Slashdot Mirror
The Prospects For Virtualizing OS X
seriouslywtf writes in with a look at the current state of the question: will people eventually be able to run Mac OS X in a virtual machine, either on the Mac or under Windows? Ars Technica has articles outlining the positions of two VM vendors, Parallels and VMWare. Both have told Ars unequivocally that they won't enable users to virtualize OS X until Apple explicitly gives them the thumbs up. First, Parallels: "'We won't enable this kind of functionality until Apple gives their blessing for a few reasons,' Rudolph told Ars. 'First, we're concerned about our users — we are never going to encourage illegal activity that could open our users up to compromised machines or any sort of legal action. This is the same reason why we always insist on using a fully-licensed, genuine copy of Windows in a virtual machine — it's safer, more stable, fully supported, and completely legal.'" And from VMWare: "'We're very interested in running Mac OS X in a virtual machine because it opens up a ton of interesting use cases, but until Apple changes its licensing policy, we prefer to not speculate about running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment,' Krishnamurti added."
OS X is already virtualised - it has been for ages. Not supported, but certainly doable.
Be nice if Apple gave a bit more help to their customers however - I am not a big fan of artifical restrictions.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
Both [vendors] have told Ars unequivocally that they won't enable users to virtualize OS X until Apple explicitly gives them the thumbs up.
So what do people say when vendors behave the same way towards Microsoft?
Wizard Needs Food, Badly
It is however so slow that you can't do much with it.
"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
I understand why it is cool and all to run virtual machines, but I'm really confused why this is so with OS X. Apple is a hardware company, not a software company, and the entire Apple user experience relies on both. One would lose the perceived benefits of OS X without the hardware.
It's obvious they will never give "permission" to do this. Their whole business model is based on using OS X as a driving force to sell their hardware with high profit margins. Some people might agree that they could survive going the other way but Apple doesn't seem convinced.
That being said I doubt they can do much to stop it. It'll be interesting to see what kind of court cases get brought up over virtualization though. Perhaps they could finally bring the whole EULA nonsense to an end.
For the same reason I don't believe Apple will ever release its software for installation on PCs. Hardware sales are where Apple makes its money, and who would really buy the hardware if they could install OS X on a $300 Walmart PC?
After getting dumped by IBM after IBM landed all three console manufacturers as clients, Apple was pushed closer to being nothing but an overpriced x86 OEM with nice industrial polish and typography.
OS X running freely in the x86 wild pretty much means the death of Apple hardware. Apple has known this for some time now and it is why they are turning their attention towards the iPod side of the company, changing the company name to downplay desktop computers, and have started to slow the OS X upgrade cycle.
An open-source project would never deliberately restrict its feature set in order to appease some corporation; whatever is technologically possible gets implemented. Corporations trying to limit technologically-possible things by gentleman's agreement is figuratively putting a very small finger in a very large dike; eventually, the whole thing will come down.
If it can be done technically why not. If Windows license prevented it I am sure someone would do it anyways. Why is Apple so different???
Also a little off the subject but this brings up lock in!!!
Apple locked the iTunes system to iPod and Europe is steaming and wants it to change. What about Mac OS itself. It is a Apple operating system that is LOCKED to Apple's hardware. Why isn't the EU trying to break that lock in??? You want Windows, buy from MS and buy any vendors hardware (Linux too). Want OS X you are FORCED to buy Apple's hardware too. I wonder if someday Apple will be forced to change by the EU.
I use the MacBook but I must say I hate being artificially forced via DRM, or any other system to prevent me (the customer) from options after I purchase a product.
That's because of lack of native graphics support. A lot of OS X stuff can use the graphics card, and not having it forces OS X to fall back to SSE2 or Altivec, and if the VM can't virtualize SSE2/Altivec, it falls back on straight-up processor instructions, which'll be painful to say the least.
at WWDC 2006, explaining that we would pay extra for Mac OS X Server, if it were possible to run it under VMware ESX. The ability to run Mac OS X (Server or otherwise) under Fusion or Parallels Desktop or even VMWare/Parallels Workstation would also provide a strategic advantage and encourage us to maintain our subscription levels (well over 400 seats today).
Would "virtualizable" OS X lead to piracy? Probably. But as with most piracy, it would not necessarily impact actual sales. Pirates steal things they wouldn't have ever paid for anyway...
