Mac OS X 10.6.2 Confirmed to Drop Support for Intel Atom Processors

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/10/mac-os-x-10-6-2-confirmed-to-drop-support-for-intel-atom-processors/)

OS X Daily confirms (http://osxdaily.com/2009/11/09/mac-os-x-10-6-2-update-released-intel-atom-support-officially-missing-breaks-hackintosh-netbooks/) widespread reports of the loss of support for Intel's Atom processors in the Mac OS X 10.6.2 update released yesterday (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/09/apple-releases-mac-os-x-10-6-2/), confirming on-again, off-again claims (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/09/intel-atom-still-unsupported-on-mac-os-x-10-6-2-seeds/) of the change in developer seeds of the update. Given that the final public release of 10.6.2 is labeled Build 10C540, the same as the most recent developer seed that reportedly lacked Atom support, it comes as no surprise that the public release carries the same change.If you have an official Apple Mac then go right ahead and update to Mac OS X 10.6.2, but if you have a Hackintosh Mac Netbook... well you will want to hold off. It has been confirmed that the final release of 10.6.2 kills Intel Atom support officially. Hackintosh Guru StellaRolla reports:

"The netbook forums are now blowing up with problems of 10.6.2 instant rebooting their Atom based netbooks."Intel's low-power Atom processors are widely used in netbook computers, a market segment in which Apple does not currently compete. Netbooks have been popular targets for users to modify into "Hackintoshes" to run Mac OS X, providing users with a low-cost Mac solution in a small form factor machine.

It is unclear why Apple has chosen to remove Atom support from OS X at this time, although speculation has centered around the possibility that the company is attempting to make it more difficult for users to build their own netbook Macs ahead of a launch of the company's much-rumored tablet device. Apple had been rumored (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/12/21/apple-to-adopt-intel-ultra-mobile-platform/) to be looking to adopt the Atom platform for its tablet, but the company's April 2008 acquisition (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/23/apple-to-acquire-chipmaker-p-a-semi-for-278-million/) of low-power ARM chip design firm P.A. Semi signaled a shift toward a possible future in-house chip design for the device.

Article Link: Mac OS X 10.6.2 Confirmed to Drop Support for Intel Atom Processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/10/mac-os-x-10-6-2-confirmed-to-drop-support-for-intel-atom-processors/)

[kroeks]

shame..
I don't use myself but I thought It was a nice way for people wo dont have money for an Apple System

[tofagerl]

Well, THAT sucks!

Still, 10.6.1 still works.

[BryanLyle]

Guess my MSI Wind will stay on 10.6.1.

Don't blame apple for doing this.

[BeyondtheTech]

There's apparently a workaround in progress for the Atom-based Dell Inspiron 910 (Mini 9 / Vostro A90). It involves using the 10.6.1 kernel after a 10.6.2 upgrade.

http://www.meklort.com/?p=111#comments

[bigandy]

It is unclear why Apple has chosen to remove Atom support from OS X at this time, although....

....I reckon it's because they're fed up of people Hackintoshing.

[ri0ku]

how many news posts have to be made about this already.... -_- We get it ...10.6.2 will not work with an atom cpu... we got it the last 3 times...

I dont see the big deal... 10.6.1 works fine on the wind

[Chupa Chupa]

Looks like there MAY be a work around by installing the 10.6.1 kernel before restarting up in 10.6.2. http://www.meklort.com/?p=111

If anyone wants to try report back.

[NC MacGuy]

Looks like there MAY be a work around by installing the 10.6.1 kernel before restarting up in 10.6.2. http://www.meklort.com/?p=111

If anyone wants to try report back.

I updated to 6.2 and used the kernel mod last night. Works fine but as with most other terminal hacks, YMMV.;)

[dirtymatt]

Say it with me kids, “Tablets are not netbooks. Netbooks are not tablets.”

[iammike1]

Don't know why some people think Apple should continue to support an processor they have obviously chosen to not use in any of their products.

Your (and mine) Hackintosh's are not supported by any means. Get used to it.

[leonstafford]

there will always be a way around these things, but since 10.6, I've been getting tired fiddling with hackintosh installs and being scared of updates, etc..

am looking at linux alternatives for Mac software to at least cover my lifestyle apps... I found the new Picasa from Google is a decent match for iPhoto, though linux version lacks facial recognition found in Winblowz version...

I still need a Mac for iPhone dev, so they may get a sale from me there, but likely in the form of a 1st gen Intel :apple:Mini , which can double as a slick media center :cool:

[ValSalva]

I wonder how many lines of code were used to 'support' Atom processors. It's too bad Apple feel they need to remove this.

As so many here have stated, it's a trivial number of people who Hackintosh their netbooks. What did Apple really stand to lose by leaving in Atom support?

[Hawkeye411]

Hmmm ... I guess that they stopped supporting it so that PEOPLE WOULD STOP STEALING THEIR OS ... LMAO :D:D

[BeyondtheTech]

I still need a Mac for iPhone dev, so they may get a sale from me there, but likely in the form of a 1st gen Intel :apple:Mini , which can double as a slick media center :cool:

Hear, hear. I might have to pick up a clearance, refurb, or used Intel-based MacBook just so I can continue development on the go.

[jeremy.king]

How many macs have Atom processors? Oh that's right...none ;)

[NC MacGuy]

Hmmm ... I guess that they stopped supporting it so that PEOPLE WOULD STOP STEALING THEIR OS ... LMAO :D:D

I think there's been quite a few sales of OSX to hackintoshers.

[CptnJustc]

I wonder how many lines of code were used to 'support' Atom processors. It's too bad Apple feel they need to remove this.

As so many here have stated, it's a trivial number of people who Hackintosh their netbooks. What did Apple really stand to lose by leaving in Atom support?

Their choices are to either continually spend resources ensuring that Atom support works, or to keep a chunk of possibly broken code around in their OS until the end of time. Neither really sounds attractive, if they've decided not to use Atom in anything.

I have no idea how many resources it might have taken, though, so it's hard to say if it was reasonable to keep it in as a hedge against the possibility they'd pick up an Atom in the future.

[The Samurai]

Wooo hoooo

*Does high jumps and high fives*

Sorry. Move on. lol

[likemyorbs]

Hmmm ... I guess that they stopped supporting it so that PEOPLE WOULD STOP STEALING THEIR OS ... LMAO :D:D

People like you are so ignorant. Why do you assume that people who hackintosh steal the OS? My brother in-law wants to hackintosh his laptop, so he bought a copy of snow leopard straight from apple. stupid assumption. also, i could have "stolen" snow leopard on my regular mac, and many do. as a matter of fact i did, but i wanted a real one so i bought it and reinstalled it. but its not fair to assume that people in the hackintosh community pirate more than people with genuine macs. i have a macbook but every single piece of software is pirated except the OS, so figure that one out....

[UnreaL]

I don't even own a netbook, but still I am outraged that Apple could take this step.

This is a step further towards a locked in ecosystem, stifling creativity, competition. Even a monopoly like Microsoft would not dare take action like this. Bundling software, restricting hardware (this and the Palm devices with iTunes), and in the iPhone's case even restricting software (I refer to browsers). I fear we are replacing one evil with an entirely worse one.

[sva]

Shame, but I'm happy to stay on 10.6.1 for what I use my Dell mini. I don't want to be messing with any kernel hacks.

Why wait until .2 though? Wouldn't it have made more sense to do it from the get-go on SL?

[FakeWozniak]

I think there's been quite a few sales of OSX to hackintoshers.

Yeah, maybe like a dozen. And all unlicensed uses.

[mrr]

Damn. No more cool NETBOOK Hackintoshes.

How about a 10" MacBook Air ?

[*LTD*]

I don't even own a netbook, but still I am outraged that Apple could take this step.

This is a step further towards a locked in ecosystem, stifling creativity, competition. Even a monopoly like Microsoft would not dare take action like this. Bundling software, restricting hardware (this and the Palm devices with iTunes), and in the iPhone's case even restricting software (I refer to browsers). I fear we are replacing one evil with an entirely worse one.

What creativity? What competition? Atom processors have nothing to do with currently shipping Macs! Do you plan on "competing" with Apple by releasing your own home-made and hacked "Unreal" line of netbooks or something?? You call getting OS X to run on some POS netbook "creative"? Are you kidding me??

The vast majority of Apple's market has no problem with this - they don't know, they don't care. Are you now going to advise them that they should, based on some abstraction you dreamed up?? How have Atom processors affect the lives and prodctivity of paying Mac users who have consented to all the agreements associated with running OS X on Apple hardware? Their inclusion was likely as much accident as anything else. Do you think I'm now going to care about someone who is tinkering with OS X and voiding all support and ties with Apple? $2,100 Canadian says that you figure very low on the scale and as a consumer I care even less about you than Apple. Nothing personal, but my money puts me waaaay ahead of you in terms of who has the right to complain about Apple.

And besides, Apple can't argue in good conscience against Psystar in court while allowing individuals to run OS X on unauthorized hardware and doing nothing about it. At least this is in line with the spirit of Apple's policies and saves them from hypocrisy in front of Psytar. And this is assuming Apple deliberately target hackintosh users, which so far has not been proven conclusively.

Who the hell gives a damn about Atom support when shipping Macs have nothing at all to do with them?? It's a netbook processor! Apple's system has always been closed, and if you want to talk "creativity", look no further than Apple's walled garden! Seems to put the rest of this bland, half-asleep industry to shame, now doesn't it.

Apple owes hackintoshers absolutely nothing, and really, hackintoshers should consider themselves lucky they're able to get OS X running on unauthorized hardware at all. YOU ARE UNSUPPORTED BY APPLE. You have no right to make any demands of them. Updates are not guaranteed to support hardware other than what they are designed for.

Hey, tinker away all you want - you're lucky you're able to, but when Apple does something you don't like, don't go crying about it.

[rwilliams]

Meh. Some programming gurus out there will collaborate and have a patched kernel up and running pretty soon. Hackintosh users will just have to wait a little while to update, much like jailbroken iPhone/iPod Touch users.

[likemyorbs]

Even a monopoly like Microsoft would not dare take action like this.

Well obviously they wouldn't, Microsoft is a software company and thats where they make their money. They want their software on as much hardware as possible. Which is also the reason their OS is inferior. Apple is a hardware company, therefore they really couldnt care less about supporting other hardware thats not their's, its not their prerogative...

[ValSalva]

Why wait until .2 though? Wouldn't it have made more sense to do it from the get-go on SL?

That's the question. They've known about the widespread Hackintoshing of netbooks for over a year. Some Apple executive must have seen someone in an airport using a Hackintoshed netbook with an Apple sticker on the back :D

[prostuff1]

I don't even own a netbook, but still I am outraged that Apple could take this step.

This is a step further towards a locked in ecosystem, stifling creativity, competition. Even a monopoly like Microsoft would not dare take action like this. Bundling software, restricting hardware (this and the Palm devices with iTunes), and in the iPhone's case even restricting software (I refer to browsers). I fear we are replacing one evil with an entirely worse one.

Your kidding right?... Please tell me your kidding!!

Apple sells hardware and makes software to go along with it, Microsoft is almost ENTIRELY software based so comparing the two is not and apples to apples comparison. Microsoft could not limit the support of the CPU because they sell SOFTWARE to the HARDWARE manufacturers, unlike Apple who makes software and then puts it on THEIR hardware.

I don't know how much work it was to remove Atom support but frankly I don't care. The people running OS X on an Atom have obviously installed it on a non-Apple machine and therefore have no right to bitch and complain when/if it goes by by.

[operator207]

....I reckon it's because they're fed up of people Hackintoshing.

They take out a segment they don't compete in, and leave alone the section of competition they lose money in. Doubtful. Unless the netbook/tablet is coming out before Christmas (but Apple already said this was all thats coming before the Holidays)

I am leaning towards the "get rid of code that they don't need" ala their "tighter code, and better code" mantra for SL. Not because it allowed support of the atom processor, but because it was bulky code they didn't need for their supported hardware. The breaking of atom netbooks is just collateral damage.

[dernhelm]

All this means to me is that there is no requirements for OS X to actually run on an Atom processor.

So it must be that whatever is coming out of Cupertino next isn't running on an Atom.

Not sure how big a loss that is. I've never been too impressed by the Atom. Lot's of people do seem to like it, though.

[bdavis78]

I don't even own a netbook, but still I am outraged that Apple could take this step.

This is a step further towards a locked in ecosystem, stifling creativity, competition. Even a monopoly like Microsoft would not dare take action like this. Bundling software, restricting hardware (this and the Palm devices with iTunes), and in the iPhone's case even restricting software (I refer to browsers). I fear we are replacing one evil with an entirely worse one.

It's Apple Computer's software and they have no obligation to maintain support for a processor on a piece of hardware that they don't support. How are they stifling creativity or competition? They're not in anyway preventing someone from writing their own operating system to run on Atom based netbooks- and they'll happily let other operating systems run on their hardware through Bootcamp. Of course Apple is going to restrict Pam devices from interfacing with iTunes. They developed iTunes to work with their hardware. They invested in the iTunes development costs, why should Palm be allowed to parasitize their efforts? In fact, the IEEE recently ruled that Palm was breaking USB licensing rules by allowing it to spoof itself as an iPod when connected to a computer in order to make use of the iTunes software.

Apple is a computer manufacturer- they make their money mostly off of selling computers, not operating systems.

You might even be able to make the argument that Apple has a legal responsibility to kill off support for hardware they're not selling. If people started using Apple's operating system on non-supported hardware, and then those same people lost important data on those computers as a result of the hardware not being properly supported by the software then they could try and sue Apple for damages. Apple would probably win the lawsuit, but not necessarily, and it'd take them time and money to fight a stupid frivolous fight. Just like thieves who break into business and homes and get themselves injured in the process have sued business and home owners, computer owners could attempt to do the same thing. Now Apple has clearly drawn a line in the sand and said "We're not supporting this movement".

[SimonTheSoundMa]

Hmmm ... I guess that they stopped supporting it so that PEOPLE WOULD STOP STEALING THEIR OS ... LMAO :D:D

Apple have never supported the Atom, or any third party computers that are not Apple branded.

[starflyer]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7D11 Safari/528.16)

I don't even own a netbook, but still I am outraged that Apple could take this step.

This is a step further towards a locked in ecosystem, stifling creativity, competition. Even a monopoly like Microsoft would not dare take action like this. Bundling software, restricting hardware (this and the Palm devices with iTunes), and in the iPhone's case even restricting software (I refer to browsers). I fear we are replacing one evil with an entirely worse one.

I disagree. I think it is a way to further trim the fat of Mac OS X. If Apple doesn't plan to use particular hardware I don't have any problem cutting support for it. I wouldn't be suprised if this was only the beginning. If it improves my experience of authentic Apple hardware I say bring it on.

