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!
...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:
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!
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.
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."
Because of a license agreement with Microsoft that specified a max of 1GB of RAM and an 80GB HD (most got around that with splitting it into two or more partitions) to allow them to install Windows XP.
I'm not sure if the agreement has changed with the release of Windows 7 Starter.
It would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name
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.
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
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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.