Apple vs. Mac OS X Hackers

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Yahoo news reports (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/apple_hacker_warning;_ylt=Aq3yq3K1CCm8d6Oe8WdazjCs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--) on hidden messages placed by Apple into Mac OS X for Intel to warn would-be hackers. The latest version of Mac OS X revealed a short poem:

"Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/his existing OS was so blind/he'd do better to pirate/an OS that ran great/but found his hardware declined./Please don't steal Mac OS!/Really, that's way uncool./(C) Apple Computer, Inc."

Apple confirmed that it had placed these messages into the Mac OS software hoping "it, and many other legal warnings, will remind people that they should not steal Mac OS X."

It appears that that may not have been the only approach Apple may have taken, as a message on OSX86Project.org Forums (http://forum.osx86project.org) indicates that they have been issued a DMCA violation notice:

We're sorry to report that despite our best efforts, the OSx86 Project has been served with a DMCA violation notice. The forum will be unavailable while we evaluate its contents to remove any violations present. We thank you for your patience in this matter.

The OSX86Project.org and forums discussed methods/attempts to run Mac OS X on PC hardware.

[Eidorian]

That was fast... OS X is for Macs.

[nagromme]

Wow--poetry. Apple's really playing hardball!

[p0intblank]

Wow... talk about fast service! :eek: You have to love Apple's humor behind this. ;)

[iGary]

I think they pissed Steve off with their retort poem:

In this spirit, we would like to humbly offer up our own poem to the developers of the “OS that ran great.”

Rime of the Ancient Hacker
There once was a hacker named Maxxuss
who Steve did not think was a genius.
But Steve pondered awhile,
grabbed the phone with a smile,
and said “Bill, there’s a thing to discuss…”

Don't frack with the Steve™.

[Peace]

I'm surprised osx86project.org has lasted this long.It's about time imho.

[plinkoman]

i don't get why people spend their lives writing viruses...

don't they have something better to do?

[pdpfilms]

I'm glad to see Apple remain light hearted about the subject. It's a true sign of supremacy over the traditional "YOU ARE VIOLATING SO-AND-SO AND WILL BE PERSECUTED, WRONGDOER!"

[Dr. Dastardly]

They would be stupid if they thought this wasn't going to happen to them eventually.

Here comes the ****-Storm!

[2nyRiggz]

Some people suck. waste time making things to hurt people just to be a jackarse.


Bless

[excalibur313]

i don't get why people spend their lives writing viruses...

don't they have something better to do?

This isn't about virus writing it is about hacking os x to do things it doesn't normally, like run on any x86 processor. I agree with you though...

[plinkoman]

This isn't about virus writing it is about hacking os x to do things it doesn't normally, like run on any x86 processor. I agree with you though...

oh, i though this was partially in relation to the recent trojan...

eh, oh well

[radian23]

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I just started reading that site like 2 days ago. Interesting stuff.

[Marlon_JBT]

I can't stop laughing. :D :D

Steve Jobs is a genius.

[Peace]

oh, i though this was partially in relation to the recent trojan...

eh, oh well

I can't prove it or have any info but it's my opinion that a member over there wrote that "trojan"..

[badmofo9000]

I actually can not figure out why apple even bothered with this. A new site will pop up. People want osx on generic machines, some people find wrong in this, but that does not take away the demand.

People want it and don't want to pay for it. It can not be stopped. This is simalar to the RIAA and there beef with file sharing, they can never stop it.

[badmofo9000]

I can't prove it or have any info but it's my opinion that a member over there wrote that "trojan"..


What would lead you to think that? I know you said you can't prove it but do you have anything at all that would make you believe that?

[Peace]

What would lead you to think that? I know you said you can't prove it but do you have anything at all that would make you believe that?

I've been following osx86project.org since they started up..

Just a gut feeling.Like I said.It's just an opinion and I still have that right I hope..

[badmofo9000]

I've been following osx86project.org since they started up..

Just a gut feeling.Like I said.It's just an opinion and I still have that right I hope..


Yes you have the right, didn't mean to step on your toes there. I was just curious if you had anything to back it up. I too have been following there progress closely and I did not ever get the feeling that there was a malicious motive behind them(other that to "steal" intelectual property from Apple).

[dekator]

For a company, even Apple, to use religious terminology ('karma') is both presumptious and absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that this term (not its proper meaning tho') has been vulgarized across the net and elsewhere.

I know Apple does it a lot, for example to defend exploitation by big label music companies. I think it's sickening.

[calebjohnston]

I think you need to not take things literally just to make some " I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD" statement. Thanks.

[.Joel]

Damn simple solution to this, host the website overseas. [site name removed] do it, do the same thing with osx86 project.

I like apple, but steve's policies are retarded some of the time.

[plinkoman]

For a company, even Apple, to use religious terminology ('karma') is both presumptious and absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that this term (not its proper meaning tho') has been vulgarized across the net and elsewhere.

I know Apple does it a lot, for example to defend exploitation by big label music companies. I think it's sickening.

sickening?

you think using the word(and thats what it is, a word), karma, is sickening?

wow :rolleyes:

[Peace]

Yes you have the right, didn't mean to step on your toes there. I was just curious if you had anything to back it up. I too have been following there progress closely and I did not ever get the feeling that there was a malicious motive behind them(other that to "steal" intelectual property from Apple).


When they stole 10.4.3 1111a for the transition kit and installed it on peecee's with a standard bios they were all hooray!! look how easy it is!!..
Then 10.4.4 came out and it stumped them with the programable efi.I'm quit sure some of the lurkers or even members got ticked off.That would be plenty motivation to try and strike back at Apple..

[lwood]

I actually can not figure out why apple even bothered with this. A new site will pop up. People want osx on generic machines, some people find wrong in this, but that does not take away the demand.

People want it and don't want to pay for it. It can not be stopped. This is simalar to the RIAA and there beef with file sharing, they can never stop it.

You obviously underestimate the ferocity of Apple's legal team, sir. :)

[chukronos]

For a company, even Apple, to use religious terminology ('karma') is both presumptious and absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that this term (not its proper meaning tho') has been vulgarized across the net and elsewhere.

I know Apple does it a lot, for example to defend exploitation by big label music companies. I think it's sickening.


HAHA!! That is funny! I love your sarcasm. (Unless, you are being serious. In that case: relax.)

-Chuck

[Choppaface]

if somebody were shrinkwrapping a patched version of tiger or sharing a DVD image then that would be one thing, but sending the forums a DMCA notice is a stupid attack on hobbyists. most of the hobbyists doing this would probably be up to buying an unlocked version of tiger, but if apple insults them with DMCA BS the more likely it is that apple will fall into a piracy battle it CAN'T win. the poem is cute, though.

[Peace]

if somebody were shrinkwrapping a patched version of tiger or sharing a DVD image then that would be one thing, but sending the forums a DMCA notice is a stupid attack on hobbyists. most of the hobbyists doing this would probably be up to buying an unlocked version of tiger, but if apple insults them with DMCA BS the more likely it is that apple will fall into a piracy battle it CAN'T win. the poem is cute, though.


There were links at osx86 that were doing just that.Bittorrents of the DVD image..

[badmofo9000]

You obviously underestimate the ferocity of Apple's legal team, sir. :)


Yes, I have read about the apple legal team. I know that if apple went after individual users or sites they can stop that instance of it, but as a whole they will be as successfull as the RIAA in stopping music piracy. Microsoft has been trying to stop people from using pirated Windows for years, they have so far been unsuccessful.

[jared_kipe]

I assume maxxumus is overseas, so why can't he host the forum.

[theBB]

The poem indicates a light hearted approach towards the hackers, but DMCA notice sounds quite harsh. Sometimes, if you fail to legally assert your rights about some trivial stuff, you may find that you have lost those rights when the real nasty problems arise. I wonder if this is their reasoning behind the DMCA notice. Kind of like "Aspirin" losing its trademark rights in the US and Xerox forcing people to use the term "photocopy" to make sure they don't face the same fate later...

[rohanl]

Wow--poetry. Apple's really playing hardball!

They know all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. Apple are vicious!

(apologies to Monty Python)

[Choppaface]

There were links at osx86 that were doing just that.Bittorrents of the DVD image..

alright, but all that really does is push the bittorrent links to other places. the only honest solution to this problem is still for Apple to figure out how to utilize this market... legal action against hobbyists just makes a bigger mess. if Apple can't serve the hobbyists, then the hobbyists will eventually yeild enough freely available tools for somebody to put a shrinkwrapped product on the black market, and then it's a lot bigger then sending websites DMCA notices.

I would certainly pay full retail for a copy of Tiger that runs on my PC, even if it required some patching for my specific hardware. I think it apple rebranded OSX for x86, removed the protection, and simply stated they don't offer any support that would be enough. They left it to the community to make dashboard widgets, why not for hardware support?

[bigjohn]

wait what? if i buy Tiger i can't try and install it on my PC? next thing they'll do is say that because I buy a cd I can't use it in the car and at home

[woolfgang]

When they stole 10.4.3 1111a for the transition kit and installed it on peecee's with a standard bios they were all hooray!! look how easy it is!!..
Then 10.4.4 came out and it stumped them with the programable efi.I'm quit sure some of the lurkers or even members got ticked off.That would be plenty motivation to try and strike back at Apple..

It's their software!

[Peace]

wait what? if i buy Tiger i can't try and install it on my PC? next thing they'll do is say that because I buy a cd I can't use it in the car and at home


That is utterly rediculous..

Tiger is designed to be installed on an Apple computer.Apple even states that in the system requirements.

It's their software!

Which software ? are you refering to 10.4.3 1111a?..That software was under NDA and was only to be used on the DTK..You could not buy it without buying the DTK.

!0.4.4 for Intel only came with the iMac..Don't think you can buy the DVD seperatly.

[Benjamin]

OMG thats funny. I sorta hope the hackers keep hacking just to see another poem like this.

[jacobj]

Apple seem to be generally quite soft when it comes to protecting their software. I will admit that on occassion I have downloaded an unofficial trial version of iLife to assess it before buying it. It is my loyalty to Apple that then makes me fork out the GBP 50 to get it.
I haven't done that since we finally got an Apple reseller locally.

What this leads to is the fact that Apple can be slack on their protection of non-OS applications because the OS has a limited and loyal user base. If the OS gets hacked and put on PCs regularly then the ball game changes. So Apple will pursue this with their full force and if they fail we will all suffer.

[Marlor]

While I realise that Apple have to protect their technology, Steve Jobs' anti-hacking comments lately have been a bit hypocritical. Here is a more appropriate poem:

"Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/the phone companies robbed him blind/he'd do better to phreak/with a 2600Hz beep/so a blue box was designed./Please don't steal phone calls!/Really, that's way uncool."

[badmofo9000]

http://http://www.win2osx.net/frontrow/ (http://www.win2osx.net/frontrow/)

It appears that the other "well known" osx86 hacking site has also been served with "legal action", but has chosen to amend their user policy instead of shut down their forums. Now posting links to hacked apple code is forbidden but discussion of such material is allowed.

[asherman13]

I'm liking the poem. It was very unexpected, unlike the DMCA violation notice, which almost everyone knew would be coming sooner or later.

Interestingly enough, the RIAA doesn't serve .torrent hosting sites with DMCA or copyright violation notices (MGM v. Grokster doesn't count), and in this I think Apple definately has the upper hand in the attempts to pirate their software. Whereas music is literally everywhere, Apple decides who sells their stuff besides them. Since Apple is obviously very well-read in 'net blogs, etc. which address Apple stuff, unlike the very few people who try to police P2P networks, they'll be far more active with their notices of copyright or DRM violation.

Off-topic question: How has the word "karma" (not "kama") been vulgarized on the 'net?

[Caiwyn]

Apple seem to be generally quite soft when it comes to protecting their software. I will admit that on occassion I have downloaded an unofficial trial version of iLife to assess it before buying it. It is my loyalty to Apple that then makes me fork out the GBP 50 to get it.
I haven't done that since we finally got an Apple reseller locally.

What this leads to is the fact that Apple can be slack on their protection of non-OS applications because the OS has a limited and loyal user base. If the OS gets hacked and put on PCs regularly then the ball game changes. So Apple will pursue this with their full force and if they fail we will all suffer.

This is a point worth making. Part of the reason I love Apple is that none of the software I use requires any sort of copy protection that would take away my control. No dongles, no activation schemes... And because I believe in supporting that model, I pay for the software I use.

But open up OS X to run on any old pc, as the osx86project is trying to convince Apple to do, and Apple's business model suddenly changes. All of a sudden they're in the business of selling software, instead of hardware, and that business model needs to be protected in other ways. Sure, the pirates will find ways around whatever copy protection, but those of us who do the right thing end up getting the shaft.

Thanks, but no thanks, osx86project. I *like* Apple's current business model, because it protects their consumers from all the copy protection BS that has become so prevalent in the Windows world. You guys are just ruining it for everyone.

[Peace]

http://http://www.win2osx.net/frontrow/ (http://www.win2osx.net/frontrow/)

It appears that the other "well known" osx86 hacking site has also been served with "legal action", but has chosen to amend their user policy instead of shut down their forums. Now posting links to hacked apple code is forbidden but discussion of such material is allowed.


Slick redirect to microsnot :rolleyes:

[barstard]

What people who think they have a right to do what they want after they have bought software... read your license agreement. You will see that "The software (including Boot Rom code)...are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc..."

And goes on to say: "This license allows you to install, use and run one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."

Bolding added by me.

So you see that there is nothing you can say that still doesn't mean you are violating your License Agreement. And if you don't agree with the license you can return it for a refund.

Simple

barstard.

[EricNau]

41092

___________Link (http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Stolen_From_Apple.txt&topic=Software%20Design&sortOrder=Sort%20by%20Date&detail=medium)

[Benjamin]

EricNau thats classic apple, nice time to reference that. (why didn't i think of that)

[badmofo9000]

Slick redirect to microsnot :rolleyes:


I entered the adress in wrong, and extra "http:" will redirect you to microsoft, I did not know this. You must be quick because the post was up for about 2 seconds before I fixed it.

[snowmen]

So you see that there is nothing you can say that still doesn't mean you are violating your License Agreement. And if you don't agree with the license you can return it for a refund.


Well~ Violating license agreement is not the same as violating copyright law. And today, Apple didn't give them copyright violation notice but a DMCA notice. So it's a little bit different.

[Confidemus]

For a company, even Apple, to use religious terminology ('karma') is both presumptious and absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that this term (not its proper meaning tho') has been vulgarized across the net and elsewhere.

Sorry about that. It's very nice of you to defend other's religious feelings. But indeed as Buddhist I refer Karma just to be the basic principle of cause and effect. In this way the usage of the word by Apple is correct. May be
sombody has noticed Steve Jobs Commencement adress at Stanford University last autumn? If interested please go to
http://itunes.stanford.edu/
and watch Steve (you can download it as video for your iPOD:D) .
When you are a little familiar with Buddhist philosophy than you find that he is mentioning the very basic a biggest points of Buddhist philosophy there.
1. Steve said: "Connecting the dots" and it was: Cause and effect
2. Steve talked about: "Love" and it referred to Love and the wisdom behind that.
3. Steve said: "In fact, death is the greatest invention of life." - no comment.

Best wishes,
Fernando

[Tupring]

alright, but all that really does is push the bittorrent links to other places. the only honest solution to this problem is still for Apple to figure out how to utilize this market... legal action against hobbyists just makes a bigger mess. if Apple can't serve the hobbyists, then the hobbyists will eventually yeild enough freely available tools for somebody to put a shrinkwrapped product on the black market, and then it's a lot bigger then sending websites DMCA notices.

I would certainly pay full retail for a copy of Tiger that runs on my PC, even if it required some patching for my specific hardware. I think it apple rebranded OSX for x86, removed the protection, and simply stated they don't offer any support that would be enough. They left it to the community to make dashboard widgets, why not for hardware support?
I used to think that is was a Bad Idea with the direction that Apple appears to be going, I'm still a little unsure. I love Mac OS X and I only want it to get better and better. But at the same time I like the small community. I only know four other people that own a Mac and one of them is my mom. Running Mac OS X on a PC is the best thing that could ever happen to the thing, I bet it makes the parts feel better inside. I own at least a half-a-dozen working Macs and use three of them on a daily basis. Getting Mac OS X to install, even on supported machines has almost always been a big pain for me. Many sleepless nights of failed attempts. I have the older 10.4.3 patched image and if someone happens to let me borrow their PC for a few days, it will go back to them upgraded. And in regard to the "Don't steal Mac OS" in the hidden message, I just don't see how every situation could be considered stealing (in Apple's eyes). If someone was to purchase a brand new iMac for example that has the Intel version of Mac OS X installed, and they build a PC and install OS X (that they bought) on it, surely that can't be stealing?