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
The flipside though is that people may try OSX on a Virtual Machine, not realizing that VMs cut performance significantly, decide that OSX is slow and useless, then stick with Windows. I guess I can see either way.
Mac OS X makes heavy use of hardware accelerated functions: Quartz/Aqua 3D graphics (which unlike Vista's Aero can't be turned off), GPU-rendered graphics processing among others in CoreImage and iMovie, low-latency sound in CoreAudio, ... - likely making it perhaps the worst candidate for virtualization among all operating systems.
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
...They don't even have the courage to say "It's totally feasible we just can't release it because Apple would sue us into next Tuesday."
But I suppose you attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Maybe they genuinely aren't irritated about this licensing issue and just want to pressure Apple into opening negotiations. Certainly, the recent change from Apple Computer Inc to Apple, Inc. is a good sign--they've acknowledge their business is more diverse than just hardware--they are as much a software company as they are a hardware company, and maybe it can finally not be sacrilege within Apple to say that every VM would not mean one less Macintosh sold and admit that it would be a huge boon to their bottom line. These would be sales of OS X to individuals that you would simply NEVER POSSIBLY SELL A MAC TO. You have to give them the chance to get hooked... That's how I ended up as a Mac user.
I buy Macs because I started using them in school, and when the time came to purchase my own system I got a pizza-box mac. After college, replaced it with a PowerBook, replaced that with a G5 desktop, and am currently saving my pennies for a MacBook. I'd love a chance to get some virtual Mac OS X servers up and running to function as application servers--I think they'd be great. We use VMWare ESX, and it rocks, but it doesn't run... OS X. And XServes are sweet, but they have some shortcomings too. They STILL don't offer dual power-supply or SAS--two of the best features of a wintel server I recently brought online at work. It is sweet as hell--I almost wish I could get an XServe with an Opteron processor (or a Core Duo/Xeon64 etc.) We have to have SERIOUS up-time on Applications or we lose tons of money--what do we do if a PS fails during business hours? 4-hour service is nice, but with the full-load failing over to the second node of the cluster in that time, performance would get pretty bad pretty fast. The literal translation would be slower throughput of students--some people might just walk away and not sign up for classes.
Who did what now?
What we need is a court case to establish that when I plunk down my money, I own the software. I don't own the *copyright* on it, so I can't go distributing copies of it to my pals over the internet. But I own the one I bought. So, for example, I should be able to install Windows home edition on a virtual machine if I want, and MS be damned - they don't get a say in the matter. Similar for Apple. If I want to run the product over with a truck, I can, if I bought it.
We also need to make it illegal for a company to *artificially construct* barriers to interoperability. That is, they are not allowed to commit engineering resources to purposefully restrict the operation of the product to legal purchasers. That will nix the whole DRM thing in the bud. If something is interoperable without the artificially constructed barriers, fine. Your Windows exe doesn't run on Linux (yeah, wine blah blah, you know what I meant). That's OK. But the minute you start doing engineering specifically to restrict the end user, boom, the law comes down on your ass.
Hmmm...I don't seem to remember any companies having those concerns about running Windows virtualized. And I certainly don't recall Microsoft giving their blessings to anyone to do so.
Double standards make me laugh.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
However, whatever they say about wanting to virtualize OS X, at the moment, Parallels and VMWare are initially pitching their Mac products at people who need to run Windows applications on a Mac. Those people are never going to want to virtualise OS X. Wait for the equivalents of VMWare Server and VMWare Workstation - plus graphics acceleration (which both VMWare and Parallels promise Real Soon Now and which OSX will proably need).
Actually, a more Apple-y thing to happen would be for simple-to-use virtualization to crop up in a future version of OS X. "Click here to create a sandbox for your kids".
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Parent is spot on. The two issues are making sure it is only used as a tool for virtualizing on MAC hardware, and secondly, that it's such a good idea that Apple is likely to do that themselves.
Mac-On-Linux gets the job done if you need to virtualize Mac OS X on PowerPC hardware.
I am sure someone will get a comparable open source project going for x86.
You don't own the software, you've bought a limited license to it. Whether we like it or not, courts have upheld shrinkwrapped licenses.
Thus, you have the right to use OS-X in exactly the way Apple specifies (i.e. on Apple hardware only) or, if you have never done so, return it for a full refund.
