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.
Microsoft's customers are OEMs and retailers, not us. We're consumers. Apple is more of a self-contained ecosystem, having their own stores and selling their entire vertically integrated product stack directly to end users. In Microsoft's case, their actions make slightly more sense, however most Apple customers seem more than willing to just bend over and take it with regards to some of the b.s. that the company seems to want to perpetrate.
Now, I must admit that I'm pretty jealous over the fact that OS X is the only Unix I can think of that can run Photoshop natively alongside the likes of Matlab and everything else I can get on a BSD or GNU platform, and their hardware does have the shiny factor, but quite frankly, I can't really see the value added in running OS X on my EeePC and so really have no willingness to jump through the hoops to try and get it running, with out without the added steps to try and prevent me from doing so. It just doesn't really seem worth it to me.
Apple makes their bread and butter selling an image in an environment of artificial scarcity. A large percentage of Mac users do so just because Windows has become so pedestrian. Apple knows this....and capitalizes on it. As soon as you can get OS X on a $300 notebook, you've lost a percentage of the apple crowd who buy Mac just for exclusivity of it all.
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?
Apple makes its money from its (vastly overpriced) hardware. To do this, it creates nice, shiny software, and then deadbolts it as much as it can to the hardware, so people will pay the extra price for the hardware in order to get the software.
Selling the software individually would allow their competition to massively undercut them, and would enable customers to (rightly) ask why they should bother to pay extra for Apple's shiny hardware when X Hackintosh does exactly the same thing for much much less.
It's not exactly rocket science here. Apple knows where the money is, and individually licensing the software isn't it.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
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.
And we're also talking about a single blogger being repeated ad-bloggium. Nothing like creating a windstorm in a vacuum.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
Licensing terms that won't hold up in court if Apple sues you
also won't hold up in court if you sue Apple for declatory relief.
So either no one has thought of this before (highly unlikely)
or nobody is confidant enough to file the lawsuit (more likely).
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Morally, they don't.
Legally, they DO (and has been proven in court).
Break the agreement at your peril.
If you buy a copy of OS X from Apple, you are an Apple customer, even if you don't have a mac. If you pirate a copy of Windows, then even though you are a Windows user, you aren't a Microsoft customer. (unless you also buy other stuff from them)
If you buy a copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware, you are a customer who has broken his license agreement. Remember software is licensed, not outright purchased, and you have no legal standing at all outside of the terms of the license.
Whether or not that makes Apple the bad guy is up for pointless debate, which I'm sure we'll get a lot of.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
You can buy an OS X license retail... you know... Never did... Won't do... Not a Mac user, nor a Hackintosh user. I'm fine with Debian, thank you very much.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Apple does not sell OS X without accompanying hardware. You can grab an OS X upgrade disc for a nominal fee, but it is just that, an upgrade version.
If you want Apple to play fair, you must also play far. "Full version" copies of OS X start at around $599. Not a bad price when you think about it. It is only a couple of hundred dollars more than Windows 7 Ultimate (Full version) and it comes with a free Mac Mini!
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.
Licensing aside, they never supported the Atom. As far as I know, they never planned or pledged to support it. Although you may be a customer, you were not an intended one if you installed OS X on an Atom. Apple does not sell anything with an Atom.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is a choice for evil.
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?
The GPL is a distribution license, not a EULA, and explicitly states that it places NO restrictions on the end user, and that acceptance of the license is not required, at all, to use the software.
1) Charge more for software licenses. Seriously, if you are going to not make as much on hardware, make more on software. They could double their price and still be under what Windows runs retail. Also, software sales are where the real money is at, if you can get a large market. Cost per item is almost zero.
2) Offer more hardware that people want. Seems to me that the hackintosh computers you see are in the two markets that Apple steadfastly refuses to produce in: Consumer towers and netbooks. These also happen to be very popular markets. Well, start making shit in those areas, maybe it isn't such a problem.
3) Stop charging so damn much for your hardware. It isn't special, the games for that are over. It is all standard PC components made by the same vendors as everyone else.
You have to remember that a big part of the reason people jumped to clones wasn't just that Apple cost a lot, it was also that they offered products Apple refused to. Apple has always had large holes in their computer lineup and these are niche things. The consumer tower is a wonderful example. Maccies have been clamoring for one for years. It is the best selling desktop style of computer in the PC market. Businesses love them. Yet Apple refuses to make one. You get an all-in-one or a professional workstation. Nothing else.
