Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X 10.6.2 Will Block Atom Processors
Archeopteryx writes "According to Wired's 'Gadget Lab' blog, Snow Leopard's next update, OS X 10.6.2, will block the Atom processor and will disable many 'Hackintosh' netbooks. It is indeed true that OS X will run just fine on some netbooks if you install the right drivers and ktexts, but Apple's EULA has always specified that the license was applicable only to Apple hardware. There have always been processor types specified in OS X and that have to be worked around now for those who want to use an Atom or similar non-Apple-adopted processor, so this is likely no more than a hiccup on the road for the OSX86 crowd. But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware — priced accordingly of course — for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted, like the netbook? The only reason OS X is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms. I could just pay for a license to use it."
It would seem that this does not actually inconvenience their customers at all right?
Why bother
Apple's target market aren't going to put up with the kinds of shenanigans it takes to get a hackintosh running, whether or not they pull this kind of stuff.
Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share. I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.
Additionally, as long as Jobs is at the helm, this will never happen. He's made it very clear that Apple doesn't sell hardware or software, but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two.
Depends on what you call a customer. They have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can or can't install their OS on. They try to with EULAs, but it wouldn't hold up in court if they tried to sue over it. As long as someone is paying Apple for the OS, then they're a customer.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
they make the program, they may not be able to "tell" you what not to do with it, but they can make their program however they want to. and if they dont want it to run on a certain system, guess what, you cant TELL them not to do that. however not giving them your business, or whine, is about all you can do.
No it doesn't! You did. YOU want that, so YOU asked it. It isn't inherit to the facts. An inherent question would be "If Apple isn't support them Atom, then what chip will they use for [speculated product]?"
The statement in the summary is equivalent to:
"Apple stops supporting something it never supported". What a story. Is anyone surprised? In fact, since hackintoshes are almost certainly eating into Apple's hardware sales (maybe not by much, but they must), this is an obvious thing to do. Why maintain support for something you don't use and is probably causing you some financial harm.
I remember with Apple stopped shipping drivers VESA Local Bus sound cards and the internet went NUTS. Same when Dell stopped shipping PPC drivers with their Xeon servers.
No, wait, Apple never officially supported those (if they had existed), and Dell didn't tell people they would ship PPC drivers with Xeons, so no one was surprised.
How dare Apple stop supporting unsupported hardware for people who aren't paying Apple for the software they may have simply stolen?
Come on. I know people on /. want to be able to put OS X on any computer... but is this really a surprise? This isn't much of a story, it's just another excuse for the licensing/purchasing/monopoly/first-sale debate we have in every Apple article.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
A LITTLE more expensive? Seriously man, what are you on? Base price is $1200. A 10" EEE PC (with XP not Linux) is only $320. The Mac is damn near four times the price! That is not a little more expensive, that is a whole different category of cost.
The appeal of netbooks isn't just the portability, though that is certainly part of it. The 7" ones in particular can fit in extremely small bags which is useful in some cases (some of our researchers use them to control devices in the field). A big part of the appeal is price. If you don't need much computer, if word processing and web surfing is pretty much all you do, you can have a computer for just a couple hundred bucks.
The MBP is not at all the same market at its price. You are in to the mid range, or upper mid range of normal laptops at this point. That's fine if that's what you need/want, but it is not at all a netbook competitor.
This has always been one of Apple's big problems. Not everyone wants expensive shit. They have somewhat diversified their desktop line, though a consumer tower is notably absent, as it always has been, but their portable line is as pricey as ever. You start upper mid range and go up from there. There's nothing for people who want a minimal system for minimal cost.
You didn't pay for it. You paid for an upgrade of OSX... for the copy that came with the Mac you never bought. You stole it.
You're a damn liar. I'm holding the Leopard box that I walked into an Apple Store and paid full retail price for. Looking at the label, it says "MAC OS X V10.5 RETAIL". The DVD inside says "Mac OS X Leopard Install DVD". WTF part of that sounds like "upgrade" to you?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
No one buys a Mac because its exclusive. Its not, they don't produce too few for market demand any more than Nintendo does.
The idea that people buy Apple software because its 'rare' is just silly, if that were the reason their market existed, then people wouldn't be trying to run OSX on generic hardware.