[iPhysicist]

The more people use Mac OSX the more unsecure it will become - pragmatically.

Everything has its time - Hackintoshs time will be over soon. Everyone knew this can happen but a new path will become clear. Maybe, if OSX gets common hackers will have fun with it. Its relatively security will be over then.

[observer]

I'm flabbergasted at the tone of many of the responses here. If you see this as Apple shafting you, ask yourself how it was done? I see only two alternatives: (1) the operating system checks the processor id against a list of acceptable processors, or (2) Apple fixed a bug or added a feature that uses something that the Atom doesn't have.

I'll wager some large amount of money -- maybe a dime? -- that what happened was (2). It seems very unlikely that they ever put in anything to support the Atom, and it seems even more unlikely that they removed any such support. That earlier versions work is just an accident, that some people took advantage of.

[dasmb]

What did Apple really stand to lose by leaving in Atom support?

Uh, money? If you want Mac OSX on a small computer (where it really shines), your only official option is a $1000 Macbook, which is a full featured computer with a 13" screen. Or, if you don't really need the "full featured," you could grab a Netbook for under $300. That's a $700 difference, and while not every Netbook owner is going to spend that, many sensible people would never buy the Macbook under these conditions.

True, some Netbook users paid for OSX. At upgrade prices. What's the chance that more than one person in 33 who bought a Netbook to put OSX on it would have bought a Macbook instead if they couldn't?

What they gain besides money is just icing -- one less platform to support through QA and a slightly smaller kernel.

[ValSalva]

I'll wager some large amount of money -- maybe a dime? -- that what happened was (2). It seems very unlikely that they ever put in anything to support the Atom, and it seems even more unlikely that they removed any such support. That earlier versions work is just an accident, that some people took advantage of.

Agreed. This makes the most sense. I don't believe Apple was ever going to release an Atom based product. Even if they were going to release a netbook of sorts, it is more likely that it would be a mini Air based on the low power C2D.

Hey, my Core i7 iMac is prepared for shipment! Can't wait.

http://imgur.com/wj7GU.jpg

[JonHimself]

Say it with me kids, “Tablets are not netbooks. Netbooks are not tablets.”

I agree, but there is definitely some overlap - they are both designed for limited, portable computing - and that's likely Apple's motivation.

[jsdc2005]

Where is the outrage about Microsoft not including support for PowerPC processors in Windows 7??????

[Snowy_River]

Why do you assume that people who hackintosh steal the OS?....

Well, if we were to assume that the reason the Mac OS is less expensive than Windows is because Apple is a hardware company and the price of the OS is subsidized by hardware sales, then any user who is running Mac OS on non-Apple hardware is, in fact, stealing.

ASIDE: This brings up an interesting question. Suppose Apple were to release a "Universal" version of Mac OS X that could be installed on third party hardware (so long as that hardware met certain hardware requirements), but charged twice as much for this version of their OS. Might be an interesting thought...

I don't even own a netbook, but still I am outraged that Apple could take this step.

This is a step further towards a locked in ecosystem, stifling creativity, competition. Even a monopoly like Microsoft would not dare take action like this. Bundling software, restricting hardware (this and the Palm devices with iTunes), and in the iPhone's case even restricting software (I refer to browsers). I fear we are replacing one evil with an entirely worse one.

Okay, you're putting out arguments that don't make sense. While I can understand some people being frustrated with Apple over making a move like this (though I, personally, think that this is a perfectly legitimate move - CptnJustc makes a good argument as to why above), to liken this move to Apple's continued dispute with Palm knocks down your own argument. The situation with Palm is that Apple has an accepted method of developing conduits for third party music players to sync with iTunes, and Palm has chosen to ignore this and try to cheat and use a back door.

Also, the iPhone is a completely restricted ecosystem. I'm not sure why you only mention browsers. But, just like this situation with Atom based netbooks, if you want to, you can hack your way to it, have a jailbroken iPhone or a hacked (now doubly so) Mac OS X netbook. You may not be able to update as soon as an update comes out, but you'll just have to wait for a little while until a new hack comes out, as has already happened for the netbooks.

[*LTD*]

I'm flabbergasted at the tone of many of the responses here. If you see this as Apple shafting you, ask yourself how it was done? I see only two alternatives: (1) the operating system checks the processor id against a list of acceptable processors, or (2) Apple fixed a bug or added a feature that uses something that the Atom doesn't have.

I'll wager some large amount of money -- maybe a dime? -- that what happened was (2). It seems very unlikely that they ever put in anything to support the Atom, and it seems even more unlikely that they removed any such support. That earlier versions work is just an accident, that some people took advantage of.

A most sensible post.

And you're right. The sense of entitlement in this thread is just astounding, but unsurprising, really.

[Bubba Satori]

shame..
I don't use myself but I thought It was a nice way for people wo dont have money for an Apple System

Let them eat cake. We don't want their kind in our exclusive club anyway. Would somebody pass me the Grey Poupon, please ? That's a good chap, what. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwaKixMWATQ

[CmdrLaForge]

People like you are so ignorant. Why do you assume that people who hackintosh steal the OS? My brother in-law wants to hackintosh his laptop, so he bought a copy of snow leopard straight from apple. stupid assumption. also, i could have "stolen" snow leopard on my regular mac, and many do. as a matter of fact i did, but i wanted a real one so i bought it and reinstalled it. but its not fair to assume that people in the hackintosh community pirate more than people with genuine macs. i have a macbook but every single piece of software is pirated except the OS, so figure that one out....

Fantastic. Did he read the licence agreement ? I assume he didn't even bought the bundle or upgrade from Leopard.

I cannot understand how someone tries to argue that doing the hackintosh is ok.

[pdjudd]

Uh, money? .


News flash, Developing OSX is not free and takes considerable resources - costs that are subsidized by Apple's hardware business along with the costs associated with getting that disc. Apple is not profiting by selling OSX alone, they legally profit by selling hardware.

[dasmb]

Where is the outrage about Microsoft not including support for PowerPC processors in Windows 7??????

I see what you did there. Technically even more egregious, as Microsoft is not a hardware company. Where do they get off telling my what hardware to use ?!?

Long time ago I remember toying with NT 3.51 on one of our macs...pretty decent Windows implementation, considering the complete lack of supported software.

[strike1555]

I'll wager some large amount of money -- maybe a dime? -- that what happened was (2). It seems very unlikely that they ever put in anything to support the Atom, and it seems even more unlikely that they removed any such support. That earlier versions work is just an accident, that some people took advantage of.


That's what makes me the most curious. I really wonder if Apple went out of their way to disable it or it just happened by chance because of the changes.

[dasmb]

News flash, Developing OSX is not free and takes considerable resources - costs that are subsidized by Apple's hardware business along with the costs associated with getting that disc. Apple is not profiting by selling OSX alone, they legally profit by selling hardware.

News flash, agreeing with my argument is not a news flash, especially when I stated things better than you did.

In other news, reading is FUN-damental!

[MacMan86]

People like you are so ignorant. Why do you assume that people who hackintosh steal the OS? My brother in-law wants to hackintosh his laptop, so he bought a copy of snow leopard straight from apple. stupid assumption. also, i could have "stolen" snow leopard on my regular mac, and many do. as a matter of fact i did, but i wanted a real one so i bought it and reinstalled it. but its not fair to assume that people in the hackintosh community pirate more than people with genuine macs. i have a macbook but every single piece of software is pirated except the OS, so figure that one out....

Right, and did this brother-in-law buy the $29 "upgrade from Leopard" version of Snow Leopard or the Mac Box set for $169. I'm willing to assume he bought the upgrade version despite not having Leopard to upgrade from. Now that's not exactly legit is it...? Obviously correct me if he bought the box set...

But anyway, Apple's a hardware company, not a software company like Microsoft. Apple can't live off the fairly measly profit margins selling a major OS for $29. SL sells Macs. Macs make them money. Don't make out hackintosh users are helping Apple with their pathetic contributions of $29

[KnightWRX]

Funny seeing all the "Hackintosh people buy OS X!" when I have 3 people around me running 10.6 on HP Minis (and with the kernel mod, running 10.6.2 to boot) and none of them bought a copy of OS X for their Netbook... :rolleyes:

The hackintosh community is very small, and in that community, only a very small percentage actually buy OS X. Anyone saying otherwise is being disingenious...

[wildmac]

Fantastic. Did he read the licence agreement ? I assume he didn't even bought the bundle or upgrade from Leopard.

I cannot understand how someone tries to argue that doing the hackintosh is ok.

And I suppose you drive 55 all the time too. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I can't tell which is more obnoxious..

1) Hackintoshers who feel violated

or

2) fanboys who want to tar-and-feather anyone who dares to "think different"

seriously.. Fanboys, the hackintoshers aren't hurting you, and hackintoshers, it's a hack. Fix your hack.

I have no problem with hackintoshers, but, I don't think they deserve anything either. And the fanboys need to step away from the cool-aid and remember a computer is just a tool, and that EULAs are some of the most vile legal documents on the planet.

[gnasher729]

People like you are so ignorant. Why do you assume that people who hackintosh steal the OS? My brother in-law wants to hackintosh his laptop, so he bought a copy of snow leopard straight from apple.

Your brother-in-law bought a copy of Snow Leopard that is licensed to upgrade Macintosh computers from Leopard to Snow Leopard. The price is calculated based on what the license allows you to do: It is set under the assumption that the purchaser has paid Apple lots of money for a Macintosh computer, and that the purchaser is upgrading a computer from Leopard to Snow Leopard, so the price is not for Snow Leopard itself, but for the difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard.

So what your brother-in-law is doing is a classical case of rationalising, nothing more. He is lucky that Apple changed MacOS X just to not work on an Atom processor; they could have changed it to return the IP address of every computer running MacOS X on an Atom processor back to Apple.

[pdjudd]

News flash, agreeing with my argument is not a news flash, especially when I stated things better than you did.

In other news, reading is FUN-damental!
Your quote seem to have implied implied that Apple makes money on just the OS, that is wrong. Judging by your post, I mis-interpreted your intent and that is my mistake. Apologies. However I would appreciate less snark in the future if you expect to be taken seriously in any conversation. That I do not appreciate.

[Macmel]

SIMPLE IDEA: It's the hardware not the software where Apple makes the money.

Apple sells software in order to give you a global different experience than the one you get with other systems. That does not make sense if you use their hardware but run Windows on it (only) or if you use their software on a PC.
It's easy: Apple doesn't get anything from you running OSX on a netbook. Even if you pay for it, the amount of money Apple gets from the OS is ridiculous. Same with the music: Apple wants you to buy the iPod, not the music (better if you buy it, but I'm sure they don't give a damn if you just download it as long as you listen to it on an iPod).
You are paying for the OS? They don't care, they don't want you to use OSX on a different platform, they want you to buy a Mac.
Have you seen the comercials: GET A MAC. I haven't seen the "GET-A-CRIPPLED-SYSTEM-AND-INSTALL-OSX-TO-RUN-IT-LIKE-CRAP-AND-UNSUPPORTED" comercial, have you?.
The question is not why the Atom is not supported anymore, but why it was supported in the first place.

[Kaibelf]

I wonder how many lines of code were used to 'support' Atom processors. It's too bad Apple feel they need to remove this.

As so many here have stated, it's a trivial number of people who Hackintosh their netbooks. What did Apple really stand to lose by leaving in Atom support?

Control over their product and property?

[likemyorbs]

I cannot understand how someone tries to argue that doing the hackintosh is ok.

I cannot understand why you're so personally annoyed by people who hackintosh. Stop being the morality police.

[wildmac]

Funny seeing all the "Hackintosh people buy OS X!" when I have 3 people around me running 10.6 on HP Minis (and with the kernel mod, running 10.6.2 to boot) and none of them bought a copy of OS X for their Netbook... :rolleyes:

The hackintosh community is very small, and in that community, only a very small percentage actually buy OS X. Anyone saying otherwise is being disingenious...

Are the HP minis better than the Dells? I've been looking to get a hackintosh, but have been looking for a system with a better graphics chip.

[pdjudd]

Right, and did this brother-in-law buy the $29 "upgrade from Leopard" version of Snow Leopard or the Mac Box set for $169.


It doesn't matter what they bought. Both are upgrade licenses. Hackintosh usages do not involve any actual upgrading whatsoever.

[wildmac]

Your brother-in-law bought a copy of Snow Leopard that is licensed to upgrade Macintosh computers from Leopard to Snow Leopard. The price is calculated based on what the license allows you to do: It is set under the assumption that the purchaser has paid Apple lots of money for a Macintosh computer, and that the purchaser is upgrading a computer from Leopard to Snow Leopard, so the price is not for Snow Leopard itself, but for the difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard.

So what your brother-in-law is doing is a classical case of rationalising, nothing more. He is lucky that Apple changed MacOS X just to not work on an Atom processor; they could have changed it to return the IP address of every computer running MacOS X on an Atom processor back to Apple.

Somehow gnasher, your name is quite fitting, considering the gnashing of teeth you are doing over this..

Do you scream at everyone violating the speed limit too?

Really, I'm trying to understand the high-horse here..

[alphaod]

I think there's been quite a few sales of OSX to hackintoshers.

Apple's business model is making software to sell hardware.

[pdjudd]

I cannot understand why you're so personally annoyed by people who hackintosh. Stop being the morality police.
Software licensing abuses are an industry wide problem and everybody who buys software is effected at some level. What gives you any right to tell us to stop being morality police. That's akin to a counterfeiter trying to say "Don't judge me for what I did! I didn't hurt any of you directly! Who are you to judge!"

[wildmac]

SIMPLE IDEA: It's the hardware not the software where Apple makes the money.

Apple sells software in order to give you a global different experience than the one you get with other systems. That does not make sense if you use their hardware but run Windows on it (only) or if you use their software on a PC.
It's easy: Apple doesn't get anything from you running OSX on a netbook. Even if you pay for it, the amount of money Apple gets from the OS is ridiculous. Same with the music: Apple wants you to buy the iPod, not the music (better if you buy it, but I'm sure they don't give a damn if you just download it as long as you listen to it on an iPod).
You are paying for the OS? They don't care, they don't want you to use OSX on a different platform, they want you to buy a Mac.
Have you seen the comercials: GET A MAC. I haven't seen the "GET-A-CRIPPLED-SYSTEM-AND-INSTALL-OSX-TO-RUN-IT-LIKE-CRAP-AND-UNSUPPORTED" comercial, have you?.
The question is not why the Atom is not supported anymore, but why it was supported in the first place.

It was supported because the chip was in a list of processors when they added chips for intel compatibility. It got dropped off, along with some others.

I would bet at least 1/2 of the hackintoshers own a real Mac.