I suspect if Apple filled out their line and adjusted their prices they'd have little problems. However the window for them may be closing rapidly. Part of their recent surge seems to be Vista antipathy. Well Windows 7 doesn't seem to get that at all. People are excited to get it. Thus if Apple doesn't offer what people want, their share may slip again.
Why can't I tell people they can't sell my book when they're done with it? Why can't I tell people where they can read my book? Why can't I forbid libraries from buying my books?
Why shouldn't I be able to restrict what you do with my book after you bought it? What about my rights? You don't have to buy my book. You're free to accept or decline, it's a contract. I don't have a monopoly on books.
Please tell me why the First Sale doctrine should apply to books but not to computer software.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
As a long time hardware tech, I am convinced the hardware I see in Macs is no better or worse than average PC hardware-simply because it IS average PC hardware.
I own a couple (Desktop and mac book) which I got to see what all the fuss was about, and frankly I dont see the so called superiority of OSX over Windows either.
Certainly I have seen no difference in stability, and found some things, particularly the setup program to be markedly inferior to Windows!
The fans have to say its higher quality, or look
foolish for paying 30% more for exactly the same thing.
I just broke Slashdot rule 5, no criticism of Apple allowed, so I expect the fanfoys will mod me to oblivion.
Meh, I got karma to burn.
If you want to specify what I can do with a copy of your software, write a contract and make me sign it.
If you're selling me a box (with a computer and a copy of the software inside it), then that's a sale. Maybe if your website said "click here to buy a computer and enter into a license agreement regarding a piece of software", you'd have an argument.
If you're calling it a sale, then it's a sale, and first-sale doctrine should apply. That means I own the copy of the software that you sold to me. I can do whatever I want with it.
Unless you're new here, you must have heard this argument against EULAs before.
Except when it doesn't. Current Atom offerings include the 32-bit, no-hyperthreading Z-series aimed for UMPCs, the 32-bit, hyperthreading N-series aimed for netbooks, and the 64-bit, hyperthreading, single-core 200-series aimed for "nettops", and the 64-bit, hyperthreading, dual-core 300-series aimed also aimed for "nettops".
Why shouldn't Apple have the ability to specify conditions of sale.
I have no objection to them doing so. All they have to do is present the conditions prior to completion of the purchase, to accept or decline, like any other conditional sale.
If they aren't willing to do so, then they made the sale without conditions. I accordingly have all the rights specified in the United States Code regarding a copy of software I purchased, which explicitly includes making an adaptation to run on a machine of my choice.
Apple doesn't do this because it would cost money to actually put conditions on the sale, printing the EULA forms and auditing resellers to make sure they were signed. It would also discourage purchases. Which are understandable reasons, but doesn't suddenly make it acceptable to impose conditions after a sale has been completed.
"Stole" my ass! I'm not sure where all the Apple FanBoys came up with the myth that the $29 Snow Leopard disc is an "upgrade." (Note, I'm a fanboy; I am currently typing on my new 27" iMac). I walked across the street to the Apple Store the day Snow Leopard was released, and paid $49 for my 5-user Family Pack edition. Nothing on the box, in the printed EULA, printed documentation, or electronic EULA at install time indicates my copy is intended to be an upgrade. In fact, I completely wiped a hard drive and installed it from scratch without any request for a disc containing a previous version. The requirements on my retail box state that it requires a "Mac computer with an Intel processor." That's it. Nothing about a previous OS is mentioned anywhere. Bottom line is it's a fully licensed copy, and purchasing and installing it one time (or five times in the case of the family pack) is not stealing. So stop calling this an upgrade only. It's not. I understand Apple's desire to keep OS X limited to their own hardware. The EULA is intended to prevent people like Psystar from making a dime on Apple's IP. Does Apple care about home enthusiasts getting the OS on unauthorized systems? Highly unlikely, if those enthusiasts are handing over $30 for the Snow Leopard disc. It's $30 in their pocket they wouldn't have had, to entertain someone's harmless fun. The removal of the Atom support is likely another cat and mouse game with the likes of Psystar more than it is with the home enthusiast community.
You can't legally buy OS X for something other than a Mac. It doesn't have to get to the EULA, its clearly stated on the outside of the box.
System requirements are not a legally binding contract. Or do you think it's illegal to try to run software on a machine that doesn't meet the official minimum specs?
If Apples' license isn't valid, neither is GPL, and I can take any GPL app and distribute binaries with proprietary code without any source.
Um, no. The GPL depends only on copyright law. Apple's EULA attempts to impose restrictions that go beyond that.
Don't like it? Change the law, until then, shut the fuck up, we're tired of the broken record.
