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!
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...
Actually, this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple.
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$.
So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?
Goody! Now we can post another 500 messages arguing about whether EULAs should be enforceable or not. With luck, this time we can finally finish the argument and come to a conclusion that brings peace to all. I hope Apple and Psystar are prepared to follow the decrees and rulings of the best minds of the Slashdot community.
Don't hold your breath.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
You sir win this whole discussion. There are not enough mod points in the world for you.
--> Could not find text "+5 Comment"
Though, it was with Opera, maybe I need FireFox?
I did find a +5 Comment in this thread though:
This was just Steve letting you know that he knows what you're doing.
that and the price concessions they've been wanting for that Atom-based device just came through.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
But perhaps not big enough of a market for the big guy. Perhaps he would like to sell you a 10" tablet for $1000 with a $300 profit margin than a $300 netbook with a $50 profit margin*.
*Numbers completely pulled out of the air, and not a MacBook Air, those numbers would be even higher.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
They can't disable it since it's on the upcoming Apple Slate.
The dogcow says Moof not wolf
Anti-trust? Precisely what monopoly does Apple hold? (Other than a monopoly on nice design. :)
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
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."
As long as Apple is fighting its way up out of the single digits in market share, you're not going to see any anti-trust action against them on the Macintosh side of the house. And the portable music player market is waning anyway. The iPhone is holding its own but it's certainly got no monopoly. In other words, don't hold your breath.
E pluribus unum
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.
...that assumes a whole lot of factors to which (apparently) you are not privy to.
(...now if apple pulled the plug on the Darwin project, then changed their TPM chip... well, the latter they couldn't really do w/o angering a lot of existing Macintosh users who suddenly could no longer upgrade, and the former would still have code floating around out there).
Well, nevermind - I'm guessing ol' Steve couldn't quite so easily pull the plug after all.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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
So does that mean we're gonna see a bunch of retractions from all the people in the other thread saying how evil Apple was for disabling support for a CPU they don't even use on their OS?
I hope one day Slashdotters are known for being that classy. One day they'll figure out that owning up to something like that can earn them 'Insightful' mods, too.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I just wished 'anti-trust' hammers to fall upon their heads.
I just wish people would educate themselves on what constitutes a "trust" worthy of having anti-trust applied to it.
Why bother
I could see how hackintoshers demonstrate the existence of demand for those things but saying they are proof of a market Apple would be interested in would be *really* stretching it.
Apple doesn't need to join in with everyone else in the race to the bottom.
Actually i would have been very happy to pay $1000 for a 10" or 11" Mac. Tired of waiting i installed Ubuntu on a $500 netbook and i'm now very happy with it. I bet i'm not alone :-)
Apple has no products that use the Atom, correct? So, there was never a bug or a feature
So, what makes everyone think that Apple is even concerned about anything to do with the Atom? They're developing their software for their products. If it just so happens to work on some other hardware, it's an accident. If a build doesn't work on other hardware, it's an accident. If it works again on a subsequent build, it's an accident.
God, you people are turning a non-issue into one.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
I think all those Hackintoshers are also a reminder to Steve that there is a market for netbooks and non-AIO upgradable computers under 1000$.
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.
Many people would be happy to see anti-trust law applied in any case where they thought that a company was acting in a way that benefited the company more than the customers of the company.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The OS being subsidized is a BS argument. Do you feel that people who purchase an xbox or ps3 should be required to go out and purchase games and accessories just because the hardware was sold at a loss? What if the users solely wanted to use them as media players and never play games, or in the case of the original xbox, install a mod and use it as a media center? Can you honestly say that you would feel bad for microsoft that someone purchased the hardware and then used it in a way it was not intended but since the end user never purchased any games that MS never made their money back? Its the same situation just in reverse.
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.
In order for any anti-trust to be remotely there has to be something regarding a monopoly. In this case, a development build didn't work on a platform that Apple doesn't support. So what? What violations are there? To use an analogy, suppose hackers got Windows 7 dev builds to work on a IBM PowerPC. RC2.1 breaks compatibility. Would people start complaining about anti-trust? I don't like MS as much as the next guy, but MS never supported that processor. Whether they deliberately or unintentionally disabled it, it doesn't matter.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Many people would be happy to see anti-trust law applied in any case where they thought that a company was acting in a way that benefited the company more than the customers of the company.