But really, who cares? If they didn't own a Mac before, they were not likely to go out and buy one anyway.

It just doesn't matter.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Funny seeing all the "Hackintosh people buy OS X!" when I have 3 people around me running 10.6 on HP Minis (and with the kernel mod, running 10.6.2 to boot) and none of them bought a copy of OS X for their Netbook... :rolleyes:

The hackintosh community is very small, and in that community, only a very small percentage actually buy OS X. Anyone saying otherwise is being disingenious...

Because Mac users never pirate software :rolleyes:

[likemyorbs]

Software licensing abuses are an industry wide problem and everybody who buys software is effected at some level. What gives you any right to tell us to stop being morality police. That's akin to a counterfeiter trying to say "Don't judge me for what I did! I didn't hurt any of you directly! Who are you to judge!"

That's the biggest load of crap i've ever heard in my life. You can't compare installing snow leopard on non apple hardware to money counterfeiting. it's not even in the same ball park. Do people running mac on their pc's in their basements have any effect on the world whatsoever? people counterfeiting money are stealing money. you make no sense...

[wildmac]

Software licensing abuses are an industry wide problem and everybody who buys software is effected at some level. What gives you any right to tell us to stop being morality police. That's akin to a counterfeiter trying to say "Don't judge me for what I did! I didn't hurt any of you directly! Who are you to judge!"

OS abuse and application software are a different game here. But you are making a different argument.

Violating a EULA is an entirely different matter than outright stealing the software.

[flopticalcube]

No big deal to me. Windows 7 runs a treat on my netbook but netbooks are far too downmarket for Apple so maybe they just don't want the brand "sullied" by association with anything netbook-like. Also, they probably have something waiting in the wings (10" touch pad) that will compete with the market segment but not use Atom.

[nkawtg72]

The more people use Mac OSX the more unsecure it will become - pragmatically.

Everything has its time - Hackintoshs time will be over soon. Everyone knew this can happen but a new path will become clear. Maybe, if OSX gets common hackers will have fun with it. Its relatively security will be over then.

yay!!!! another sighting of the "Hackers care about Market Share" myth!!!!!!

dear lord, please take this somewhere else, it's stinking up the room. everyone with any brains at all knows that Macs had tens of thousands of viruses and security issues back in the Mac OS 9 and previous days. apple had no where near the market share or attention back then that this argument suggests is needed to attract hackers, etc.

simply put, OS X is solid both in security and stability.


OT now. as cool as i think the whole netbook macs are, i have no love loss over this turn of events. if you ask me, i think owners of PowerPC macs have a whole lot more room to complain that their machines are forever stuck on 10.5 or earlier. the fact is, apple is trimming the fat. they had atom support in there from the beginning because they thought they may need it. now that they don't, they've dumped it.

how easily everyone forgets that OS X from the beginning days of 10.0 was secretly being designed to run on Intel processors because apple was wisely preparing itself for what COULD happen.

apple couldn't care less about hackintosh machines. anyone who would choose that hardware over a true apple machine is not the consumer apple is trying to target in the first place.

and don't misinterpret what i'm saying, i think the hackintosh computers are pretty cool and i was considering doing one myself. but i don't think apple owes it to me to make sure it can happen.

[neteng101]

Article Link: Mac OS X 10.6.2 Confirmed to Drop Support for Intel Atom Processors (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/10/mac-os-x-10-6-2-confirmed-to-drop-support-for-intel-atom-processors/)

How is it possible to drop support for a product that was never supported to begin with? :confused:

You want to do something that isn't supported, go ahead - but expecting it to be supported is just plain stupid. I can understand people who might be upset over the drop of PowerPC support in Snow Leopard - but not Atoms.

Its like someone buying car tires, putting them on a pickup truck and then blaming the manufacturer when the tires blow up. :rolleyes:

[iSee]

People like you are so ignorant. Why do you assume that people who hackintosh steal the OS? My brother in-law wants to hackintosh his laptop, so he bought a copy of snow leopard straight from apple. stupid assumption. also, i could have "stolen" snow leopard on my regular mac, and many do. as a matter of fact i did, but i wanted a real one so i bought it and reinstalled it. but its not fair to assume that people in the hackintosh community pirate more than people with genuine macs. i have a macbook but every single piece of software is pirated except the OS, so figure that one out....

You understand the difference between upgrade pricing and full copy pricing, right?

OS X is always sold either bundled with a Mac or as an upgrade (the the earlier version of OS X purchased with a Mac).

When your or your brother-in-law buys a retail copy of OS X, you are paying the upgrade price, but are you upgrading a version previously purchased with a Mac? If not, then you're pirating, IMO.

[pdjudd]

people counterfeiting money are stealing money. you make no sense...
No they are commuting fraud. They are tricking authority sources into believing the notes that they have are authentic when you the counterfeiter knows is not. Violating licensing agreements (accepting them under fraudulent terms) is no different. Your intention is to deprive someone of their legal rights.

True violating a software licence won't put you in jail, but thats because such violations are a a civil violation and not a matter of the state or government. What makes counterfeiting worse is that you are defrauding the Goverment and not a private company.

[Tampa Tom]

People like you are so ignorant. Why do you assume that people who hackintosh steal the OS? My brother in-law wants to hackintosh his laptop, so he bought a copy of snow leopard straight from apple. stupid assumption. also, i could have "stolen" snow leopard on my regular mac, and many do. as a matter of fact i did, but i wanted a real one so i bought it and reinstalled it. but its not fair to assume that people in the hackintosh community pirate more than people with genuine macs. i have a macbook but every single piece of software is pirated except the OS, so figure that one out....


So what? He bought a copy of Snow Leopard. (probably an upgrade for $29) No, the software is not "stolen" except is is not being used with Apple's expressed permission, which is the same as theft.

The Snow Leopard EULA states:

"You are granted a limited non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at a time.

You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so."

A crook is a crook. Hackintoshers are crooks.

[pdjudd]

OS abuse and application software are a different game here. But you are making a different argument.

Violating a EULA is an entirely different matter than outright stealing the software.
I never said that theft was going on. I said "software license abuse" which is a different thing. Nowhere did I use the word "theft"

[diamond.g]

News flash, Developing OSX is not free and takes considerable resources - costs that are subsidized by Apple's hardware business along with the costs associated with getting that disc. Apple is not profiting by selling OSX alone, they legally profit by selling hardware.

If this is truly the case then why let anything but the latest run the new OS? By that token I am stealing from Apple because I haven't upgraded from my Intel Core Duo macbook, but have purchased 10.5 and 10.6 family packs.

To fix all this Apple should just stop selling the OS altogether...

[nkawtg72]

I cannot understand why you're so personally annoyed by people who hackintosh. Stop being the morality police.

take note, this is a MAC rumors website. some of us aren't annoyed at all that people have hackintoshes, but we are annoyed that they come on here to b$tch about it when it doesn't work. go to a hackintosh website to do your complaining about apple.

[zweigand]

I love it when Apple stings entitletards.

Hackintoshers who aren't complaining …you're cool with me.

[Mousse]

I understand all the grumbling from netbook users, BUT look on the bright side. Apple isn't going to release any product based on a crippled processor (Core 2 Duo or better only) in the near future. Oh well, every silver lining has a cloud.:p;)

[steve-p]

Apple's business model is making software to sell hardware.
And if Microsoft attempted to adopt that strategy it would be jumped on by every anti-competitive body under the sun, so how come it's OK for Apple? I would love to see the part of Apple's EULA about only running OS X on Apple branded hardware tested in an EU court. I somehow doubt it would be enforceable.

I don't have a hackintosh and don't intend to make one as I'm happy with my real Mac, but on the other hand I don't see why someone who buys a legal copy of OS X shouldn't run it on whatever hardware they want, with the proviso that Apple are not obliged to support it, but certainly should not seek to deliberately break it. If it's just to piss people off who want a netbook when Apple don't deign to make one, that would be disgraceful. If there are sound technical reasons for it, then that would be acceptable. Since no-one knows the real reason, we will just have to choose which we think is more likely.

[pdjudd]

If this is truly the case then why let anything but the latest run the new OS?

What do you mean? All intel macs can run snow Leopard and Leopard just fine. I have no idea what you are talking about with the "latest and greatest requirement.

By that token I am stealing from Apple because I haven't upgraded from my Intel Core Duo macbook, but have purchased 10.5 and 10.6 family packs.
No, not buying is exercising consumer choice. I have never argued otherwise. Apple, nor anybody else, holds a gun to your head and forces you to upgrade. They may create incenitives (like depreciating support for older OS's), but they cannot force you to buy something.

Now if you want to enter into licensing agreements with Apple (which you have to to use their software).

To fix all this Apple should just stop selling the OS altogether...

That doesn't change anything. It doesn't matter if a fee occurs or not - software that is distributed is licensed.

[shawnce]

People like you are so ignorant. Why do you assume that people who hackintosh steal the OS? My brother in-law wants to hackintosh his laptop, so he bought a copy of snow leopard straight from apple. stupid assumption. You do realize that Snow Leopard is sold and priced as an UPDATE for those that have a Mac with Leopard. You seriously can't believe that Apple is close to recouping their investment in developing Snow Leopard by charging only $29.

So by purchasing SL and then installing it on a non-Mac system you ARE benefiting from Apple's update pricing, in effect taking money away from Apple.

Now if Apple charged a full price for Snow Leopard you could claim you aren't taking anything away from Apple... but until then don't attempt claim otherwise.

[zweigand]

And if Microsoft attempted to adopt that strategy it would be jumped on by every anti-competitive body under the sun, so how come it's OK for Apple? I would love to see the part of Apple's EULA about only running OS X on Apple branded hardware tested in an EU court. I somehow doubt it would be enforceable.

I don't have a hackintosh and don't intend to make one as I'm happy with my real Mac, but on the other hand I don't see why someone who buys a legal copy of OS X shouldn't run it on whatever hardware they want, with the proviso that Apple are not obliged to support it, but certainly should not seek to deliberately break it. If it's just to piss people off who want a netbook when Apple don't deign to make one, that would be disgraceful. If there are sound technical reasons for it, then that would be acceptable. Since no-one knows the real reason, we will just have to choose which we think is more likely.
Um, if you look at a Mac like you do a PS3, or Xbox360 you get the picture. If you look at it like a PC with a crazy version of Windows …you don't. Apple sells a "package" …not hardware alone …and not software alone.

[audio_inside]

I would bet at least 1/2 of the hackintoshers own a real Mac.


I'll bet alot more than 1/2 - you pretty much have to be a Mac fanboy already (or have WAY too much time on your hands) to a be motivated enough to build up a hackintosh and keep it running right.

I own 3 other "real Macs". All of them, plus my Hackintosh, were running unpirated copies of Leopard from a family pack when they were upgraded with Snow Leopard - again, from a family pack, which allows for for 5 installs. So we're fully legal here and no copyrighted works have been stolen - although Apple may have a civil beef with our interpretation of the EULA ;)

I'd be MORE than happy to buy an Apple laptop in the same form factor as my Dell Mini 9 - even at twice the price - but it just ain't there. And I'm not interested in an Apple tablet if it's simply an overgrown iPhone.

[pdjudd]

And if Microsoft attempted to adopt that strategy it would be jumped on by every anti-competitive body under the sun, so how come it's OK for Apple? I would love to see the part of Apple's EULA about only running OS X on Apple branded hardware tested in an EU court. I somehow doubt it would be enforceable.

Because MS is a convicted monopolist that has market control. Apple does not nor have they ever possessed this.

[Marx55]

Apple should release a FULL Mac (not just a larger iPhone or iPod touch) as light as possible (400 to 600 g would be great), as small as possible (pocketable would be great) with video-out and USB-2 ports.

The ultimate Keynote and PowerPoint presentation tool.

As a tablet or as the OQO or Sony Vaio P form factors.

Otherwise, a hackintosh is the only alternative.

[thejadedmonkey]

Where is the outrage about Microsoft not including support for PowerPC processors in Windows 7??????

Microsoft did make a PPC version of Windows. They've obviously dropped the support for a CPU that's no longer made for the general public though.

On topic... I am shocked that Apple would do something like this, especially directly after the release of Windows 7. If I had a netbook running OS X, and then OS X stopped working, and I heard that 1) Apple is messing with netbooks, and 2) Windows 7 is a great OS, well, I would just get a copy of Windows 7.

Really, why is Apple cutting off their nose to spite their face?

[darkblu]

..but the company's April 2008 acquisition (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/23/apple-to-acquire-chipmaker-p-a-semi-for-278-million/) of low-power ARM chip design firm P.A. Semi..

p.a. semi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.A._Semi) were a powerpc design company, not a 'low-power ARM chip designer'. just sayin.

[nkawtg72]

And if Microsoft attempted to adopt that strategy it would be jumped on by every anti-competitive body under the sun, so how come it's OK for Apple? I would love to see the part of Apple's EULA about only running OS X on Apple branded hardware tested in an EU court. I somehow doubt it would be enforceable.

I don't have a hackintosh and don't intend to make one as I'm happy with my real Mac, but on the other hand I don't see why someone who buys a legal copy of OS X shouldn't run it on whatever hardware they want, with the proviso that Apple are not obliged to support it, but certainly should not seek to deliberately break it. If it's just to piss people off who want a netbook when Apple don't deign to make one, that would be disgraceful. If there are sound technical reasons for it, then that would be acceptable. Since no-one knows the real reason, we will just have to choose which we think is more likely.

sorry, but you have that backwards. apple saying you can't install OS X on non-aple machines is NOT anti-competitive. they aren't doing anything to keep you from putting another OS (ie the competition) on that same non-apple hardware. that is what MS got slapped for. they were leveraging hardware makers into agreeing that they would ONLY provide Windows OS on their machines when they were sold. effectively making Windows OS the ONLY option a buyer had to choose from when purchasing a PC (non apple).

apple locking down their hardware to keep you from installing other OSes could be construed as anti-competitive, which in my opinion is one reason why apple doesn't prevent it. not to mention allowing someone to pick the OS they want on their mac SELLS HARDWARE, which like so many on here have pointed out is what makes apple money. OS X attracts people to apple hardware.

apple doesn't enforce the EULA with consumers because at this time it's not financially practical. the EULA is mainly there as a way for apple to be able to REFUSE warranty or liability when people do put it on non-apple hardware. imagine if all the hackintosh people were going after apple for bricking their netbooks right now. as it stands, they can't because everyone knows they have no leg to stand on, because apple told them up front the OS isn't to be used in that manner.

[osxfactor]

Please, get serious. Companies can dictate how their products are used in EULA. Just because you choose to ignore the part of the EULA that says that the Mac OS X copy you own can only be installed on Apple hardware doesn't mean that it is invalid.