It may not be criminally illegal for you to violate that contract but it is a violation of a contract and thus illegal in the sense of prohibited by civil law.
Apple sells OS-X cheaply in order to sell the hardware it's locked to at a large markup. This isn't any different to Adobe giving away Acrobat reader to allow them to sell Acrobat at a huge markup or Microsoft giving away Internet Explorer to WGA validated Windows users.
It's not in Apple's interest to unbundle the two:
We may not like it but Apple evidently has their reasons (whether arguably short sighted or not). That you buy a shrinkwrapped license, not ownership, means that: yes, legally, they do have the right to do so and you don't legally have the right to do as you wish.
'We're very interested in running Mac OS X in a virtual machine because it opens up a ton of interesting use cases, but until Apple changes its licensing policy, we prefer to not speculate about running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment,'
Means: "we have it running in the lab."
you had me at #!
Why bother? Just use one of the logo stickers that came with your iPod.
The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
I guess Apple subsidizes the development of Mac OSX with the hardware sales (price premium?). Now if Apple were to let OSX to be distributed independent of the hardware, the software would have to be sold at a higher price. Moreover, Apple may have to protect against piracy with the much loathe activation schemes that Microsoft currently employs. Be careful what you wish for? Besides I don't believe that OSX has enough mindshare to get many more users to make that model work. OSX link to Apple hardware is not only thing holding back the mass exodus from Wndows.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Now that Jobs is on record as being supportive of a DRM free world, maybe he can be convinced to support allowing OSX "content" on any device, as well as music on any device. Or does DRM-free only apply to other people's content?
Most people who use OS X for any time at all love it. Why not give everybody a chance to love it? Why not let developers get a taste for the development tools without buying a new system? What do you think their next computer purchase will look like?
They could work with VMWare to create an appropriately DRMed player if they are that paranoid about piracy. VMWare already has their ACE platform that could probably be extended to include some sort of virtual TPM.
Offer OS X as a bundle with a specially modified VMWare player. Let 90% of PC users see what they've been missing. I bet any piracy will be dwarfed by the gains in market share.
The best case scenario I see for Apple would be for some smart cookie to write a minimal Linux distro that boots up VMWare and OS X inside--a poor man's OS X if you will. Users of such a configuration are likely to be the geeks. They'll start learning ObjC and Cocoa and maybe increase the platform's worth. Even if some geeks are content to run an unsupported configuration like this, and *never* purchase a proper Mac, they'll be a force for conversion and software development.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Just use an OS X USB stick.
Boot up OS X when you need it, when you don't,
shut down, unplug, back to your regular Vista Ultimate Mojo JoJo MegaMaxi OS.
Keychain Computing already has a foot hold on many users,
and as flash RAM decreases in price, soon you'll have a 64GB flash drive in your pocket for $69 bucks.
You can store and boot a lot of OS and Applications and data in just a few Gigs, more is better!
( Switch to http://www.puppylinux.org/ you'll be glad you did. )
I doubt Apple would want their OS or Systems sold at Wal-Mart because Apple is very strict about not selling products below their suggested retail price.
Wal-Mart always tries to sell things below the suggested retail price in order to get business away from competition.
Those $300 Wal-Mart PCs will be running some version of Linux instead.
If someone wants to run OSX, they can always buy a $599 Mac Mini and use their old keyboard, mouse, and monitor with it. Some of the older G3 and G4 PowerMac and iMac systems sell for cheaper than that used, plus the cost of the OSX install disk to upgrade them to OSX.
I bought a used Blueberry iMac G3 system for under $100 including shipping. All it needs is a bigger hard drive and 256M of RAM to run OSX. But I am keeping it Mac OS9 for my son to use for his educational software that runs in the Classic Mac environment.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
We all know that people are running Mac OS X in VMware all over the place. We also know it runs slow as hell? Why? Because there are no vmware tools to be installed in your Mac OS X running in vmware. All this article means is that we will not see vmware tools released for Mac OS X until Apple gives the go ahead to run Mac OS X in vmware.
It would be very useful to be able to run OS X in a VM for testing different versions. I have to test my software in 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5. Of course it won't help with PowerPC versions, but it would be nice to be able to use 10.5 without rebooting.
