run on PC's, and hurt Apple because it is currently expected every license of OSX is for a Mac sold by Apple. Without the ability to tie OSX to Mac based hardware, Apple cannot sustain OSX development.

Apple doesn't want to become an OS only vendor, they will fail. OSX hasn't inspired PC owners to switch, even with cheap Mac Mini's and other novel computers. If Apple dropped Mac hardware and simply sold another PC Windows competitor, they won't inspire much of a switch as well. Despite all the benefits and strengths of OSX, there still isn't great software support. Developing software for OSX isn't because of a lack of exposure, its because of a lack of good quality development tools, including Apple's own XCode which is that last tool I would want to work with.

In the end, Apple would love it if people ran Windows on Mac hardware, they want to sell more Mac hardware. But it is Apple's worst nightmare for OSX to become a novelty OS for PC's. I can't understand why the didn't think this would happen or take greater steps to prevent this from happening.

Re:Sig

[ehrichweiss]

"I bet you didn't know Maynard James Keenan of Tool is against illegal music piracy."

I sure didn't but now that I do that's one less artist that I'll be supporting with my money(or bother downloading his music either because that only gives him a new statistic to whine about "downloading is up but my CD sales are down"). That's my approach to this: support artists/software companies who aren't uptight about filesharing because otherwise it's much like paying traffic fines, each time you do it's equivalent to paying the officer to harass you for something retarded. In that particular instance you face jail time but that costs the government money and makes them that much less capable of repeating it especially if people unite to do this enmass ala civil disobedience but Keenan can't do anything except NOT make money if I refuse to listen to his music, buy his CD's, go to his shows, buy t-shirts, etc. and I don't download his crap either. If that's done enmass, Keenan goes broke and that's one less loser artist to complain about a problem that mostly exists in their mind.

OS X EULA versus GPL

[GaryPatterson]

If people don't care about Apple's EULA (which states explicitly that OS X should only be run on Apple-branded machines) then why should they care about the GPL?

Both are usage contracts. Both defines specific terms of use, and if you disagree with either, you can opt out by not using the software.

So - is there anyone who is for OS X on generic PC hardware *and* for the GPL?

Is that a contradiction?

While I'm at it - Apple are actively participating in several open source programs, and recently (and unexpectedly) gave a fair bit of hardware away for free to some top contributors. Should Apple be punished through active disregard for their OS X terms of use?

Re:10.4.5

[Anonymous Coward]

10.4.5 has just been released.
http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/macosxupdat e1045.html

99% of the market for PC's that run OSX

[GodWasAnAlien]

Yes, I know, Apple is the good guy.

But try to compete with them, and make a PC that runs OSX.

The mechanisms that they have put in place are designed to limit/stop the competition with their hardware. Yes, this is an artificial monopoly.

Monopoly does not need to be a bad word. Copyrights and patents create temporary monopolies, by there nature. But monopolies do need to be recognized and limited. DRM+Anti-circumvention+Anti-reverse-engineering monopolies are the latest thing in creating monopolies. The Apple PC is an example of the later.

In an ideal world, a company with any monopoly should be required to justify it.

Apple needs a OSX harware monopoly because:
1. It promotes art and science because (?).
2. It helps the customer by (?).
3. Because Microsoft has monopolies, so they need them to compete.
4. for more profits.
5. because we want the boxes to be cool/silver/plasticy.

beige box?

[a.d.trick]

What's a beige box? I know what it is among the phreaking crowd (a linemans handset), but that's obviously not what your talking about.

Try again crackers...

[ChunderDownunder]

10.4.5 is out.

From the linked install notes:

You may experience unexpected results if you have third-party system software modifications installed, or if you've modified the operating system through other means. (This does not apply to normal application software installation.)

Re:This should not be considered hacking

[ABaumann]

Where the hell do you get the $1000 number?

The Acer Core Duo runs for $2500 at http://www.buy.com/prod/Acer_TravelMate_8200_LX_TA X06_034_Mainstream_Notebook_with_Intel/q/loc/212/2 02166276.html

A comparable MacBook Pro (upgraded to 2GB RAM and 120 GB HD) runs at about $2900 from the Apple Store.

Let's see, that's a $400 difference. Hmm...