If it wasn't "enforceable" as you state, why hasn't any in the EU challenged Apple on this? You don't think that PC cloners in the EU wouldn't jump all over selling clones like Psystar is attempting to do here in the US?

Microsoft has a different business model than Apple. Here's a hint - Microsoft does sell a device that it doesn't allow it's OS to be transferred off of or used on another machine - it's called the Xbox.

I can fully appreciate wanting a netbook running OS X. I saw a Nokia Booklet 3G this weekend and thought "Man, if I could run OS X on this, it would be awesome.". But guess what - I can't, at least legally.

And if I tried to do it illegally, and Apple changed something that prevented me from doing that, I wouldn't go around whining about it. Because whining about it just makes you a whiner.

Don't be a whiner.

And if Microsoft attempted to adopt that strategy it would be jumped on by every anti-competitive body under the sun, so how come it's OK for Apple? I would love to see the part of Apple's EULA about only running OS X on Apple branded hardware tested in an EU court. I somehow doubt it would be enforceable.

I don't have a hackintosh and don't intend to make one as I'm happy with my real Mac, but on the other hand I don't see why someone who buys a legal copy of OS X shouldn't run it on whatever hardware they want, with the proviso that Apple are not obliged to support it, but certainly should not seek to deliberately break it. If it's just to piss people off who want a netbook when Apple don't deign to make one, that would be disgraceful. If there are sound technical reasons for it, then that would be acceptable. Since no-one knows the real reason, we will just have to choose which we think is more likely.

[roadbloc]

well... i guess this means it's goodbye to hackintosh netbooks.


I cannot understand why you're so personally annoyed by people who hackintosh. Stop being the morality police.


Well... hackintosh's are illegal, technically. So you guys don't really have the right to cry when Apple try and stop you from doing it.

Help out old steve... he's ill, help to pay for his treatment, and treat yourself to a nice shiney new macbook.

[mytdave]

News flash, Developing OSX is not free and takes considerable resources - costs that are subsidized by Apple's hardware business along with the costs associated with getting that disc. Apple is not profiting by selling OSX alone, they legally profit by selling hardware.

Apple makes a 'product' (widget). Their widget is a combination of hardware and software as the unified product. Just because the software can be upgraded, does not separate the material fact of the unified product. If you take just one component and strip it out of the product and use it in an unintended manner, Apple loses potential revenue.

Of course, in my opinion, that's a risk they take doing business. But Apple has no obligation to support any of their hardware or software separately.

With that said, disabling support for the Atom processor would actually take some effort. It would have to be intentional. The Atom is a CPU running the x86 instruction set. Developers write to the instruction set. Any software or OS written for x86 should run (at least launch/boot) on any x86 compatible CPU without modification. It may not be optimized for a particular CPU's capabilities, but it will run. (You have noticed that the decade old WinXP still runs on the very latest Core i7 CPUs haven't you?) Apple had to intentionally identify the host CPU and disable operation on anything it deems "unacceptable".

Apple just slapped the hackintosh community, and they have a right to do whatever they wish with the product they create, but make no mistake, it was not accidental. :(

[gnasher729]

And if Microsoft attempted to adopt that strategy it would be jumped on by every anti-competitive body under the sun, so how come it's OK for Apple? I would love to see the part of Apple's EULA about only running OS X on Apple branded hardware tested in an EU court. I somehow doubt it would be enforceable.

1. Microsoft has more than 90% market share in the operating system market, Apple has less than 10%. Does that explain why one is jumped upon and the other is not?

2. For Apple's SLA, it would make a huge difference whether this is done by a company or by a private user. In Germany, Psystar would have been killed in the courts many months ago. Even without copyright protection, what they are doing is a clear case of unfair competition (German courts really don't like it when one company spends a billion dollars on developing an operating system to help selling their computers, and another company just rips off their work).

3. I could imagine that the netbook market is one where illegal copying of MacOS X hurts Apple most. Look at 10.6.2 as a first step: Support for Atom processors has been removed, but so far this is just a compatibility problem. People could add that support back in without it being a DMCA violation. But as the next step, Apple could not just remove support, but actively reject Atom processors at several points after boot time. That would be an active DRM measure, and getting around it would be a DMCA violation. And not only in the USA, also in many European countries.

With that said, disabling support for the Atom processor would actually take some effort. It would have to be intentional. The Atom is a CPU running the x86 instruction set. Developers write to the instruction set. Any software or OS written for x86 should run (at least launch/boot) on any x86 compatible CPU without modification. It may not be optimized for a particular CPU's capabilities, but it will run. (You have noticed that the decade old WinXP still runs on the very latest Core i7 CPUs haven't you?) Apple had to intentionally identify the host CPU and disable operation on anything it deems "unacceptable".

It's not exactly a lot of work. One of the very first things an OS does while the computer is booting is to determine which CPU it is running, and obviously do something if the CPU is one that is known not to work, like if you tried to run MacOS X on a Pentium III processor. At that point, they can check the manufacturer, reject anything that isn't Intel, check the processor family and sub-family, and reject anything that isn't used in any computer still supported by Apple. That code is already there and it is obviously needed; it is up to Apple to make their checks more precise. And an Atom processor will clearly report that it is an Atom processor and is therefore easy to reject.

[Ieo]

I don't even own a netbook, but still I am outraged that Apple could take this step.

This is a step further towards a locked in ecosystem, stifling creativity, competition. Even a monopoly like Microsoft would not dare take action like this. Bundling software, restricting hardware (this and the Palm devices with iTunes), and in the iPhone's case even restricting software (I refer to browsers). I fear we are replacing one evil with an entirely worse one.

It may be "a locked in ecosystem", but it's THEIR ecosystem...they can do with it as they please. It may not be what YOU want, but it's THEIR product, and to use it you must agree to THEIR terms.

If you don't like it, use windows. Or, do what I did: bite the bullet and get one of the new, more affordable macs.

[mccoma]

p.a. semi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.A._Semi) were a powerpc design company, not a 'low-power ARM chip designer'. just sayin.

Your are correct, but a lot of people get mixed up because of the experience a lot of people at P.A. Semi have with the ARM processors.

[wildmac]

Help out old steve... he's ill, help to pay for his treatment, and treat yourself to a nice shiney new macbook. As soon as it's 1/2 the weight of the MacBook, with a 10" screen or so, sure, I'll get one!

[mytdave]

Microsoft did make a PPC version of Windows. They've obviously dropped the support for a CPU that's no longer made for the general public though.

On topic... I am shocked that Apple would do something like this, especially directly after the release of Windows 7. If I had a netbook running OS X, and then OS X stopped working, and I heard that 1) Apple is messing with netbooks, and 2) Windows 7 is a great OS, well, I would just get a copy of Windows 7.

Really, why is Apple cutting off their nose to spite their face?

Because they're control freaks. Especially the CEO. They're more concerned about control than they are about market share, public perception, or even customer requests. :o

[lyzardking]

Even a monopoly like Microsoft would not dare take action like this.

I guess you haven't tried upgrading a hard drive (to one that didn't come from MS) on an xbox 360 :rolleyes:

It's possible, but not easy

[MrCrowbar]

Guess Apple was planning to released an Atom based device at some point, but now they got their own thing going (PA Semi) and decided to put the resources and support into their own platform.

[pdjudd]

Apple makes a 'product' (widget). Their widget is a combination of hardware and software as the unified product. Just because the software can be upgraded, does not separate the material fact of the unified product. If you take just one component and strip it out of the product and use it in an unintended manner, Apple loses potential revenue.

That's exactly what I point out elsewhere in other threads. While it is true that Apple sells a widget (Hardware and software), hardware profits are much larger since software sales get calculated differently and their costs internally to Apple are calculated differently. In a sense Apple is a hardware company because the hardware profits pay off the software costs and leaves a profit.

Its more accurate to say that Apple markets a widget, but they sell hardware and software. Thats how Apple's financial probably see it.

In other words, we are arguing the same point, I just argue things from a technical/financial/legal view and you are viewing it from another angle.

[*LTD*]

Because they're control freaks. Especially the CEO. They're more concerned about control than they are about market share, public perception, or even customer requests. :o

Works like charm, though, doesn't it.

[Eidorian]

No good news can come from this for Apple.

[*LTD*]

No good news can come from this for Apple.

It will go virtually unnoticed. This is small potatoes.

[Eidorian]

It will go virtually unnoticed. This is small potatoes.Have you noticed the increase in negative mindshare lately?

[zacman]

AMD CPUs never were supported by Apple, yet OSx86 runs on AMD CPUs. Most modern graphic cards, network cards, wifi or bluetooth chips weren't supported by Apple, yet they work fine with OSx86. Most USB webcams aren't supported by Apple, yet they work on OSx86. And it'll be the same the Atom CPU.

The OSx86 are just more innovative when it comes to state of the art hardware than Apple ever was. I'm glad these OSx86 guys are bringing these things to MacOS.

[codymac]

Apple have never supported the Atom, or any third party computers that are not Apple branded.

Actually, they have supported computers that weren't Apple branded.

[inkswamp]

....I reckon it's because they're fed up of people Hackintoshing.

I doubt Apple cares. If they did, we'd have known via cease-and-desists and other forms of legal action.

A fair percentage of Hackintoshes are probably running legally purchased copies of OS X and I doubt anyone at Apple is complaining too loudly about that extra revenue. Likewise, the more people use OS X, the more familiar and/or dependent they become on it and the more likely they are to purchase an Apple product in the future. It's been theorized that early pirating of Windows contributed to its rapid adoption and widespread usage.

[pdjudd]

Have you noticed the increase in negative mindshare lately?

I am willing to bet that if you ask the average consumer what "Atom" was (outside of the science vernacular) or what a hackintosh is, or even what OSX86 is, they would look at you and think you are speaking greek to them. Most people have no idea about these things. If they are Mac users, they have one of Apple's products. They don't care.

[zacman]

In Germany, Psystar would have been killed in the courts many months ago.

Oh really?

https://www.pearc.de/
https://www.pearc.de/benchmarks.html

Guess who lost the injunctive relief law suit in Germany.... :D

[heisetax]

I think there's been quite a few sales of OSX to hackintoshers.

Apple thinks of itself as a hardware company. This is although they only design & not build other than some of the Intel Mac Pros. This means that using OSX in any computer other than one sold by Apple, if if Apple makes no similar model is stealing a sale from Apple. Probably the lack of a suitable Mac model keeps more people from purchasing a Mac than does the whole Hackintosh community of users. The Hackintosh User is actually more of a die hard Mac User than those that just buys the models that Apple contracts with others to build.

[alexbates]

Big deal, 10.6.2 is working just fine for many people using the MSI Wind U100.

There is already a simple guide made that multiple people have confirmed to be working just fine:

http://insanelywind.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=418&start=0

[cubedweller]

Your brother-in-law bought a copy of Snow Leopard that is licensed to upgrade Macintosh computers from Leopard to Snow Leopard. The price is calculated based on what the license allows you to do: It is set under the assumption that the purchaser has paid Apple lots of money for a Macintosh computer, and that the purchaser is upgrading a computer from Leopard to Snow Leopard, so the price is not for Snow Leopard itself, but for the difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard.

So what your brother-in-law is doing is a classical case of rationalising, nothing more. He is lucky that Apple changed MacOS X just to not work on an Atom processor; they could have changed it to return the IP address of every computer running MacOS X on an Atom processor back to Apple.

Wow. And Apple could do what with his IP? Absolutely nothing. Apple is not big brother. Sometimes you fanboys amaze me.

Also, the post you are quoting made no distinction between the upgrade disc and the full box set so you're simply assuming that he went the upgrade route. You know what they say about assuming...

[roadbloc]

As soon as it's 1/2 the weight of the MacBook, with a 10" screen or so, sure, I'll get one!

not likely to happen methinks. better start hacking son.

or stay out of date.... up to you. im glad apple have done this. the amount of Hackintosh users who claim "they bought their copy of OSX" is ridiculous. O know many hackintosh's and NONE have bought a copy. They used torrent sites.

[zweigand]

Apple just slapped the hackintosh community, and they have a right to do whatever they wish with the product they create, but make no mistake, it was not accidental. :(
Building a hackintosh used to take time and a lot of effort. The reason Apple is resorting to this now is simply because it has become far too public and easy to accomplish. You can thank Psystar for this move.

All I can say is we're lucky Apple isn't going to greater measures to protect their intellectual property. Who here wants to see OS X come with "Apple Genuine Advantage"?

[roadbloc]

Who here wants to see OS X come with "Apple Genuine Advantage"?

Good call!

[zweigand]

Have you noticed the increase in negative mindshare lately?
Have you noticed their marketshare lately.

[uberamd]

A fair percentage of Hackintoshes are probably running legally purchased copies of OS X and I doubt anyone at Apple is complaining too loudly about that extra revenue.

Hahaha. You *almost* made me spit my lunch all over my screen when I read this. Really, you did. Is this some sort of joke? You really mean to tell me you think a decent percentage of OSx86 users are running purchased copies? Wow, thats a good one.

And Apple doesn't make much from OS sales. Its the hardware, I don't think they are glad a few hackintosh users are spending $35 on an OS.

[shawnce]

Also, the post you are quoting made no distinction between the upgrade disc and the full box set so you're simply assuming that he went the upgrade route. You know what they say about assuming... The box set contains the following...


iLife '09 (sold separately for $79)
iWork '09 (sold separately for $79)
Snow Leopard (sold separately for $29)

The Mac Box set is sold for $169. If you purchased each separately it would cost you $79 + $79 + $29 = $187. Hey look you are actually getting SL at a price below the stand-alone copy by buying the box set.

You aren't paying more for SL in the box set, it isn't sold or priced as a full version... it is still sold and priced as an upgrade. You still are receiving a benefit at the expense of Apple by using the box set on non-Mac hardware.

[zweigand]

You aren't paying more for SL in the box set, it isn't sold or priced as a full version... it is still sold and priced as an upgrade. You still are receiving a benefit at the expense of Apple by using the box set on non-Mac hardware.
And we all know one of the main reasons people build hackintoshes is because they think Apple hardware is too expensive. You just KNOW they are doing the right thing and spending $169 on the box set. :rolleyes:

[mytdave]

Building a hackintosh used to take time and a lot of effort. The reason Apple is resorting to this now is simply because it has become far too public and easy to accomplish. You can thank Psystar for this move.

All I can say is we're lucky Apple isn't going to greater measures to protect their intellectual property. Who here wants to see OS X come with "Apple Genuine Advantage"?

That's a good point. I would much rather see 'easy hacking' go away than to have an "AGA" or "MGA" scenario.

[*LTD*]

Have you noticed the increase in negative mindshare lately?

What negative mindshare?