People LIKE OS X when they use it on a Mac. Having ran OS X on a PC, I stopped, why? Its not worth the effort. I have a job, I make money, I can just buy a Mac and have things work if I want to. Windows supports my Dell, OS X does not, its fine if you want to hack it up because you enjoy doing that, thats not what you're claiming.
Unfortunately, as I've said, what you are claiming is false. You can walk into BestBuy and buy pretty much any Mac you want, no scarcity. You can buy from multiple stores and multiple websites, including Apples own.
There may be some Apple arrogance with the 'haha you run Windows', that is true, but of course pretty much anyone you are referencing falls into that category. They aren't running it because they've got a trendy mac, they're running it because they prefer it over Windows.
Get a dose of reality and a cluepon please.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Which case is this? In which jurisdiction was this case?
how to invest, a novice's guide
To be more precise, individually licensing the software for $129 isn't it. If Apple could charge $400 for MacOS X, perhaps it'd be worthwhile. The problem is that the people who loudly proclaim they'll happily pay for a license will probably hide back into their basements, and pirate a copy instead, because the price they were willing to pay was the one subsidized by "vastly overpriced" hardware.
This is ridiculous nonsense.
1) You have no such "right." Somewhere along the line some lawyer made this up and then guys with lots of money threatened to bring down big hammers on anyone who didn't respect it. Similarly, I don't have the right to sell you a sock and then sue you for trying to wear it in a competitor's shoe.
2) Good reasons you shouldn't have such a right: it's anti-competitive and bad for the economy when a small handful of companies are able to control how the majority of people are able to use their products to do useful things, or are able to bar competitor's from using their products in completely fair ways. "Apple isn't a monopoly" doesn't negate this fact.
3) Apple has an effective monopoly on certain industries, so the point's wrong on the facts as well.
4) Simply stating, "You were free not to buy my software," is being willfully obtuse. Forgive the hyperbole, but imagine for a moment that Monsanto suddenly decided you could only cook their food in pots they made and sold for ludicrous prices. What good reason could we possibly have to deny them this right (that they simply made up) to control how their consumer products are used after sale? After all, they're not selling food; they're selling the "experience" of eating. And we're perfectly free not to eat!
By reading this comment, you agree to send me $5.
I've never signed a license agreement boxed software. I have for real software licenses. Without a signed licensing agreement, a software sale is just that, a sale. It's not a license, and has no terms.
This kind of idiotic entitlement mentality is fucking things up for everyone. So, those using the GPL have no right to tell me that I can't close their source and resell it like I want. Why is it that people are so happy to violate licenses to get what they want, then scream and bitch when someone else violates licenses to get what they want? It blows my mind that this crap is modded insightful. What you are advocating is just another form of tyranny. "They don't sell what I want them to sell, so I will force them to do it my way!"
Right now Apple doesn't do any of that serial key, activation, or other call home bullshit. Asshat behavior like yours is going to drive them to either doing something irritating along those lines, or simply pricing a standalone copy of OS X at an obscenely high price and then just sell "upgrades" or some other such nonsense to force the tie to a piece of Apple hardware. If you don't like their terms, don't buy it, that simple. It isn't like the standard EULA where they hide terms until post sale, the Apple hardware requirement is put out there up front.
I suppose you are the kind of neighbor that turns the stereo up at 2am in your apartment because you paid for it and no landlord has a right to enforce the conditions?
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
You seem to have quite an optimistic view on the benefits of software licensing. While I do think the consumer would benefit from a more open OS X licensing model, I'm not sure Apple would benefit:
1) If Apple enters an all software market, they lose a major selling point of their hardware and enter an area with more competition and a lower barrier to entry (see: Linux). OEM licensing could potentially be more profitable, but I'm unconvinced that the market for OS X is much bigger than the market for Macs - users, particularly businesses, are often held back by software requirements rather than by the price premium.
2) Apple likes dictating what hardware you purchase - cheaper, more standard tower blocks don't fit with its image as being refined and premium, and the netbook market has far lower margins than they currently reap on MacBooks. One MacBook purchaser could well bring more profit than 5-mac-netbook purchasers. Apple doesn't want to enter a race to the bottom - they make plenty of money through brands that are seen as higher quality.
3) Why? It gives them higher margins and it's unclear whether the market share increase would offset that.