The law is clear, see 17 USC 117. What we need is for judges to strike down the loopholes that publishers have come up with to remove property rights from software purchasers. And I'm tired of Apple fanboys blindly defending everything Apple does and selling out our rights in the process. Oh, and I have 3 Macs.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Psystar
Which case is this? In which jurisdiction was this case?
how to invest, a novice's guide
Because Apple doesn't write books.
Mod parent up!
I have modpoints, but I've already commented in this thread.
It bears repeating: You don't have to accept the GPL to merely use GPL'd software. You can even modify it without accepting the GPL.
It's the zeroth software freedom as defined by the FSF: In your own private home you should be able to do anything you want with software, including uses that were not originally intended by its authors.
Free Manning, jail Obama.
Remember that books are licensed, not outright purchased...
Or at least they were, until the courts struck it down with the First Sale Doctrine...
In 1908, in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908), the first-sale doctrine was established. In a later opinion (Quality King v. L'Anza) (see below), the Court described this opinion:
“ In that case, the publisher, Bobbs-Merrill, had inserted a notice in its books that any retail sale at a price under $1.00 would constitute an infringement of its copyright. The defendants, who owned Macy’s department store, disregarded the notice and sold the books at a lower price without Bobbs-Merrill’s consent. We held that the exclusive statutory right to "vend" applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work...
Also, a judge just struck down that idea in the AutoDesk case:
In 2008, in Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk Inc.[6], a U.S. Federal District Judge in Washington rejected a software vendor's argument that it only licensed copies of its software, rather than selling them, and that therefore any resale of the software constituted copyright infringement. Judge Richard A. Jones cited first-sale doctrine when ruling that a reseller was entitled to sell used copies of the vendor's software regardless of any licensing agreement that might have bound the software's previous owners because the transaction resembled a sale and not a temporary licensing arrangement[7].
Moral of the story is, you can't believe everything you read in a EULA.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
Where the license and docs inside required as a contingent clause during the contractual exchange when he paid money for the product?
How exactly do you "agree" to be bound and restricted by the "license" and "document" that you cannot get access too until you purchase the product?
Shrink wrap license are unenforceable. If you are to be bound by terms and conditions, they must be present during the contractual exchange (i.e. paying money for the product).
Which had annoying legislation like the DMCA not passed, we could actually change that. Really we need sane copyright laws, yes, Apple should be allowed to block Atom CPUs but I should be able to hack in support if I feel like it.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Your RIGHTS as software creator. What are you talking about?
Those "rights" stop when the sale is made. To give some bad analogies -
I can buy a prime roast, and feed it to my dog, or let it rot. The farmer has no say in this.
I can buy a car, and blow it up. The auto designer has no say in this.
Back to your software...
You sell me software, and I can use it per your demands.
You sell me software, and I can just let it sit and not use it.
You sell me software, and I can destroy it.
You sell me software, and I can resell it.
You sell me software, and I use it per my needs.
None of these choices has ANYTHING to do with you. You could, of course, engage me in a contract instead of a sale, which would involve a negotiation, and, if you wanted to limit what I wanted to do, a price negotiation.
I bought my OS X at a retail store. I didn't enter a contract at the time of sale. There is an EULA, but, since there was no meeting of minds, I don't think it qualifies as a legal contract (in my jurisdiction, anyway). Still, the wording was "use only on an Apple labeled system". And Apple was kind enough to include some Apple labels in the package.
#1 Apple didn't negotiate a contract with me.
#2 Apple seems to have provided stickers providing "Apple Labeling".
#3 I am fully willing to accept the terms of Copyright Law.
So, what IS your point?
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Sure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation#Legal_issues
They challenged the EULA and the court favored Apple.
Come on people! This is Slashdot, you should have already known about this. The EULA has got precedent. The time for arguing it hasn't is over.
Break the agreement at your peril.
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!
Apple is not going to sell the OS by itself. I don't know why this has to even be repeated, but Apple is a hardware company and to sell boxed copies of OSX than ran on generic hardware would simply be shooting themselves in the foot.
None, of all those who arise Phoenix-like every few months or years, lamenting the state of the OS world they find themselves in, you may notice, wants to buy the Apple hardware to run OSX on. Apparently, the natural conclusion goes right over their heads ... they are not Apple customers.
They seem to think that paying for a retail copy of OSX would make them Apple customers. They are wrong; that would make them Microsoft customers, because Microsoft is the vendor that uses sales of stand-alone OS's as it's business model. Go buy it; there's a snappy new version out right now, I hear.