You mean the record Mac sales, record iPhone sales, skyrocketing customer satisfation, all in a recession?

This hacky-toshy business doesn't leave the Mac fansite bubble. No one else cares.

The whole Google Voice fiasco barely made a dent in the public consciousness. it's as if it barely registered. You think Apple dropping support for a processor that doesn't even have anything to do with Macs, and only really affects people (a minority) who are contravening Apple's policies is going to register with the average user?? You've got to be kidding. Most people don't even know or care what an Atom processor is, and aren't going to care. This is just more Apple internet fansite crap. It's cool to discuss it here but it in no way shape or form represents reality.

And tell the average paying Apple customer (the majority) that some guy is pissed because he can't get a hacked copy of OS X to run on some netbook, and at best, they won't give a damn, and at worst, they'll regard the whole situation with contempt.

[NC MacGuy]

As much as I like Apple, they've gotten pretty crappy with locking devices lately. iPod Touch no file transfer, disk mode or Bluetooth beyond headsets. iTunes locking media that can be played or transferred no matter how legal. Charging for software upgrades to unlock "features" that have existed since purchased. Shuffle needing special Apple part to change a song. The list goes on.

I've spent a small fortune on Apple products and eaten enough of their no choice, glassy screens, FW coming and going, crappy batteries, etc. to not feel the least bit guilty using a legitimate copy of purchased software on a device/non_apple I purchased that they don't make a competing product for.

Think Different - yeah, your different's hanging.

[diamond.g]

What do you mean? All intel macs can run snow Leopard and Leopard just fine. I have no idea what you are talking about with the "latest and greatest requirement.


No, not buying is exercising consumer choice. I have never argued otherwise. Apple, nor anybody else, holds a gun to your head and forces you to upgrade. They may create incenitives (like depreciating support for older OS's), but they cannot force you to buy something.

Now if you want to enter into licensing agreements with Apple (which you have to to use their software).



That doesn't change anything. It doesn't matter if a fee occurs or not - software that is distributed is licensed.

I was replying to your statement about Apple making money from the hardware which is why they sell the OS for so cheap. And that using a hackintosh denies Apple the money that they would have gotten from a hardware sale. What I was implying is if that was the case then they wouldn't allow older macs to upgrade to the new OS because they are losing money on hardware there too (by us not upgrading when new hardware comes out).

[NC MacGuy]

I was replying to your statement about Apple making money from the hardware which is why they sell the OS for so cheap. And that using a hackintosh denies Apple the money that they would have gotten from a hardware sale. What I was implying is if that was the case then they wouldn't allow older macs to upgrade to the new OS because they are losing money on hardware there too (by us not upgrading when new hardware comes out).

All well and good if they produced anything similar.

Since they deem it a market not worthy of their holier than thou hardware, they would make nothing if I used 7 instead of the money I paid for OSX.

[Legolover64]

I logged in just to reply to this post.

I would love for some of the people posting here to take a look at themselves. Owning an Apple computer that you paid for (or not, I bet a lot of the younger people here had their parents helping, am I right?) does not entitle you to be the decider as to who can and cannot use OS X on a certain piece of hardware.

First and foremost, I am against software piracy. I do think that open-source and free-as-in-freedom software are both great, and I do use lots of open products, but I do not believe that people should pirate software if it is not free or if it is not open. I advocate that people who write software, a laborious process, are deserving of compensation for that work. If you can't pay, you don't get the product, and if you don't want the product, you don't have to pay. I love capitalism.

However, this issue gets touchier. People who install OS X on a netbook are indeed violating the End User License Agreement. It specifies that you are agreeing to only install the software on Apple-branded hardware. However, I do not believe that violating a EULA is violating the law, because it's not. Breeching a contract is not something you can be arrested for directly, but you can definitely be brought to court for it.

Let's look beyond the EULA. Many people do not comply with them, including many Apple users, and I would be willing to wager that the majority of people do not even read EULAs on the software they own. For example, the iTunes EULA prohibits that you use iTunes to develop nuclear or biological weapons. I bet many of you didn't even know that.

Looking beyond the EULA, many people here are making the argument that the Snow Leopard upgrade disk is so cheap because Apple is placating the cost of the software to their higher-than-industry-average hardware costs.I would argue that this is not just true for OS X, but for other Apple software as well. You would be hard pressed to argue that Aperture only costs Apple $80 per license to develop, update, and produce. The DMCA permits reverse engineering to advocate interoperability purposes. Let's say I take a project like etoilé, an open source project to write a computing environment based on GNUStep/OpenStep (foundations of OSX) with lots of interoperability with OS X libraries. What if I were to modify etoilé to create my own implementations of the other libraries Aperture uses (CoreImage, CoreAnimation, etc.) and I get Aperture to work under this environment. How is this case any different? Apple's software is so cheap because their hardware is so expensive (they expect you to buy their computer if you're buying their photo software) but I'm getting that software without paying an arm and a leg for an Apple computer. And I'm doing so under the DMCA.

Let's take the DMCA argument further. Most of you would agree that these Hackintosh users modifying OS X is "reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes." Where is the line drawn here? Interoperability is never bad, it enables more people to communicate and use computers, and pushes humanity forward. And, the DMCA allows reverse engineering for the purpose of more interoperability.

My question to the Apple zealots who have appointed themselves as the morality police is:

Officer, how much does a standalone license of OSX really cost? $100? $300? $500? You tell me.

[*LTD*]

I logged in just to reply to this post.

I would love for some of the people posting here to take a look at themselves. Owning an Apple computer that you paid for (or not, I bet a lot of the younger people here had their parents helping, am I right?) does not entitle you to be the decider as to who can and cannot use OS X on a certain piece of hardware.

No, but it does give me the right to complain. Hackintosh users aren't entitled to this, and they aren't by any means entitled to assume this right. If they want to so badly, they can appear in court to test Apple's EULA on a case-by-case basis. Until then, they're cut off and on their own.

The rest you can argue legally back and forth until you're blue in the face.

[KnightWRX]

Because Mac users never pirate software :rolleyes:

No one claimed otherwise. In fact, the only people claiming they are "clean" and don't pirate are the hackintosh people in this thread. Why are you even trying to justify it because others do it ?

[Legolover64]

No, but it does give me the right to complain. Hackintosh users aren't entitled to this, and they aren't by any means entitled to assume this right. If they want to so badly, they can appear in court to test Apple's EULA on a case-by-case basis. Until then, they're cut off and on their own.

The rest you can argue legally back and forth until you're blue in the face.

First of all, this is a case of Apple intentionally blocking out the Atom. Processor design is pretty similar as far as instructions go between the Atom and Core 2 Duo, so it's hard/impossible to even contend that Apple "inadvertently" removed support. This is the same as the Pre. I'm a much bigger fan of compatibility than I am of close ecosystems. It makes more sense, it leads to more competition (never ever ever bad) and better products for the consumer.

Let's look at another quote of yours:

"$2,100 Canadian says that you figure very low on the scale and as a consumer I care even less about you than Apple. Nothing personal, but my money puts me waaaay ahead of you in terms of who has the right to complain about Apple. "

Take your classism elsewhere. Money doesn't entitle you to complain or not complain. I don't mean to start a flamewar, but wow, how's the weather up there?

[shawnce]

Officer, how much does a standalone license of OSX really cost? $100? $300? $500? You tell me. That is up to Apple to decide. At this point in time Apple chooses to not sell it standalone (aka non-upgrade) so the price is unknown. Just because we don't know a price for it doesn't change the fact of what I have been saying (also please note I have made no comments on morality or legality of this situation in any of my posts)

[damacus]

Apple have never supported the Atom, or any third party computers that are not Apple branded.

Technically incorrect. The old third-party mac clones that used to be sold were Apple-supported Mac OS platforms.

[gnasher729]

Let's take the DMCA argument further. Most of you would agree that these Hackintosh users modifying OS X is "reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes." Where is the line drawn here? Interoperability is never bad, it enables more people to communicate and use computers, and pushes humanity forward. And, the DMCA allows reverse engineering for the purpose of more interoperability.

"Interoperability" is about different applications working together. Making Windows capable of reading HFS+ disks would be "interoperability". Making sure that an email sent from a Linux box can be read on a Macintosh would be "interoperability". If Apple released a new iPod that cannot read songs bought an iTMS with DRM, then making the iPod play these songs would be "interoperability" (because the iTunes store license _allows_ you to play those songs on _any_ iPod, so if it doesn't _work_ because of DRM then it is legal to get around this). If you could hack Snow Leopard to install on a PowerPC Macintosh, that would be "interoperability".

So "interoperability" covers things that you would normally be allowed to do, but which don't work for some reasons. The DMCA doesn't stop you from making it work if you were allowed to do it. The DMCA stops you as soon as you try to do something, or create tools for others to do things that they are not allowed to do. You have no license to install MacOS X on a netbook, so the "interoperability" argument does not give you any rights either.

Think about it: You could always claim that the copy-protected game that you bought and want to copy is not compatible with your DVD-copying application, and you are just trying to make it interoperable with your DVD-copying software. Do you think that argument would fly?

[pdjudd]

I was replying to your statement about Apple making money from the hardware which is why they sell the OS for so cheap. comes out).

That's not what I was stating though. I was not comententing directly on Apple's pricing of upgrades. Charging for upgrades is a business decision that is independent of their overall costs or anything else.

And that using a hackintosh denies Apple the money that they would have gotten from a hardware sale.
I understand that. That is not a point I have argued against ever. But that was not the point of my argument. I was describing Apple as a hardware company first and foremost. The two arguments are not incompatible with each other. Aple's pricing of OSX as a separate upgrade is a factor of how much development costs are along with many other factors. Obviously they bundle it with the hardware - that is their business and always has been. I wasn't taking about the widget though. I was talking about the widget components.

Just like with Windows, the OS has a cost - the end user does not see that cost (and unlike with MS, Apple does not reveal that or offer a return on that cost) since its factored into the hardware cost. That's where the issue for softwre ownership comes in. In reality, the pricing that you pay for awards you ownership of the hardware. The software, no matter how you get it is licensed.

What I was implying is if that was the case then they wouldn't allow older macs to upgrade to the new OS because they are losing money on hardware there too (by us not upgrading when new hardware

But thats where you are wrong. You are not depriving a company anything by not upgrading unless there is a prior agreement to do so. Consumer choice is not the same thing as a license violation. If you never enter into a license agreement with Apple, you have no obligations to them nor do you have something you can deprive them of. There is no net gain if you don't buy anything. BMW is not deprived of a car purcase simply becasue I don't want to buy their cars (even if I have done so before) the next year. My obligations to them end after the transaction is complete and any other agreements have expired. Now if I showed interest in a BMW and did a test drive and decided to take the car anyway (violating the test drive agreements), I would be in real big trouble since I took something I had no rights too and only "got it" under false pretenses (test drive).

Apple looses nothing when you refuse to upgrade. They also gain nothing. In turn you loose and gain nothing as well. Its a zero-sum.

[e12a]

while I see why this sucks for netbook users...


i can't say i'm surprised Apple did this. Despite netbook users purchasing the retail copy legally, the only reason why retail copies exist are for earlier intel Macs that shipped with Leopard and Tiger. You can argue all you want about how blah blah but Snow Leopard system spec requirements are this. I dont see 3rd party computers listed anywhere.

* Mac computer with an Intel processor
* 1GB of memory
* 5GB of available disk space
* DVD drive for installation
* Some features require a compatible Internet service provider; fees may apply.
* Some features require Apple’s MobileMe service; fees and terms apply.


to netbook hackintoshers: If you must, just do the kernel mod and stop whining.

[Amdahl]

This is now TWO articles where PA Semi is described as an ARM producer. They are not. They made PowerPC chips. What is the deal here?

[*LTD*]

.. ... ..

First of all, this is a case of Apple intentionally blocking out the Atom.

So what. It's got nothing to do with shipping Macs. Big deal.

Processor design is pretty similar as far as instructions go between the Atom and Core 2 Duo, so it's hard/impossible to even contend that Apple "inadvertently" removed support.

Ok. It makes no difference.

This is the same as the Pre. I'm a much bigger fan of compatibility than I am of close ecosystems.

There's a fan for everything. Yes, there are even Zune fans, believe it or not.

It makes more sense, it leads to more competition (never ever ever bad) and better products for the consumer.

Purely incidental. You could argue it either way. Apple's closed ecosystem has been remarkably successful with consumers, and is the envy of the industry. It makes far more sense for a lot of people to benefit from Apple's closeed system. Hence its success. It's fact. The numbers are there to support it. Apple has been making "better products" for the consumer just fine with their closed system. Apple has *always* locked their software to their hardware . . . and look where they are now: the darling of the industry, loved by consumers, and recession-proof.


Let's look at another quote of yours:

"$2,100 Canadian says that you figure very low on the scale and as a consumer I care even less about you than Apple. Nothing personal, but my money puts me waaaay ahead of you in terms of who has the right to complain about Apple. "

Completely true. Glad it interested you.

Take your classism elsewhere. Money doesn't entitle you to complain or not complain. I don't mean to start a flamewar, but wow, how's the weather up there?

It does. It makes me a legitimate Apple customer. I paid for it. That gives me certain rights. You expect Apple to honour hackintosh users somehow?? ROFL.

Weather is fine, thanks. So is the support I get for my $2,100. I paid for my Mac, which runs OS X. Some people on this forum might want to try that sometime, or else stick with Windows or Linux.

Again, this doesn't mean hackintosh users can't run OS X on unauthorized hardware. Clearly they are, whether anyone likes it or not. It just doesn't give them the right to complain about how difficult it is at any given time. Apple doesn't owe them squat.

[scroto]

No, but it does give me the right to complain. Hackintosh users aren't entitled to this, and they aren't by any means entitled to assume this right. If they want to so badly, they can appear in court to test Apple's EULA on a case-by-case basis. Until then, they're cut off and on their own.

The rest you can argue legally back and forth until you're blue in the face.

What do you have against hackintosh users? Are you so in love with Apple that you can't stand to see them lose hardware sales to PC's? Or are you just jealous that they're smarter than you because they can have the "Mac Experience" without paying the Apple tax? Either way you look like a fool.

[*LTD*]

What do you have against hackintosh users?

Nothing, apart from their whining about something which they were never entitled to in the first place.

[Amdahl]

News flash, Developing OSX is not free and takes considerable resources - costs that are subsidized by Apple's hardware business along with the costs associated with getting that disc. Apple is not profiting by selling OSX alone, they legally profit by selling hardware.

Ah yes, the "Apple violates Sarbanes-Oxley" argument, but charges $10 to recover their immense costs on an iPhone update.

[uberamd]

What do you have against hackintosh users? Are you so in love with Apple that you can't stand to see them lose hardware sales to PC's? Or are you just jealous that they're smarter than you because they can have the "Mac Experience" without paying the Apple tax? Either way you look like a fool.

