Slashdot Mirror
Apple Not Disabling OS X Atom Support After All
bonch writes "Contrary to previous reports, Atom chip support is working fine in the latest 10C535 build of OS X 10.6.2. Apple's EULA still states that OS X is licensed to run only on Apple hardware, but it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now."
WOLF! WOLF!
A reminder to all you Hackintoshers out there... Apple CAN pull the plug on you anytime they want to. This was just Steve letting you know that he knows what you're doing.
put the what in the where?
Wouldn't OS X be underpowered and a bit sluggish on a processor that slow?
...it looks like OSX86 hackers can breathe easy ... for now.
Translation: I know that yesterday's story that Apple intentionally disabled Atom processors from working for OSX was completely wrong but I'm going to imply, in an ominous way, that Apple will probably do what they didn't do (which we incorrectly said they did do) because, hey, that's sensational and sensationalism sells baby!!
Sorry, but it would be really nice if summaries tried to keep the editorializing to a minimum. We have reader comments to add all kinds of overblown and baseless opinions. Let's keep the focus of the summary on, you know, the news for nerds, stuff that matters.
I know. I know. I must be new here...
Goody! Now we can post another 500 messages arguing about whether EULAs should be enforceable or not. With luck, this time we can finally finish the argument and come to a conclusion that brings peace to all. I hope Apple and Psystar are prepared to follow the decrees and rulings of the best minds of the Slashdot community.
--> Could not find text "+5 Comment"
Though, it was with Opera, maybe I need FireFox?
I did find a +5 Comment in this thread though:
They blocked hardware - in this case, the Atom processor. That's not the same as "stop the support" of the hardware. They went out of their way to make sure it didn't work. That's different from dropping drivers or support.
Mods: this was +5 insightful, I expect no less.
They can't disable it since it's on the upcoming Apple Slate.
The dogcow says Moof not wolf
It's all very well to hack software, but to go against an EULA, and put something on something that wasn't designed for that something...
No, you're right, OSX86 FTW!
Apple still is a Wolf, right?
I mean, sure, even if they apparently haven't done this, they still could, right?
Why take a chance? Don't buy Apple's locked-down hard--- wait, that's the iPhone rant. Don't buy Apple's potentially locked-down software.
Tweet, tweet.
Look, Apple doesn't use the Atom in any products. Ergo, there's no guarantee that a shipping version of Mac OS X will support it. Since Atom is basically just a stripped-down x86, it probably will continue to run but no promises.
Just to remind everyone, Apple builds Macs. Macs are not available in every possible x86/chipset combo. Just a handful. That's one of the reasons why Macs are typically pretty reliable, but also why the average frankencomputer can't run OS X reliably.
Yes, Mac OS X is licensed in such a way that you don't have the legal right to run it on anything but an Apple-made Mac. Yes, they won't come after you with lawyers if you make a hackintosh. Yes, they will come after you if you then try to sell them (like Psystar). And yes, licenses like Apple's are restrictive.
But no, they aren't under any obligation at all to provide support for any computer other than what they expressly state on the box to be compatible and licensed. Which, in the case of Snow Leopard, is:
- Mac computer with an Intel processor
- 1GB of memory
- 5GB of available disk space
- DVD drive for installation
And all the other specs are on:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html
If your computer doesn't fit that description, you're SOL. Period. If Snow Leopard runs now on your Atom-based netbook and 10.6.2 winds up killing it, suck it up or stick to 10.6.1. So it goes.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
There is a big difference between these two terms. Its ok for Apple to not support hardware that is not theirs. Its another thing to go out of your way, put time and resources into not allowing other people (most of who purchased your product legitimately) to use your product.
not to listen to unsourced blogs written by someone just because they might have overheard someone talking about it in a bar somewhere sometime. Quite why this was all over the internet is anyone's guess.
Never put down to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Or a bug in the code either works for me.
Why bother
Apple has no products that use the Atom, correct? So, there was never a bug or a feature
So, what makes everyone think that Apple is even concerned about anything to do with the Atom? They're developing their software for their products. If it just so happens to work on some other hardware, it's an accident. If a build doesn't work on other hardware, it's an accident. If it works again on a subsequent build, it's an accident.
God, you people are turning a non-issue into one.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Except for the fun of it, why would anyone want to run an OS that is liable to die at any point? Never really saw the point of doing it other then the 'look what i did' bragging rights factor.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.