Most importantly, in my opinion:
4) Apple is so profitable because they have created their own "premium computer" market that is far larger than anything held by Alienware or Dell's Adamo. They do this by creating products that appear relatively unique and are functionally different from competitors' equivalents thanks to unique software, design and minor features (such as battery life on their laptops). Without OS X, a Macbook is just another expensive laptop. There is also some level of positive feedback - unique hardware makes the software appear higher quality, which makes the hardware seem more unique etc - and some of the major selling points depend on hardware-software integration.
I'm not saying it isn't possible that Apple would benefit from opening up their software, but it's far from being certain.
Begging the question, are we?
Seriously, where is my peril for building a Hackintosh. And if it is "illegal" to screw around with hardware and software that I've purchased without any kind of special contract, then seriously... fuck the law. That's just messed up.
If software vendors want me to follow special rules, then they can try to get me to sign a contract. The ethics are pretty clear when enter into a contract and you are not coerced to do so.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
It was bound to happen the moment Apple moved to the intel platform and started using commodity hardware. What this article is saying is that Apple will not consider a low-cost low-power computer with an Atom inside it. Guess you won't find that option in the next refresh of the mac mini. They're being anal of course, since they're actually adding extra code to lock out that processor series.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
First Sale applies to recordings too. I am allowed to buy a used CD and I can do whatever I want with it. The digital contents of the CD are read into a machine just as software is read into a machine. No one ever said that you were only allowed to look at the bits on a CD. You own your copy and you can do whatever you like (other than copy and redistribute). So why should software be different? Why does the author of a software program get to limit my rights when no other type of copyright holder has such a power?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
At which point they could refuse to sell the update to anyone who hasn't registered their purchase of an Apple computer. Currently that's a hassle they prefer not to make their users go through, but if they had no other way to limit distribution to owners of Apple computers supported by that update, that would certainly be an option. At which point you wouldn't be able to legally run their software because you wouldn't be able to buy a copy except on eBay secondhand (and you know how well that would work).
The cost model for MacOS is the opposite of the one Microsoft, HP printer/cartridge, and razor vendors use: the fixed and variable costs are front-loaded on the initial purchase and minimized on the updates. Conversely, Microsoft practically gives away Windows licences via OEMs and nails you on the upgrades. I actually think it makes sense that the MacOS X incremental upgrades are cheaper and the up-front costs of the hardware are higher. I don't have a lot of sympathy for you trying to game the system/business model. Seriously, if you want to run MacOS X so much, buy a MacOS box sized for your needs. You can multi-boot or virtualize Linux, Windows or any other O/S you care for. I don't see why anyone would care whether your efforts at running MacOS on unsupported hardware are being stymied.
Now sure you can say: if you can't virtualize MacOS then you are concerned about its long term availability and your ability to access your applications and data in the future. Now that's a good point, one which I can appreciate since my wife's G4 iMac has been in the shop for the last month because of the lack of availability of replacement power supplies. However if that is an overriding concern for you, then run Linux on commodity hardware where that concern is addressed. But you can't always get everything you want and sometimes you have to make a decision on what's more important to you. Apple has basically made it clear they are only interested in doing business with those people willing to accept their business model. If that model's not acceptable to you, then too bad. Move on.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
For what? apple doesn't have to support hardware it doesn't want to. Just like Windows doesn't support sparc. MSFT should be brought up on anti trust charges for not porting every windows app to Sparc, and Cell, and arm.
pull your heads out of your asses people.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Well, if the 40 people in the world who realize that they can install an os that didn't come on their computer and think that OS X is worth installing withhold their funds then...
apple probably won't notice.
but if all 40 of them come here and complain, then apple will...
still probably not notice.
Badass Resumes
This isn't a case of "not supporting" a specific chip. By default it worked just fine, and is working just fine for many people currently using OS X on the Atom. No, this is a case of deliberately disabling a working feature for the express purpose of forcing you to buy their hardware over another's.
You never code in support and it doesn't work on certain hardware? No big deal. Hell that's the case for a ton of stuff on Hackintoshes already - people don't bitch because their sound card or NIC doesn't work - they generally go out and buy one that's noted on the net as working. Code that is working fine but sabotaged on purpose is another issue entirely though.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
For proof, just compare the price of retail Windows 7 and Snow Leopard. Mac OS X is clearly subsidised by Apple hardware sales.