Seriously? Are you serious now?

First of all, my Mac Experience comes 75% from the HARDWARE. Yeah, thats right. My unibody 17" MacBook Pro is the best laptop I have ever purchased, and my MacBook Air and 15" MacBook Pro are in second and third place. Mac Experience? It isn't just about the OS, it has a LOT to do with the hardware you run it on, and if a crappy plastic netbook with a cramped keyboard, crappy trackpad and garbage display makes you happy, then so be it... run Windows or Linux, you are NOT entitled to run OS X on it or b***h about it not working.

And Hackintosh users are not smarter than anyone. They google some directions, simple as that. Hackintoshing is NOT hard to do. And don't even get me started on the Apple Tax.... my MacBook Pro 15" was just as expensive as my Dell E1505, and my Dell broke multiple times and was made of flimsy plastic.

[zweigand]

to netbook hackintoshers: If you must, just do the kernel mod and stop whining.
Indeed! …live up to your name.
Not complaining …congrats, you've got a hackintosh
Complaining …wannabee slackintosh

[wizard]

there will always be a way around these things, but since 10.6, I've been getting tired fiddling with hackintosh installs and being scared of updates, etc..

Obviously hackintoshing isn't for you! However Linux involves even more fiddling.


am looking at linux alternatives for Mac software to at least cover my lifestyle apps... I found the new Picasa from Google is a decent match for iPhoto, though linux version lacks facial recognition found in Winblowz version...

Funny but I went from being a primary Linux user to owning a early 2008 MBP. I don't see myself going back. That mostly due to Apples system being more stable and two apps. The apps are iTunes and Aperture. At least that is what got me off Linux because there was nothing competitive with them on Linux.

That got me to the Mac platform but the reality is the stability kept me there. With Linux you have to figure on a new OS install every six months. After awhile that sucks. Usually you have to update because everything is in flux on Linux thus requiring full system updates to keep everything running right.

Finally on the Mac my favorite Unix utilities run just as well on the Mac as they do on any other platform. YOu really don't loose anything on the Mac.


I still need a Mac for iPhone dev, so they may get a sale from me there, but likely in the form of a 1st gen Intel :apple:Mini , which can double as a slick media center :cool:

interesting! Somtimes I think a Linux platform would make a better Media center PC. The issues with drivers are slowly being resolved. Most importantly it is easy and cheap to build up a massive storage PC around Linux.

In any event, from a guy going in the other direction all I can say is lots of luck. Linux is great for netbooks, especially with a low impact desktop, but it is also very fiddly. If you think your Mac is bad, I suspect you won't find much improvement in Linux.


Dave

[*LTD*]

Indeed! …live up to your name.
Not complaining …congrats, you've got a hackintosh
Complaining …wannabee slackintosh

Well put.

LOL, hackers complaining to/about the manufacturer about how hard their product is to hack!

Priceless.

[Imhotep397]

This is much ado about nothing from my standpoint. Apple considered using the Atom processor and probably had a medium sized group testing Atom prototypes. When they finally decided they weren't going to use Atom in any hardware products and noticed the rumbling of people running the current Atom aware OS Hackintosh style, which they had no intention of supporting they flushed the code.

[pdjudd]

Ah yes, the "Apple violates Sarbanes-Oxley" argument, but charges $10 to recover their immense costs on an iPhone update.

What?!?!? Stop putting words in my mouth. Apple charges for updates like many other companies that sells software does. How that relates to SOX or Apple's hardware business is beyond me and is not what I am getting at. Not to mention that the requirement that you are talking about is no longer applicable. You are not making any sense.

There is no law that prevents tying two components together to subsidize the cost of one product. Companies do that all the time. I fail to see your point.

[zweigand]

LOL, hackers complaining to/about the manufacturer about how hard their product is to hack!

Priceless.
Linux guys can get their OS running on a toaster.

[Imhotep397]

In fact it wouldn't surprise me if inclusion of the Atom code in the OS was more to appease Intel than anything else, especially while Apple was trying to get Intel to adopt their "LightBeam" protocol. Intel could pull "LightBeam" at this point, but they've already announced it publicly as a forthcoming Intel technology. LightBeam is also feature complete, looks stable and it's clear that it's better than anything Intel has built completely in-house atm.

[Superchud]

Has anyone noticed any improvements from 10.6.1 to 10.6.2? I've noticed small changes such as the graphic for when you use the Apple Remote to put the machine to sleep has changed. Looks like they updated the graphics drivers as well as there is a small performance increase in the UI. Thoughts?

[strike1555]

Hahaha. You *almost* made me spit my lunch all over my screen when I read this. Really, you did. Is this some sort of joke? You really mean to tell me you think a decent percentage of OSx86 users are running purchased copies? Wow, thats a good one.

And Apple doesn't make much from OS sales. Its the hardware, I don't think they are glad a few hackintosh users are spending $35 on an OS.


Can you prove otherwise? No? That's what I thought.

The stupidity of your statement DID make me spit my lunch out - LOL.

[md63]

Apple sells hardware and makes software to go along with it, Microsoft is almost ENTIRELY software based so comparing the two is not and apples to apples comparison.

Remember this when fanboys complain about how expense Windows is compared to OS X. MSFT needs to charge more for their OS since its not being subsidized by hardware.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Nothing, apart from their whining about something which they were never entitled to in the first place.

Stop throwing the word entitled around. This isn't about entitlement this is about Apples constant interpretations of law. Again, is a EULA legally binding? We will soon find out.

[*LTD*]

Remember this when fanboys complain about how expense Windows is compared to OS X. MSFT needs to charge more for their OS since its not being subsidized by hardware.

Yeah, that'll work really well.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Has anyone noticed any improvements from 10.6.1 to 10.6.2? I've noticed small changes such as the graphic for when you use the Apple Remote to put the machine to sleep has changed. Looks like they updated the graphics drivers as well as there is a small performance increase in the UI. Thoughts?

NTFS share issues are still rampant as well as Adobe Photoshop freezing which Adobe and Apple has already stated, APPLE NEEDS TO FIX ON THERE END.

[uberamd]

Can you prove otherwise? No? That's what I thought.

The stupidity of your statement DID make me spit my lunch out - LOL.

Can YOU prove otherwise?? The stupidity of your claims make me angry - LOL.

I think the sheer quantity of leechers/seeds on OS X torrents speaks for itself, I find it insanely hard to believe all those people purchased copies and are just downloading torrents for giggles. But if you need me to prove otherwise, I ask that you prove to me that your statement is true. People claim real Macs are too expensive so they hackintosh, yet they are willing to go out and pay full price for the OS? Ha.

[*LTD*]

double

[*LTD*]

LOL, wrong thread. Sorry.

[Cabbit]

Maybe the lawyers suggested this for the plystar case. You know to make sure that it was the case that OSX only works on Mac's without hacking the kernal.

[*LTD*]

Maybe the lawyers suggested this for the plystar case. You know to make sure that it was the case that OSX only works on Mac's without hacking the kernal.

This is a distinct possibility and would make a lot of sense.

[Winni]

It doesn't matter what they bought. Both are upgrade licenses. Hackintosh usages do not involve any actual upgrading whatsoever.

No, they are NOT upgrade licenses. My EUR 29 Snow Leopard box has this printed on it:

"MAC OSX V10.6 RETAIL (1P) Part No. MC223D/A."

Repeat: It has a RETAIL label on it.

It says NOWHERE on the box -or- the EULA that you need to own a previous version. It does not even say that you are only allowed to use this on a Mac on the box. Only in the system requirements it says "Mac-Computer with Intel CPU." But that's nothing else than saying that you need an Intel CPU to run Windows, even though it actually also runs on an AMD processor (which is compatible with the Intel product).

And then, when I open the Snow Leopard RETAIL box, I magically find no printed license agreement in it.

And the sum of this, in German - and most likely in all European - legal terms, simply means that Apple's license terms are NULL and VOID and not binding at all.

Or let me ask you folks this question: If Sony was selling BluRay discs that could only be played on Sony's own BluRay players, would you honestly try to tell me that this was legal?

I know that most American folks will now say yes, but you know what? That is only because you have gotten too used to your completely absurd legal system.

And a few words about the wide-spread myth that Apple is a hardware company and that their OS prices are based upon a bundling strategy: Apple's OS is largely based upon Open Source technoligies - namely FreeBSD - and that means that have much lower software development costs than their largest competitor named Microsoft. Furthermore, a Microsoft Systembuilder licenses begins at around 70 Euros for an end user - and large OEMs get the SAME software much cheaper than that. Since Apple does not sell their software packages with included support, their product is not much different from those Systembuilder/OEM packages, which are software without any service, support or warranty.

Now Leopard did cost EUR 129 when it was released, which is around the level of Windows Vista Professional or Windows 7 Professional. When that price is profitable for Microsoft, it most certainly also is profitable for Apple. Because, you know, Apple is in the hardware business and thus they usually "give away" their software with the hardware bundle. That means that selling upgrade or retail boxes of software is just a bonus business for them...

[old-wiz]

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple starts putting in more code to check for Apple only hardware to stop the companies like paystar. The osx86 community wouldn't be happy about it though.

[gnasher729]

This is now TWO articles where PA Semi is described as an ARM producer. They are not. They made PowerPC chips. What is the deal here?

You shouldn't see PA Semi as a company making PowerPC chips, you should see it as a company that can design and build highly complex and powerful chips using very little power.

I am quite sure that apart from fulfilling old contractual obligations, PA Semi is not doing any PowerPC work today. I also think they are not doing any x86 work. My educated guess would be that they are working on something that is roughly ARM-compatible, while more powerful than an ARM processor usually is. I think it is a reasonable guess, obviously stating it as fact is not correct.

I wouldn't be surprised if Apple starts putting in more code to check for Apple only hardware to stop the companies like paystar. The osx86 community wouldn't be happy about it though.

Please be a little bit careful with your posts. Paystar seems to be a decent company, and nobody at Apple has any complaints about them at all or wants to stop them in any way. The company you are thinking of is Psystar.

[Bafflefish]

You understand the difference between upgrade pricing and full copy pricing, right?

OS X is always sold either bundled with a Mac or as an upgrade (the the earlier version of OS X purchased with a Mac).

When your or your brother-in-law buys a retail copy of OS X, you are paying the upgrade price, but are you upgrading a version previously purchased with a Mac? If not, then you're pirating, IMO.
Correction, Snow Leopard is sold as an upgrade option. Prior versions of OS X, including Leopard (which technically you are supposed to own before installing Snow Leopard), did have non-upgrade, full-cost editions available for consumers to buy.

[mavfan11]

I for one am not complaining. Apple doesn't owe me anything. I didn't plan to update my Dell mini 9 past 10.5.7 because I had an issue with the keyboard in 10.5.8. It runs great and fills all my needs for a computer I can carry in my coat pocket that I can download photos to while traveling, watch flash video and do some writing, not an ideal keyboard, but easier than on my iPhone anyway.

what I don't get is the fanaticism of people on both sides that post in these Apple forums (and political forums, and Chevy vs. Ford etc etc). There's a religious type zeal that takes over people and they get so worked up about what someone types in an online forum because it conflicts with their beliefs. What drives you to keep responding and taking the time for these multi-quote responses? Not only that you keep on having the same arguments over and over. You do realize that no matter what point of view you espouse you're not going the change anyone's mind, don't you? This would indicate that you enjoy this back and forth but with all the arrogance, self righteousness, and derisive comments I see it's pretty sad if you enjoy that.

The other possibility is simply that sites like these employ a few shills to ignite these fires which drives traffic to the site so ad revenues will increase. Though that's dishonest, I sort of wish that's the case . Now it's up to the participants to just shrug off the comments. Why do you care that some guy thinks a EULA is enforcible or isn't? Does that really make a bit of difference in your life? When is the last time you saw a post in these type of debates where one side relents and says "oh well, you got me there, you're right, I'm wrong" yeah, didn't think so.

[strike1555]

Can YOU prove otherwise?? The stupidity of your claims make me angry - LOL.

I think the sheer quantity of leechers/seeds on OS X torrents speaks for itself, I find it insanely hard to believe all those people purchased copies and are just downloading torrents for giggles. But if you need me to prove otherwise, I ask that you prove to me that your statement is true. People claim real Macs are too expensive so they hackintosh, yet they are willing to go out and pay full price for the OS? Ha.

LOL- that's your rebuttal? "You prove it!" You're the one with the theory that most people pirate OSX.

*facepalm*

Strawman arguments. Seriously, this is what happens when you let just anybody post on the forums. People with the intelligence of a wet carrot.

[Winni]

This is a distinct possibility and would make a lot of sense.

Only that Psystar's computers do NOT use Atom processors, so this idea does not make any sense at all.

Furthermore, you do NOT have to hack OS X at all to let it run on a PC. I installed a completely unhacked version of Snow Leopard on a Dell XPS M1530 yesterday. The only modifications were the removal and installation of hardware drivers to get sound working -- which is the normal business when you install other operating systems like Windows or Linux.

I repeat this to make this clear: I installed and removed DRIVERS. There was no hacking or patching of any original Apple software. There is -NO- copy protection in OS X that prevents the system from being installed on non-Apple hardware.

All that you need is something like Chameleon so that you have EFI on an otherwise BIOS-only PC. That's all. At the end of the day, the only difference between OS X and other PC operating systems is that OS X only runs on machines with EFI, while all other PC operating systems also run on machines with an old-fashioned BIOS. In other words: Apple's DMCA and copyright claims are pure nonsense. But they have to go down that route because they know that pursuing their EULA strategy won't get them anywhere.

[KnightWRX]

No, they are NOT upgrade licenses. My EUR 29 Snow Leopard box has this printed on it:

"MAC OSX V10.6 RETAIL (1P) Part No. MC223D/A."

Repeat: It has a RETAIL label on it.

It says NOWHERE on the box -or- the EULA that you need to own a previous version. It does not even say that you are only allowed to use this on a Mac on the box. Only in the system requirements it says "Mac-Computer with Intel CPU." But that's nothing else than saying that you need an Intel CPU to run Windows, even though it actually also runs on an AMD processor (which is compatible with the Intel product).

And then, when I open the Snow Leopard RETAIL box, I magically find no printed license agreement in it.

And the sum of this, in German - and most likely in all European - legal terms, simply means that Apple's license terms are NULL and VOID and not binding at all.

It says so on the site when you order your copy :

http://store.apple.com/ca/product/MAC_OS_X_SNGL


Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard

Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard, a simpler, more powerful, and more refined version of Mac OS X. It delivers a wide range of enhancements, next-generation technologies, out-of-the-box support for Microsoft Exchange Server, and new accessibility features. It's the world's most advanced operating system, finely tuned from installation to shutdown.