People buy Apple hardware because of the software. This is not by accident, it's not a secret, and it's been going on three decades now. You would think it would sink in at some point.
Now, for those who get OSX to run on whatever hardware they manage to get it to run on, why the uproar over the Atom? Aren't you guys supposed to be hackers?
Go hack. Half the fun, (for some all the fun) isn't running the software, it is figuring out how to get the software to do what you want.
If they're not hackers, but they want a pre-made boxed solution to their own pet OSX on x86 project, I suppose I understand all the whining.
It's all they know how to contribute to the whole project. Good luck with that.
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.
False. EULA stands for End-User License Agreement. Like the name suggests, its the terms to which you are licensed the software. It has nothing to do with support. Apple didn't go after the hackintosh community because:
1. Its as impossible as stopping piracy.
2. Apple, despite common belief, isn't out to fuck anyone over.
Psystar is cutting into Apple's profits in an illegal manner. Apple only LICENSES OSX, and Psystar is breaking that license (or contributing to the end user to do so) and thus makes it a matter of copyright infringment. If Psystar has OSX but no license, then it has an illegal copy. Apple will put a legal end to Psystar, and if it can't, it'll put a technical end to both Psystar and the hackintosh community
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
If you're speeding and nobody is around to report it, are you still breaking the law?
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
Skipping the tire analogy, I could say that :
Apple knows its OS best and the Apple approved choices are the optimal choices and thus, the best result for the customer;
or that blocking hardware that works fine is just an attempt to maintain a stranglehold on the ecosystem (and their profits).
My initial point was that attacking the person shows the lack of merit of your argument. If their argument has flaws, expose them. If they are indeed morons, then it's self-evident and there's no need to lower oneself to name-calling.
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.
Why shouldn't I be able to specify "you must run this on my hardware" as a condition of sale?
Because this ignores the doctrine of first sale - that once you collect money for something, you don't control what happens to your product.
Wait, you say there's a contract involved? You're free to write any contract you want - some contracts are unenforceable though. Furthermore, you cannot unilaterally change a contract after the sale has occurred.
Wait, you say it's not a contract, but a license? Again, changing the license voids the initial agreement. You have to get me to agree to the new terms of license. Furthermore, if you insist on calling it a license, I'll insist on you providing me free access to the data controlled by the license.
Finally, you didn't enumerate your rights as the software creator. What are those? As far as I can tell, there are only a select few inherent and unalienable rights, and they're spelled out in the declaration of independence (or human rights, if that floats your boat more). None of those talk about anything even remotely related to copyright. It seems to me you're trying to impose your rights on others, rather than the other way around.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Apple did try selling their OS to run on other platforms. That nearly put then out of business. I think they have a good clue what will work for them and for their customers. We dont' see a whole lot of OS only companies out there. BEOS? even Linux business are tiny compared to apple. Even Oracle bought Sun. Microsoft has Xbox.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Or, you can bypass technical measures for the purpose of interoperability, which is expressly permitted even by the DMCA itself.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Um, no. The GPL depends only on copyright law. Apple's EULA attempts to impose restrictions that go beyond that.
This is a completely nonsensical argument. The GPL does impose restrictions that aren't mentioned in copyright law. Where in copyright law does it state that one is required to distribute source code with copies?
This is nothing but sheer hypocrisy - it's OK for the GPL to impose restrictions in a license, but not for Apple to?
Here's a hint - one of the words "GPL" stands for is "license." Yet you are arguing that software licenses are wrong?
... and then they built the supercollider.
How about a neo-luddite who buys a disc for the sole purpose of destroying it? Are they stealing?
No, of course not. That's retarded. Apple cannot and does not assume that everyone who purchases their OS own a Mac. You can't call someone's behaviour "stealing" if they're exchanging money for goods at the advertised price.
I suppose buying Gillette razor blades and then gluing them to popsicle sticks to shave with is stealing too, then?
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.
Even the upgrade DVD will happily install on a clean drive, without verification of the operating system that might have previously been on the drive.
You can. Reverse engineering is explicitly allowed. Distributing a program for the purpose of circumventing copy protection, even if it was found through reverse engineering... is not.
So if a large corporation wanted to put Mac OSX on all their internal computers, and was OK with doing internal support on non-Apple hardware, they could modify the distribution and use it internally, but it'd have to be for internal use only, and telling someone else how to do it, selling the software to do it, etc, might run afoul of the law.
For better and worse.
Note: I am not a lawyer, but this is what I've gleaned from the DMCA. My advice is not legal advice and I am not liable for it.
And were these documents part of the contractual exchange prior to transfer of ownership of property?