You still don't get it. They know that some people feel the way you do and don't care. They have a business model for making money. You play ball with them or they keep their ball. Seriously all business is like that. There's a value proposition offered by the vendor. If it works for you, you buy; if not, you don't. If you're a big enough customer, maybe you can negotiate if it's worth it to the vendor.
Starbucks isn't going to change their roast recipe because my wife finds their coffee too strong and, as long as they feel their model works at making them money, their renumeration and hiring practices also aren't likely to change significantly because somebody has a problem with it. That's the way business works. As long as Apple continues making a lot of money by successfully positioning themselves as a premium vendor, they're not going to change to accommodate you if it's going to cut into their healthy profit margins. While it's best to keep your customers happy, you are not part of Apple's targeted customer base. That's their decision to make. Deal with it.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Microsoft is able to make massive profits selling mainly software.. software that a user can run on any machine they want to run it on. They do not make money on hardware. They take a significant loss on every Xbox sold, try google: http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+loses+money+on+xbox
Why can MS make profits that dwarf Apple's without profiting from hardware? (MS's net profit last quarter was down 32% but still over 3 times that of Apple's which was up).
What is MS doing so much better than Apple?
Using the example of Apple's attempt to sell System 7 to Mac clone makers as evidence that they cannot survive as a software company is not fair. System 7 was 1) a piece of crap and 2) not able to run on PCs, i.e. 90%+ of computers could not use their product back then even if they wanted to.
Today is a very different situation. Apple's software runs great on most any PC, and OS X is quite a nice environment. You didn't see people in 1995 getting excited about porting System 7 to, well.. anything. Today, running OS X on a wide range of non Apple hardware is very popular, and usually quite simple to do.
(unlike the above, which is based on fact, the following is merely my own opinion, based on my own impressions)
Of course Apple has their reasons for not moving into the software business. They might be quite valid, but I don't believe it has to do with profitability, at least not directly.
Apple doesn't really care if they sell hardware or software. They care about selling an image, a lifestyle, a brand. Nobody really buys a Mac because it's more useful than the alternatives. There's very little that Win\Linux\Mac can do that Win\Linux\Mac cannot, certainly not enough to justify the premium pricing. People buy Apple because they like to own Apple, they like to be an Apple guy or whatever they call themselves. This is a very powerful thing, and Apple is making extraordinary profits on slightly above average products by perpetuating the Apple culture. To make Apple software available to everyone would dilute the brand. It's not special if everyone can have it. My friends who are "Apple guys" spend a great deal of time talking about how different their system is, highlighting the (mostly trivial, from a functional stance) things that set it apart from the masses. Owning Apple makes them feel special, like they are somehow superior for buying Apple. This is a hugely valuable resource for Apple, and I think they would be foolish to risk compromising the culture they've created. In my opinion, this is the true reason you will not likely see Apple software available on normal computers.
-Lod
I now begin to truly understand the term "freetard" in all it's significance.
-- My apologies if the above facts contain any opinions, or vice versa! --
It wasn't sold to work on random hardware. It was sold to work on hardware that Apple sells. No promises were made, express or implied, that it would work on Atom processors.
It is an express case of disabling things so you can't use it in a certain manner. Hello! That's what the whole Free Software thing is about. Don't use the Apple software if you don't like it. No one misled you about this.
Freeloader more like. How many people making Hackintoshes are actually paying for the software and how many get it off a torrent?
Even if they are paying retail price they're still violating the license. A copy of OS X and Mac is profitable for Apple. A copy of OS X and an netbook probably isn't. Now at this point people start to mumble something about buggy whip manufacturers, but guess what, that's a poor analogy. Buggy whip manufacturers went out of business because people didn't want their stuff. If Apple goes under it will be because people want their stuff but don't want to pay.
Even more irritatingly these tend to be the same sort of people who are outraged when some company uses Linux and doesn't make the source code available. And yeah, I know the GPL is a copyright license not an EULA. But in both cases people are using something in a way that the copyright holder has explicitly forbidden. Either you can have a copyright free world, in which case you can run OS X for free and keep your Linux fork closed source, or you live in a world with copyright where both things are illegal.
That being said I don't really like Linux or OS X. Still if you do, it seems like you need to follow the terms of the license the code is under. With Linux that means publishing your code and with OS X it means running it on Apple hardware.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;