And Apple's site is clear that you will have to accept the EULA. They also say that you can return the software for a full refund even if opened if a seperate EULA sheet is not included in the box.

I'm pretty sure that after close to 20 years of EULAs, we would know if they were VOID in germany by now.

[madmaxmedia]

Don't know why some people think Apple should continue to support an processor they have obviously chosen to not use in any of their products.

Your (and mine) Hackintosh's are not supported by any means. Get used to it.

I wonder if Apple actually 'supported' Atom in the past- by that I mean going out of their way to insert/modify code to ensure OS X would run on Atom CPU's.

My guess is that OS X is basically compatible on Atom 'as is' without any customization necessary, and that Apple actually went out of its way to make sure OS X would not run on Atom CPU's.

Or a third (and equally possible) explanation is that Apple wasn't trying to support or deny Atom processors, and some change in 10.6.2 for other purposes just ended up being incompatible on Atom.

Does anyone actually KNOW which is correct?

[benpatient]

Funny seeing all the "Hackintosh people buy OS X!" when I have 3 people around me running 10.6 on HP Minis (and with the kernel mod, running 10.6.2 to boot) and none of them bought a copy of OS X for their Netbook... :rolleyes:

The hackintosh community is very small, and in that community, only a very small percentage actually buy OS X. Anyone saying otherwise is being disingenious...

um...you have 3 people "around you" already upgraded to 10.6.2 on the same netbook?

Clearly this very small community you refer to isn't as small as you think. I bet I don't even know 3 people with macs who have upgraded to 10.6.2 yet. I've only upgraded one of my machines to 10.6, even!

I'm guessing "around you" is "in college" and I'm guessing that you have at least one software application that you didn't pay for.

[zweigand]

All that you need is something like Chameleon so that you have EFI on an otherwise BIOS-only PC. That's all. At the end of the day, the only difference between OS X and other PC operating systems is that OS X only runs on machines with EFI, while all other PC operating systems also run on machines with an old-fashioned BIOS. In other words: Apple's DMCA and copyright claims are pure nonsense. But they have to go down that route because they know that pursuing their EULA strategy won't get them anywhere.
And the only difference between the hardware in Macs and PCs is that Apple gets paid for one, and not the other. That's kind of a big difference in Apple's eyes.

[pdjudd]

No, they are NOT upgrade licenses. My EUR 29 Snow Leopard box has this printed on it:

That's because it is sold at a retail store. It is still an upgrade since every mac already has OSX included.

Repeat: It has a RETAIL label on it.

Irrelevant. System requirements and Apple's SLA trump internal product codes. THey get to dictate how you use a licensed product.

It says NOWHERE on the box -or- the EULA that you need to own a previous version. It does not even say that you are only allowed to use this on a Mac on the box. Only in the system requirements it says "Mac-Computer with Intel CPU." But that's nothing else than saying that you need an Intel CPU to run Windows, even though it actually also runs on an AMD processor (which is compatible with the Intel product).

There is a difference between technical requirements and what the license agreement covers. Go ahead and violate the technical requirements all you want (of what good it will do you), but the SLA terms are set in stone and require a Mac. Guess what all Mac's come with. OSX. That makes all discs licensed upgrades.


And then, when I open the Snow Leopard RETAIL box, I magically find no printed license agreement in it.

Not required. Apple provides you a source where you can obtain it and it is available on the disc before installation. Believe me, I have covered this before.

And the sum of this, in German - and most likely in all European - legal terms, simply means that Apple's license terms are NULL and VOID and not binding at all.

I have heard this before and yet nobody had ever been able to cite anything definitive. Its just speculation and people saying "its likely to be"

Or let me ask you folks this question: If Sony was selling BluRay discs that could only be played on Sony's own BluRay players, would you honestly try to tell me that this was legal?

That is perfectly legal - Sony owns the Blue Ray standard (mostly) and is under no obligation to license it's technologies. Obviously though there is a problem - Blue-Ray is a group that has partner members. OSX is almost entirely owned by Apple (portions of it are commercially licensed from other sources though)

[madmaxmedia]

In fact it wouldn't surprise me if inclusion of the Atom code in the OS was more to appease Intel than anything else, especially while Apple was trying to get Intel to adopt their "LightBeam" protocol. Intel could pull "LightBeam" at this point, but they've already announced it publicly as a forthcoming Intel technology. LightBeam is also feature complete, looks stable and it's clear that it's better than anything Intel has built completely in-house atm.

Was there actually inclusion of 'Atom code' in the first place? Doesn't Leopard (which runs fine on netbooks) predate Atom?

[KnightWRX]

um...you have 3 people "around you" already upgraded to 10.6.2 on the same netbook?

Clearly this very small community you refer to isn't as small as you think. I bet I don't even know 3 people with macs who have upgraded to 10.6.2 yet. I've only upgraded one of my machines to 10.6, even!

I'm guessing "around you" is "in college" and I'm guessing that you have at least one software application that you didn't pay for.

No, it's small. Around me is the Unix systems administration team. All computer geeks that spend their days tinkering with Unix kernel and updates, and are on the very bleeding edge. Nothing indicative of any sort of trend.

And me having one software application I didn't pay for means squat when I didn't claim the contrary.

[MorphingDragon]

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/609/smallestviolinwz4.jpg

Now imagine him playing a sad song.

[Bafflefish]

Have you noticed their marketshare lately.
Factor out those who also own Windows, and, yeah, it's pretty much the same as it was a decade ago. Maybe less.

[benpatient]

It says so on the site when you order your copy :

http://store.apple.com/ca/product/MAC_OS_X_SNGL



And Apple's site is clear that you will have to accept the EULA. They also say that you can return the software for a full refund even if opened if a seperate EULA sheet is not included in the box.

I'm pretty sure that after close to 20 years of EULAs, we would know if they were VOID in germany by now.

If you don't order your copy from a website (i.e. you buy it in a store) and the store doesn't accept opened software for returns, then you're screwed. No store in the US will accept open software for a return. Most won't even accept open software for a store credit.

[MM2270]

People like you are so ignorant. Why do you assume that people who hackintosh steal the OS? My brother in-law wants to hackintosh his laptop, so he bought a copy of snow leopard straight from apple. stupid assumption. also, i could have "stolen" snow leopard on my regular mac, and many do. as a matter of fact i did, but i wanted a real one so i bought it and reinstalled it. but its not fair to assume that people in the hackintosh community pirate more than people with genuine macs. i have a macbook but every single piece of software is pirated except the OS, so figure that one out....

unfortunately, if your Brother in law doesn't already have a Mac running Leopard, then buying Snow Leopard directly from Apple is in some ways stealing it, since the stated requirement is an actual Mac running Leopard, or at least a valid license of it.
While I agree that some Hakintosh folks have been buying SL, the problem is that ALL OS X releases are "upgrades" that assume you have an Apple branded Mac to install it on, of which came with a pervious version of the OS. To not be doing something against the EULA, you need to have a Mac already. That may or may not be the case with your bro in law.

[*LTD*]

Only that Psystar's computers do NOT use Atom processors, so this idea does not make any sense at all.


It makes perfect sense.

Apple can't argue in good conscience against Psystar in court while allowing individuals to run OS X on unauthorized hardware and doing nothing about it. At least this is in line with the spirit of Apple's policies and saves them from hypocrisy in front of Psystar. And this is assuming Apple deliberately targeted hackintosh users, which so far has not been proven conclusively.

In any case, it's the gesture that is important.

[Bafflefish]

And Apple's site is clear that you will have to accept the EULA. They also say that you can return the software for a full refund even if opened if a seperate EULA sheet is not included in the box.

I'm pretty sure that after close to 20 years of EULAs, we would know if they were VOID in germany by now.
That claim for the return of software for a full refund is only valid if purchased from Apple themselves. Apple's EULA states that if the user decides they do not wish to accept the EULA, they can return the software to the retailer it was purchased from for a full refund.

The only problem is, companies like Best Buy, Fry's Electronics, etc., do not take back opened software packages. They only allow you to exchange opened software for the same software (it's an exception to the rule for those situations where the disk may be bad).

Thus, you'd better buy it from Apple, because otherwise the EULA may be incorrect.

And the EULA has never really been tested in court (although SLAs have, to varying degrees of success). No company really wants to test it, and for the most part no individual really has the ability to challenge multi-million or multi-billion dollar corporations. I think it'll depend on some group like the EFF some day trying to challenge it, but for the time being they're way too busy trying to get changes made to the DMCA.

[pdjudd]

If you don't order your copy from a website (i.e. you buy it in a store) and the store doesn't accept opened software for returns, then you're screwed. No store in the US will accept open software for a return. Most won't even accept open software for a store credit.


In one breath you say "and the store doesn't accept opened software for returns, then you're screwed." implying that some do in fact accept opened returns and then you say "No store in the US will accept open software for a return" FOr clarification, What is it?

Of course Apple doesn't expect the retailer to return opened merchandise - they are not party to the licensing terms. That's why Apple warns you about the licensing terms at its legal page on the box before opening. Furthermore, Just because a retailer doesn't accept open boxes, doesn't mean that Apple as a buisness won't either. They may not have much sympathy if you did not read the terms before opening the box (which is possible), but they might do it - the terms of licence gives you that right.

[macUser2007]

Just an observation:

People who rate this "Positive" and who rejoice at this, are real miserable beings.... They gain nothing, but are happy that others have lost something.

Apple had to go out of its way, to prevent OS 10.6.2 from running on Atom. The most likely reason they did it, is to make sure that there isn't any hardware which could possibly compete with their upcoming tablet.

Sometimes, I wonder, what would happen, if MS decided to disable iTunes on Windows, and the ability to sync iPhones in Windows, so that they can protect their Zune hardware.

Or, if after all the bitching about Flash by the faithful, Adobe simply stopped developing CS for the Mac, and focused it's resources on the much larger Windows market.

I love Apple products, but Apple is becoming the Evil (mini)Empire: it locks out and tries to sue out of existence all possible competition.

[*LTD*]

If you don't order your copy from a website (i.e. you buy it in a store) and the store doesn't accept opened software for returns, then you're screwed. No store in the US will accept open software for a return. Most won't even accept open software for a store credit.

That problem is between you and the retailer.

[WeegieMac]

Have to say, we all seen this one coming.

I'm of the opinion that if you want a Mac, then buy a Mac.

Call that arrogant, but it's my opinion on the matter.

All this talk of "work arounds" with 10.6.1 kernels or whatever to get 10.6.2 to work on these netbook Hackintosh's ... Jesus, talk about a load of hassle.

Quite frankly, to hell with that.

[CQd44]

Have to say, we all seen this one coming.

I'm of the opinion that if you want a Mac, then buy a Mac.

Call that arrogant, but it's my opinion on the matter.

All this talk of "work arounds" with 10.6.1 kernels or whatever to get 10.6.2 to work on these netbook Hackintosh's ... Jesus, talk about a load of hassle.

Quite frankly, to hell with that.

There are people willing to go through all that hassle though.

[Bafflefish]

In one breath you say "and the store doesn't accept opened software for returns, then you're screwed." implying that some do in fact accept opened returns and then you say "No store in the US will accept open software for a return" FOr clarification, What is it?

Of course Apple doesn't expect the retailer to return opened merchandise - they are not party to the licensing terms. That's why Apple warns you about the licensing terms at its legal page on the box before opening. Furthermore, Just because a retailer doesn't accept open boxes, doesn't mean that Apple as a buisness won't either. They may not have much sympathy if you did not read the terms before opening the box (which is possible), but they might do it - the terms of licence gives you that right.
"IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE APPLE SOFTWARE AND CLICK “DISAGREE”. IF
YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE, YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WITHIN THE RETURN PERIOD TO THE APPLE STORE OR
AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTOR WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND, SUBJECT TO APPLE’S RETURN POLICY FOUND AT http://www.apple.com/legal/
sales_policies/."
Apple's sales policies then go on to state that if you purchase OS X *from* them, and wish to return it as you do not agree with the EULA, they will make an exception and refund you your money, but that's limited to the user having purchased it from Apple.

And "for clarification", most retail stores in the US will only accept opened software as exchange items (to be exchanged for the exact same item, in the situation that the item you purchased turned out to be bad). Opened software is not allowed to be returned for a refund (since the user may have simply copied it, and then seeked to return it).

There are some stores that will accept it, but it's fairly rare.

[WeegieMac]

I love Apple products, but Apple is becoming the Evil (mini)Empire: it locks out and tries to sue out of existence all possible competition.

They're becoming an Evil Empire by protecting one of their most, if not THE most, valuable asset in the company ... Mac OS X?

If you want to use OS X, buy a Mac ... it's that simple. Don't mod one, don't build your own, just go out and buy a Mac.

If you can't afford to or don't like the spec of the Macs available and think they're a con, then shop elsewhere.

Apple are well within their rights to protect their assets, and comparing this to allowing the iPhone to sync on Windows is somewhat ridiculous.

[Bafflefish]

That problem is between you and the retailer.
No, but it also points to just how valid the EULA is. People here continuously claim that the EULA is a binding, legal contract. The fact then that it states you can return OS X for a refund, means that legally, that is what you should be allowed to do.

However, retailers have a right to legally state that they will not accept opened software back.

Thus, which one supersedes the other?

To be completely honest, Apple should remove the line stating you can return it for a refund, except in the situation where you purchased it from Apple themselves. Or, they should make it so that to become an "Apple authorized reseller", that if the retailer is selling OS X, that it must be allowed to be returned for a full refund in the situation where someone does not accept the EULA.

[WeegieMac]

There are people willing to go through all that hassle though.

True, and there's only two reasons.

A) They don't like the specs of the current Mac line up and believe they can build better.

B) They can't afford a genuine Macintosh.

I'll go with Option B, but I'm a pompous git. :D

Seriously though, if you want a Mac then buy a Mac. Why people bitch when Apple protects one of it's own major assets is beyond me. These people are hacking, hence the "system" name of "Hackintosh", Apple's asset and running it illegitimately, yet they moan when Apple disable the hardware to stop them doing so.

[KnightWRX]

If you don't order your copy from a website (i.e. you buy it in a store) and the store doesn't accept opened software for returns, then you're screwed. No store in the US will accept open software for a return. Most won't even accept open software for a store credit.

The Apple store does, obviously, since they are the retail arm of Apple and as such follow Apple policy.

Thus negating your argument. :rolleyes: If a store refuses to refund the software, then maybe you'll have a leg to walk on when you go to court and claim the EULA was invalid, until then, you're just a whiner.

[MorphingDragon]

No, but it also points to just how valid the EULA is. People here continuously claim that the EULA is a binding, legal contract. The fact then that it states you can return OS X for a refund, means that legally, that is what you should be allowed to do.