Apple is making a very nice business out of being the premium computer and electronic gizmo maker. Making a sub $1,000 netbook would be like Gucci making a handbag to be sold in Walmart.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Anti-trust? Precisely what monopoly does Apple hold? (Other than a monopoly on nice design. :)
iPod Touch is the only handheld video game system that 1. allows part-time developers to make and publish apps and 2. is sold in U.S. and European stores. There used to be PDAs, but over the course of this decade, PDAs became unavailable in U.S. stores as smartphones with a minimum commitment to voice service and data service from the wireless cartel have taken over shelf space. Sure, I can buy a GP2X and make games for that, but it won't even have enough of an audience to recoup development costs because one can't just walk into a Best Buy store (or even visit bestbuy.com) and buy the hardware.
ObTopic: The iPhone SDK, used to develop applications for iPod Touch, is a Mac OS X exclusive.
I guess you are new here. To search for the comments that N3Roaster mentioned, try searching the page for (Score:5 (include the opening parenthesis). Just make sure to edit them so that they actually apply to this article.
Tired of seeing nerds freak out over nothing. Wow, embarrassment.
iPod Touch is the only handheld video game system that 1. allows part-time developers to make and publish apps and 2. is sold in U.S. and European stores.
This description does not rise to any legal standard for judging a monopoly that I'm aware of. You're attempting to describe a market in such a way that no other products match the description. Contrast this with what you see, for example, in T. Penfield Jackson's Findings of Fact document in the DoJ v MS case. (Note how it is defined in terms of market power, pricing, and what the alleged monopoly holder could do with that power to the prices)...
"33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."
I think the question still stands: Precisely what monopoly does Apple hold?
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Legal standards for judging a monopoly are described relative to a given country, not the worldwide market. So by considering legal standards alone, I can narrow the field to products marketed in one country. Because you mentioned United States v. Microsoft, I'll consider the United States market, composed of Nintendo DS, Sony's PSP, Apple's iPod Touch, and a few players that are collectively as insignificant as desktop Linux was a decade ago when US v. M$ was argued. Of these, Nintendo and Sony have a history of refusing all part-time developers. So if a part-time developer wants to self-publish a game for a handheld, Apple's platform is the only option.
With respect to the Jackson quote: Yes, Apple could raise the $99 annual fee for the iPhone SDK or raise the App Store's commission from 30 percent without risking developer defection to another handheld platform. That could change once Droid and Pandora come out, but until then, Apple holds market power.
I know MainStream Media pablum when I hear it... you guys are missing the real story: Apple broke Atom support to make it less likely that people would suspect their new Tablet will be running... an Atom! These guys are geniuses, that's for sure!!! (or I'm off my medication again).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Way to put words in my mouth for an easy +5. I didn't say Apple would "probably" do anything. The remark was nothing more than a tongue-in-cheek reminder that you can't expect OS X to always support non-Apple hardware. It's just common sense.
If you think that's editorializing, sensationalism, or a "veiled threat," you take things a little too seriously.
Actually, this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple.
In order to assert your point, you've had to conflate Apple's competitors (Nintendo and Sony) with users of the iPhone SDK. If this were to go before a court, they would ask what Nintendo and Sony could do to compete if apple were to attempt to exercise their market power "soley in terms of price". If they raised the $99 annual fee, as you suggest, this would actually put the iPod Touch in the same market as the Nintendo and Sony platforms (mobile gaming platforms with a high barrier to entry). This cuts against your original attempt to define the relevant market so that the iPod touch stands alone.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
iTunes LP format is closed and you have to pay $10,000 to Apple to have them make you one! Apple are EVIL!!
Oh wait, they released the format specs and anyone can make one.
OK, they took from open source and added Grand Central Dispatch without giving back to the community! Apple are EVIL!!
Oh wait, they released the GCD sources to Darwin.
OK, they nobbled the Atom processor in the latest OS build so people can't run Mac OS on some no-name brand PC! Apple are EVIL!!
Oh wait, it was probably just a bug.
And so on, and so on...
So, Apple aren't disabling support after all for a CPU/Chipset that they never supported in the first place?
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Pwned. Another jackass trying to use legal terminology obviously beyond their ken has bitten the dust. Well played sir, well played.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
I suppose that the Palm Pre and existing Android phones don't count?
I don't own either, but I'd bet money that both have games developed and published by part-time developers. I don't have sales figures for these devices, but I suspect that Apple is leading by a wide margin among the three devices. The market is fairly new if you just include those three phone operating systems. I'm fairly certain you could develop and publish for Windows Mobile as well if you really wanted to do so. Of course including them means that Apple probably doesn't have more than 50% of the market given the large number of current generation Windows mobile phones out there.
I think you're starting at a conclusion and then building evidence for it rather than looking at the evidence and forming a conclusion. The market you've created is so narrowly defined it's almost laughable. Nintendo and Sony could easily allow part-time developers to publish for their machines, but they don't want to do so. Should we charge Asus with having a monopoly on netbooks if every other manufacturer suddenly decided to stop making them because it wasn't worth the money?
over the course of this decade, PDAs became unavailable in U.S. stores as smartphones with a minimum commitment to voice service and data service from the wireless cartel have taken over shelf space.