[virus1]

woah! apples got spunk! ive always known it..

spunk. thats a nice word.

[Tupring]

It's their software!Which is built on Open Source software!

[barstard]

Well~ Violating license agreement is not the same as violating copyright law. And today, Apple didn't give them copyright violation notice but a DMCA notice. So it's a little bit different.

True. Although, what I was saying is regardless of copyright, just by doing it you are violating a legal agreement. Just different ways to get at it, probably whatever threatens the biggest penalty will be used as a way to try and limit the amount of sites offering links to the illegal distributions.

barstard.

[Tupring]

What this leads to is the fact that Apple can be slack on their protection of non-OS applications because the OS has a limited and loyal user base. If the OS gets hacked and put on PCs regularly then the ball game changes. So Apple will pursue this with their full force and if they fail we will all suffer.That is why I was so against the switch right there! I am too afraid of what could become, I mean Apple has almost gone Bankrupt how many times now?

[safXmal]

I do understand that the current plan of Apple is to sell hardware through better software. This opens a whole can of worms. Apple has to protect their software from putting it on other x86 brands. Otherwise why wouldn't you - as a consumer- not buy the cheapest brand of PC and put Mac Os X on it.

Wouldn't it be better if they differentiated also on their hardware. Implement ingenieous new combinations of chipsets and other parts in their computers on which the operation system relaies on to give us some spiffy new functionality.

You could efficiently lock down Mac OS X to Apple hardware and Apple wouldn't have to resort to legal threats (wich wont work anyway)

Who cares then if some hobbyist manages to put Mac OS X on a regular PC. It wouldn't work properly and because Apple doesn't sanction it he wouldn't have any help from them either.

[barstard]

Well~ Violating license agreement is not the same as violating copyright law. And today, Apple didn't give them copyright violation notice but a DMCA notice. So it's a little bit different.

Actually. What? I think I get what you mean but you have something the wrong way around.:D

[Marvy]

While I realise that Apple have to protect their technology, Steve Jobs' anti-hacking comments lately have been a bit hypocritical. Here is a more appropriate poem:

"Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/the phone companies robbed him blind/he'd do better to phreak/with a 2600Hz beep/so a blue box was designed./Please don't steal phone calls!/Really, that's way uncool."

Hehehe, fantastic. I bet you Steve would love that one :).

[jacobj]

This is a point worth making. Part of the reason I love Apple is that none of the software I use requires any sort of copy protection that would take away my control. No dongles, no activation schemes... And because I believe in supporting that model, I pay for the software I use.

But open up OS X to run on any old pc, as the osx86project is trying to convince Apple to do, and Apple's business model suddenly changes. All of a sudden they're in the business of selling software, instead of hardware, and that business model needs to be protected in other ways. Sure, the pirates will find ways around whatever copy protection, but those of us who do the right thing end up getting the shaft.

Thanks, but no thanks, osx86project. I *like* Apple's current business model, because it protects their consumers from all the copy protection BS that has become so prevalent in the Windows world. You guys are just ruining it for everyone.


I'm sure there will be those that read our posts and just think 'well they're stealing software from Apple and if OSX opens up they will probably be prevented from doing so in the future. So here is my response to those that think that - I know you're out there:

Every purchase over GBP 150 requires me to really think long and hard about whether it is worth it or not and anything less requires me to wonder if my money would be better spent elsewhere.

Let's look at my current situation:

I have ordered the MBP because I need more photo processing power and even under Rosetta the MBP offers more than my PB. But I also need a great way of managing my RAW photos.

So which way do I go? Aperture or Lightroom?

I am using the Beta version of lightroom at the moment and I love it, but Aperture's full screen editing really really appeals to me. I could buy aperture and realise that full screen editing aside, it is not for me. That is a lot of cash in the bin.

So I go on to a peer-to-peer network and download Aperture...tut tut I hear you say. Not at all. It may just be me and not the trend but I am an honest broker. If I like Aperture I WILL buy it.

Sometimes when I want to buy music I do the same thing. I download the album of a new artist from a peer-to-peer network and listen to it. If I like it I go to iTunes and buy it. If I hate it I delete it. It allows me to not pay for rubbish that it well marketed. So many albums have one great track and 10 cr*p ones. The same applies to software.

Peer-to-peer is the answer and Apple's business model supports it. Where money is tight the chance to have a full preview is essential.

[spikeovsky]

That is why I was so against the switch right there! I am too afraid of what could become, I mean Apple has almost gone Bankrupt how many times now?

Rumours of Apple's near-bankruptcies have been highly exaggerated. In fact, even when they were in dire straits in the Spindler/Amelio era, they always had a lot of cash in the bank. I'm not even sure if bankruptcy has *ever* really been an issue, though people are free to correct me on this point.

More importantly, why has no one commented on the fact that the poem's rhyme scheme is all messed up? It doesn't scan at all! I expect Apple to put the same effort into its anti-piracy poetry as into its products!

[bellis1]

For a company, even Apple, to use religious terminology ('karma') is both presumptious and absurd. Notwithstanding the fact that this term (not its proper meaning tho') has been vulgarized across the net and elsewhere.

Hate to break it to those who practice hinduism or buddhism, but "karma" is now a regularly americanized noun (for decades already). I don't feel this is at all presumptious or absurd, especially since apple has little else at their disposal to browbeat the common folk. And its not like religions or religious statements are ever presumptious or absurd. Mr. Jobs show me some intelligent design, I provocate thou.

edit: he's just trying to be nice b/c he knows that he can't sell computers right now without microsoft office. Give him time and he'll unleash the kraken.

[barstard]

If someone was to purchase a brand new iMac for example that has the Intel version of Mac OS X installed, and they build a PC and install OS X (that they bought) on it, surely that can't be stealing?

As I've said before, read your license agreement that comes with Mac OS. It's not STEALING if you install YOUR copy on a PC, but it is a violation of your license agreement with Apple, both because you have it installed on more than one machine, and because you have installed it on a non-Apple-
labeled computer! If you download a copy of Mac OS from the internet you are stealing regardless of whether it is a hacked copy or not.

Sorry, I mistook your bracket's meaning!:D But it would still be a violation.

barstard.

[leenoble]

I've never visited the site in question so I don't know what their ethos is, but just to play devil's advocate for a minute, apart from violating the DMCA I can't see what is wrong - on the face of it - with getting OSX to run on generic hardware. Putting the economic factors to one side, like the fact Apple's hardware sales could potentially tank, if they have purchased the OS from Apple* then it's not theft to try installing it on a different machine. Provided all the participants of the site buy their own copy and get instructions only from the website then Apple aren't losing anything. The only reason they have anything to say is because of the DMCA. Otherwise this project is really no different from getting OSX to run on unsupported beige G3s.

For the commercial and economic reasons though, I'm against it. I just think people are confusing this with theft.

*not sure if they are selling boxed standalone copies or not yet considering the only computers that officially run the OS come with it pre-installed however presumably once 10.5 hits the shelves then my point will be more relevant.

[nataku]

Apple should be aggressive when it comes to issues like this. Mac OS is for Macs. Let PC users drool all they want. They try to get OS X to run on their machines because that is something that they will (debatable) never have. Unless they get Macs that is... :)

[cwedl]

I'm glad the project to get Mac OSX on PC's have been taken offline. Hackers I believe aren't in it to spite Microsoft, they are in it to spite the general population and to feed their narcissism.

I know the poem will not deter people from downloading it, some idiots still believe doing this isn't illegal!

[mdavey]

Wouldn't it be better if they differentiated also on their hardware... Who cares then if some hobbyist manages to put Mac OS X on a regular PC. It wouldn't work properly and because Apple doesn't sanction it he wouldn't have any help from them either.

Absolutely. Apple should be emphasising that OSX performs much better on Apple hardware. Not just faster, but more reliable, available and scalable. Who knows how to optimise OSX for specific hardware better than Apple?

If they improved their support offerings, they could additionally emphasise that no-one knows how to troubleshoot issues better than Apple either. And as retailers aren't going to be installing OSX on PCs, only the tiny number of Unix gurus and a few curious students will actually attempt to put OSX on their PC.

This model has worked well for Sun - OpenSolaris is Open Source, but nearly everyone uses Sun's shrinkwrapped Solaris on either Sun's x86 or Sparc kit. Only a tiny percentage bother to install OpenSolaris on some other x86 kit (because Solaris on Sun kit just works better and you can 'phone them for support if you have problems).

[mdavey]

[T]he only honest solution to this problem is still for Apple to figure out how to utilize this market... legal action against hobbyists just makes a bigger mess. if Apple can't serve the hobbyists, then the hobbyists will eventually yeild enough freely available tools for somebody to put a shrinkwrapped product on the black market, and then it's a lot bigger then sending websites DMCA notices.

I think i[f] [A]pple rebranded OSX for x86, removed the protection, and simply stated they don't offer any support that would be enough. They left it to the community to make dashboard widgets, why not for hardware support?

I agree. Apple have this group of hobbyists that are currently working against Apple but nethertheless have valuable skills. Apple should be trying to harness that power for Apple's good - channelling it into OpenDarwin. All they would need to do is give OpenDarwin an unbranded version of OSX with a rubbish theme in place of Aqua and hold back on some of the performance improvements. The Open Source community would quickly replace the broken theme with a nice one (that doesn't look too like Aqua because Apple has design patents protecting the look of Aqua).

Everyone will know that OpenDarwin is a poor man's Mac OS X and that for best performance just get Mac OS X on Apple kit, but for hobbyists, students, some academics and try-before-you-buy it will be good to go. Kills the osx86 black market and hacking community without too much in the way of side-effects for Apple. Heck, it could actually benefit Apple by improving their Open Source image and introducing more people to Mac OS X through an unofficial try-before-you-buy.

[janstett]

Apple, give us the chance to buy it legally for X86 and we would. The problem is you're forcing us to buy your hardware to run your software (as usual).

[Neerazan]

Hate to break it to those who practice hinduism or buddhism, but "karma" is now a regularly americanized noun (for decades already)...

Now, I though our Steve was in fact a Buddhist. So there's no problem at all, surely, even if people are going to get all upset if non Buddhists are misusing 'karma' (I'm pretty sure if they do it'll catch up with 'em in the end, it always does) :p

[ezekielrage_99]

It's amazing how many people really do support Apple's stand on this, however if it was Microsoft most people really couldn't care less.

What ever happens with Mac OSX I would always buy the newest version out because it is definantly worth of my money, Mac OSes are always a quality products and I do believe people should pay to use quailty products but not dodgy products that are full of bugs (e.g. windows).

I am glad to see that Apple is standing by it's great OS.

[Lurch_Mojoff]

Apple, give us the chance to buy it legally for X86 and we would. The problem is you're forcing us to buy your hardware to run your software (as usual).
This has been said time and again, and I hate I have to repeat it, but obviously it is still not clear to everyone. Mac OS X is the competitive advantage of Apple over Dell, HP, Lenovo and whoever, especially now that they all have basically the same hardware platform. If you had the chance to legally buy Mac OS X for generic x86 computer, would you have bought that spankin' new MacBook Pro in your sig or a similarly spec'ed Dell for a little less $? Oh, by the way, you realize that, because now the development of the OS is partially financed by income from hardware sales, the price of a copy of Mac OS X will have to rise, right?

Anyway, I think a bit of poetry and a DMCA notice or two are very far from hardball. One one hand Apple has every right to initiate full scale legal action against each and every one, who has anything to do with this project - from the guys, who distributed a developer (prerelease) version of Mac OS X for x86 for violating NDA, through the people, who post links to and/or distribute copies of x86 Mac OS X for copyright violation, through the people who "hack" the x86 version to run on generic hardware for DMCA violation, to the end user for either copyright violation (i.e using a pirated copy) or license agreement violation (i.e. installing on non-Apple branded hardware and/or installing on more than one system at a time). On the other hand Apple could just implement a rigorous multilevel hardware check routine and/or a complicated activation procedure, both of which will ultimately hurt the law abiding end user.

Oh, and finally on a brief side note, will you people please stop calling the guys behind the OSX86Project hobbyists, for they are not. A hobbyist is someone, who breaks old floppy drives to build totally useless, yet very cool, robots or makes replicas of Apple II from VCR spare parts or something like that.

[mobility3]

just some thoughts here... if we didn't have "hackers" we wouldn't have PCs as we know them.

Didn't MS "hack" their way into the IBM world?
Didn't Apple "hack" their way into the computer market?

How odd is it that we are essentially looking at identical hardware in which we're forced to use different OSs? When the market is limited, you'll see "hacking" going on, just like in the late 1970's.

I'm not saying it's right... only that you have to understand and accept this will happen, just like Steve did when he decided to start developing OSX and especially when he decided to make the move to Intel.

[MeatBiProduct]

Poems only stop hippies.

Everyone else will /clear and then ./chuckle &

[weg]

"Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/his existing OS was so blind/he'd do better to pirate/an OS that ran great/but found his hardware declined./Please don't steal Mac OS!/Really, that's way uncool./(C) Apple Computer, Inc."


Well, apart from poems, Apple didn't build in any measures to prevent hackers from running OS X on any arbitrary PC, and now they are suprised that somebody indeed did so? ;-) *rotfl*

[janstett]

Hate to break it to those who practice hinduism or buddhism, but "karma" is now a regularly americanized noun (for decades already). I don't feel this is at all presumptious or absurd, especially since apple has little else at their disposal to browbeat the common folk. And its not like religions or religious statements are ever presumptious or absurd.


Imagine if he said "You go to hell... You go to hell and you die!" :)

Apple should be aggressive when it comes to issues like this. Mac OS is for Macs. Let PC users drool all they want. They try to get OS X to run on their machines because that is something that they will (debatable) never have. :)

I already have OSX running on a Gateway PC. But you know what, I'm still getting a shiny new MacBook Pro any week/month now.

I did it for the geek factor and to prove it could be done. And I'm going to also do the opposite, and do everything I can to get XP to install next to OSX on the MacBook Pro when it gets here.

[janstett]

Absolutely. Apple should be emphasising that OSX performs much better on Apple hardware. Not just faster, but more reliable, available and scalable. Who knows how to optimise OSX for specific hardware better than Apple?

Thus the "need" for features only available on the latest Intel offerrings such as SSE3. Which were easily worked around with an SSE2 emulator. So obviously, it wasn't really needed, was it?


This model has worked well for Sun - OpenSolaris is Open Source, but nearly everyone uses Sun's shrinkwrapped Solaris on either Sun's x86 or Sparc kit. Only a tiny percentage bother to install OpenSolaris on some other x86 kit (because Solaris on Sun kit just works better and you can 'phone them for support if you have problems).

That's not the way I look at it. Back in the day Sun used to be synonymous with Unix, they were the keepers of the flame after AT&T became irrelevant. They owned the market and now they've been eaten alive by the Red Hats of the world. They could have owned the entire Linux space with some timely action but they let it slip through their fingers.

[Photorun]

Good for Apple! Peecee weenies will still hack but some losers have nothing better to do with their time, the bigger market won't even ever know, and Apple should protect their product from running on pieces of crap FUGLY clunky boxes anyways.

[janstett]

This has been said time and again, and I hate I have to repeat it, but obviously it is still not clear to everyone. Mac OS X is the competitive advantage of Apple over Dell, HP, Lenovo and whoever, especially now that they all have basically the same hardware platform. If you had the chance to legally buy Mac OS X for generic x86 computer, would you have bought that spankin' new MacBook Pro in your sig or a similarly spec'ed Dell for a little less $

I fully understand and it's a mistake on Apple's part. Imagine if they hadn't opened up the iPod to Windows users, I'm sure that decision pained them to no end.

I've been saying it since the early days of Quicktime, Apple's strengths are in its SOFTWARE, the hardware doesn't matter. In retrospect, the fact that the Mac has gone from 68k -> PPC -> Intel bears that out. Look how much the hardware hasn't mattered. Look how nicely OSX runs on Intel when it was made for PPC. The hardware doesn't matter. The hardware is a commodity bought in bulk from a vendor. The software is what makes it special. Steve Jobs just can't let go of the hardware. He's a 19th century guy in that regard. Though I do have to wonder, in the back of my mind, whether he will someday unleash OSX to compete against Windows on the desktop at large. The Intel Mac movement could just be a positioning of the chess pieces. Or maybe I give Steve too much credit.