1) All companies act in their own interests - that is the whole point! If those interests happen to coincide with the customer's then that is just a bonus. If I want a quick burger, McDonalds is going to sell be a quick burger. If I want a roast turkey dinner with all the trappings, McDonalds is going to sell a quick burger.
2) People with hackitoshes are, by definition, not Apple customers. OK, some people may go out a buy a copy of MacOSX, but I bet most people just "obtain" it or already have it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Indeed
sheep.horse - does not contain information on sheep or horses.
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...
Totally agree, I wouldn't build a house without foundations either.
There fixed that for you. While there are people who would love to own a netbook with OS X on it, how many of them are willing to pay real money. Remember the netbook market is mostly for people who want small and cheap. Apple does not sell cheap computers. They could technically go into the low-end market, but they long ago decided they were not going to sell high volume, low margin computers, They don't want to compete with Dell.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You may have made the mistake of ascribing the notions that I described to me.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
I know an open source game developer who builds and tests new Mac OS X releases of his cross-platform game on a Hackintosh. Since it's a rather demanding 3D game, a Mac Mini wouldn't be up for the task. Getting a Mac Pro just to compile & test your hobby open source game just seems like a waste of money.
He's got beta testers with real Macs though. It seems to work out pretty well.
My only recent experience with Apple (a second generation ipod shuffle) was that the hardware was incredibly cheap (I don't mean the price, it was a gift, I mean it was a piece of shit that shorted out after 3 hours).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
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.
All companies act in their own best interest, and there's nothing wrong with that. Even having customers is in the best interest of the company. They're not doing you a favor when they release a product; they're selling you something so they can make a living.
You're the second person who has apparently made the mistake of thinking that I am one of the people I was talking about in my comment.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Just as soon as people post retractions for mocking the iPod in 2001 or criticizing the iPod mini in 2004 for being an overly expensive 4GB hard drive that nobody would buy.
If it involves Apple, always expect knees to jerk.
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.
No, I was contributing to the conversation by posting a counterargument to the viewpoint you described.
I am an extremely cheap person and I want to develop iPhone apps
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...
Actually, this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple.
In one line you sum up why Apple has no interest in seeing OSX become the system builder's OS of choice.
The mini is under $1000. The 13" macbook, if not there already, likely will be soon...
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Buy a mini then - they come with the iphone dev tools and can compile iphone apps just fine.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
TPM chip?
I don't believe they even include those, and after the initial x86 hardware beta, they never even used them.
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...
But that $300 Netbook with the $50 profit margin will
#1 Sell ten times more than the $1000 tablet with a $300 profit margin. Thus earning $500 in profits for every ten Netbooks sold at $300 for every one $1000 Tablet sold with a $300 margin. Net sum of $200 more in profits.
#2 Raise the Apple marketshare of Mac OSX based devices.
#3 Put a lid on the Hackintosh market as a $300 Mac based Netbook is cheap enough to buy that even the stingiest of Hackintosh users can't pass up the $300 Mac OSX Netbook.
#4 Apple really needs a Netbook to compete with the PC companies who have their own Netbook.
#5 It means more iTunes sales, as well as more iPhone and iPod sales to sync up with the Mac Netbook.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
For the price of a Mini I could get a rather decent laptop. That's not really cheap in my opinion.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Apple limits what machines can run Mac OSX, which is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
I'm not sure where you get that. Here's the gist of the law:
Section 1:
"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal."
Section 2:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony..."
You'll notice that the law is concerned with restraint of interstate or international commerce, which has nothing to do with what hardware you can run an OS on.
Apple has a monopoly on iPhones and iPods, and other hand held devices because they have a large marketshare and they locked them so that only iTunes and the Apple App Store can put media files or software on them
Nope. You don't have to use iTunes software or the iTunes music store if you don't want to. There are a number of third-party apps that can be used to move music to and from an iPod, some of them much faster and less bloated than iTunes has become. And any compatible music file will work just fine, including files ripped from CDs and Amazon music downloads.
This ain't rocket surgery.
It would put a lid on part of the Hackintosh community. There are people who want a powerful desktop machine they built themselves with a phillips screwdriver. There are people who won't buy any computer as a finished machine, ever.
Apple doesn't need to join in with everyone else in the race to the bottom.
Actually, they did that on the day that they started selling hardware built with COTS 'pc clone' components. Their hardware is an expensive dongle required to run their software. The Hackintosh community has proven that. If Apple wants to continue to sell expensive dongles as a requirement to use their software, that is their perogative. But dongle schemes can be broken.