Hehe, I'm a Mac "user", I stress that term as I use the platform of my choice, not because I have some statement to make, or some inferiority complex, but It's what works best for me, and alot of other people. Quality is a very hard term to categorise, seriously, if you've ever read "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" a huge part of that book asks the question "what is quality?" if you haven't read it then maybe you should, not that I'm trying to slight anyones knowledge, but reading that should give you an understanding of the brick wall many Mac users feel they are hitting their heads off when trying to explain to people the "quality" of OS X, Quality isn't necessarily "superiority" many people make that mistake, "quality" can simply be doing the same thing just as well but simpler, or less intrusive, or intuitively, their abstract concepts... unmeasurable, but can make a huge difference, even though the task may be exactly the same. I know its daft getting philosophical about computer hardware, but some people notice these things, not because they are "superior" (as most people who use macs seem to be branded as for some screwed up reason) but because they care about these kinds of things, other people dont care about these things and can be perfectly happy with the opposite. So please put aside the hatred, I know there are Mac zealots out there giving the rest of us a bad name, but theres just as many Window zealots now (I've noticed a massive increase on forums with the release of Windows 7) and it upsets me to find people willing to hate me and label me just because of the computer system I choose to use.
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.
> If you want, you can license your book, too.
No, you absolutely can't. First Sale originally became case law because a publisher attempted to do exactly that: include a "license" on that restricted your right to resell the book. In 1908, the Supreme Court (Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) found that anyone that bought a copy of a book was free to resell it. Copyright grants you a right to sell, but does not grant you the right to limit resale after the fact. Period. It was later codified (Copyright Act of 1976) to include anyone that legally owned a copy (even if they didn't buy it).
What makes software so special and different from books and records? It's true that case law hasn't fully caught up, but give me a reason as to why the author of a software product should have any additional rights that are not granted to other copyright holder?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Yes, it will install on a clean box. How else would you install it on a new hard drive if your old one went bad?
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Obviously. You need to read them when you set up the software. The way the installers are designed, is that is doesn't proceed with the installation until you have agreed to their terms. Otherwise no transfer of ownership takes place.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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
Not supporting is one thing. Intentionally disabling is another.
Well, I think either is legal for Apple. I think intentionally disabling is very tacky, though.
Imagine that Apple's going to use a compiler which produces faster code for the Intel Core/Core 2 CPUs. Unfortunately, it is using instructions that are not available on the Intel Atom CPUs.
So you're improving your products which are based on the Intel Core/Core 2 CPUs and you're removing compatibility with the Intel Atom. Since you never shipped a computer with the Intel Atom, it isn't a problem. Since you never stated that your software will work with an Intel Atom CPU, there's no legal issue.
I mean, should I be upset because I can't install Mac OS X on a 80386-based PC just because I could NeXTStep?
Frankly, it's pretty easy to come up with a scenario where Apple broke compatibility with Intel Atom CPUs not through any nefarious scheme but because it makes their Core/Core 2 products better, which is a good thing.
Quite amusingly your own ignorance shows through: the very text you (I guess blindly) copied states it is *not* the actual terms you will be agreeing to, and as such has absolutely zero, zilch, bearing on the contract between yourself and the retailer.
Unless the software is EXPLICITLY licensed then it is a direct sale, and is to be treated as such: the only enforceable contracts are those at the point at which consideration is exchanged. Co0ntracts made after this point can only ever be considered "agreements" and have no legal backing and no penalties for non compliance.
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
Sure you can.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC209Z/A
The Mac Box Set has a full retail copy of OSX that does not require a previous license to use.
Also, I can "sell" OSX from my mac. I can sell the license that I bought when buying the computer. Apple cannot stop me from reselling my license under the first sale doctrine.
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
Sigh. You can access them prior to purchase, [apple.com] and are encouraged to do so
Did you check for a EULA at the website for the box of cereal you opened this morning? The book you'll read before going to bed? The CD you listened to in your car? The chair you're sitting on right now?
Of course not. You handed someone cash, and they handed you a product. You own it, just like I own my copy of OS X. Don't get started on the "so you think you have the right to give away copies?" crap because no one's saying that. What I am saying is that I have the right to do whatever I want with my copy, short of violating the law, because it became my property when I bought it.
Oh, and nothing that I know of prevents me from hacking the installer so that it never presents a EULA to me. Why couldn't I? Until/unless I agree to a EULA, I haven't consented to be bound by any terms beyond the ones on that box of breakfast cereal.