Mac hardware is consistently cheaper than any hardware out there. Go to shop.lenovo.com and spec out a T60 with the same hardware as a macbook pro. It costs $2300! The macbook pro is 2000 - and the lenovo is heavier and doesn't have a good dvd drive OR the webcam.
Same with dell and compaq - putting the same hardware in a notebook computer as the macbook pro makes it more expensive than the mac. Same with the Mac pro - you can't spec a Dell with those specs without going 33% over the mac price.
Everyone says macs are expensive hardware, but it's not true. It's the cheapest hardware available, it's just high-end only.
Prove me wrong I dare you.
Couln't you install GNUStep??
I dunno why you would in this case but..
I doubt copyright is used very much lately -- that is, I doubt you actually own the copy to much of the stuff that you've bought.
That DVD? I suppose technically, it's yours. However, most of what would be permitted under "fair use" is denied by the DMCA: Cracking the encryption on it (so you can make a backup of ANY sort, or play it on Linux/BSD) is illegal.
That copy of Windows? OS X? What about that game? Actually, you don't own any of those, you merely own the license to use it. Things like the GPL are the exception rather than the rule, such that the GPL is often applied incorrectly -- you are allowed to use GPL'd software without agreeing to the license, as you own that copy of the software under normal copyright law -- GPL only kicks in when you redistribute it.
Same with songs off a subscription service, by the way. You don't own the songs, just a license to use them -- a license which can expire unless you keep paying your dues.
What about that eBook? Or, say, music/movies off of, say, iTunes? I'd flip a coin over whether it's the first or second situation, but does it really make a difference? Either you own it (and aren't allowed to use it the way you want) or you don't really own it at all.
I think if we could get rid of the false advertising (inviting people to "buy" something they don't really get to buy), we'd have a lot more outrage over this.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Is it just me, or is "until Apple changes its licensing policy" actually imply they've already speculated?
"Winners Don't Use Drugs"
- William S. Sessions Ex-Director FBI
Well,
if the license states one copy of the software running on one Apple made PC (I am using a C2D 17 Macbook right this moment) why not
boot into XP (Bootcamp) load up VMWare or Parallels and create a VM running OSX ? This scenario is plausible, funny thing about it though,
once the VM is made the where and how its ran legally is up to the end user.
one smalll hiccup with this plan for us in the US, Apple encrypts a few of the OS binaries and decoding them outside of Apples scheme would seem to be a
violation of the some really stupid US copyright law as you would be circumventing a 'digital' protection, any emulator that copies this process without
Apples consent might be in some trouble. I for one as a long time Apple customer would love to see more folks using the OS even it its in a VM, it will certainly
run better on the real deal but it might still the the fence sitters a chance to play without a substantial investment.
Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
We all know that OSX has already been run under VMWare, but having recently tried it, I would much prefer if it was SUPPORTED by VMWare and Apple (don't really care about Parallels unless they release a free Linux version) mainly due to performance issues than legal ones.
.vmx files, this isn't a major issue like Tools though. I seem to recall Workstation 5.5 had a "Darwin" guest.
For a start it runs pretty slowly (especially past 10.4.1) even with the little speed fixes, probably as there are no VMWare Tools to speed up disk, network, sound and graphics; and that it doesn't seem to work at all if you have Intel-VT enabled.
Then as VMWare doesn't have a guest option for it so you have to use Other/Linux/FreeBSD/WinNT and manually edit the
Then there are the patches you need to actually get it working, which equally apply to getting it working on bare metal PC's - AMD fixes, SSE3 emulators and various kernels, thus ruling out actually using a legit copy of OSX.
Also 10.4.8 won't even boot to the installer so you have to boot and run the disk utility from a previous version of OSX. If it was supported by Apple, then these last two points wouldn't be an issue.
Personally I don't think Apple will ever allow virtualisation or non-Mac hardware - unless they turn completely into a software/iPod shop, which seems likely I guess - hey it's not "Apple Computer" anymore!
It seems if you want to run whatever OS you want on your computer, you have to buy a Mac and Parallels (or VMWare Fusion) but personally I'd prefer a Linux host and OSX guest. Actually that's a thought, would it be against EULA to run a virtualised OSX on a Mac running Linux, it's still Apple hardware.....?