I suppose that the Palm Pre and existing Android phones don't count?
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my other comment. I'm not talking about iPhone; I'm talking about iPod Touch. A lot of the audience wants a device on which to play video games but doesn't want another $60 per month phone bill. If Palm made a phoneless Pre or someone made a phoneless Android-based PDA, I would consider it a competitor to iPod Touch.
I'm fairly certain you could develop and publish for Windows Mobile as well if you really wanted to do so.
I can't buy a Pocket PC in Best Buy anymore; all they have are phones.
Nintendo and Sony could easily allow part-time developers to publish for their machines, but they don't want to do so.
Apple has the monopoly precisely because Nintendo and Sony choose not to compete in the market of handheld game players with small-developer access to the app store.
Should we charge Asus with having a monopoly on netbooks if every other manufacturer suddenly decided to stop making them because it wasn't worth the money?
No, because ASUS doesn't use cryptographic measures to ensure a monopoly on legitimate application distribution venues for its device. Most Eee PCs come with Windows nowadays; those that come with the customized Xandros can easily be wiped for Ubuntu.
"... allowing other people (most of who purchased your product legitimately) to use your product illegitimately. "
#4 Apple really needs a Netbook to compete with the PC companies who have their own Netbook.
Those classic "Mom" words are still true -- no company "needs" to compete in every marketspace and only idiots choose to compete in non-profitable marketspaces.
To define a monopoly, one has to define the relevant market correctly. It is possible to define the market so large that a monopoly does not exist. For example, the iPod Touch holds a monopoly on portable devices under 5 lbs. which is obviously not true as that would include all cellphones, MP3 players, some netbooks, the Kindle, etc. In your case, you've defined the market so narrow so that Apple would have a monopoly. In the same respect I could say that Honda holds a monopoly on all cars made in the state of Ohio. It is true but I've defined the market so narrow so that it is not meaningful.
After the relevant market is defined, one has to determine whether there exists a monopoly. Is Apple the dominant player in the market? Do significant barriers exist? Are there suitable alternatives? By putting in the development aspect, you've artificially eliminated all other portable gaming platforms by treating a feature as a barrier to entry. Even with aspect, there isn't a significant barrier to entry as Nintendo and Sony could simply release their own SDKs and create the own app store.
Being exclusive does mean it is a monopoly. I can only get brand new Hondas from Honda. I can't go into a Toyota dealership and buy a new Honda.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
In your case, you've defined the market so narrow so that Apple would have a monopoly. In the same respect I could say that Honda holds a monopoly on all cars made in the state of Ohio.
"Made in Ohio" doesn't provide a noticeable feature to a product's users. "Availability of applications" does. Recall that "availability of applications" was also the barrier to entry in United States v. Microsoft.
Is Apple the dominant player in the market? Do significant barriers exist? Are there suitable alternatives?
I already looked for alternatives, found GP2X and Dingoo, and found them unsuitable because their installed base is negligible, which in turn is because neither a well-known U.S. brick-and-mortar store chain nor a well-known U.S. online store carries them. What alternative did I miss?
By putting in the development aspect, you've artificially eliminated all other portable gaming platforms by treating a feature as a barrier to entry.
It's not so "artificial" if I am a part-time developer. Or are you talking about the alternative being quitting my day job and raising tens of thousands of dollars to start a "proper" company?
Even with aspect, there isn't a significant barrier to entry as Nintendo and Sony could simply release their own SDKs and create the own app store.
The barrier to entry for that would include raising tens of billions of dollars to mount a hostile takeover of Nintendo or Sony.
Being exclusive does mean it is a monopoly.
I didn't say it was. But it does imply that I need a computer made by Apple in order to develop software for an unrelated device made by Apple. It's as if I had to buy upgrade accessories for a Honda car from a Honda dealer, not a third party. I just wanted some way to connect it to the topic to avoid drawing Offtopic mods.
...and don't get me wrong I am sure a lot of people at Apple are very smart people, they should try to capitalize to maximum advantage. Take a page out of the MS and Google book. Its not all about securing profits, but making sure your the big guy on top. I have heard that Google will never make back the money they spend on youtube, however by acquiring it they prevent anybody else from doing so and there by securing a foothold in the online market. Also due to the razor thin margins on netbooks, Microsoft isn't going to be making much money by supplying an OS for them, but it stopped the trend of offering Linux as an alternative and prevents them from getting a foot hold in the market.