And finally, even that BS EULA only requires Apple-branded hardware. Any lawyers care to offer evidence that my Apple-brand (by me) HP Mini 10 doesn't count? Is "Foo-branded" a term of legal art meaning "branded by Foo" as opposed to "branded as Foo"? I'm clearly not trying to sell it as an authentic Apple product, and I'm not aware of any restrictions that would keep you from labeling your Chevy as a Ford so long as you don't try to misleadingly sell it as such.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
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
Apple doesn't sell OS X. They sell updates. This is an important distinction.
That's a quibble not even Apple themselves has tried to make (because it wouldn't hold up in court). The bottom line is that every version of OS X sold is a full install - with the exception of small updates like the $29 Snow Leopard upgrade (which IS sold as an update). It checks for no previous version, is not marketed as an update, and such terms are never mentioned.
In short, any attempt to claim that Apple is merely selling updates is just talking out of your ass to try and justify Apple's behavior.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The summary is misleading. The original source of all this hubbub is http://stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news. Basically someone noted that a lot of stuff in the kernel has changed so that the Atom processor that developer was using no longer works after the build. They list three work around methods. There is no inside information that this is an intentional attempt to block Atom processors as the summary's wording strongly implies.
The summary then goes on to speculate about the improbable and impractical wet dream of the writer that Apple should start licensing OS X to generic PC makers, completely ignoring the economic realities involved. You might as well end a summary of an article about MS losing an antitrust case by claiming it raises speculation MS will open source Windows under the GPL.
What part of this do people not understand?
The part where Apple's broken business assumptions are their customer's problems?
Hummm... that's it! I will buy a machine with Windows preinstalled, and then purchase MacOS upgrades.
entropy happens
Yeah, and now NeXT is king of the computer world?
Not king, but alive and gaining market share at a pretty good clip, not to mention an enviable position in smart phones.
I mean they went bankrupt and had to be rescued by Apple
NeXT didn't go bankrupt, they were operating profitably and sold out for about $400M.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
forcing you to buy their hardware over another's
You're right in that it's not just a case of the hardware not being supported. It's also not licensed for that. So it's not an option in the first place. Not an honest or legal one, anyway.
And the people saying you can go to an Apple store and pick up a copy of Leopard are just being dense. It's not licensed for PCs, just like AVG Free isn't licensed for corporate use. You're better off pirating it, since you didn't actually buy anything, you just spent money to reinforce your misunderstanding of the license.
I'm not even telling anyone not to pirate. But dishonest people feigning righteous anger over Apple's attempt at protecting themselves from such dishonesty is annoying. It's a transparent and childish attempt at dodging a little cognitive dissonance.
ProCD v. Zeidenbert, which held shrinkwrap licenses enforceable. Granted, there is another line of cases that disagrees. This means it comes down to where you live, and when the Supreme Court will get off its ass, grant cert, and address the issue.
In the 1908 case, Bobbs-Merrill Company sold a book with this license: "The price of this book at retail is $1 net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a lower price, and a sale at a lower price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright."
Straus bought a copy (several, actually) and resold them. According to you, Straus only had possession under certain terms. According to your logic, Bobbs-Merrill should have retained ownership. The Supreme Court found otherwise. It has been further codified and there is extensive case law on the side of first-sale. Most recently in 2008, Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc, found that first-sale applied to Autodesk software, even though Autodesk claims they only sold a license (although that case has not made it to the Supremes yet).
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
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
Yeh sure. I buy lots of laptops for work these days. A hundred or so this year.
I would not trade my current Dell E6400for any Mac(ASUS really)laptop.
You cant get a processor this fast in a Mac at all. You can only get a Mac with a processor 2 levels of clock speed slower-and costs 30% more for the same spec otherwise.
My current Dell hibernates and resumes in less than 20 seconds for each. If you cant get a windows laptop to go to sleep in less than a minute you should hand in your geek card.
In fact a Mac is probably just the thing for you, particularly if you find computers a pleasure (as I have noted before thats why Apple round the corners, so it hurts less when you stick them where the sun dont shine). (-:
You need to get out more, to me computers are a tool and nothing more-after 30 years as a hardware tech, I have seen lots of cool tech come and go, and I simply choose the most cost effective tool to do the job reliably.
Nearly every post I have made in the past that does not follow the Apple fanboy line gets modded down, but its not OK to say so apparently.
No, the core duo is also a 32bit chip and is supported by 10.6. In addition, the Atom has a 64bit variant. It is typically found on desktops where the 32bit version is found in netbooks.
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! --
Or maybe they optimized the kernel for SSE4? All Macs do SSE4 - the Atom doesn't. Perfectly reasonable, yet people always jump to the malicious explanation...