No, when they moved to x86 architecture it was a race to increase their profit margins. Since they can take advantage of the economy of scale for the PC parts and engineering while keeping their prices the same.
They got to pocket the money they were spending to keep PowerPC alive as a desktop platform. No downside for them really.
But that $300 Netbook with the $50 profit margin will
#1 Sell ten times more than the $1000 tablet with a $300 profit margin. Thus earning $500 in profits for every ten Netbooks sold at $300 for every one $1000 Tablet sold with a $300 margin. Net sum of $200 more in profits.
I think Apple is worried people will realise they don't need a $1000 machine with a $300 profit margin. The worst case for them would be that most Mac users buy $300 netbooks instead of the expensive machines and the number of Mac users doesn't increase.
In fact for your scheme to work they'd need to sell six netbooks to make up for the loss of one tablet. Now it's quite possible that there just aren't that many PC users who would switch but for price whereas most Mac users would buy a cheaper machine if it were available. And incidentally it's worse than this - the people who want a netbook would otherwise buy a $2000+ Mac Book Air. The profit margins on that are probably a lot more than $300. If it were $500 they need to "convert" 10 PC users to compensate for every Mac user that buys a cheaper machine. This to me seems to be very unlikely. Therefore a Mac netbook is a bad idea for them, as is allowing OSX to run on regular PCs legally and without hacks.
Actually I've talked to PC notebook ODMs who have said that the whole netbook trend is a mistake for the industry - basically there's a fixed number of people buying PCs. Before netbooks they'd buy a notebook and the margins were quite high for the PC vendor. Now they buy a netbook and the margins have been cut drastically. So the netbook trend has basically cut revenues. Of course in the PC world it's even worse to not make netbooks if your competitors do so. Then instead of the reduced margin you can get on a netbook you get nothing.
Still the whole point of Apple's business model is that they can say no to products which would cause them to lose money. That includes clones, retail OSX for PCs and netbooks. Don't get me wrong, Apple will eventually make a small machine, it's just it will cost a lot more than most netbooks. Of course it'll have some features they don't have too. What they won't do is sell a $300 identikit Atom netbook, because that would compete with their high end, high margin machines.
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;
Tying is not illegal in the US unless you are a monopoly from what I can tell. So it was OK for Microsoft to tie Dos and Windows until a court declared them to be a monopoly. After that it became illegal. Apple has ~5% of the PC market. They're in no danger of being declared a monopoly so anti trust won't come into it.
Of course, since they're not a monopoly you can just not buy their stuff. I've used Macs occasionally and they frankly irritate me so I wouldn't use OSX even if they gave it away with new PCs.
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;
Maybe, maybe not. You can't say for sure.
It would also cannibalise other Mac laptops, so they would lose quite a bit as well. You guys always seem to forget that.
It would also mean more support calls to Apple, more genius visits, more unhappy people. How do you put a price on that.
Try to look at the big picture for once.
luckily only a small percentage of those people are retarded enough to want to use OS X on their precious creations.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
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.
Why wouldn't that be a good enough reason to do so? when I was 16 I had a server triple-booting FreeBSD, Debian and Windows 2K serving no other purpose other than running Apache to test the websites I coded, which I could've easily done on my (far less powerful) laptop with no ill effects on performance.
Useless? yes. Redundant? very. Educative? certainly. Fun? you bet. And before the nerdy trolls come knocking, yes I also had a girlfriend who loved me very much, I just knew how to administer my time properly.
Hell, if I had enough time for it and didn't hate the idea of financing Apple by buying their crap OS, I'd probably try my hand at making a hackintosh as well, it sounds like a fun weekend project.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
But a $300 netbook will also:
#1 Be a general POS compared to most Apple hardware and tarnish their brand.
#2 Canabalize the sales of their more expensive (and higher margin) laptops.
For that matter, I can't say I agree with your points:
#1 How many of those sales will come at the price of a $300 profit laptop or tablet? If they lose 1 high profit sale for every 5 low profit sales they gain, it's a losing strategy.
#2 If they honestly cared about market share over all else they would have taken this approach a long time ago. Considering the amount of money they make I don't think they give two shits about market share in the computer space as long as sales grow by some small amount.
#3 The Hackintosh market is so small that they likely don't care about it. It wouldn't be a bump on their already small sales numbers.