While I've said the hardware is irrelevant, there is a niche there for Apple to fill with innovative, well designed hardware. They can be the Bose of computers. Apple is cutting off its nose to spite its face.

Again I have to ask what the long term strategy is. Even with Apple's recent successes, they will NEVER move beyond 5% of the market. Unless they adopt a strategy like Dell, which is to go rock bottom and be a loss leader selling product as cheaply as possible. That's the only way to build market share. Will they be satisfied with a small but profitable segment of the market? That's been the line this whole time. But a larger world out there awaits them. The world dominated by Microsoft with its operating systems and applications. Curious that Apple has brought back applications (iLife, iWork anybody?). Could it mean something? Throw in the Yellow Box rumors...

I could have bought a cheaper/more powerful computer than my MacBook Pro and put OSX on it. I could buy a nice 3 lb ultraportable and have OSX on it within a week. I already have OSX running on a Gateway. But I didn't -- I'm giving Apple my hard-earned money for a MBP.

[jhu]

Well, apart from poems, Apple didn't build in any measures to prevent hackers from running OS X on any arbitrary PC, and now they are suprised that somebody indeed did so? ;-) *rotfl*

of course, if they did write in measures to only run on apple-produced hardware you'd still have people attempting to hack os x onto regular x86 computers. the only sure thing would have been to stick with powerpc. that would have limited os x to emulated environments on non-apple systems.

[janstett]

Good for Apple! Peecee weenies will still hack but some losers have nothing better to do with their time, the bigger market won't even ever know, and Apple should protect their product from running on pieces of crap FUGLY clunky boxes anyways.

People like you make me hope I see OSX sold on street corners with Taiwanese labelling for $1.

[godbout]

Poems only stop hippies.



Don't know much about apples beginings, eh? ;)

I personally think that they did a good job with this. A little light hearted humor with a sprinkling of DMCA warnings. These guys efforts should be focused on making a linux flavor that would be able to hold its own to OSX (not that some already don't). Or something more productive than breaking the law and trying to screw apple out of their hard work and intelectual property.

[achmafooma]

What people who think they have a right to do what they want after they have bought software... read your license agreement. You will see that "The software (including Boot Rom code)...are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc..."

And goes on to say: "This license allows you to install, use and run one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."
Such wording in license agreements is of dubious validity. Once a consumer has legally purchased a copyrighted work, they have all the fair-use rights.

Record companies have stamped a message on every CD to the effect that you can't copy it for ANY PURPOSES. But, despite the warning, you have the right to copy that CD under fair-use -- so long as you're using it for things that are protected by fair-use (putting it in your iPod = OK. Burning mix-cd for listening in the car = OK. Buring copy for friend or putting it on file sharing networks = NOT OK).

Same goes for software, which is just another form of copyrighted work. The EULA does not trump fair-use any more than the warning on a CD does. There's a reasonable argument that using the software on multiple machines (again, for your own use -- not sharing with friends) is a protected right, as would be installing it on a machine that's outside of the system requirements (i.e. a non-Mac).

Obviously, Apple doesn't have to provide support for usage on a machine the software wasn't intended for, and Apple can use whatever technical measures they want to try and prevent it, but if somebody figures it out they hardly have the right to stop you from doing it (provided you legally own a copy of the software, that is) or from sharing the methods you used (provided you're not sharing any of Apple's actual copyrighted work).

[cheapnis]

I thought "hacking" was making legal changes by contrast to "cracking" being illegal?

I appreciate the terms tend to be used interchangeably by the public - but I wouldn't have thought they'd be confused on this forum.

From http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/hacker.html

A slang term for a computer enthusiast, i.e., a person who enjoys learning programming languages and computer systems and can often be considered an expert on the subject(s). Among professional programmers, depending on how it used, the term can be either complimentary or derogatory, although it is developing an increasingly derogatory connotation. The pejorative sense of hacker is becoming more prominent largely because the popular press has coopted the term to refer to individuals who gain unauthorized access to computer systems for the purpose of stealing and corrupting data. Hackers, themselves, maintain that the proper term for such individuals is cracker.

[windmaomao]

someone has to explain this to me, why this is illegal,
I bought a osx and I can't install it on any computer I want, and they entitled me as thief? :mad:

second thing,
why apple pissed off by those hackers, do they just like osx so much that they want to share funs with everyone else, especially pc guys which never been brought to heaven before? :rolleyes:

[duffman9000]

Well, apart from poems, Apple didn't build in any measures to prevent hackers from running OS X on any arbitrary PC, and now they are suprised that somebody indeed did so? ;-) *rotfl*

Yes they did.
So far, 10.4.4 was the toughest to crack and i expect Apple to implement even better protection. For most of us, it's been a joke to run OS X on a pc. I mean, only a few configurations fully support OS X, and even then you're one update away from being left out in the dark again. Far from a working, everday system. Worse, if you have a late nVidia card, you aint getting squat from it. A lot of what makes OS X special is not useable.

Anyway, OSx86Project was already treading a fine line. Too many people were openly advocating "never" buying OS X. Gee, what did you think was going to happen morons? Much more interesting is how Apple was locking down OS X to run only on approved hardware. That's where our focused

[mdavey]

Oh, and finally on a brief side note, will you people please stop calling the guys behind the OSX86Project hobbyists, for they are not. A hobbyist is someone, who breaks old floppy drives to build totally useless, yet very cool, robots or makes replicas of Apple II from VCR spare parts or something like that.

Sure they are, just like Woz and the homebrew computer club. Unless you care claiming that they are being paid to crack Mac OS X?

[Super Dave]

I actually can not figure out why apple even bothered with this. A new site will pop up. People want osx on generic machines, some people find wrong in this, but that does not take away the demand.

People want it and don't want to pay for it. It can not be stopped. This is simalar to the RIAA and there beef with file sharing, they can never stop it.

It's all about making every single hacker's life miserable 24 hours a day. That way Johnny Thinkin-About-It doesn't become a hacker too.

David:cool:

[mdavey]

Well, apart from poems, Apple didn't build in any measures to prevent hackers from running OS X on any arbitrary PC

Sure they did.

Firstly, the poem is copyright Apple, so anyone reprinting the poem without Apple's permission is in breach of copyright.

Secondly, the poem itself is they key to the copyright protection (it is the decoder ring for the TPM, for the geeks among us). Publishing the key is breach of DMCA.

Thirdly, Apple are using TPM which I think most people would consider a pretty hefty measure to prevent OSX running on any arbitrary PC.

(As an aside, I suggest that the moderators scrub any reprints of the Apple poem from these forums).

[Super Dave]

someone has to explain this to me, why this is illegal,
I bought a osx and I can't install it on any computer I want, and they entitled me as thief? :mad:

Assuming this isn't a troll… because it breaks agreements with the license you sign when you install Mac OS. Contract violation is against the law in pretty much any country. In the US it is further against the law to break code designed for security of digital media. So those are the legal reasons.

As for Apple's specific reasons I would imagine a list would look a little like this:

1. Supporting all the generic Windows hardware is a pain in the butt and is what is keeping Microsoft slow on the OS updates.
2. Because supporting infinite hardware vendor combinations is difficult the Mac OS would look as sucky as Windows when it fails on some obscure combination of cheap components.
3. Apple makes sweet margins on computers, and this is where Apple makes A LOT of money. One of the reasons is that they don't have to pay themselves for their own OS, so when they sell computers there is more profit for them than when PC makers sell computers. Other reasons include their extremely tough negotiation practices and their demand for certain profit margins in their pricing schemes.
4. Windows hardware is ugly. Whether people know it or not, the sexiness of their Mac is at a subconscious level influencing how much they like the Mac OS.

David:cool:

[mdavey]

I thought "hacking" was making legal changes by contrast to "cracking" being illegal?

You are right, hacking is sloppy programming, cutting down a tree, a politician who lacks diplomacy, a badly written piece or journalism or a badly judged chess move.

Cracking is the act of breaking glass, breaking into a safe, making a smokeable form of cocaine, removing or bypassing software encryption, breaking a password, code or encrypted message, gaining unauthorised access, removing or bypassing a data protection mechanism.

We should try to use the correct term for the situation.

[windmaomao]

Assuming this isn't a troll… because it breaks agreements with the license you sign when you install Mac OS. Contract violation is against the law in pretty much any country. In the US it is further against the law to break code designed for security of digital media. So those are the legal reasons.

As for Apple's specific reasons I would imagine a list would look a little like this:

1. Supporting all the generic Windows hardware is a pain in the butt and is what is keeping Microsoft slow on the OS updates.
2. Because supporting infinite hardware vendor combinations is difficult the Mac OS would look as sucky as Windows when it fails on some obscure combination of cheap components.
3. Apple makes sweet margins on computers, and this is where Apple makes A LOT of money. One of the reasons is that they don't have to pay themselves for their own OS, so when they sell computers there is more profit for them than when PC makers sell computers. Other reasons include their extremely tough negotiation practices and their demand for certain profit margins in their pricing schemes.
4. Windows hardware is ugly. Whether people know it or not, the sexiness of their Mac is at a subconscious level influencing how much they like the Mac OS.

David:cool:

supporting is hard, but you don't call anyone thief whenever you can't and don't want to support your product, do you?
money is the key point, everybody knows. But why we as user, cares about how much money they'll loose if they do such and such. We should just care about the functionality and our fun.
third, it's funny to talk about illegal to hack when osx is based on darwin which is part of linux. Ask people in linux world not to hack is like asking them not to use computer anymore, which is impossible. The defination of hacking there is just writing code and never stop doing it.

[duffman9000]

Since i don't feel the need to hump my computer, i won't pay a premium to buy "sexy" hardware. Anyone who bases buying a Mac because it is sexy is a moron, then again, people like that kept Apple afloat during the G3, G4 years.
For the first time in recent memory, Apple finally has competitive laptop prices. Now if they could only concentrate on durability instead of "oh my god! i want to hump my MacBook Pro!"

Back on topic: Apple's protection will get better and better. We've all suspected that Apple was using the community to test its protection mechanisms. The people who really like OS X will switch, for most it will be a passing fancy.

[fahlman]

Which is built on Open Source software! Here's a link (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/) to where you can download the portion of the OS, It's called Darwin, that is based on open source software. It's free to download. Have fun.

[duffman9000]

You are right, hacking is sloppy programming, cutting down a tree, a politician who lacks diplomacy, a badly written piece or journalism or a badly judged chess move.

Cracking is the act of breaking glass, breaking into a safe, making a smokeable form of cocaine, removing or bypassing software encryption, breaking a password, code or encrypted message, gaining unauthorised access, removing or bypassing a data protection mechanism.

We should try to use the correct term for the situation.

Where are you getting your definitions from? Hacking does not mean, "sloppy programming". Unless Jobs, and Woz are/were hacks.

[inkiboo]

Good for Apple! Peecee weenies will still hack but some losers have nothing better to do with their time, the bigger market won't even ever know, and Apple should protect their product from running on pieces of crap FUGLY clunky boxes anyways.

You are officially an idiot. The new Macs ARE PCs. In fact with some of the components they have selected, OS X actually runs better on my Athlon X2 than it does on an iMac.

[fahlman]

If someone was to purchase a brand new iMac for example that has the Intel version of Mac OS X installed, and they build a PC and install OS X (that they bought) on it, surely that can't be stealing?
First the Licensing Agreement that you agree to prohibits the use of the OS on a not Apple computer. It also limits it's use to one computer. Check it out (http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx104.html) for yourself. Here's quote from the License Agreement:

"This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time..."

So yes, you would be stealing.

[dernhelm]

You are right, hacking is sloppy programming, cutting down a tree, a politician who lacks diplomacy, a badly written piece or journalism or a badly judged chess move.

Cracking is the act of breaking glass, breaking into a safe, making a smokeable form of cocaine, removing or bypassing software encryption, breaking a password, code or encrypted message, gaining unauthorised access, removing or bypassing a data protection mechanism.

We should try to use the correct term for the situation.

Actually hacker USED to be a term of respect. A good hacker could produce high quality interesting software in a short period of time. In the original Unix communities, hackers produced much of the functionality that powers the internet backbone today. It didn't obtain a negative connotation until companies decided it was bad for people to be so interested in your OS that they would make it work in ways that the OM couldn't be properly reimbursed for. Then the very people that made contributions to your OS to make it usable suddenly became black hat.

Funny how money seems to drive all things, even language.

[fahlman]

I've never visited the site in question so I don't know what their ethos is, but just to play devil's advocate for a minute, apart from violating the DMCA I can't see what is wrong - on the face of it - with getting OSX to run on generic hardware. Putting the economic factors to one side, like the fact Apple's hardware sales could potentially tank, if they have purchased the OS from Apple* then it's not theft to try installing it on a different machine. Provided all the participants of the site buy their own copy and get instructions only from the website then Apple aren't losing anything. The only reason they have anything to say is because of the DMCA. Otherwise this project is really no different from getting OSX to run on unsupported beige G3s.

For the commercial and economic reasons though, I'm against it. I just think people are confusing this with theft.

*not sure if they are selling boxed standalone copies or not yet considering the only computers that officially run the OS come with it pre-installed however presumably once 10.5 hits the shelves then my point will be more relevant. There are losing. They are losing a hardware sale on which the profit is used to supplement the cost of producing the OS.

[jhu]

First the Licensing Agreement that you agree to prohibits the use of the OS on a not Apple computer. It also limits it's use to one computer. Check it out (http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx104.html) for yourself. Here's quote from the License Agreement:

"This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time..."

So yes, you would be stealing.

notice it says apple-labeled computer. what constitutes apple-labeled? if i slap an apple logo on my case, does that count? how about the clones (starmax, umax, etc) which don't have any apple markings whatsoever? do those count?

[mdavey]

Where are you getting your definitions from? Hacking does not mean, "sloppy programming". Unless Jobs, and Woz are/were hacks.

It is a comparative: http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/comparatives.html
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hack.html

You could say that Jobs and Woz were hackers that strived for (and occasionally obtained) perfection ;)

[freeorangeshoes]

notice it says apple-labeled computer. what constitutes apple-labeled? if i slap an apple logo on my case, does that count? how about the clones (starmax, umax, etc) which don't have any apple markings whatsoever? do those count?

...
i think its pretty obvious what they mean by apple-labelled. something with an apple logo on it? and not a sticker...

some people...

[BenRoethig]

It's Apple's right, but taking the hardline is going to come back to bite them in the rear when this is all said and done. The iPod boom isn't going to last forever.

[jhu]

...
i think its pretty obvious what they mean by apple-labelled. something with an apple logo on it? and not a sticker...

some people...

no it's not that simple. how about placing the motherboard in a regular case? there are no longer any apple labels. or how about putting a generic motherboard in an apple case. would that be apple-labeled?

[timswim78]

My opinion is that Apple can lock down the OS to Apple specific hardware if they try hard enough. Maybe OS X 10.5 will really institute some tough anti-piracy measures, such as activation or "phoning home."

I mean, look at it this way, Windows XP has been out for years (since 2001) with its WPA (Windows Product Activation, a form of copy protection). While there have been hundreds of ways to temporarily circumvent it, no one has ever truely *cracked* WPA.

[DrNeroCF]

How about buying Apple products and supporting them so they can give us an even better operating system, instead of being a retard and blurring lines and such. Last I checked, you couldn't obtain official Apple parts without buying a computer from them. So if you wanna buy an iMac than somehow get an Athlon in it, be my guest.

Whoever said the iPod boom isn't going to last is right, so why are you against Apple's 'real' source of income?

[freeorangeshoes]

no it's not that simple. how about placing the motherboard in a regular case? there are no longer any apple labels. or how about putting a generic motherboard in an apple case. would that be apple-labeled?

by doing that im pretty sure you void your warranty...

you are splitting hairs. by apple branded, they mean something you purchase from APPLE meant to run APPLE mac osx. not from dell, not lenovo...

[The Red Wolf]

It's a bit like using sudo in the Terminal and getting that wonderful third message about how your actions effect others. Apple has always done this. Good to see the litany continuing.