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Consider that code support for a processor is non-trivial. While they may have added support for the Atom at some point, there is a cost to keeping that support functional. When working on other features in the kernel, it may very well be easier to remove the support for a processor that isn't officially supported than to keep it working. This is especially true for OS X which frequently changes their power management scheme for Intel processors.
kc8apf
The initial claim was that the GPL didn't add any restrictions that weren't already in copyright law. That's obviously not true
Yes, it is. Show me a sequence of actions that would violate the GPL but would not violate copyright law.
because copyright law makes no mention of not distributing source code, or making a program closed-source.
Source code is automatically copyrighted by the author. The default state of copyright is that if you aren't the copyright holder, you can't redistribute it at all. (With exceptions for fair use, which the GPL doesn't attempt to remove). The GPL grants users the right to do some but not all of the actions normally prohibited by copyright.
Utter horsepucky. Even if you don't accept the GPL, you can still be sued for violating it.
You're actually sued for violating copyright. The GPL only enters into it in that if you had followed its terms, you could point to it as a defense. But if you haven't, then you can't, and standard copyright applies.
And the GPL says "if you redistribute, you can't do a, b, c, d, e, f, g, ..." - what's the difference?
Once again, the difference is that the GPL does not attempt to remove any of your existing rights. The GPL is a unilateral grant of privileges that you normally wouldn't have.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
No, they don't. The original Intel Macs used the Core Solo and Core Duo. Those were Yonah; SSE4 wasn't added until Penryn, AFAIK. They do support SSE3, but not SSE4....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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.
Apple does not sell anything with an Atom.
Because their computers are not made from matter, but from a special dust from unicorn horn.
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;
Netbooks have too low margins for everything. Even Microsoft was forced to drop the price of XP to something like US$15 to avoid getting stomped. Apple make a fortune out of a Mac Book. If they started allowing OS X to run on netbooks not only would they make less money but there's a risk a lot of people would buy a netbook and an OS X license (which makes them say US$50 tops) rather than a more expensive Mac Book ( which makes them probably US$ several hundreds ). So they could actually lose money as customers switch to a new, cheaper option. \\
And that's not including the support costs. If you license OS X to run on a load of netbooks, you pretty much have to be prepared to deal with bug reports on that hardware, even if you try as much as possible to push the support onto the netbook vendors. Right now they only need to support OS X on their own hardware and they can control that 100%.
Thus it's quite reasonable for Apple to decide that they basically don't want to enter the market.
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;
As MacOS is not copy protected, there's nothing to circumvent there, DMCA-wise.
And meanwhile, those of us techies, without axes to grind, when asked why we never have trouble with our computers will say "I bought a Mac" and convince even more.
Anti-Mac people and Linux people... Do you have any idea what the average person thinks of you? They view your paranoid rantings and ravings with the same aversion as the panhandler on the street complaining about the CIA listening to his thoughts through the fillings in his teeth.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Huh? I've downloaded patches and ServicePack MS style from Apple at no cost. I just haven't been able to upgrade to the next version without paying. I really don't see Microsoft or Apple doing any different to the other in this area. They both cost for upgrades, no cost for updates.
Or are you confused by the version numbers? Sigh, no I'm not going to bother. Yep I guess I've just been trolled.
And before you start laughing at me re expensive hardware, it was a second hand laptop bought cheap. No WGA, no other updating hassles.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
Apple makes you pay, pay, and pay some more (at least $100 when I was last at the Apple Store in Short Pump, VA) for service packs that contain nothing but patches/bugfixes, let alone operating system upgrades.
Name a version number that was both charged for and was just patches/bugfixes?
You can't. Because that's just bullshit. New versions which contain just bug fixes are all downloaded from apple, and are completely free. New versions which come in shrink-wraps and are sold all have new features.
Furthermore, the cost of the upgrade to the latest version of OS X is $29, not >$100.
http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC223Z/A?fnode=MTY1NDAzOA&mco=MTA4MjgwNDE
You're a fool. Now, what about your money?
Answer: breaking the law in as many localities as they possibly can, bullying international standard bodies, issuing patent threats to the competition.
Should I go on or do you need a bigger clue stick?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You mean this one
http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/apple-ibook-g4-12/4505-3121_7-31466301.html
That's was $999.
Or the MacBook Air
http://gizmodo.com/348753/macbook-air-review
. It has Wireless N/B/G, Bluetooth 2.1 EDR, and is available in two basic configurations: $1799 for a 1.6GHz chip, plus 2GB of RAM and a 80GBs 4200 RPM Drive. For almost double the price at $3098, you can get a 1.8GHz chip with the same 2GB of RAM and a 64GB solid state drive module that, like all SSD, is shock resistant.