#include <sig.h>
VMWare and Parallels may not be willing to let users run OS X in their virtual machines, but there are others that do. For example, Mac-on-Linux, QEMU, and PearPC. All these are open-source, too.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
..and MS retaliates with a Vista EULA on all bar the pro versions that forbids you from running it as a virtual machine.
The only way you can vote to change this is with your wallet...
I don't know where you get the "High profit Margins" from.
Just last week I compared the price and hardware of a Dell Notebook and an Apple Powerbook. The price was about 50 bucks difference once way or the other depending on which angle you look at it.
Dell definitely does not have HIGH margins. Unless Apple has some special deal with the OEM hardware vendors it's hard to see how their margins could be much higher than Dell's.
On PPC MacOnLinux *already* runs OS X as a guest OS with no problems at all, and as far as I know Apple has never hassled them about it - probably because other than Apple sources of PPC machines are few and far between and it didn't represent a significant source of loss.
If you have an old PPC powerbook around I highly recommend it.
Beep beep.
Why dont they just not RENDER the pretty shadows or highlights?
If XWindows can 'copy' the look of aqua using standard rendering, which makes it 90% close but not the same, then why cannot
apple just grow a brain cell and let people choose NOT TO USE 50% of the cpu to render pretty shadows which ARE NOT NEEDED.
OSX desktop should NOT BE SLOW on todays fast cpus, even if it is 100% cpu and no GPU. Because geez even quake1 using 100% software renderer
in 1024 is darn faster than OSX doing 100x more complex rendering, including shadows.
So either OSX on PURPOSE makes it slow so people buy better HW or they are just bad coders.
Lets pretend that real optimized (made by uber cool 35yo hackers) desktop in 100% software is as fast as GPU hardware, even on 600mhz machines.
Then why would anyone upgrade? There is less compellingness reasons to upgrade.
Even if its by sly tricks - like assigning the software renderer to the 'not most experienced' programmers. Im sure Id software could make a soft-rendered to do OSX effects on windows/buttons
using 10% cpu in 60fps in 1600x1280 resolution. (The only GPU requirements are line draws and rect blits/rect fills).
Ever run linux/X on a slow mac? its funny how its 10x faster than OSX.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Safer? More stable? How so?
Um, that's not the way it works. Why should Apple program their GUI so it runs on really old video cards when they support accelerated GPU-based effects on hardware all the way back to 2001?
Part of selling an integrated software/hardware system is that you don't have to write all that 'lowest common denominator' code. There's no reason to write the thing so it scales down below the hardware you've sold in the past five years (and I'd say Apple is pretty generous at that).
Also, OS X 10.4 isn't 'slow' on any hardware that can do Quartz Extreme, which is pretty much everything since the 533MHz G4. I have an iMac G3 that it's slow as a dog on, but that's totally to be expected; modern Linux distros are slow as a dog on that hardware too.
Lets be honest here: technology marches on, you can't get nice compositing in Linux without a modern video card, you can't get OS X to run quickly on hardware that predates pixel shaders, and Vista won't run too well on your 800MHz Duron. Sure, Linux scales down better, but you still won't be able to get all the goodies you would if you had a modern system.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
I already do, on VMWare workstation / openSUSE 10.2
The big deal here is that nobody who wants to virtualize OS X wants to do so on Apple hardware. One of the main selling points of virtualization is consolidation and hardware ambiguity, i.e. I would want to be able to run multiple instances of OS X server on the cheapest, largest server I can find and I garauntee you it is not going to be one with an Apple logo on it!
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
At least not while Jobs is still with Apple. Everyone seems to think these days that Apple is the company that sells OSX. Well, they're not. They're the company that sells Apple-branded computers, which incidentally run OSX. Their business plan includes selling hardware, with software added as an extra benefit - contrast with Microsoft which are in the business of selling software. Virtualization would cut into their hardware sales, so they won't allow it.
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem
For everyday common use Joe/Jane Luser with word-processing and web-browsing would experience little perceptible difference unless running VM/PM side by side to visibly highlight the disparity, especially if you turn-off the stupid eye-candy, it doesn't take a lot of horsepower to read keystrokes and draw characters from a font in a pane. We run customers in Terminal/Services virtual servers 20-30 sessions at a crack, on the same physical server running other non-interactive VM like Global Catalog/DNS, file server, etc without complaint.