#4 You assume Apple wants to compete in the race to the bottom netbook segment of the market that will likely cannibalize their macbook sales.
#5 I don't have figures, but given that iTunes is something like 75% of online music sales it's pretty obvious that more than Mac users are downloading music with it. It works on Windows as well so they don't need to move more hardware to increase music sales. The same applies to iPods. They really can't grow that market much more than they already have.
Considering that their stock is worth something like ten times what it was since Jobs came back to the company, I think he has a pretty good idea of how things should be run. If Apple manages to catch the next big wave in the tech industry and release a product that's even half as dominating as the iPod, they'll easily surpass Microsoft at the height of its power. Sure their business strategy means you won't get a cheap crappy computer running OS X, but considering you can already make your own, why do you need Apple to release one?
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?
Like Microsoft made a monopoly by bundling IE with Windows, so too does Apple create a monopoly by bundling Safari and iTunes with Mac OSX, thus shutting out Firefox, Real Player, Napster, etc.
Monopolies aren't created by bundling products. Apple doesn't hold significant market share in the desktop computer market, so there's no monopoly. It's that simple.
Apple limits what machines can run Mac OSX, which is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
No they don't, because there is no monopoly.
This is the argument that Psystar is trying to make in that Apple has created their own virtual Mac Monopoly and shut out all competitors by making it so that only Apple machines can run OSX and nobody else.
So you're saying they have a monopoly on their own products. Just like Sony has a monopoly on PlayStations.
. Mac OSX is based on the MACH kernel and *BSD Unix, which was designed for running on all sorts of machines and devices, but Apple violated the BSD license by only running OSX on only Apple brand computers.
Apple doesn't violate any licenses. The BSD license explicitly states you can do with the code whatever you desire.
Apple has a monopoly on iPhones and iPods, and other hand held devices because they have a large marketshare
You can't have a monopoly on your own products. Obviously nobody else makes your products. Now for the handheld/phone market, the iPhone doesn't have enough market share at all to be called a monopolist. All of the iPod procuts probably do have enough market share to be called a monopolist, but since the only iPod running OS X (sorta) is the iPod Touch, I don't think they could be called a monopolist in that market either in regard to their operating system.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
But it would be a market they can't control. Apple doesn't want a market of "Mac OS X based devices", it wants a market of hardware made and controlled fully by them.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
Did not.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
My only recent experience with Apple (a second generation ipod shuffle) was that the hardware was incredibly cheap (I don't mean the price, it was a gift, I mean it was a piece of shit that shorted out after 3 hours).
Dead On Arrival, can and shall happen with all manufacturers. One of the fastest ways of getting a replacement.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
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.
#1 Sell ten times more than the $1000 tablet with a $300 profit margin. Thus earning $500 in profits for every ten Netbooks sold at $300 for every one $1000 Tablet sold with a $300 margin. Net sum of $200 more in profits.
maybe, maybe not. you also pulled those number out of the air and only apple know if the real-world figures would yield them more profit
#2 Raise the Apple marketshare of Mac OSX based devices.
is that really a goal? i'm not so sure. higher market share means less exclusivity and therefore lower profit margins. also the platform becomes more tempting for hackers to target
#3 Put a lid on the Hackintosh market as a $300 Mac based Netbook is cheap enough to buy that even the stingiest of Hackintosh users can't pass up the $300 Mac OSX Netbook.
let's wait and see how their current strategy of largely ignoring the hackingtosh market plays out. i have a feeling there aren't that many people building hackingtoshes - the people that do are (i think) a disproportionately vocal minority of computer geeks. and that's not even a bad thing - when geeks go out of their way to install apples OS on their own hardware, it sends out a subtle message to the market that 'the people in the know' choose osx because 'it's better'. sure it's all very unoffical, but it's marketing nontheless
#4 Apple really needs a Netbook to compete with the PC companies who have their own Netbook.
i really don't get this point. why? netbooks are barely profitable for most netbook manufacturers. why should any company rush to compete in a profitless market with lots of risk and huge potential for brand damage (by way of selling an inferior product)?
#5 It means more iTunes sales, as well as more iPhone and iPod sales to sync up with the Mac Netbook.
possibly, but apple doesn't really profit from itunes sales, and iphone/ipod sales are already so high that any netbook->iPod/iPhone halo effect would be almost negligible. instead, the iphone/ipod->macbook halo effect is much more profitable for apple and i think that's what they're focusing on.