~The Red Wolf~

[jhu]

by doing that im pretty sure you void your warranty...

you are splitting hairs. by apple branded, they mean something you purchase from APPLE meant to run APPLE mac osx. not from dell, not lenovo...

it's apple-labeled, not apple branded. if their intent is "machine purchased from apple or machine originally sold by apple" then they need to reflect this in the license agreement. as it stands, "apple-labeled" doesn't mean much.

indeed if you take the motherboard out of your g5 powermac, you are voiding your warranty. if you then put the motherboard back in to the original case or another apple case, it's still an apple-labeled computer.

My opinion is that Apple can lock down the OS to Apple specific hardware if they try hard enough. Maybe OS X 10.5 will really institute some tough anti-piracy measures, such as activation or "phoning home."

I mean, look at it this way, Windows XP has been out for years (since 2001) with its WPA (Windows Product Activation, a form of copy protection). While there have been hundreds of ways to temporarily circumvent it, no one has ever truely *cracked* WPA.

that may be the road that apple has to take if this becomes more rampant: on-line or phone activation. and then there will be people who will be hacking the system so it won't have to be officially "activated."

[duffman9000]

How about buying Apple products and supporting them so they can give us an even better operating system, instead of being a retard and blurring lines and such. Last I checked, you couldn't obtain official Apple parts without buying a computer from them. So if you wanna buy an iMac than somehow get an Athlon in it, be my guest.

Whoever said the iPod boom isn't going to last is right, so why are you against Apple's 'real' source of income?

You can build your own Mac using used parts. Though it would cost way way too much since most Mac users think that hardware retains its value for YEARS.

Regarding "official" Apple hardware, who in the hell buys official Apple memory? I'd hate to see the price for official Apple hard drives and DVD-RW's.

[freeorangeshoes]

it's apple-labeled, not apple branded. if their intent is "machine purchased from apple or machine originally sold by apple" then they need to reflect this in the license agreement. as it stands, "apple-labeled" doesn't mean much.

indeed if you take the motherboard out of your g5 powermac, you are voiding your warranty. if you then put the motherboard back in to the original case or another apple case, it's still an apple-labeled computer.

labelled, branded. its semantics. which is exactly why your argument is a little ridiculous.

ANYWAY, if you want to replace motherboards and whatever so you can run XP in an apple "case", be my guest. although, id imagine that you wont get it to fit quite right.

[duffman9000]

labelled, branded. its semantics. which is exactly why your argument is a little ridiculous.

ANYWAY, if you want to replace motherboards and whatever so you can run XP in an apple "case", be my guest. although, id imagine that you wont get it to fit quite right.

It is not semantics when it is written into a EULA. It's "supposed" to be a contract. Contracts are supposed to be unambigous.

[hayesk]

I would certainly pay full retail for a copy of Tiger that runs on my PC, even if it required some patching for my specific hardware. I think it apple rebranded OSX for x86, removed the protection, and simply stated they don't offer any support that would be enough.

No, that is not econmically feasible. For one, Apple uses hardware profits to subsidize MacOS X development. The real cost to sell MacOS would be much much higher. They don't exactly match Windows in OS sales.

Also, you can't sell an OS without some support. They would get lynched in the media.

[iMeowbot]

notice it says apple-labeled computer. what constitutes apple-labeled? if i slap an apple logo on my case, does that count? how about the clones (starmax, umax, etc) which don't have any apple markings whatsoever? do those count?
That language is pretty weak, and Apple really should define it if they really want it to stick.

However:
This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time
is pretty darned clear.

[Peace]

All you Clintonions here that keep nitpicking on what constitutes an Apple Labeled computer you know fully well that only Apple Computer makes Apple computers..This isnt the Gil days when crappy clones were out there..

A Mac is a Mac is a Mac.Period.End of story..

So with that in mind when you purchase OS X on a DVD legally it is implied that you would be installing it on an Apple computer..It is currently impossible to legally purchase OS X for the Intel Mac..So if you have OS X for the Intel Mac on a PC you are breaking the EULA..There is no gray area and you know it..
Don't get me wrong though.I think it would be great if we could install OS X on a PC.Or dual-boot Windows and OS X on a Mac.
Until Steve Jobs decides differently we will just have to accept it.Like it or not.

[fahlman]

it's funny to talk about illegal to hack when osx is based on darwin which is part of linux. Darwin is not part of linux. Portions of Darwin are actually based on BSD, NextStep, OpenStep, and FreeBSD. Non of which are linux. Your comments an opinions can not be taken seriously when you support them with false statement such as "os x is based on darwin which is part of linux".

[ATG]

I can't prove it or have any info but it's my opinion that a member over there wrote that "Trojan"..
Why would they want to do that? They spend all that time trying to get OSx86 working. Why would they destroy it and all their work?


win2osx.net, the other site where all the discussion of hacking goes on (the OSx86 project doesn't discuss the hacking so much), is also down.

Maxxuss' site is up which comes as no surprise as it is .ru

[robbieduncan]

it's apple-labeled, not apple branded. if their intent is "machine purchased from apple or machine originally sold by apple" then they need to reflect this in the license agreement. as it stands, "apple-labeled" doesn't mean much.

indeed if you take the motherboard out of your g5 powermac, you are voiding your warranty. if you then put the motherboard back in to the original case or another apple case, it's still an apple-labeled computer.

I believe that in this case Apple-labeled does not read as "a computer with an Apple label on it" but as "a computer labelled by Apple". So sticking an Apple sticker on it yourself does not help.

[windmaomao]

All you Clintonions here that keep nitpicking on what constitutes an Apple Labeled computer you know fully well that only Apple Computer makes Apple computers..This isnt the Gil days when crappy clones were out there..

A Mac is a Mac is a Mac.Period.End of story..

So with that in mind when you purchase OS X on a DVD legally it is implied that you would be installing it on an Apple computer..It is currently impossible to legally purchase OS X for the Intel Mac..So if you have OS X for the Intel Mac on a PC you are breaking the EULA..There is no gray area and you know it..
Don't get me wrong though.I think it would be great if we could install OS X on a PC.Or dual-boot Windows and OS X on a Mac.
Until Steve Jobs decides differently we will just have to accept it.Like it or not.

i don't think so. Whoever invent pc can do whatever he want to a pc then? where is this guy:eek:

[fahlman]

notice it says apple-labeled computer. what constitutes apple-labeled? if i slap an apple logo on my case, does that count? how about the clones (starmax, umax, etc) which don't have any apple markings whatsoever? do those count? Considering none of the clones are capable of running Ma OS X 10.4.5 (the OS to which that SLA pertains) your question is irrelevant.

[jhu]

Considering non of the clones are capable of running Ma OS X 10.4.5 (the OS to which that SLA pertains) you question is irrelevant.

they can with xpostfacto. so a corollary question: is xpostfacto illegal? possibly. here's section 2 of the mac os 9 eula (http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macos9.html):

2. Permitted Uses and Restrictions. This License allows you to install and use the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled or Apple-licensed computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time. You may make one copy of the Apple Software (excluding the Boot ROM code) in machine-readable form for backup purposes only. The backup copy must include all copyright information contained on the original. Except as expressly permitted in this License, you may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, modify, rent, lease, loan, sublicense, distribute or create derivative works based upon the Apple Software in whole or part or transmit the Apple Software over a network or from one computer to another. This license allow you to install or operate the Apple Software only on a computer system that came bundled with a licensed version of the Mac OS at the time of original manufacture.

so running mac os x on a clone is not permitted by the eula

I believe that in this case Apple-labeled does not read as "a computer with an Apple label on it" but as "a computer labelled by Apple". So sticking an Apple sticker on it yourself does not help.

then it should be stated expicitly in the license agreement.

[toxicfreak]

sorry for the english thx you



you dont go and piss off hacker/cracker/hobbist by crashing there little game .... period now the only thing he did its gave them a ennemi to fight ....

they will go off shore like other pirate site where there no laws [site names removed] and so many more ....


Piracy cannot be stop nor curtain dont forget the same person that hack/crack os are the same that do trojan and virus ...... Window is now living with there choices they made a few years ago not its the most crack up OS ...

Apple is the next ,they shot first hacker will shot last ... there no laws no justice no legal team on the net ......
for each one they will caught 100 will reply more viciously ....

its a already lost battle ....... Last time i check maxxuss is not in jail .

But there a easy way out of this Apple must do a PC version WITHOUT support period they should call it (Open OSX86) project build with out aqua sell its a 100$ Or face hack and cracker for the rest of time and end up like window
The day Apple choose to go intel its the day they choose to step into the slugfest and nothing can win a slugfest 100000 hacker to one



so apple should get the message fast or it will end up badly

[windmaomao]

Darwin is not part of linux. Portions of Darwin are actually based on BSD, NextStep, OpenStep, and FreeBSD. Non of which are linux. Your comments an opinions can not be taken seriously when you support them with false statement such as "os x is based on darwin which is part of linux".
ok, i take it back. os x is based on darwin which is based on BSD, NextStep, OpenStep. My point still holds.

[windmaomao]

who is afraid of virus seriously?

it's real life, deal with it. As I can understand, it does create a whole new field of job oppertunity.

I don't know how many ppl wining about virus here are really hit by virus badly and can't recover from the tragedy afterwards.

Just set apple free, man, grow up.

[Peace]

sorry for the english thx you



you dont go and piss off hacker/cracker/hobbist by crashing there little game .... period now the only thing he did its gave them a ennemi to fight ....

they will go off shore like other pirate site where there no laws [site names removed] and so many more ....


Piracy cannot be stop nor curtain dont forget the same person that hack/crack os are the same that do trojan and virus ...... Window is now living with there choices they made a few years ago not its the most crack up OS ...

Apple is the next ,they shot first hacker will shot last ... there no laws no justice no legal team on the net ......
for each one they will caught 100 will reply more viciously ....

its a already lost battle ....... Last time i check maxxuss is not in jail .

But there a easy way out of this Apple must do a PC version WITHOUT support period they should call it (Open OSX86) project build with out aqua sell its a 100$ Or face hack and cracker for the rest of time and end up like window
The day Apple choose to go intel its the day they choose to step into the slugfest and nothing can win a slugfest 100000 hacker to one



so apple should get the message fast or it will end up badly


This statement is an example of why I have a gut feeling where the "trojan" came from.

[mynameisjesse]

I really don't get some of you. It's not YOUR choice as to if you should be allowed to run os x on a generic pc, its APPLES choice. They choose not to. I can see why, so no matter what your opinion is no one should be doing it. If you want to use os x, buy a mac. And even if you do buy a mac, that still doesn't mean you should be allowed to use that operating system on another machine.

From the get-go, putting x86 os x on a pc was illegal. Yet they did it and countinue to do it even now that the offical version has been realsed. I hope apples legal team does whatever they can to stop it....once again, it's their choice not yours. You think otherwise, go ahead and spead a decade coding your own operating system.

And all these "hackers" who think they have rights now....what is the internet coming to?

[mwpeters8182]

Here's the thing. Apple's hardware looks nice/is solidly built, but the innards of their systems are now no different than those "crappy peecees" that people here seem to keep harping about. I store my computer under the desk - I really could care less if it's made of aluminum or not, or looks good. If I could buy a standard tower mac without the ridiculously overpriced case, I'd be happy. For me, a computer is a tool, not a decoration.

I understand that Apple uses the hardware sales to subsidize the software development, but I'd bet that their software sales would boom if they opened up OS X to run on PCs. And I still think you'd see a lot of folks buying Mac branded hardware too, assuming it was priced competitively. People like things to just work, and Apple can still provide that. I think they'd make more money in the long run, as many of my friends really like OS X, but prefer to build their own systems.

[robbieduncan]

I understand that Apple uses the hardware sales to subsidize the software development, but I'd bet that their software sales would boom if they opened up OS X to run on PCs.

That really works well for BeOS! Or even NeXT!

[mwpeters8182]

That really works well for BeOS! Or even NeXT!

Apples and Oranges, neither of those had the popularity of OS X for everyday use. BeOS was cool though, and really fast - there just wasn't any software for it.

[fahlman]

ok, i take it back. os x is based on darwin which is based on BSD, NextStep, OpenStep. My point still holds. Your point was that it was okay to hack OS X because it is based on Darwin which is based on linux. So your point does not hold.

[windmaomao]

I really don't get some of you. It's not YOUR choice as to if you should be allowed to run os x on a generic pc, its APPLES choice. They choose not to. I can see why, so no matter what your opinion is no one should be doing it. If you want to use os x, buy a mac. And even if you do buy a mac, that still doesn't mean you should be allowed to use that operating system on another machine.

From the get-go, putting x86 os x on a pc was illegal. Yet they did it and countinue to do it even now that the offical version has been realsed. I hope apples legal team does whatever they can to stop it....once again, it's their choice not yours. You think otherwise, go ahead and spead a decade coding your own operating system.

And all these "hackers" who think they have rights now....what is the internet coming to?

The company had their choice, so do we.
and the internet is going to freedom, IMHO, freedom doesn't have right or wrong. just my two cents

[puuukeey]

well.... its possible. computer hardware is officially standardized enough to a bunch of operating systems.

I wish linux was as great os os x

[eva01]

The company had their choice, so do we.
and the internet is going to freedom, IMHO, freedom doesn't have right or wrong. just my two cents

ah yes the day the internet is freedom is when capitalizm falls.

[windmaomao]

Your point was that it was okay to hack OS X because it is based on Darwin which is based on linux. So your point does not hold.

my point is that hacking is comparable easy to those system, 'cause a lot of ppl had decent background of knowledge of the system, it's open source and free for all.

common sense, most hackers are proud of not using GUI system, lol

[mwpeters8182]

To amend my earlier post,

This is a tricky subject, and I'm sure Apple's done the math. As long as they can provide hardware that is reasonably priced, I have no problem buying it. I'm actually looking forward to getting an intel Mac Mini once they come out.

I just think, at times, Apple focuses a little too much on the flash, and loses something in their hardware. The scratching/cracking of the nanos is an example. Businesses aren't going to want all-in-one machines, nor are they going to need the same machines that graphics pros/scientists are going to want (the pro macs). However, the Mac Mini isn't an ideal corporate machine either. But I bet a lot of sysadmins wouldn't mind deploying OS X across networks.

If apple could lock in some business contracts on commodity hardware, I think that would work out well for them. That's where the money really is in software. Just opening OS X on it's own might open a can of worms that's not ideal for the company.

[kirk26]

Come on Maxxuss, crack 10.4.5 already!

[toxicfreak]

I really don't get some of you. It's not YOUR choice as to if you should be allowed to run os x on a generic pc, its APPLES choice. They choose not to. I can see why, so no matter what your opinion is no one should be doing it. If you want to use os x, buy a mac. And even if you do buy a mac, that still doesn't mean you should be allowed to use that operating system on another machine.

From the get-go, putting x86 os x on a pc was illegal. Yet they did it and countinue to do it even now that the offical version has been realsed. I hope apples legal team does whatever they can to stop it....once again, it's their choice not yours. You think otherwise, go ahead and spead a decade coding your own operating system.

And all these "hackers" who think they have rights now....what is the internet coming to?


Yes its our choice if you buy some thing its yours or dont sell it.

apple legal team cant squak, nothing because they have to get them first .

like i said maxxuss is not in jail yet and there country who dont give a damn period ..... until every country on the planet is rules by USA or WTO internet will be free hacker/cracker every where independent country will host piracy site even more if they crack down
Piracy will go back to the early 90"s model on mirc chat room and the likes with files so incripted so bad that it will need years to crack .

where internet is going simple to total freedom what ever corp or goverment is for or again .....
When internet and broadband where join its was a very ugly pandora's box and saddly it cannot be close ....

[Singh-is-King]

Apple is INDESTRUCTABLE. :)

[nxent]

Here's the thing. Apple's hardware looks nice/is solidly built, but the innards of their systems are now no different than those "crappy peecees" that people here seem to keep harping about. I store my computer under the desk - I really could care less if it's made of aluminum or not, or looks good. If I could buy a standard tower mac without the ridiculously overpriced case, I'd be happy. For me, a computer is a tool, not a decoration.