Generally people use whatever they are most comfortable using. So if they start learning on Windows, that is what they know, and it is much easier for them to keep using it. Why do you think these companies offer "Student Versions" and huge discounts (even free) to large universities and colleges? Out of the goodness of their hearts? No, because when these kids grow up this is what they know, and when the go to work, if everyone knows how to use a technology it is cheaper and easier for a business to use that same technology, etc... It is a cycle that lasts years, even decades. So only looking at short term profit and protectionism is actually counter productive in the long term. However as smart as some people like to think Apple is, that is something they constantly do, and are by far the worst offenders.
If they were smart, they would realize that the Windows 7 that Microsoft has made available to netbooks (Starter Version), is a broken crippled thing, designed only to prevent Linux from being used, but yet at the same time not interfering with their core Windows 7 sales. Now if their was say another consumer alternative, perhaps one that might be even installed easily aftermarket (which means you don't need bigbox, or manufacture buy in) into the netbook market that might be considered a very good thing. Now granted it is unlikely that Apple will make any or much money off these sales, but if they EVER want a chance to garner more than 10% of the market and enter the show with the bog boys, it is something they are going to have to look at. How many collage kids will be buying netbooks? How many do you think it would think it cool to be running the Apple OS on it? In 5 to 10 years they might see their market share increase dramatically! What would it cost them? Nothing really, try to break even or even take a chance a sell it at a loss and see what happens, they likely have the cash to do it.
However having watched Apple over a long period of time, I do not seem them doing anything about this in any meaning way. They are always too concerned about control, and protectionism, everything else is secondary. Which is why they will always be a niche market of frappe-chino drinking elite, secure in their superiority of the world, even as it passes them by.
My point was you defined monopoly by defining the market so narrow as to guarantee that Apple would have a monopoly. In the case you cite (as well as other anti-trust cases), the court must define the relevant market. In the case of Microsoft, the court decided that the market was OS for X86 compatible computers (PC). The court did not consider PowerPC, Sparc, or other processors. If they defined the market place as OS for x86 computers made by companies in Washington, that definition is too narrow.
Again your problem was you defined the market too narrow. If you defined the market as portable gaming devices, then you have more options. First you bypassed one test: Is there significatn barrier to entry? If there isn't, monopoly conditions cannot apply. In the case of Nintendo and Sony, either company can easily match the developer conditions that Apple has. There is not significant barrier there.
Second, courts do not consider whether the competitors are "suitable" to your personal tastes. Suitable alternatives means whether the alternatives can function as well as the product in question not whether you like the alternatives. Can you enroll to develop in either alternative? Yes. The reason you don't is there are not well known and don't have brick and mortar stores. But that doesn't mean you can't develop only that your chances for monetary success are smaller should you decide to do so.
In the case of MS, you couldn't buy an OS for x86 from OEMs. If you got an alternative yourself like Linux, it couldn't run Windows software as virtualization was still in its infancy. There were no suitable alternatives.
You created the artificial conditions of what you are willing to do. You want to be a game developer for hand-helds. But only part-time. And you don't want to work for a company. And you don't want to start up a company. And you want to pay a small amount for a license. And only for devices that already have a large amount of users. And not for Zune HD, or Palm Pre, etc. I would consider all those conditions you imposed as artificial.
In the same aspect, I want a new girlfriend. Who's blonde. And a supermodel. And has a PhD in science. And loves Star Trek. Star Wars fans need not apply. Why aren't there more women like that?
The question is whether Nintendo or Sony (as the supplier) could match Apple's offerings. Easily they could. The fact that they haven't is a decision on their part, not yours if you don't like their decision. It's not about what you want as a third-party or customer. In the case of MS, there were no suppliers of OS for x86 computers that could offer a suitable alternative to Windows even if that is what customers wanted.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I'm fairly sure you need a Windows box to develop apps for Windows Mobile. I know you need to use Windows to develop hobbyist apps for the Xbox 360 (XNA). Are you going to bitch about their "exclusivity" too?
And you don't want to start up a company.
Eventually, I do want to. But would you recommend a good guide as to how to start a video game development company?
I work within a group at Apple. I'd rather remain 'anonymous' but I can assure you it was this 'bug' was NOT in our builds. I know because we do test against ATOM, and also several other hacked machines to verify clean builds, and all the builds worked on similar hardware.
No idea what this guy's issue was, but for people to assume that it had anything to do with us willfully disabling support is just stupid.
With each point release we have a set of objects, we don't have 3 builds of 10.6.2 that WORK on ATOM, and magically in between spend large amounts of time and effort to go through code and put in a new 'feature' to disable support. The fact that the internet community thinks we would go back and disable something like this in the MIDDLE of a release cycle is silly.