:P
having said all that, there is clearly plenty of space in apples product line for cheaper hardware, as long as they can deliver a good end user experience. perhaps a relatively cheap tablet will fill this gap nicely. perhaps not. time will tell. or not
No, they don't. The dongle is elsewhere - in the embedded controller, IIRC.
"... allowing other people (most of who purchased your product legitimately) to use your product illegitimately. "
How about Goldman Sachs?
Actually, this was some blog poster that screwed up his Hackintosh and blamed it on Apple.
In one line you sum up why Apple has no interest in seeing OSX become the system builder's OS of choice.
Oh please. If Apple didn't try to block system builders, there would be no people "screwing up their Hackintoshes and blaming it on Apple" in the first place. When was the last time you heard a rumor that Microsoft was disabling support for some line of processors on Windows? If some idiot did claim that in a blog post, he would be laughed at.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
When was the last time you heard a rumor that Microsoft was disabling support for some line of processors on Windows?
Back when they dropped support for NT on MIPS and Alpha? :-)
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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$.
Of course there is a market.
The $64,000 question is, however, what would supporting that market do to Apple's current sales of mid/high-end laptops, all-in-ones and workstations? Such systems probably yield much higher profit margins than netbooks and entry-level towers.
Its a dead cert that many loyal Apple customers would go for a cheaper alternative if it were offered: Apple need to be damned sure that they were going to attract enough genuinely new custom to more than compensate for that.
Thing is, Apple's current business model of selling premium-priced "boutique" systems seems to be working quite nicely - why risk it by competing with yourself?
I'm sure that they'll come out with a "response" to the netbook market soon - but I'd bet on a jumbo iPod Touch rather than a mini Mac.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
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.
Riiight, because whenever a Microsoft OS BSODs, people never think "Microsoft fucked up my machine! It wasn't that driver that I just installed, it was Microsoft!"
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
...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.
They have a monopoly on Apple devices. Think it's a coincidence that no one else creates anything by Apple?
There's also the upside of letting people run their Windows apps (either via BootCamp or Parallels/VMWare), to make the switching easier and the transition smoother.
And my Core 2 Duo Mac mini beats the crap out of my G4 Mac mini for raw computing power.
Given that the monitor-less, keyboard-less and mouse-less Mac mini costs twice as much as a Netbook, I would bet on the "jumbo iPod touch" scenario.
I have a Hackintosh AND a $3000 Mac Pro. So there. :)
With the first link, the chain is forged.
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?
You're right! And don't think its a coincidence that I can only get a Mini from BMW. Its a conspiracy I tell you!
When was the last time you heard a rumor that Microsoft was disabling support for some line of processors on Windows? If some idiot did claim that in a blog post, he would be laughed at.
I can vaguely remember an uproar when some AMP CPUs over a certain frequency wouldn't work in some parts of Windows (SCSI driver?). Turned out that MS in a timing loop used a NOOP version of some complex opcode that took dozens of cycles on Intel CPUs, but AMD had optimized that opcode to run much faster, resulting in a divide by zero or similar.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Riiight, because whenever a Microsoft OS BSODs, people never think "Microsoft fucked up my machine! It wasn't that driver that I just installed, it was Microsoft!"
That's because it was Microsoft's fault. A properly designed operating system doesn't crash because of bad drivers (or ever). Case in point, Microsoft has finally done it right, and when my crappy nvidia drivers crash, the operating system survives (since Vista) and restarts the driver.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Back when they dropped support for NT on MIPS and Alpha? :-)
That's true, but that wasn't a case of writing code specifically to block those architectures. It was removal of code. The Atom is x86, Apple computers are x86, the OS will naturally work with that processor unless Apple specifically does something to prevent it from doing so.
Granted, they didn't do anything of the sort, but the fact that they have a history of locking things down made it seem plausible at the time.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
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.
#4 Apple really needs a Netbook to compete with the PC companies who have their own Netbook.
Do they?
I don't think they need advice on how to run their business from slashdotters (including me).
-- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
Given that the monitor-less, keyboard-less and mouse-less Mac mini costs twice as much as a Netbook, I would bet on the "jumbo iPod touch" scenario.
Yet my EEE PC netbook is gathering dust on a shelf, while my Mac Mini currently has an uptime of 271 days (and that was after an intentional reboot)...
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
There's also a market for cheap USB drives that look like pieces of sushi.
Don't know, hows that education coming?
Why bother