I understand that Apple uses the hardware sales to subsidize the software development, but I'd bet that their software sales would boom if they opened up OS X to run on PCs. And I still think you'd see a lot of folks buying Mac branded hardware too, assuming it was priced competitively. People like things to just work, and Apple can still provide that. I think they'd make more money in the long run, as many of my friends really like OS X, but prefer to build their own systems.

see, i'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. on my desk i have a dell POS and there isn't a day that goes by that i come into work wishing it were an apple. a dell running osx? nah, still wouldn't do... wouldn't have that seamless integration. apple is first and foremost a hardware company, and all the software they sell is to support that hardware. if they wanted to become the next microsoft, then yeh, they could port os x over to 3rd party vendors and they'd probably be very successful at it, much like microsoft. and also, just like microsoft, they'd run into the very same problems with integration, sacrificing quality for platform versatility. the folks at apple walk a very fine line of temptation; keeping the company tight-knit may limit their sales, but they keep their core intact. porting os x to 3rd vendors would destroy their hardware sales (the actually had mac 'clones' in the late 90's... and yes, apple hardware sales suffered which is why they pulled the plug) and hence elevate them to a 'godly' software giant, like microsoft... don't get me wrong, they'd make an ass load of money. but some how the words 'soleless' and 'selling' come to mind...

[windmaomao]

Apple is INDESTRUCTABLE. :)

you just made my day

[lkrupp]

People want it and don't want to pay for it. It can not be stopped. This is simalar to the RIAA and there beef with file sharing, they can never stop it.

Ah, yes, the rationalization of theft. I want it but I don't want to pay for it. Therefore I will convince myself that stealing it is my right. I'm entitled to steal it. Tell it to the judge.

I'm not really worried about this anyway. OS X on generic PC hardware will never go mainstream. No hardware manufacturer will support it. Apple will certainly not support it and will sue the crap out of anybody who tries to sell a "kit" to do so. No, this travesty will remain only in the wet dreams of hackers who live in their parent's basements and like to distribute screen shots of OS X "running" on an eMachine. Pathetic, really.

[Peace]

Ah, yes, the rationalization of theft. I want it but I don't want to pay for it. Therefore I will convince myself that stealing it is my right. I'm entitled to steal it. Tell it to the judge.

I'm not really worried about this anyway. OS X on generic PC hardware will never go mainstream. No hardware manufacturer will support it. Apple will certainly not support it and will sue the crap out of anybody who tries to sell a "kit" to do so. No, this travesty will remain only in the wet dreams of hackers who live in their parent's basements and like to distribute screen shots of OS X "running" on an eMachine. Pathetic, really.

Those arn't hackers.They're script kiddies..Real hackers wouldn't even mess with this silly "trojan".

[mcdermd]

Considering non of the clones are capable of running Mac OS X 10.4.5 (the OS to which that SLA pertains) you question is irrelevant.
they can with xpostfacto. so a corollary question: is xpostfacto illegal? possibly.

You can only go up to Jaguar (10.2) with XPostFacto and a 604/e processor. So, no, 10.4.5 will not run on clones with XPostFacto unless it supports a G3 PCI upgrade card and said clone includes one.

But there a easy way out of this Apple must do a PC version WITHOUT support period they should call it (Open OSX86) project build with out aqua sell its a 100$ Or face hack and cracker for the rest of time and end up like window

Um, this already exists. It's called Darwin for x86 and you can download it right now, with support, for free no less right here (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/).

[jhu]

You can only go up to Jaguar (10.2) with XPostFacto and a 604/e processor. So, no, 10.4.5 will not run on clones with XPostFacto unless it supports a G3 PCI upgrade card and sid clone includes one.

i think the eula is still the same for mac os x 10.2

[fahlman]

is xpostfacto illegal?
According to the following passage from the SLA it may be legal to use XPostFacto to install OS X on a unsupported computer if the portion of the code that XPostFact modifies or replaces is open source software and the modified OS is still ran on an Apple-labeled computer. Check!

B. Certain components of the Apple Software, and third party open source programs included with the Apple Software, have been or may be made available by Apple on its Open Source web site (http://www.opensource.apple.com/) (collectively the "Open-Sourced Components"). You may modify or replace only these Open-Sourced Components; provided that: (i) the resultant modified Apple Software is used, in place of the unmodified Apple Software, on a single Apple-labeled computer; and (ii) you otherwise comply with the terms of this License and any applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open-Sourced Components. Apple is not obligated to provide any maintenance, technical or other support for the resultant modified Apple Software.

[mynameisjesse]

Yes its our choice if you buy some thing its yours or dont sell it.

apple legal team cant squak, nothing because they have to get them first .

like i said maxxuss is not in jail yet and there country who dont give a damn period ..... until every country on the planet is rules by USA or WTO internet will be free hacker/cracker every where independent country will host piracy site even more if they crack down
Piracy will go back to the early 90"s model on mirc chat room and the likes with files so incripted so bad that it will need years to crack .

where internet is going simple to total freedom what ever corp or goverment is for or again .....
When internet and broadband where join its was a very ugly pandora's box and saddly it cannot be close ....

Ok, so once all the big software companies go bankrupt and the internet is totally "free", are you hackers going to make us the software we once had? I think not...because you guys are simply too lazy. You'd much rather hack something already made than to take the time to make something of your own.
My advice to all you hackers...rent a woman and see what sex is like, you'll see there's more to life than wasting your time doing such a stupid thing. "OMG ONCE I GET OS X RUNNING ON A DELL MY SITE IS GOING TO GET MAD HITZ! I'LL FINALLY BE POPULAR!". Yeah I was into "hacking"....when i was 12.

[mwpeters8182]

see, i'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. on my desk i have a dell POS and there isn't a day that goes by that i come into work wishing it were an apple. a dell running osx? nah, still wouldn't do... wouldn't have that seamless integration.

My PC is under my desk, so I don't have to look at it :)

Oh, definitely. That's the best part of the Mac experience. However, now that Apple's using the same hardware that other people are, they're going to have to step up what they provide with it. Which they are, with the inclusion of things like Front Row.

We'll see what the next generation Power Mac, or Mac Pro, or whatever they're calling it brings us. It'll be interesting to see what sets it apart, as things like Front Row/iSights aren't tailored to that crowd.

[fahlman]

The company had their choice, so do we.
and the internet is going to freedom, IMHO, freedom doesn't have right or wrong. just my two cents Freedom makes it okay to steal? I don't think so. BTW, what kind of Mac do you have and what's your address? I'd like to have your Mac if freedom equals stealing.

[jhu]

According to the following passage from the SLA it may be legal to use XPostFacto to install OS X on a unsupported computer if the portion of the code that XPostFact modifies or replaces is open source software and the modified OS is still ran on an Apple-labeled computer. Check!

B. Certain components of the Apple Software, and third party open source programs included with the Apple Software, have been or may be made available by Apple on its Open Source web site (http://www.opensource.apple.com/) (collectively the "Open-Sourced Components"). You may modify or replace only these Open-Sourced Components; provided that: (i) the resultant modified Apple Software is used, in place of the unmodified Apple Software, on a single Apple-labeled computer; and (ii) you otherwise comply with the terms of this License and any applicable licensing terms governing use of the Open-Sourced Components. Apple is not obligated to provide any maintenance, technical or other support for the resultant modified Apple Software.

as far as i know, xpostfacto replaces or adds a few open-source parts of mac os x so it's ok. however, the lanuage difference between the os 9 eula and os x eula implies that installing os x on a clone is not within the bounds of the os x eula.

[jdechko]

... Otherwise this project is really no different from getting OSX to run on unsupported beige G3s.

I think you bring up a good point. People putting OSX on generic PC's will not get any support from Apple. If the software is unchanged (and all tweaks are done on a sort of "compatibility layer") then there should be no legal issue as far as stealing is concerned. I'd say that OSX on any generic PC is definitely violating the license agreement, but that's not really what were talking about.

Personally, I respect Apple's business model the way it is now. If I want to run OS X (and I do, and I will) I'll buy an Apple Macintosh computer. It's the ONLY way that I'm guaranteed that my Hardware/OS/(most) software will run as intended. I also believe that this will not affect Apple's Hardware sales significantly (more than 1%). In my opinion, the people that buy Macs are either 1) Professionals, who will continue to buy Macs (they need 100% support for HW/OS/SW) and 2) People who really want to buy a Mac (either because they're fed up with MS or they like Macs).

I think that the majority of consumers (people who go out and buy a computer) will buy a Wintel box just because its what they know. There are a small fraction of people (the hackers/serious users) who will hack OSX to run on a generic PC. Neither of these groups can really be attributed to lost sales for Apple anyway. The hackers/serious users would never buy a Mac anyway, and therefore wouldn't need to buy the SW (OS X).

Again, I'm not saying what they're doing is right. I just don't think it will affect Apple too seriously. Apple, however, has the right to request that their software not be distributed illegally, as they are still a business; I just hope it doesn't get to the activation/serial numbers stage that most of the PC world is at.

(I'm resisting the temptation of installing it on my PC. I could do it, but I would be missing out on the total Mac experience: seamless integration of HW and SW).

[MacSA]

LOL toxicsfreak is going to end up in the Guantanomo detention camp :eek:

[keithbennis]

what is the internet coming to?

It's always been like this and probably will never change, sad as it is. Some people will just forever be immature.

[shawnce]

LOL toxicsfreak is going to end up in the Guantanomo detention camp :eek:

...or forced back to school to polish up his English language and typing skills. :D

[ScubaDuc]

What people who think they have a right to do what they want after they have bought software... read your license agreement. You will see that "The software (including Boot Rom code)...are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc..."

And goes on to say: "This license allows you to install, use and run one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."

Bolding added by me.

So you see that there is nothing you can say that still doesn't mean you are violating your License Agreement. And if you don't agree with the license you can return it for a refund.

Simple

barstard.


Being in EU I am no expert in US copyright laws but it seems that the (US) courts have struck down such a narrow interpretation whereby users "rent" software which remains property of microsuck or apple. So, if you buy a software, you are allowed to run it on whatever u like. Just check on how many OEM versions of Dull's win XP are available for sale legally in the US

[fahlman]

If the software is unchanged (and all tweaks are done on a sort of "compatibility layer") then there should be no legal issue as far as stealing is concerned.
Actually, installing Mac OS X on a computer other than an Apple-labeled computer violates the SLA therefore voiding the contract between the user and Apple which would mean that the user would would not have the right to use the operating system and doing so would constitute theft.

[atari1356]

the only honest solution to this problem is still for Apple to figure out how to utilize this market... legal action against hobbyists just makes a bigger mess. if Apple can't serve the hobbyists...

Apple can and does server hobbyists... it's called a Mac Mini.

Apple has every right to keep Mac OS X on Apple hardware, and nobody should expect OS X for free.

[fahlman]

Being in EU I am no expert in US copyright laws but it seems that the (US) courts have struck down such a narrow interpretation whereby users "rent" software which remains property of microsuck or apple. So, if you buy a software, you are allowed to run it on whatever u like. Just check on how many OEM versions of Dull's win XP are available for sale legally in the US
Wow, being no expert you might want to back your statement with some sort of proof. A link to an article quoting a judgment to support your claim would be sufficient, but heresay doesn't cut it.

[jhu]

Actually, installing Mac OS X on a computer other than an Apple-labeled computer violates the SLA therefore voiding the contract between the user and Apple which would mean that the user would would not have the right to use the operating system and doing so would constitute theft.

your statement is mostly correct except that breaking the terms of the eula does not necessarily encompass theft. you can buy mac os x, install it on a clone via xpostfacto, and still be breaking the terms of the eula. no theft is involved. an interesting point is that you can run mac os x via emulation on a 68k mac and not be in violation of the eula. another point is that an apple-labeled computer needs to be better defined.

[janitorC7]

Lets not all forget the Classic

"Were hanging here"

The classic line when your keys become disordered

[fahlman]

another point is that an apple-labeled computer needs to be better defined.
In your opinion. A team of lawyers reviewed and felt that the wording was just fine. I'll take their opinion over your if you don't mind.

[jhu]

In your opinion. A team of lawyers reviewed and felt that the wording was just fine. I'll take their opinion over your if you don't mind.

except it hasn't been tested in court. a eula is not necessarily binding either. consider this (http://linuxjournal.com/article/5628).

[PretendPCuser]

You have to buy two copies for that dear customer! - Oh, but don't worry, we've reduced the price of CDs from 18.99 to 16.99! Lucky you!! :)

wait what? if i buy Tiger i can't try and install it on my PC? next thing they'll do is say that because I buy a cd I can't use it in the car and at home

[asphalt-proof]

Ok, so once all the big software companies go bankrupt and the internet is totally "free", are you hackers going to make us the software we once had? I think not...because you guys are simply too lazy. You'd much rather hack something already made than to take the time to make something of your own.
My advice to all you hackers...rent a woman and see what sex is like, you'll see there's more to life than wasting your time doing such a stupid thing. "OMG ONCE I GET OS X RUNNING ON A DELL MY SITE IS GOING TO GET MAD HITZ! I'LL FINALLY BE POPULAR!". Yeah I was into "hacking"....when i was 12.


I really hate this strawman. Just because the "internet is free" doesn't automatically bankrupt the western world. People will always find ways to make money off of products/information, either by creating a new product, packaging ease of use etc. There are serious issues with current EULAs. Like how do you read them before you open the package. Once you open the package to read the EULA you have agreed to it! If I buy a brand new iMac, open the box, read the EULA and decide that I can't abide by the contract and try to return it, I have to pay a restocking fee! SO in affect I just paid $2-300 to READ the contract. Sure, if were net savvy I could find a copy online and read it but that doesn't mean that Apple hasn't changed the contract from the time I read it online and the time I opened the box. For those defending Apple the EULA defence is very poor because the consumer is at an extreme disadvantage.

One other point: Hacking is not for the lazy. Nor are all hackers ugly/shy/living in mom and dad's basement. You are just perpetrating stereotypes and it shows ignorance.

[fahlman]

your statement is mostly correct except that breaking the terms of the eula does not necessarily encompass theft. you can buy mac os x, install it on a clone via xpostfacto, and still be breaking the terms of the eula. no theft is involved. an interesting point is that you can run mac os x via emulation on a 68k mac and not be in violation of the eula. another point is that an apple-labeled computer needs to be better defined.
I have stated in a previous post that using XPostFacto, if it modifies an open source portion of the OS, is not a violation of the SLA. See my previous post for proof. Which by the way, is different than an opinion; something you have a lot of.

[asphalt-proof]

I think you bring up a good point. People putting OSX on generic PC's will not get any support from Apple. If the software is unchanged (and all tweaks are done on a sort of "compatibility layer") then there should be no legal issue as far as stealing is concerned. I'd say that OSX on any generic PC is definitely violating the license agreement, but that's not really what were talking about.

Personally, I respect Apple's business model the way it is now. If I want to run OS X (and I do, and I will) I'll buy an Apple Macintosh computer. It's the ONLY way that I'm guaranteed that my Hardware/OS/(most) software will run as intended. I also believe that this will not affect Apple's Hardware sales significantly (more than 1%). In my opinion, the people that buy Macs are either 1) Professionals, who will continue to buy Macs (they need 100% support for HW/OS/SW) and 2) People who really want to buy a Mac (either because they're fed up with MS or they like Macs).

I agree. This is such a small percentage of the computing world that its really not worth the hourly price of a lawyer.

I think that the majority of consumers (people who go out and buy a computer) will buy a Wintel box just because its what they know. There are a small fraction of people (the hackers/serious users) who will hack OSX to run on a generic PC. Neither of these groups can really be attributed to lost sales for Apple anyway. The hackers/serious users would never buy a Mac anyway, and therefore wouldn't need to buy the SW (OS X).

Again, I'm not saying what they're doing is right. I just don't think it will affect Apple too seriously. Apple, however, has the right to request that their software not be distributed illegally, as they are still a business; I just hope it doesn't get to the activation/serial numbers stage that most of the PC world is at.

(I'm resisting the temptation of installing it on my PC. I could do it, but I would be missing out on the total Mac experience: seamless integration of HW and SW).

I agree. The percentage of people that are going to do this so small it can't be worth the hourly fee of a lawyer to pursue the matter in court for Apple.

[pjkelnhofer]

I'm glad the project to get Mac OSX on PC's have been taken offline. Hackers I believe aren't in it to spite Microsoft, they are in it to spite the general population and to feed their narcissism.

I know the poem will not deter people from downloading it, some idiots still believe doing this isn't illegal!

The people doing it already know this is illegal. They decide to do it anyhow. I don't think the poem will slow them down anymore than messages from record companies designed to look like mp3 files stop music downloading.

I often think that, in general, the non-concrete nature of computer files (be them software, music or movies) make people think that it is okay do what they want with them.

I have a friend who downloads everything you could imagine using Bitorrent. Movies, music, software, etc. When I ask him how this is different from walking into a store and taking them off the shelf, he just stares at me blankly, but it doesn't stop him from doing it.

