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."

Comments

OS X is already virtualised.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Dark Kenshin]

It seems to me the article is talking more about the legality of doing it, not the possibility. Apple therefore, has no obligation to support something it doesn't license.

I do agree with you about the restrictions. If I legally obtain OS X, there should no reason I shouldn't be able to run it under a virtual environment.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

It seems to me the article is talking more about the legality of doing it, not the possibility.

Although the article does talk about the 'legality' of running OS X on non-Mac PCs, it would seem to me that there is nothing illegal about this whatsoever (as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).

No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Hal_Porter]

Apple's software license for OS X says that you can only run it on Apple hardware.

Actually, looking here http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/, the phrase is "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."

So it sounds like if you write "Apple" on a Post It and stick to your PC, you can virtualize away.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[GlassHeart]

it sounds like if you write "Apple" on a Post It and stick to your PC, you can virtualize away.

At which point you violate Apple's trademark instead.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[suitepotato]

No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple.

This statement brings to mind images of young casually dressed men and women storming their offices with gayly decorated weapons with rainbow Apple logos and shouting grammatically incorrect and utterly meaningless slogans that nevertheless get great press and everyone forgets about it by three days out because they're too busy writing op-ed pieces on the relative social and economic costs and benefits of trying to break up Microsoft again.

Well, it did.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[LordNimon]

There's a difference between "legal action" and "illegal". A company could instruct its lawyer to send you a C&D letter. That's technically a "legal action". However, what you are doing may not be illegal, and you may be forced to prove that in court if the company sues you for ignoring it's C&D demand.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[True Vox]

Yes, but in Soviet Russia, Apple's trademark violates YOU!

<.<
>.>

*runs*

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a deep breath, and repeat after me: The world is not the USA. The USA is not the world.

There are plenty of other countries that take the viewpoint of installing a program onto a hard drive, and running it, as being an expected part of using the software, and hence not in violation of copyright. Installing it onto a second hard drive without wiping it off the first, on the other hand, is (and fair enough too.)

In those countries, you do not need a license granted to you to use the software - it is implicitely granted when you purchase the software. This may make it perfectly legitimate to use the software in manners that contradict the EULA.

Naturally, the usual disclaimers apply: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice; seek a lawyer for information relevant to your specific situation; etc., etc., etc.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

you refuse to abide by the EULA then, under copyright law, you have no right to copy the work

Utter Nonsense (at least in the US):

Looking at United States Code, Chapter 17:

117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

[emph mine]

It is amazing to me just how many people in this forum believe they have to give up their rights because an EULA tells them to.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[jvkjvk]

Or maybe if you set the PC on top of an Apple you're okay...

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Mr2001]

Buying the product does not make you an owner of a copy of the work. Yes, it does. You're mistaken: that's exactly what owning a copy means.

When you buy a book, you own a copy of the story; when you buy an audio CD, you own a copy of the songs stored on it; when you buy a data CD, you own a copy of the programs stored on it. "Copy" refers to a tangible medium on which the information is stored. Whether or not you have the rights to make any further copies (which would be governed by the EULA, or in this case by an exemption to copyright law), you still own a copy.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[myowntrueself]

How about if I cut *an* apple in half and stick *that* on my PC?

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[myowntrueself]

The Mac OS X EULA says you can only run the software on Apple hardware.

I don't get it.

If I run Firefox on an XP virtual machine running on Apple hardware, then that instance of Firefox *IS* running on Apple hardware; it uses Apple memory and CPU in order to do its thing.

If I run OSX in a virtual machine running on Apple hardware then OSX *IS* running on Apple hardware, surely this is the end of the story?

Unless Apple *specifically* exclude virtualisation, I think its a red herring.

so...

[President_Camacho]

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?

Apple is a hardware company.

[Jartan]

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.

Re:Great Example Of Why Apple Changed Their Name

[wtmcgee]

I respectfully disagree. A lot of people care about the entire 'experience' of Apple products, from the quality packaging, to the clean, amazing hardware, to the OS. If Dell started selling OS X on their machines tomorrow, people would certainly jump ship and buy cheaper machines. But I can almost assure you Apple would still be around. I think they just know it's important to their brand to not have another 'clone war' like the mid 90s.

Personally, if Apple licensed OS X, I'd probably buy a cheap HP or Dell desktop for use around the house or for my parents ... but I certainly wouldn't stop buying Apple hardware.

Re:it will never happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much no-one. Apple proved this already during the cloning debacle - people immediately started buying Power Computing, Umax, Motorola and other clones because they offered higher CPU specs at the same or lower prices.

I spoke to every Apple person I could...

[csoto]

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...

OS X perhaps the worst OS for virtualization

[Florian]

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.

translation:

[toby]

'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."

Be careful what you ask for

[Enrique1218]

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.

VMWare "appliance" of OS X

[pschmied]

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

Already Done

[RAMMS EIN]

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.

Re:Already Done

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Notice anything about those solutions? They are not aimed at the consumer market, are not commercial enterprises, and are very limited in their ability. Creating software that can only be used legally in a weird edge case is one thing. Profiting by commercially marketing software that can only be used legally in an edge case is called "contributory copyright infringement." Now I can see the use case for OS X used legally in a VM (if you have Apple hardware and want to run OS X in a VM on top of some other OS, or if you live in a country with copyright laws that are different than the US). I can see arguments that contributory copyright infringement laws are a bad thing, and many of our other copyright laws are also negative for society. In this particular case, however, I do see the point of view from Apple. The market is dominated by a monopoly. Apple's best product would directly compete with that monopoly. Even if it is greatly superior, both recent history and the economics of monopolies show they will lose in that market if they try to compete. The classic strategy for competing against a monopoly is to build a separate vertical chain of supply the monopoly cannot undermine (hardware under your OS and apps on top of it). This is exactly what Apple has done.

Lots of people on Slashdot like to think Apple could abandon the tie between their OS and hardware and everyone would benefit. Those people mostly think that, not because they objectively looked at the market and understood it, but because they want it to be true because it would benefit them directly. It is not true. Unless MS's monopoly is broken up or ousted by tertiary market intrusions, Apple must maintain their tie in to survive. If EULAs are rendered null and void, Apple will stop selling their OS separately at all and probably start selling slightly more expensive boxes with a OS tied to a hardware signature and either sell upgrade versions (which suck) or provide free upgrades for some period of time, like 5 years. It is simply the reality of the market

For anyone out there who want Apple to stop tying their products, simply fixing the market will likely cause that to happen. Break MS into at least two competing companies, each with full rights to Windows, and in two or three years Apple will be forced to unbundle by the now competitive market and they will be able to do so without being killed. Problems like these are best solved at a higher level, rather than micro-managed.