Neither of these are Netbooks. Netbooks are small (9"-10") cheap (<$500) minimalist (cheap but slow Atom processor, tiny SSD, horrid graphics/chipset) notebooks. Apple do small but they don't do cheap. The marketing term for Apple's small notebook is ultraportable - i.e. you pay a premium for a smaller machine. It's actually the opposite concept of a netbook. Now if you're a manufacturer it's better to make "ultra portables" than "netbooks" - you put a bit more powerful hardware in and charge higher margins than than regular notebooks (ultra portables) rather than lower ones (netbooks). Unfortunately in the world of PCs it only takes one manufacturer to break ranks and make a netbook and they will sell millions - like the Asus EEE pc or the Acer Aspire One. At that point everyone else is forced to compete with them. Of course there's only one vendor of Apple hardware and so they can just keep making "ultra portables" and ignore the netbook market.
Of course this is the reason it's better to be a user of an open, multi vendor platform like the PC than a closed, single vendor one like the Mac. But if you're Apple a closed platform is obviously better for you.
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;
You didn't buy OSX, you bought a LICENSE to OSX. In the leagal world (which it seems most /.'ers have no idea about), there is a big difference.
You cannot do what you wish with a piece of licensed software. You don't own it, the source code, etc. The license you purchase allows you to do only certain things with it, and in this case, only on certain hardware.
Your example of branding is incorrect. They say in the EULA : "This license is only valid on Apple Hardware [defined earlier as computers, electronics and devices manfactured by the Apple Computer Corporation of California]. Additionally, you break very clear trademark rules if you were to use the Apple logo, brand or other representations of their product without their permission. You do not have the right to label your Chevy as a Ford -- and you can be sued for doing so.
They require it as a condition of running the software. If you choose to buy software that you don't have the right to run, then that's not very smart.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Is the 13" MacbookPro or Macbook really that much different than the Eee in terms of portability?
Yes. It's three inches bigger and notably heavier.
Yes, it's more expensive, but we're talking about Apple and they're always a little more expensive because it's a higher quality product.
False. The case designs on the smaller macs are fragile (you can actually drop a EEE) and they use PCBs made by Foxconn like everyone else, to the same standards as ASUS, Lenovo, or whatever. Which is to say, mediocre.
The 13" MBP is very thin and light, it's not sub-12 inches
It's not sub-12-inches. You answered your own question. Yes, it really is that much different.
if you want a highly portable computer that runs OS X, Apple already makes one.
It's not even in the same size class. Fail. A 13" computer is still big enough to be unwieldy. Frankly 12" is pushing it a little bit, but I have gigantic hands so that where I've settled. Ask your girlfriend if one inch makes a difference.
I think it would be a stupid idea for Apple to license their OS to other hardware makers
This much is true. There's no way they can provide the same level of support for everyone's hardware that they do for their own. On the other hand, Linux will destroy OSX eventually, which is probably less true than it is for Windows. Apple gave away central dispatch, which is their only real advantage after integration, and I have had plenty of problems with apple software and apple hardware. I will refer back to the B&W G3 Rev.1 UDMA data corruption issue, for which Apple said the solution was to buy third party software or actually buy a new IDE card (with the attendant Mac Tax of about 400%, this is not an exaggeration either, I priced them.) Apple could have made a software workaround in the form of a new disk driver that would enable multi-word DMA rather than ultra-DMA, but instead they expected you to give FWB forty bucks to get one. The idea that Apple software will work perfectly on Apple hardware is an absurdist fanboy myth. Yep, I said it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
How many people making Hackintoshes are actually paying for the software
I did.
A copy of OS X and Mac is profitable for Apple. A copy of OS X and an netbook probably isn't.
That's RIAA logic: you're actually claiming that Apple lost money by selling me that copy of Leopard for $130, because it's less than the $1,000 or so I would have paid if I'd bought their hardware at the same time. While I'm certain they'd rather have the $1,000, I'm just as certain that they ended up with $130 that they wouldn't have had otherwise.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Anti trust? Apple has what percentage of the PC market? 10% maybe? Apple blocking support for a chip that is used in none of their current OS. It maybe that they are going to come out with a new version of OS/X for say the AppleTV that will run on the Atom/ION platform and don't want people putting full OS/X on them.
This is so far from anti trust that it isn't funny. Frankly if you don't like how Apple does business then don't buy from them.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.