[fahlman]

except it hasn't been tested in court. a eula is not necessarily binding either. consider this (http://linuxjournal.com/article/5628).
That ruling is specifically about selling bundled EULA-covered software.

[bearda]

I've got to say that I think Apple is in the right here. Licensing and DMCA issues aside, 99% of the people at OSX86Project.org didn't purchase copies of Intel OS X or even hardware it was bundled with. I just don't see how anyone can maintain that they have a right to modify illegally obtained software to run on standard PCs.

If Apple were selling copies of Intel OS X, I might see things differently. Given the situation as it is, though, it seems like OSX86Project.org was little more than a den of theives. No nessicarily because they were trying to get OS X loaded on PCs, but because they obtained and distributed Intel OS X.

Andrew Beard

[jhu]

I have stated in a previous post that using XPostFacto, if it modifies an open source portion of the OS, is not a violation of the SLA. See my previous post for proof. Which by the way, is different than an opinion; something you have a lot of.

i have not stated any opinion as of yet. all statements have been straight from the eula. and if you would read the rest of my posts you would also see that i agree that xpostfacto modifies the open source portions of os x. however, you are still ignoring installation of os x on clones, which by the by the language of the os x eula, would be a violation.

That ruling is specifically about selling bundled EULA-covered software.

that was an example to show that not all legalese is binding and that a definitive answer can only be dealt with by a judge.

[fahlman]

your statement is mostly correct except that breaking the terms of the eula does not necessarily encompass theft.
From the SLA:

5. Termination. This License is effective until terminated. Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without notice from Apple if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License. Upon the termination of this License, you shall cease all use of the Apple Software and destroy all copies, full or partial, of the Apple Software.

[jhu]

that still doesn't denote or imply theft.

[gfer]

Which is built on Open Source software!

Wrong, it only has a BSD userland (under BSD licence, which allows developers make close source derivative products) and a bunch of Open Source software (mostly applications and utilities), but Mac OS X is NOT build on OSS.

To make it more clear to you: Darwin is the Open Source part of Mac OS X. The rest (the graphic engine, for example) is not.

[fahlman]

that still doesn't denote or imply theft.
Having something that does not belong to you is theft (unless of course is was loaned to you.)

[jhu]

Having something that does not belong to you is theft (unless of course is was loaned to you.)

except the first part of the eula states:
1. General. The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the "Apple Software") are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. The rights granted herein are limited to Apple’s and its licensors’ intellectual property rights in the Apple Software and do not include any other patents or intellectual property rights. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple’s licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself. The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.

so if you bought it, it's not theft.

[iMeowbot]

A breach of contract is not theft. It's a civil matter between the contracting parties.

[MeatBiProduct]

Here's the thing. Apple's hardware looks nice/is solidly built, but the innards of their systems are now no different than those "crappy peecees" that people here seem to keep harping about. I store my computer under the desk - I really could care less if it's made of aluminum or not, or looks good. If I could buy a standard tower mac without the ridiculously overpriced case, I'd be happy. For me, a computer is a tool, not a decoration.

I understand that Apple uses the hardware sales to subsidize the software development, but I'd bet that their software sales would boom if they opened up OS X to run on PCs. And I still think you'd see a lot of folks buying Mac branded hardware too, assuming it was priced competitively. People like things to just work, and Apple can still provide that. I think they'd make more money in the long run, as many of my friends really like OS X, but prefer to build their own systems.

Great post, I couldn't have said it better myself. What are you buying ? a computer to compute or a computer to make a fashion statement. I hid my G3, G4 and now the G5 under my desk, IMO the "Computer" cases look wank. If you want to see a great design look up Lian Li, those are cases worth displaying.

The truth here is that the only difference between a mac and a pc is about 1/10th of its parts (the motherboard). The rest is the same crap you can buy yourself. I can understand business's purchasing their hardware from apple so that they receive some sort of fallplan if equipment craps out. However the home user spending $3000 on a mac is getting about $1000 worth of equivilant pc equipment. Apple has never been known to be cutting edge or have powerful equipment. (besides OS X server clusters, but your using friggin 10 xserves to get 1 job done).

The truth is the O/S should be liberated from the capitalism of Apple. They are like that greedy kid in the sand pit that won't let you touch their toys and toss sand in your eyes when you ask to see them.

I don't really care though, I build all my own equipment just because when something goes wrong or if I want to change/upgrade anything I can do it as easily as getting on neweggs site. I don't have to go back to the same dealer just to get my simple upgrades like more drive space or more ram. It's like buying a car that can only be worked on where you purchased it, the only place you can purchase your parts is from the dealer, and the only person offering oil changes and tune ups is your dealer. Btw - yes i use mac's daily at work but not at home or for serious equipment (such as web servers & services / clusters etc.)

It's not that mac has a monopoly, but it's just apples greed in 2006, nothing more nothing less - shutout any competition, because the competition will best them. If their hardware sales are what pays for OS X's development then that is really pathetic.

[windmaomao]

Having something that does not belong to you is theft (unless of course is was loaned to you.)
Buying somthing that can be only used at specific location is torture
(unless of course is was loaned to you.)

Great post, I couldn't have said it better myself. What are you buying ? a computer to compute or a computer to make a fashion statement. I hid my G3, G4 and now the G5 under my desk, IMO the "Computer" cases look wank. If you want to see a great design look up Lian Li, those are cases worth displaying.

The truth here is that the only difference between a mac and a pc is about 1/10th of its parts (the motherboard). The rest is the same crap you can buy yourself. I can understand business's purchasing their hardware from apple so that they receive some sort of fallplan if equipment craps out. However the home user spending $3000 on a mac is getting about $1000 worth of equivilant pc equipment. Apple has never been known to be cutting edge or have powerful equipment. (besides OS X server clusters, but your using friggin 10 xserves to get 1 job done).

The truth is the O/S should be liberated from the capitalism of Apple. They are like that greedy kid in the sand pit that won't let you touch their toys and toss sand in your eyes when you ask to see them.

I don't really care though, I build all my own equipment just because when something goes wrong or if I want to change/upgrade anything I can do it as easily as getting on neweggs site. I don't have to go back to the same dealer just to get my simple upgrades like more drive space or more ram. It's like buying a car that can only be worked on where you purchased it, the only place you can purchase your parts is from the dealer, and the only person offering oil changes and tune ups is your dealer. Btw - yes i use mac's daily at work but not at home or for serious equipment (such as web servers & services / clusters etc.)

It's not that mac has a monopoly, but it's just apples greed in 2006, nothing more nothing less - shutout any competition, because the competition will best them. If their hardware sales are what pays for OS X's development then that is really pathetic.

agree. But i wonder that just apple strategy. Selling greate os bundled with overpriced nice pc; I think they should just launch a service charging to build apple pc after this intel transition, 'cause everyone knows they still use pc craps inside. All we have to pay then is the case, assembling fee and apple sticker. $200 should be fine :D

[powermac_daddy]

I know what is going on. but i can't speak for them.
more and more stuff is going to happen.

[MacMusicMan69]

Why don't those guys just buy a mini?
499 isn't bad
we all know PCs are crap,
if they were real computer geeks they would already have a mac

[pizzach]

I'm all fine with all of you people who believe that apple should make Mac OS X run on all x86 hardware. I mean, given that apple's profit model is set up for hardware, I wonder how long the company would last. (Mac OS = $130, Windows Pro = $230?) Probably would be out of business after a few years at least with that subsidized price...:rolleyes: Greeeeeeeaaaat business plan.

[polyesterlester]

This reminds me of how, in I Heart Huckabees, Jason Schwartzman's character Albert, uses poetry as his activist weapon of choice. If Apple is actually using this to deter potential hackers then, well, it's lame. But I'm still glad that Apple is the kind of company that would do this in the first place (Now if only they'd bring back easter eggs, like that fun one with the lizard and the flag :)).

Why don't those guys just buy a mini?
499 isn't bad
we all know PCs are crap,
if they were real computer geeks they would already have a mac
You're a good poet.

[jdechko]

Actually, installing Mac OS X on a computer other than an Apple-labeled computer violates the SLA therefore voiding the contract between the user and Apple which would mean that the user would would not have the right to use the operating system and doing so would constitute theft.

While I would agree with you on that level, there is still the rather large issue of enforceability or the EULA. In fact, they're unenforceable in most of the US. So the license agreement is not upheld in most of the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_licence#Enforceability

Another thing is this (it really goes into ethics, but its the way I feel): I think that you should be allowed to install software that you've purchased on any computer that you own. Some licenses allow this, some don't. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. And if there's a family license, I'd buy that instead.

The truth is the O/S should be liberated from the capitalism of Apple. They are like that greedy kid in the sand pit that won't let you touch their toys and toss sand in your eyes when you ask to see them.

That's what capitalism is though. If I own something, I have say over who can partake and who cannot. It's not just Apple, but every producer of goods.

[bhirt]

Why don't those guys just buy a mini?

Well hopefully apple will come out with a better mini soon!

[Mainyehc]

The company had their choice, so do we.
and the internet is going to freedom, IMHO, freedom doesn't have right or wrong. just my two cents

You're being naïve... I speak for myself, I actually love OSS/GNU/Linux, I think it's a nice option for computing, as I even use a few open source apps daily, like aMSN. But to say the internet is "going to freedom" (when it's actually just another hugely profitable means of communication) is just plain false. And Apple is a company (which actually produces proprietary software, even though it is *based* on OSS components), thus, it's a money making machine, period. So there isn't "right" or "wrong" here (from an ethical standpoint), just "profitable" or "loss-making", "legal" or "illegal". By the way, may I remind you, as others have already pointed out, that Apple had plenty of practical reasons (not just economical) *not* to allow (both technically and legally) OS X to run on generic x86 hardware... That's a choice for Apple to make, not for you, the consumer. And you have a choice: you can just *not* use OS X at all!

Hate to burst your bubble, buddy (I myself used to be an idealist, who dreamed of the day M$ would go bankrupt, and even today I still feel largely unconfortable about this economical system in general anyway), but this is the world where you're living in, so you either stop whining and get along with it (otherwise, you may either not get your point across if you base your arguments in false statements, or incur in legal action if you try to prove your point by force), or go start a revolution (not through hacking/cracking/whining, though... why don't you just stick with Linux? Why not doing the classical "vote with your wallet" thing?)! Just my €0,02...

By the way, you shouldn't use the term "freedom" that lightly (read my sig.)... I'd rather have freedom of speech over "freedom as in having loads of OSS at my disposal" any day of the week... And it seems the 'net is lacking also in the first kind... Remember Google.cn? :eek:

[mdavey]

(Mac OS = $130, Windows Pro = $230?)

So charge $499 for the full distribution and $130 for major upgrades (get Tiger to Leopard). If you buy an Apple, you get the full distribution for free. Once you have a full distribution, you can install it on any one computer (Apple-labeled or not).

Apple could even offer a crossgrade from Windows for $270 if you trade in your original Windows media and license key.

Of course, as Mainyehc points out, neither Apple not most of its customers (me included) want to change the business model in this way.

[Lurch_Mojoff]

Buying somthing that can be only used at specific location is torture
(unless of course is was loaned to you.)
This is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. How does buying a gearbox for Ferrari that won't fit in your Hyundai constitute torture? The only word to describe this situation that comes to my mind is stupidity. You know beforehand that whatever you are buying won't run on your hardware, at least not legally, and still you buy it. You can blame only yourself. And all that is assuming you can buy a standalone copy of Mac OS X for x86, which you really can't do. If you want to drive a Ferrari you have to buy a Ferrari!

[BenRoethig]

I'm all fine with all of you people who believe that apple should make Mac OS X run on all x86 hardware. I mean, given that apple's profit model is set up for hardware, I wonder how long the company would last. (Mac OS = $130, Windows Pro = $230?) Probably would be out of business after a few years at least with that subsidized price...:rolleyes: Greeeeeeeaaaat business plan.

How long are they going to last if Vista is any good? The iPod isn't going to Sustain them forever.

[jhu]

This is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. How does buying a gearbox for Ferrari that won't fit in your Hyundai constitute torture? The only word to describe this situation that comes to my mind is stupidity. You know beforehand that whatever you are buying won't run on your hardware, at least not legally, and still you buy it. You can blame only yourself. And all that is assuming you can buy a standalone copy of Mac OS X for x86, which you really can't do. If you want to drive a Ferrari you have to buy a Ferrari!

sure, but if you buy a ferrari gearbox and are able to use it in your hyundai, who's to stop you?

[alep85]

Great post, I couldn't have said it better myself. What are you buying ? a computer to compute or a computer to make a fashion statement. I hid my G3, G4 and now the G5 under my desk, IMO the "Computer" cases look wank. If you want to see a great design look up Lian Li, those are cases worth displaying.

The truth here is that the only difference between a mac and a pc is about 1/10th of its parts (the motherboard). The rest is the same crap you can buy yourself. I can understand business's purchasing their hardware from apple so that they receive some sort of fallplan if equipment craps out. However the home user spending $3000 on a mac is getting about $1000 worth of equivilant pc equipment. Apple has never been known to be cutting edge or have powerful equipment. (besides OS X server clusters, but your using friggin 10 xserves to get 1 job done).

The truth is the O/S should be liberated from the capitalism of Apple. They are like that greedy kid in the sand pit that won't let you touch their toys and toss sand in your eyes when you ask to see them.

I don't really care though, I build all my own equipment just because when something goes wrong or if I want to change/upgrade anything I can do it as easily as getting on neweggs site. I don't have to go back to the same dealer just to get my simple upgrades like more drive space or more ram. It's like buying a car that can only be worked on where you purchased it, the only place you can purchase your parts is from the dealer, and the only person offering oil changes and tune ups is your dealer. Btw - yes i use mac's daily at work but not at home or for serious equipment (such as web servers & services / clusters etc.)

It's not that mac has a monopoly, but it's just apples greed in 2006, nothing more nothing less - shutout any competition, because the competition will best them. If their hardware sales are what pays for OS X's development then that is really pathetic.

Look, you obviously have no idea why Macs work like they do. Mac OS X works well not only because it is built on the stability of UNIX, but because Apple controls the HARDWARE it runs on! Yeah, maybe it is generic PC parts, but Apple doesn't have to make an OS that runs perfectly on 5000 different motherboard combinations and different PC configurations. Ever realize how crappy a cracked Intel OS X runs on most machines that aren't identical or similar to the specs of a Developer Machine or Retail iMac? That's because they're not designing it with that in mind. The integration (and yes, price markup as well) gives a strategic advantage in controlling everything about the whole computing experience. This is way different from Dell, which just slaps Windows on their hardware and calls it a day. I understand you are a Mac user, but you seem to fail to understand the underlying reasons for the hardware/software integration, a Mac is mostly about the software (OS X and apps), but the hardware that Apple controls and monitors helps aid it in that stability aspect.

[BenRoethig]

Why don't those guys just buy a mini?
499 isn't bad
we all know PCs are crap,
if they were real computer geeks they would already have a mac

Aw, the "Apple meets my needs and since I'm the expert on all things, they must meet everybody else's needs too" argument. Sorry Kid, things work a little different in reality.

1. Non-upgradeable
2. Slow CPU
3. Single Notebook Optical drive
4. Single notebook Hard drive.
5. Very few USB and Firewire ports
6. No PCI, AGP, or PCI -Express expansion slots.

[windmaomao]

This is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. How does buying a gearbox for Ferrari that won't fit in your Hyundai constitute torture? The only word to describe this situation that comes to my mind is stupidity. You know beforehand that whatever you are buying won't run on your hardware, at least not legally, and still you buy it. You can blame only yourself. And all that is assuming you can buy a standalone copy of Mac OS X for x86, which you really can't do. If you want to drive a Ferrari you have to buy a Ferrari!

omg, i hate people use word like idiotic. Come on, what if you want to use gearbox somewhere else if someone stole your Ferrari and leave your gearbox there.
Do you call yourself i***? or you just can't imagine yourself at a situation like that !:cool:

[snowmen]

1. EULA would be Invalid if EULA itself is not totally legal by itself.

2. From Anti-Trust law, Tying is unacceptable. That means one or more components of the package are sold individually by other businesses as their primary product, and use of market power because it limits the choices available to the consumer.
Therefore, what Apple said in EULA of "Only Apple-labeled computer are allow", and the fact Apple changed to X86 System which many other computer manufacture's primary product, are indeed violate the Anti-Trust law.