Now where did I put those 5.25 Wing Commander floppies, maybe there's enough degradation that they'd be playable again on a dual Opteron machine in a FreeDOS XEN VM.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
The virtualization of MS Windows on Mac OS X makes sense because there is a lot of software available for MSWin that isn't available for Mac OS X. The reverse is just simply not true. The fact that many people like Mac OS X much more doesn't seem to me like a good enough reason to spend the money when you can just get the software you need for MSWin itself, software that would integrate much better with the rest of the system. It seems to me the only reason for virtualizing Mac OS X would be so you can bring it up, look at it, and say ``wow, that's nice''. I could be wrong---it's certainly happened many times before---but I don't think most people would want to pay for that.
This is all just another example of Apple exercising their brutal monopoly power over all things Apple in order to force people to give them money. If you have a virtualized environment, you aren't buying their junky hardware. And if you aren't buying their junky hardware, you aren't obligated to pay your yearly +$100 Apple Tax for the yearly Apple service pack (which their much-maligned competitor has ALWAYS provided for free).
Apple is such a brutal and overzealous monopoly, they are even willing to destroy their own business in order to maintain that monopoly. Don't expect that to change... ever.
You're right that the cloners took marketshare away from Apple.
If Apple had charged enough for Mac OS licenses, that wouldn't have mattered to Apple's bottom line.
Apple should have set the Mac OS license price such that it didn't matter whether a customer bought an Apple or a clone; Apple would have made the same amount of profit either way. Increasing the customer base for Mac OS (while protecting its revenue stream) should have been Apple's goal in the cloning era, not propping up the size of its hardware division.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
how about a version of os x/os x server that is only licensed to (and tied to) run on a virtual machine? they build bits into the xnu kernel that tie it to apple hardware, so why not another, separate "software-only" distribution that runs on vmware or parallels?
this would be easy, and they could charge out the wazzo for it if they wanted. my workplace would buy it to run supported quicktime streaming services under real os x server on vmware, and i'd wager a lot of other sites would do the same thing.
they could use their virtual machine-oriented software sales to subsidize their hardware prices if they really wanted.
but oh yeah, they're a hardware company.
Mod parent Up!
"a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine"
So, technically speaking - if you really wanted to, it would be legal to modify your copy of OS X (from the source) to run on a Sinclair ZX81 via punchcards ?
I have noted lots of Mac fan boys running OS X on Dell's - Apple might not support it, they might not like it, but if the market demands it, Sooo
why not just sell it like that?
Just charge $299 per copy of OS X for PCs - with some unique authentication code, tied into the person's Real ID - and their iTunes Account.
In this manner Apple can make more profit on each copy of OS X than on 2 iPods.
The Buyer would still have to Buy a copy of iLife, and Buy a copy of iWork, etc -
Pure Software Revenue. A smart buyer can just get a Mac Mini and a MKVA switch.
A basic Mac Mini is $599, so if you split the 'value' of the whole system in half (half software/half hardware) - then $299 for OS X is reasonable.
- Still charge separate for iLife (as an incentive to buy Mac Hardware) and charge separate for iWork (which Mac owners must pay too already), and continue charging for the fully functional version of QuickTime (crippled on all Macs, you have to pony up $30 to get a full working copy running.)
So increase revenue - convince people to 'switch', and sell sell sell!
Apple hardware is cool - cooler than HP, Gateway, Dell, eMachines, Compaq, etc.
Only Alien computers and some portable PCs even come close to the smooth, 'Snappy' hardware that Apple has manufactured in Asia.
Not really.
in fact, there is some kinda DRM on OsX. Nowadays the copy of the OS provided when you buy a new mac will only install completley on mac of the same kind/model.
Assuming im getting me a new macpro, ill get a copy of the Os aswell. Now what, if i want to run my brandnew mac under any open-source Os, wich is legal and supported by apple, as pointed out earlier, id still have this copy of OsX i am allowed to install on one mac. maybe i have another one, an older maybe, or an iMac.etc.. with an (slightly) older version of mac Os. And i want to run that computer under my new Os.. Doesnt work.
thats because you just get a copy for one specific type of hardware, not, according to your impression of EULA, a fully compatiple version to any mac..(sure, using intelmac Os on g3 doesnt work, but its the same problem within the current available products, e.g. intels.)
dig that.