3. Conclusion: If Apple sue me for violating the EULA, sorry, EULA cannot be enforced since itself is invalid. US DMCA does not apply to me neither since I don't live in US.

4. Apple labeled computer.
I think it's a very good question. What is Apple labeled computer?
Some people might think that upgrade is fine, but as far as I can see, you can upgrade motherboard in PM; you can upgrade CPU; you can upgrade RAM... after all the upgrade, all are left that was originally from Apple is the case. And today if I want to throw away the case because CPU is too hot, does that mean I still have Apple labeled computer? I just changed all the component that Apple provided me!
Therefore, as far as I can see, Apple labeled computer means all the Apple product that you purchase from Apple remain unchanged. Any change of RAM/HD/CPU/Motherboard/... ... will violate EULA.

5. So far, Apple can still set charge against people who use 10.4 X86 version because there is NO way you can actually buy one on the street. But as soon as 10.5 is out, Apple has difficulty to set charge to user outside US who bought a legal version of 10.5. And for US resident, the only problem remain is DMCA.

Sorry, Apple. I guess you have to say your original EULA bye bye. It's just matter of time if somebody has the spare time and spare money to sue Apple for Anti-Trust.

But even OS X can install on any PC, I will still go buy another Apple laptop.

[cybermiguel]

I would certainly pay full retail for a copy of Tiger that runs on my PC, even if it required some patching for my specific hardware. I think it apple rebranded OSX for x86, removed the protection, and simply stated they don't offer any support that would be enough. They left it to the community to make dashboard widgets, why not for hardware support?

Actually, I would do the VERY SAME thing. Why? because only letting geeks take control over patches and improvements to the OS you will get a robust and 100% compatible system.

Look what has happened to Linux. Let's put aside that is free, the people that programs for it is helping in the development of the system and, correct me if I'm wrong, from efforts like those we have Apache, THE web server by excellence, MySQL and other Web technologies that make possible this forum to exist (although, those are multi-platform technologies, most of it's development is done on Linux machines).


I think Apple is taking the wrong steps in sending DMCA violation letters. It's bad for their PR.

Look it this way: You sell OS X to geeks at the same price as the retail version, but with the following condition: NO tech support at all.

That way, who would be buying the OS? Only the geeks, but.....what if the geeks that you sold your OS made it so stable, so compatible, so "perfect" that can easily trash any Linux or Windows distribution?

Apple could easily release a "public" version that anyone can use at the same or lower price than windows, with the guarantee that "it will just work". Just imagine the figures of retail sales. It would be a HUGE success.


...but Apple is saying "I don't want to be popular. I don't want to earn money" applying these policies. It should encourage developers, advanced users and hackers to improive their system.

Shame on you, Apple....shame on you.

[Seasought]

If Apple were to turn around and provide some sort of x86 / hacker-friendly / whatever alternative of OS X it would make them look like they were bowing down to a group of hackers/enthusiasts.

If for nothing else, I get the impression that the response was political. Apple doesn't want to appear weak in any regard, especially concerning software piracy.

At least, that's part of the picture I'm sure.

[generik]

A breach of contract is not theft. It's a civil matter between the contracting parties.

Arguing about the semantics of theft to a thief is like participating in the special olympics; even if you win you are still a retard :rolleyes:

[cwoloszynski]

1. EULA would be Invalid if EULA itself is not totally legal by itself.

2. From Anti-Trust law, Tying is unacceptable. That means one or more components of the package are sold individually by other businesses as their primary product, and use of market power because it limits the choices available to the consumer.
Therefore, what Apple said in EULA of "Only Apple-labeled computer are allow", and the fact Apple changed to X86 System which many other computer manufacture's primary product, are indeed violate the Anti-Trust law.



Apple does not sell OSX by itself; they sell upgrades to OSX. They are still well within their rights and they are not Tying in any manner from what I have seen them sell in the market. I think you just to BELIEVE that they are Tying to justify your desire to steal from them.

It is Apple's choice of business models, not their customers. If you want free software, go get Linux.

[MeatBiProduct]

I'm all fine with all of you people who believe that apple should make Mac OS X run on all x86 hardware. I mean, given that apple's profit model is set up for hardware, I wonder how long the company would last. (Mac OS = $130, Windows Pro = $230?) Probably would be out of business after a few years at least with that subsidized price...:rolleyes: Greeeeeeeaaaat business plan.

Your off about $100

windows pro 64 bit: $137
windwos pro 32 bit: $139

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16837102034
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16837102062

Funny how Microsoft doesn't need to sell ONLY windows on ONLY Microsoft hardware to still develop its O/S. I think that **** is just a easy cop out.

Of course I know this isn't true, a 90% share of the market with just crappy software is enough to fund their projects. (which is debateable, **** almost every web server on the net is linux/bsd).

All I'm saying is that execuses are excuses. You can only operate Brand A on Brand A equipment because their business would loose everything if it was any other way. Steve Jobs is a tool just like Bill Gates, however I can understand that for most people seeing the forest from the trees is nearly impossible.

How about this, Fedora Core is FREE. How does that O/S still dominate as #3 in the O/S wars? They only sell support contracts. The truth is, Bill and Steve both need their massively expensive lifestyles and all the other crap that comes from getting rich off a bunch of suckers. They are all wanking to threads like this with mac people thinking their equipment is superior and windows people thinking their O/S is better.

The truth is, your mac hardware is NOTHING special, nothing at all - we've been running OS X for 10 years before it even existed - we just called it Unix and KDE/Gnome/Litestep was our shell er sorry, window managers. I can get the same crappy hardware from a mac as OEM for 1/3rd the price you paid for it. The problem is, you can't get ALL the parts because Apple has the **** locked down to keep their best interest in mind -- making fat loot off all you suckers cause you think you are actually getting something unique. Your not, you just dropped 4x the amount of money as the rest of us on the same old crap in a cuter package.

Anyways the worste bug I encountered in OSX is the inability to disable the shell and choose something other than candied up UI lagging down my already slow machine. Performance? who needs it, we need EYE candy.

http://frugalware.org/images/shots/kde.png

[jhu]

Apple does not sell OSX by itself; they sell upgrades to OSX. They are still well within their rights and they are not Tying in any manner from what I have seen them sell in the market. I think you just to BELIEVE that they are Tying to justify your desire to steal from them.

It is Apple's choice of business models, not their customers. If you want free software, go get Linux.

no they sell the full os. there is no requirement for having a previous os x installation in order to install a new version of os x (unlike windows).

[iMeowbot]

Arguing about the semantics of theft to a thief is like participating in the special olympics; even if you win you are still a retard :rolleyes:
Where did you get the idea that fahlman was a thief? I gather that the poster is a brutally honest person, not a thief at all.

[generik]

From the SLA:

5. Termination. This License is effective until terminated. Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without notice from Apple if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License. Upon the termination of this License, you shall cease all use of the Apple Software and destroy all copies, full or partial, of the Apple Software.

Sure, terminate it all you want. And as per my contract, refund and interest please? No? You can shove your SLA up your a$$.

[bosrs1]

That was fast... OS X is for Macs.
I agree. The more the hacker thinks he's won the more Apple laughs their asses off. Good for them.

[generik]

Where did you get the idea that fahlman was a thief? I gather that the poster is a brutally honest person, not a thief at all.

No, but I mean to say that arguing about how hacking OSX is... "against the EULA" or some such really looks very hilarious in the face of the fact that this Maxxus guy seems to be in russia, and please allow me to point to this site: www.allofmp3.com, allegedly run by russian mafia.

Ruled by their own courts to be perfectly legit too, I'd bet whichever judge presiding over that decision knew that if he said otherwise he is as good as a dead man.

And here we are talking about a EULA? What's a EULA? "Extra Ultra Luxurious Asswipe?" (aka toilet paper)

[bosrs1]

This reminds me of how, in I Heart Huckabees, Jason Schwartzman's character Albert, uses poetry as his activist weapon of choice. If Apple is actually using this to deter potential hackers then, well, it's lame. But I'm still glad that Apple is the kind of company that would do this in the first place (Now if only they'd bring back easter eggs, like that fun one with the lizard and the flag :)).


You're a good poet.
While the poetry was funny, it's not meant as their defense. Their defense is their extensive sw team and legal department. And based on how fast OSx86 project got bitchslapped on both fronts I'd say Apple is working just fine.

[dejo]

And as per my contract, refund and interest please?

What contract was that?

[bosrs1]

What contract was that?
Exactly. People don't seem to understand what the EULA is. When you purchased and installed OSX you agree to as part of the EULA to use it only on Macs. Using it on a PC is a breach of contract and you are now liable to be sued by Apple... end of story.

[bosrs1]

If people can't understand why Apple is doing this, then they are retarded. Do you really want Mac OS X Install Disc and Upgrades to have all the anti-piracy serial numbers and online verification that Windows has? Because if they don't stop people from installing illegal copies of Mac OS on PC's they will lose large amounts of money and become nothing but an MP3 Player company.

If Apple loses big in their hardware sales, then we all as Mac users lose. Apple is mainly a Hardware company, always has and always been.

If people bought Mac OS X for the sole purpose of installing it on a PC without buying Mac Hardware, you can bet that the price for the Mac OS would at least double, if not triple. And to boot we'd have to use serial numbers etc... to upgrade or call for support to ensure we're the lone user of the OS... no thank you.

[jumpinjohn]

I think everything should be free. Nobody should be able to make any money and then there would be no greed and everyone would be able to eat, be warm and be happy. We could all work at jobs that we like -- and so everyone would be fulfilled and nobody would ever be even a little uncomfortable. Nobody would be poor because everyone would be. And everyone would love each other. And nobody would ever do anything mean like take someone else's ice cream. We would automatically be given new computers every year that would be able to run every kind of O/S. Unix, MS, Linux, OSX, BEOS, ATARI... No more capitalist pigs.

That's what I think.

See 'ya!

[bosrs1]

I think everything should be free. Nobody should be able to make any money and then there would be no greed and everyone would be able to eat, be warm and be happy. We could all work at jobs that we like -- and so everyone would be fulfilled and nobody would ever be even a little uncomfortable. Nobody would be poor because everyone would be. And everyone would love each other. And nobody would ever do anything mean like take someone else's ice cream. We would automatically be given new computers every year that would be able to run every kind of O/S. Unix, MS, Linux, OSX, BEOS, ATARI... No more capitalist pigs.

That's what I think.

See 'ya!
:p

[weg]

Slick redirect to microsnot :rolleyes:

A http://http://something.net link will of course take you to a Microsoft page.. if you are one of those heretics that browse with Internet Explorer ;-)

[jhu]

Exactly. People don't seem to understand what the EULA is. When you purchased and installed OSX you agree to as part of the EULA to use it only on Macs. Using it on a PC is a breach of contract and you are now liable to be sued by Apple... end of story.

there is the issue of enforceability as the courts have deemed eulas for other software products to be invalid. also, the os x 10.4 eula (which hasn't been tested in the courts) states "apple-labeled computer", so running it on your ipod or newton is also not allowed.



From the SLA:

5. Termination. This License is effective until terminated. Your rights under this License will terminate automatically without notice from Apple if you fail to comply with any term(s) of this License. Upon the termination of this License, you shall cease all use of the Apple Software and destroy all copies, full or partial, of the Apple Software.
Sure, terminate it all you want. And as per my contract, refund and interest please? No? You can shove your SLA up your a$$.

the eula states that you must destroy all copies. to help facilitate this, please send them over to me, and i will make sure that such entities are properly destroyed and are no longer a harm to anyone else.

[Apple-Alt-Ctr]

How long are they going to last if Vista is any good? The iPod isn't going to Sustain them forever.

You said 'Vista' and 'good' in the same sentance. ;)

[bosrs1]

there is the issue of enforceability as the courts have deemed eulas for other software products to be invalid. also, the os x 10.4 eula (which hasn't been tested in the courts) states "apple-labeled computer", so running it on your ipod or newton is also not allowed.
The question there is... wtf would you want with it on your iPod? But of course that is neither here nor there.

You said 'Vista' and 'good' in the same sentance. ;)
But but but Vista may be good..... of course Sally Struthers might get skinny again.

[mdavey]

If Apple were to turn around and provide some sort of x86 / hacker-friendly / whatever alternative of OS X it would make them look like they were bowing down to a group of hackers/enthusiasts.

Don't talk rubbish*. Microsoft provides Windows as shared source now - did everyone accuse them of giving into a group of software thieves? Sun open sourced its OS (Solaris) - was that Sun giving into hackers and enthusiasts?

The absolute most negatively it might be portrayed as would be Apple responding to customer demand but given SJ's legendary reality deflection field it would most likely be spun as a truely altruistic and philanthropic move, the biggest day in Open Source / Homebrew enthusiasts (delete as applicable) history.

Edit: * Sorry, on re-reading, that comes across as a little harsh.

[Apple-Alt-Ctr]

sure, but if you buy a ferrari gearbox and are able to use it in your hyundai, who's to stop you?

But in this analogy you can't buy a Ferrari gearbox, you'd have to take one from a Ferrari.

If you want the Ferrari of computing you're just gonna have to buy a Ferrari (Apple in case we've forgotten what we're talking about!) and not just try to shoe horn a Ferrari gearbox (or engine might be more appropriate) into an old Escourt.

But but but Vista may be good..... of course Sally Struthers might get skinny again.

Maybe. Who's to have believed they could have improved on the name 'Longhorn' but they managed it. :)

omg, i hate people use word like idiotic. Come on, what if you want to use gearbox somewhere else if someone stole your Ferrari and leave your gearbox there.
Do you call yourself i***? or you just can't imagine yourself at a situation like that !:cool:

How and why would someone steal a Ferrari and leave the gearbox??!

[generik]

What contract was that?

Doctrine of first sale? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine)

You said 'Vista' and 'good' in the same sentance. ;)

Speak for yourself Winboi :rolleyes:

[jhu]

But in this analogy you can't buy a Ferrari gearbox, you'd have to take one from a Ferrari.

If you want the Ferrari of computing you're just gonna have to buy a Ferrari (Apple in case we've forgotten what we're talking about!) and not just try to shoe horn a Ferrari gearbox (or engine might be more appropriate) into an old Escourt.

actually, engine would pertain to the cpu. gearbox, dashboard, steering wheel, and seats would pertain to the os.

[Apple-Alt-Ctr]

Speak for yourself Winboi :rolleyes:

:D No idea what that means but I thought I'd laugh anyway. Why can't Apple release some new hardware already and stop us all arguing about semantics and car parts!!

[jhu]

The question there is... wtf would you want with it on your iPod? But of course that is neither here nor there.

yeah, well check this out (http://www.appletalk.com.au/articles/68kpanther/).

[generik]

:D No idea what that means but I thought I'd laugh anyway. Why can't Apple release some new hardware already and stop us all arguing about semantics and car parts!!

Just figured that you didn't use your wonderful integrated spell checker :cool:

[MeatBiProduct]

The question there is... wtf would you want with it on your iPod? But of course that is neither here nor there.

why do people install linux on their xbox? why do people install linux on their ps2? why would I want to wipe my iPod and put linux on it, cause i can. DRM = nothing on linux.

[Apple-Alt-Ctr]

actually, engine would pertain to the cpu. gearbox, dashboard, steering wheel, and seats would pertain to the os.

True. But I guess the analogy fails somewhat as the OS is so much more than just the gearbox, dash and steering wheel.

The Mac is a complete system though clearly the OS IS the strongest part of it.

[generik]

why do people install linux on their xbox? why do people install linux on their ps2? why would I want to wipe my iPod and put linux on it, cause i can. DRM = nothing on linux.

Sorry, the law says you can't now.

[dejo]

Doctrine of first sale? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine)

Wow, and the doctrine of first sale entitles you to a refund and interest? Try again.

[MeatBiProduct]

no they sell the full os. there is no requirement for having a previous os x installation in order to install a new version of os x (unlike windows).

you don't need a prior copy of windows to install windows either - wtf are you smoking on? by your definition, it would be impossible to install windows unless god created the HD. Ever heard chicken before the egg?

[Apple-Alt-Ctr]

Just figured that you didn't use your wonderful integrated spell checker :cool:

Arh! I see now. It's half twelve at night here and didn't realise I'd mis-spelled.

[MeatBiProduct]

Sorry, the law says you can't now.

the law also says I can't do 65 mph in a 60 mph zone, guess what - I live on the wild side and do it anyways. Here's to not conforming to every stupid law and rule some person you never met or care about trys enforcing on you. Jesus christ people need to put their halo's away for 5 minutes and grow some cahoonaz.

[jhu]

you don't need a prior copy of windows to install windows either - wtf are you smoking on? by your definition, it would be impossible to install windows unless god created the HD. Ever heard chicken before the egg?

microsoft sells two basic versions of windows: those that are upgrades and those that aren't. the upgrade does require a prior installation or at least the install disc of a prior windows version. the non-upgrade version does not.

[MeatBiProduct]

microsoft sells two basic versions of windows: those that are upgrades and those that aren't. the upgrade does require a prior installation or at least the install disc of a prior windows version. the non-upgrade version does not.

installing an O/S and UPGRADING an O/S are two seperate things.

To go from windows xp sp1 to windows xp sp2 (just like OSX 10.3 - 10.4) I install a service pack. To go from Windows 98 to windows xp you format and reinstall unless your some total noob who wants a jacked up install.

Saying you HAVE to have an install of windows and use an upgrade disc to get to the latest version of windows is completely stupid. On the other hand, at least I didn't have to buy the O/S 3 times to get to the latest version.

[bosrs1]

:D No idea what that means but I thought I'd laugh anyway. Why can't Apple release some new hardware already and stop us all arguing about semantics and car parts!!
I don't know, but the new MacBook Pro w/ 2.16 is pretty tasty.

[jhu]

installing an O/S and UPGRADING an O/S are two seperate things.

To go from windows xp sp1 to windows xp sp2 (just like OSX 10.3 - 10.4) I install a service pack. To go from Windows 98 to windows xp you format and reinstall unless your some total noob who wants a jacked up install.

Saying you HAVE to have an install of windows and use an upgrade disc to get to the latest version of windows is completely stupid. On the other hand, at least I didn't have to buy the O/S 3 times to get to the latest version.

you don't quite understand how windows is installed. if you go to the store and buy the windows upgrade, you must have either windows installed on your computer or have the prior install disc handy. at least that was the way with the windows 98 upgrade. i don't have windows currently, so i wouldn't know what it's like now. for the mac, however, the boxed versions are all full os installs. going from windows xp sp1 to sp2 is not the same as going from osx 10.3 to 10.4.

[rjgjonker]

I really don't understand the anti-hacker attitude here. Hackers brought us computers, they brought us the internet and they brought us open source software. They're cool!

Secondly, I don't get the Apple-apologising and I really don't get the stealing analogy. I currently have a nice desktop G4, which I plan to continue using for quite some time. When it's time for a new computer, I want to build it myself, without any crappy Intel hardware Apple has decided I should use or any of the other inferior components they have a habit of putting into their products. I want to select my own components. Of course I will buy Mac OS X. I will be using it, so why shouldn't I pay for it?

For some odd reason, a lot of people in this forum call that stealing. I would be installing software which I legally bought on a computer made of components that I legally bought. Of course I might be 'breaching' some stupid licence agreement which isn't legally valid anyway (not being signed, waiving European consumer rights, etc.), but that is morally and legally irrelevant. I just don't see the problem in that.

Apple should respect their users and shouldn't interfere with what their customers do with the software they bought. They can't even legally make such conditions in most countries. Nor should they be able to.

[bosrs1]

I really don't understand the anti-hacker attitude here. Hackers brought us computers, they brought us the internet and they brought us open source software. They're cool!

Secondly, I don't get the Apple-apologising and I really don't get the stealing analogy. I currently have a nice desktop G4, which I plan to continue using for quite some time. When it's time for a new computer, I want to build it myself, without any crappy Intel hardware Apple has decided I should use or any of the other inferior components they have a habit of putting into their products. I want to select my own components. Of course I will buy Mac OS X. I will be using it, so why shouldn't I pay for it?

For some odd reason, a lot of people in this forum call that stealing. I would be installing software which I legally bought on a computer made of components that I legally bought. Of course I might be 'breaching' some stupid licence agreement which isn't legally valid anyway (not being signed, waiving European consumer rights, etc.), but that is morally and legally irrelevant. I just don't see the problem in that.

Apple should respect their users and shouldn't interfere with what their customers do with the software they bought. They can't even legally make such conditions in most countries. Nor should they be able to.

Luckily people like you are in the minority among mac users. If your attitude were to spread OSX and Apple would become just another crap OS provider like MS.

[MeatBiProduct]

you don't quite understand how windows is installed. if you go to the store and buy the windows upgrade, you must have either windows installed on your computer or have the prior install disc handy. at least that was the way with the windows 98 upgrade. i don't have windows currently, so i wouldn't know what it's like now. for the mac, however, the boxed versions are all full os installs. going from windows xp sp1 to sp2 is not the same as going from osx 10.3 to 10.4.

you also forgot to mention, that only complete tools purchase an O/S upgrade - the logic here, is that if you were to ever loose the O/S, you would need to reinstall and old version of windows and reupgrade. perhaps if you were helping these tools install their O/S you might encounter an upgrade disk - I haven't since around 1998, 8 years ago - I have a list of other crazy crap that went on with all machines that same year if you want to read them.

these same people could have also spent $20 more and purchased the full O/S. Things you forgot to mention - which btw I loathe windows as much as the next person, only because I'm always made to clean up other peoples mess's.

- Windows XP doesn't require a prior O/S unless you purchased an upgrade disc, which you shouldn't.
- Windows 98 hasn't been supported since 2003 and hasn't been in print since 2001. Arguments about this O/S should also include the availble options from Apple since that was the basis, that windows requires a prior install to install the latest version.
- Windows xp hasn't required any additonal purchases to upgrade the O/S itself from the initial 2600 build to the latest version availble right now.
- To install windows freshly all you need is a windows xp disc.
- To upgrade a prior release of windows OTHER than windows xp TO windows XP; which shouldn't be done on any serious computer, it does require the purchase of an upgrade CD.

The difference is the original poster stated, to get from 1 version of OS X to another you could easily do it with a disc that has the latest full version of OS X on it. This is the same O/S from the exact same code tree - this is not moving from a prior O/S to a tottally new O/S. In comparison, Windows XP does NOT require ANY additional disc or purchases in order to upgrade from the very first initial release to the latest release - it only takes a SP disc or a download - FREELY - from the windows update center or various other venues that offer the SP in its entirety.

So please tell me, how do I get from the original release of OS X to the latest available with just my original install disc without any purchase. If anything is f'd up, thats f'd up. Buying the exact same thing multiple times.

Also before some mac cult members jump my bones, I own a iMac, a G4, an ipod, and use a duel G5 workstation and multiple multi-processor clustered X-Serves at work, all running powerpc chips. I'm not a windows supporter, I'm not a mac supporter, I use the right tool for the right job always. No O/S or single computer can fulfill every need. If you can't agree to that you're a complete idiot and shouldn't even reply to this post.

[mdavey]

Luckily people like you are in the minority among mac users. If your attitude were to spread OSX and Apple would become just another crap OS provider like MS.

Or perhaps it would encourage Apple to innovate technology more and focus on differentiating the quality of their hardware from those dull little boxes (rather than just the innovative design).

[tasslehawf]

I actually can not figure out why apple even bothered with this. A new site will pop up. People want osx on generic machines, some people find wrong in this, but that does not take away the demand.

People want it and don't want to pay for it. It can not be stopped. This is simalar to the RIAA and there beef with file sharing, they can never stop it.


I would gladly pay for it in a heartbeat if Apple made a version that would install on generic pc's.

[griz]

If I buy a copy of OSX Tiger, hack it and install it on a dell, how is this stealing? I paid for the OS. Just because Apple wants me to buy their hardware, too damn bad. Personally, I like their hardware, but I am a big supporter of freedom to choose. If someone wants to pay for OS X, they should be able to do whatever they want with it.

[snowmen]

Apple does not sell OSX by itself; they sell upgrades to OSX. They are still well within their rights and they are not Tying in any manner from what I have seen them sell in the market. I think you just to BELIEVE that they are Tying to justify your desire to steal from them.

It is Apple's choice of business models, not their customers. If you want free software, go get Linux.

No.
1. Apple DO sell full instal OS X.

2. They are not Tying and still well within their rights BEFORE entering into Intel.
But Now, if you want to get OS X, you HAVE to get a Mac. BUT, the Mac's spec is same as other PC manufactures'. That is where the tying comes from. It's unfair for other manufactures because they cannot be competitive with Apple's Hardware. That Breaks the Anti-Trust Law. If Apple's Hardware is THAT GOOD as you guys said, their sale will not go down that much at all. BUT you guys start worring for your Apple. Why? Afraid of competition?

3. NO, you're wrong again. I'm not only a royal customer to Apple (From Motorola to G3 to G4 to G5), but I'm also a shareholder. If customer cannot speak out what they want with Apple, then shareholder at least can. But then of course I cannot change Apple's business model. If Apple decide to run their business model right on the edge of the violation of Anti-Trust Law, then go ahead... Just don't be another Microsoft when US government decide they finish with Microsoft and want to find another target.

AND, as I said, I'll get a MacBook Pro or MacBook or whatever Apple laptop comes with Illuminated keyboard for sure. I might even buy 2 to 3 licenced Leopard or get 2 licenses on the laptop, and I'll play around with OS X86 on my PC to kill time. With that, as I said before, Apple can only question me about violating of EULA, but since it's not easy to enforce because its questionable legality, I won't care any sooner.

[sw1tcher]

next thing they'll do is say that because I buy a cd I can't use it in the car and at home

That's probably not too far behind. The RIAA's already saying that ripping CDs to an iPod (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php) is not fair use (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060215-6190.html).

I imagine that they'll soon tell us to purchase a CD for each device that it's going to be played on.

[nataku]

If I buy a copy of OSX Tiger, hack it and install it on a dell, how is this stealing? I paid for the OS. Just because Apple wants me to buy their hardware, too damn bad. Personally, I like their hardware, but I am a big supporter of freedom to choose. If someone wants to pay for OS X, they should be able to do whatever they want with it.

It is true and correct that you bought it therefore you can use it to how you see fit. However, the freedom that you are saying is not limitless. We still have to adhere to rules. Think of the OS X as a sacred religious book. You can buy any religious book without any restriction (whether you are Chrisitan, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish etc...) but you can't always use it to how you see fit. You can't (and shouldn't) use it as a paper napkin or scratch paper (or whatever other "debatable" purpose you want) because you have to respect the rules given by their respective religions. You can't desecrate or defile it. Like the software that Apple creates, you have to adhere to their rules.

When you buy something, you get everything that comes with it. :rolleyes:

[sw1tcher]

As I've said before, read your license agreement that comes with Mac OS. It's not STEALING if you install YOUR copy on a PC, but it is a violation of your license agreement with Apple, both because you have it installed on more than one machine, and because you have installed it on a non-Apple-
labeled computer! If you download a copy of Mac OS from the internet you are stealing regardless of whether it is a hacked copy or not.

Sorry, I mistook your bracket's meaning!:D But it would still be a violation.

barstard.

Even if it were downloaded from the internet, it's still not stealing because no one's been deprived of it. It's just copyright infringement. In order for something to be stolen, someone must be deprived of it.

[windmaomao]

Luckily people like you are in the minority among mac users. If your attitude were to spread OSX and Apple would become just another crap OS provider like MS.

come on, don't talk like that. As I know, most of mac users were rich guys with no time and no interest knowning computers. It's getting not true any more though.

But no offense, that's why I like mac os x.

p.s if not with x11, I won't be able to stick with my powerbook.

[nataku]

For some odd reason, a lot of people in this forum call that stealing. I would be installing software which I legally bought on a computer made of components that I legally bought. Of course I might be 'breaching' some stupid licence agreement which isn't legally valid anyway (not being signed, waiving European consumer rights, etc.), but that is morally and legally irrelevant. I just don't see the problem in that.

Apple should respect their users and shouldn't interfere with what their customers do with the software they bought. They can't even legally make such conditions in most countries. Nor should they be able to.

licenSe agreements have a purpose. Therefore, they are not stupid. Maybe when you have an invention that is worth billions, you will know why you should protect your investment. :rolleyes:

This is where you have crossed the line to make Freedom as an excuse for Abuse.

[windmaomao]

That's probably not too far behind. The RIAA's already saying that ripping CDs to an iPod (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php) is not fair use (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060215-6190.html).

I imagine that they'll soon tell us to purchase a CD for each device that it's going to be played on.

:eek: I guess eventually everyone will start to use linux like os, 'cause no piracy detectors are installed.

[MeatBiProduct]

licenSe agreements have a purpose. Therefore, they are not stupid. Maybe when you have an invention that is worth billions, you will know why you should protect your investment. :rolleyes:

This is where you have crossed the line to make Freedom as an excuse for Abuse.

Your right, there isn't anything more important in the one life you have then make money and maintain it. :applaud: Greed = Power = Godliness.

GNU what? Umm the great billion dollar product (OS X) that apple has is freely available - it's called BSD and it's 9/10th's of your OS X installation.

[cslewis]

I think this is a very funny and original idea. Instead of a heavy-handed legal warning, why not a sensitive yet cautionary bit of haiku? :D

[spikeovsky]

And it seems the 'net is lacking also in the first kind... Remember Google.cn? :eek:

At the risk of being off-topic, I'm going to have to respond to this. The Google.cn thing is a complete non-issue in China. The internet here is already heavily censored, but it has still been a medium through which people can have conversations they wouldn't otherwise be having. Google.com is not blocked, and when Google.cn blocks results, it tells the user that it has done so in accordance with Chinese law -- it's certainly less sneaky about this than some Chinese search engines. If Google were to leave China to the Chinese search engines, I think there would be even less transparency about internet censorship.

Good article here:
http://www.danwei.org/archives/002404.html

...Aaaand to bring it back on topic

Even with Apple's recent successes, they will NEVER move beyond 5% of the market. Unless they adopt a strategy like Dell, which is to go rock bottom and be a loss leader selling product as cheaply as possible. That's the only way to build market share. Will they be satisfied with a small but profitable segment of the market?

I don't think that market share is really the main focus over at Apple. Sure, it would be nice to add a few percentage points to that market share number, but I doubt they plan to dump their R&D spending and join Dell and others in a race to the bottom any time soon. Small and profitable is nothing to sneeze at.

[nataku]

Your right, there isn't anything more important in the one life you have then make money and maintain it. :applaud: Greed = Power = Godliness.

GNU what? Umm the great billion dollar product (OS X) that apple has is freely available - it's called BSD and it's 9/10th's of your OS X installation.

What's your point? It clearly shows how much you know in business.

Your right,

you're = you are. your=your :rolleyes:

[jhu]

licenSe agreements have a purpose. Therefore, they are not stupid. Maybe when you have an invention that is worth billions, you will know why you should protect your investment. :rolleyes:

This is where you have crossed the line to make Freedom as an excuse for Abuse.

they're not necessarily stupid, but they're also not entirely enforceable either.

[snowmen]

:eek: I guess eventually everyone will start to use linux like os, 'cause no piracy detectors are installed.

If you buy some of the CD from Asia, you will get a warning saying: Only Windows PC are able to listen...
Really, Mac and Linux cannot listen to the CD!

[jumpinjohn]

Your right, there isn't anything more important in the one life you have then make money and maintain it. :applaud: Greed = Power = Godliness.


Exactly! Everything should be free! That way nobody can make any money. There will be no greed and no power. We will all love each other. The complete reason for human misery is those stinky people that want money and control over their innovations.

See 'ya

[Uragon]

This is a point worth making. Part of the reason I love Apple is that none of the software I use requires any sort of copy protection that would take away my control. No dongles, no activation schemes... And because I believe in supporting that model, I pay for the software I use...........

.......Thanks, but no thanks, osx86project. I *like* Apple's current business model, because it protects their consumers from all the copy protection BS that has become so prevalent in the Windows world. You guys are just ruining it for everyone.

I totally agree with you 200%

[bearda]

If I buy a copy of OSX Tiger, hack it and install it on a dell, how is this stealing? I paid for the OS. Just because Apple wants me to buy their hardware, too damn bad. Personally, I like their hardware, but I am a big supporter of freedom to choose. If someone wants to pay for OS X, they should be able to do whatever they want with it.

Tell you what, you go and buy a copy of OS X Tiger for Intel and we'll talk about stealing.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

This whole "I'd pay for it if I could, so I'll just steal it now" argument is BS. The vast majority of people installing OS X on their PCs right now have illegally downloaded it, not bought it.

Andrew Beard