However, retailers have a right to legally state that they will not accept opened software back.

Thus, which one supersedes the other?

To be completely honest, Apple should remove the line stating you can return it for a refund, except in the situation where you purchased it from Apple themselves. Or, they should make it so that to become an "Apple authorized reseller", that if the retailer is selling OS X, that it must be allowed to be returned for a full refund in the situation where someone does not accept the EULA.

You take it to whatever the equivalent is to the Sales Tribunal.

[pdjudd]

Just an observation:

People who rate this "Positive" and who rejoice at this, are real miserable beings.... Nice personal attack and painting with a broad brush!

Apple had to go out of its way, to prevent OS 10.6.2 from running on Atom. The most likely reason they did it, is to make sure that there isn't any hardware which could possibly compete with their upcoming tablet.

Wrong. Eliminating support does not equal preventing competition. Apple right now has no tablet and yet the market already had tons of them. How is Apple preventing competition? Oh and before you bring up "mac marketshare" thats not applicable.

Sometimes, I wonder, what would happen, if MS decided to disable iTunes on Windows, and the ability to sync iPhones in Windows, so that they can protect their Zune hardware.

It would be legal.. Except MS is already a convicted monopolist. But they have every right to restrict their platform that they developed. The problem is that they are a special case due to their conviction of being a monopoly. Something that Apple has never been guilty of.

Or, if after all the bitching about Flash by the faithful, Adobe simply stopped developing CS for the Mac, and focused it's resources on the much larger Windows market.

Perfectly legal and their choice. There is no legal imperative to support other platforms. Of course Adobe's business is pure software so their interests are selling as much product as they can to as many people as possible. Apple does not share this business practice.

I love Apple products, but Apple is becoming the Evil (mini)Empire: it locks out and tries to sue out of existence all possible competition.

Apple has embraced this behavior for years. Apple has to protect its intellectual property. Just like any other company does. They have been all about closed platforms for 30 plus years and with a brief a failed excursion in the 90's they have always kept a closed platform. Let me make this clear: Apple (nor any other company) does not compete with their own property. Coke does not compete against Coke Zero or Diet Coke. Apple competes against Microsoft, Dell, HP, etc.

You do not compete against your own intellectual property. Hackintoshes are not competition.

[Bafflefish]

I love Apple products, but Apple is becoming the Evil (mini)Empire: it locks out and tries to sue out of existence all possible competition.
I find it funny that, in a way, Apple has become exactly what they criticized IBM for being (in the early 80s): an over-bearing corporation that attempts to control everything and enforce its viewpoints onto others.

Personally I don't really care. I use Macs and PCs (that I build). OS X serves me well, as does Windows 7.

[Bafflefish]

The Apple store does, obviously, since they are the retail arm of Apple and as such follow Apple policy.

Thus negating your argument. :rolleyes: If a store refuses to refund the software, then maybe you'll have a leg to walk on when you go to court and claim the EULA was invalid, until then, you're just a whiner.
Try buying OS X from Fry's Electronics. Walk outside, open it up, then walk back in. Tell them you wish to return it for a refund, stating that you decided you did not want to accept the EULA.

See what they tell you.

[*LTD*]

.. . .. . .

Just an observation:

People who rate this "Positive" and who rejoice at this, are real miserable beings....

I'll get over it, though I didn't rate the article. At least small children, animals, and little old ladies like me . . . good enough.

Apple had to go out of its way, to prevent OS 10.6.2 from running on Atom. The most likely reason they did it, is to make sure that there isn't any hardware which could possibly compete with their upcoming tablet.

Ok. I understand completely. Makes sense. Atoms have nothing to do with Macs in the first place, apart from the fact that they're an element of matter. Why should Mac users care? We don't use netbook processors.

Sometimes, I wonder, what would happen, if MS decided to disable iTunes on Windows, and the ability to sync iPhones in Windows, so that they can protect their Zune hardware.

That would be as problematic for MS as it would for Apple. People actually *want* iPods and iPhones. Badly.

Or, if after all the bitching about Flash by the faithful, Adobe simply stopped developing CS for the Mac, and focused it's resources on the much larger Windows market.

There goes a sizable market for Adobe. And the rise of a potentially better competitor to cater to Mac users *and* possibly challenge Adobe at its own game.

I love Apple products, but Apple is becoming the Evil (mini)Empire: it locks out and tries to sue out of existence all possible competition.

"Evil" is reserved for Tolkien and unicorns. Companies aren't "evil", just self-interested - much like consumers, as evidenced by some of the posts in this thread. And I can't really blame Apple on this one. And most people can't be bothered to care anyway, nor is it really worth caring about. Macs don't run on Atom processors. It isn't even viable for Apple's notebook line or desktop line. And Apple will decide what it will use for its tablet, obviously.

Apple does what it feels it is allowed to do under the law, and the courts decide the rest. If you feel you have a legitimate claim, you pursue it. Pretty simple.

[zweigand]

Factor out those who also own Windows, and, yeah, it's pretty much the same as it was a decade ago. Maybe less.
Why on earth would you factor out those who run Windows? Is Apple not getting paid for those Mac sales? Is that not a major selling point for Apple now?

I'm talking hardware marketshare. Not software. Compare Apple to HP, Dell, Sony, Acer, etc. …not MS.

[ChrisA]

Dropping support for Atom will provide a great opportunity for many Hackintosh owners to learn about Linux. I suspect most of them will like what they see.

Many Linux distributions (like Ubuntu) are very Mac-like and are even more stable and secure than Mac OS X. Ease of use is about the same.

I wonder if pushing so many Mac OS X users to Linux is good for Apple.

[uberamd]

LOL- that's your rebuttal? "You prove it!" You're the one with the theory that most people pirate OSX.

*facepalm*

Strawman arguments. Seriously, this is what happens when you let just anybody post on the forums. People with the intelligence of a wet carrot.

Yes, that is my rebuttal. You claim that I cannot prove that Hackintoshers generally do not buy OS X, so I ask you to do the same damn thing: Prove to me that hackintoshers generally DO buy OS X FULL RETAIL. But you cannot prove that to me. I can go by piracy statistics for OS X, what do you go by to prove OS X is being purchased by Hackintoshers?

Instead you resort to name calling. Classic case of someone who has no ground to stand on.

And speaking of my intelligence, I would love to have some conversations about programming algorithms, networking, electrical engineering or any other technical concepts with you.

[Bafflefish]

Why on earth would you factor out those who run Windows? Is Apple not getting paid for those Mac sales? Is that not a major selling point for Apple now?

I'm talking hardware marketshare. Not software. Compare Apple to HP, Dell, Sony, Acer, etc. …not MS.
Then you should have stated hardware market share, to be precise. And I'm all for Apple gaining market share in the hardware market. It puts impetus on the other manufacturers to improve their product offerings.

However, the RDF Mac crowd here tends to always throw out "Mac share is increasing!" Ok, define that. Apple's share of hardware sales are increasing. That's great. Their share of the OS market? Fairly flat.

[hashholly]

Dropping support for Atom will provide a great opportunity for many Hackintosh owners to learn about Linux. I suspect most of them will like what they see.

Many Linux distributions (like Ubuntu) are very Mac-like and are even more stable and secure than Mac OS X. Ease of use is about the same.

I wonder if pushing so many Mac OS X users to Linux is good for Apple.

LOL, you really think all the hackintosh users will run to linux? Not likely, if anything most hackintosh owners (of the netbook variety) will either not upgrade to 10.5.2, or they will instead just install windows 7

[AppleMojo]

....I reckon it's because they're fed up of people Hackintoshing.

I can agree with this statement... Good for Apple, end the free ride and make these hosers pay to play with OS X.

[MattBaker]

The Apple store does, obviously, since they are the retail arm of Apple and as such follow Apple policy.

Thus negating your argument. :rolleyes: If a store refuses to refund the software, then maybe you'll have a leg to walk on when you go to court and claim the EULA was invalid, until then, you're just a whiner.

There's a way to handle this: Intuit (whom I despise for other reasons) does the refunds directly even if you buy their software in a retail store.

You mail them the receipt & the box, and they mail you back the retail price including the sales tax.

[pdjudd]

Try buying OS X from Fry's Electronics. Walk outside, open it up, then walk back in. Tell them you wish to return it for a refund, stating that you decided you did not want to accept the EULA.

See what they tell you.
That doesn't change anything Apple entitles you to a refund under their terms. Frys isn't listed. Therefore take your return up with Apple corp. Fry's is just an agent of Apple. As I explained tirelessly before, retailers are not the same as licensees and thus have different obligations.

For example, you get arrested by the police. You want to dispute your arrest. You don't demand to see the chief or the cop that slapped the cuffs on you and demand to be un-arrested (even though they can release you) - you take it up with the court system that can grant you release or can keep you in Jail. If you get released - the judge issues the order - the cops don't release you. Retail scenarios work the same way - retailers obligations only go so far. Once you cross the line, they get to back down and refer you to the correct entity.

Apple gives you the right of return - they don't (nor nobody else does) state that that return has to be performed at the same retailer that sold you the box since Apple doesn't control actions of a retailer

[Chupa Chupa]

Just an observation:

People who rate this "Positive" and who rejoice at this, are real miserable beings.... They gain nothing, but are happy that others have lost something.

Apple had to go out of its way, to prevent OS 10.6.2 from running on Atom. The most likely reason they did it, is to make sure that there isn't any hardware which could possibly compete with their upcoming tablet.

Sometimes, I wonder, what would happen, if MS decided to disable iTunes on Windows, and the ability to sync iPhones in Windows, so that they can protect their Zune hardware.

Or, if after all the bitching about Flash by the faithful, Adobe simply stopped developing CS for the Mac, and focused it's resources on the much larger Windows market.

I love Apple products, but Apple is becoming the Evil (mini)Empire: it locks out and tries to sue out of existence all possible competition.

Apple is a HARDWARE company. Adobe makes s/w and a lot of money from Apple users. Moreover Adobe's goal is to make Flash a standard. It's hard to make something a standard if 5-10% of web surfers don't have access to it.

Microsoft is primarily a s/w company. Anyone can create apps that run on its OS, just like they can for OS X. To intentionally block a company for competitive reasons would land it right back in court (You remember the antitrust suits from the 90's right?).

But where Microsoft does make hardware it rarely makes it Mac compatible. In fact, I think the only hardware they make that works w/ Macs are a few mice and keyboards.

So please don't preach that Apple has a moral duty to make it easy for hackers to use OS X on non-Apple hardware. Apple is a business, just like Adobe and Microsoft. They are going to protect their business model accordingly.

As a hackintosh owner I'm a little sad this could be the end of the line b/c Apple doesn't make anything that competes except for maybe the MBA which is 3x more expensive and way overpriced, even by Apple standards.

Ultimately, we must recognize Apple is a business, not our friend. Its going to do what is in its best financial interest, not yours. Its primary loyalty is to shareholders. Also, when it comes to computers and OS X, Apple is still an asterisk, with 5-7% market share, far from being able to have the power of an empire of any size.

[pdjudd]

Ok, define that. Apple's share of hardware sales are increasing. That's great. Their share of the OS market? Fairly flat.


Well, since Apple sells millions of computers, that should have a 1:1 growth concerning OSX since OSX comes with all macs. The problem is that growth is fairly obfuscated becasue Apple's market share is shared with the PC industry as a whole and that grows large too. OSX share grows with their hardware hare, but the growth overall when you look at the industry as a whole is less visible.

One thing we have to remember is that Apple is not obsessed with marketshare. Apple knows that not worth obsessing over. Their concerns are with pure profit something that is much more visible and much more meaningful.

[pdjudd]

There's a way to handle this: Intuit (whom I despise for other reasons) does the refunds directly even if you buy their software in a retail store.

You mail them the receipt & the box, and they mail you back the retail price including the sales tax.

Adobe does something similar for their downloads too. You sign a form that swears on a stack of holy books that you deleted all copies. Include a receipt and Adobe refunds your money.

[musio]

guys and gals, no sweat!

the hackintosh community is already working on a way to replace the kernal. Yes it's not as nice as using the apple stock but hey, hackintosh lives on.

[zweigand]

Then you should have stated hardware market share, to be precise. And I'm all for Apple gaining market share in the hardware market. It puts impetus on the other manufacturers to improve their product offerings.

However, the RDF Mac crowd here tends to always throw out "Mac share is increasing!" Ok, define that. Apple's share of hardware sales are increasing. That's great. Their share of the OS market? Fairly flat.
I'm pretty sure Apple would be perfectly happy to sell 100,000 Macs to run as Windows machines 24/7.

I'd be happy for them too!

[mytdave]

I wonder if Apple actually 'supported' Atom in the past- by that I mean going out of their way to insert/modify code to ensure OS X would run on Atom CPU's.

My guess is that OS X is basically compatible on Atom 'as is' without any customization necessary, and that Apple actually went out of its way to make sure OS X would not run on Atom CPU's.

Or a third (and equally possible) explanation is that Apple wasn't trying to support or deny Atom processors, and some change in 10.6.2 for other purposes just ended up being incompatible on Atom.

Does anyone actually KNOW which is correct?

Read previous posts. Apple had to go out of their way to make sure 10.6.2 won't run on Atom CPUs.

[pechspilz]

Right now I'm running 10.6.2 on my MSI Wind with no problems. I just made a copy of the previous kernel and replaced the one that came with 10.6.2. Yes, you need some basic Terminal skills and you need to know how the mount command works but that's about it. It's running faster than ever!
See here for some clues: http://www.trick77.com/2009/11/08/snow-leopard-10-6-1-msi-wind-u100/

[pdjudd]

Ultimately, we must recognize Apple is a business, not our friend. Its going to do what is in its best financial interest, not yours. Its primary loyalty is to shareholders. Also, when it comes to computers and OS X, Apple is still an asterisk, with 5-7% market share, far from being able to have the power of an empire of any size.
That is a very good statement.

[Bafflefish]

That doesn't change anything Apple entitles you to a refund under their terms. Frys isn't listed. Therefore take your return up with Apple corp. Fry's is just an agent of Apple. As I explained tirelessly before, retailers are not the same as licensees and thus have different obligations.
Once again: "YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WITHIN THE RETURN PERIOD TO THE APPLE STORE OR AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTOR WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND"
So Fry's is not an authorized distributor? Last time I checked, they were. And thus, I should be able to return OS X to them for a full refund per the details of the EULA.
Apple gives you the right of return - they don't (nor nobody else does) state that that return has to be performed at the same retailer that sold you the box since Apple doesn't control actions of a retailer
Apple's EULA says you must return it to whom it was obtained. Apple lists return policies for their own stores and online sales, but state nothing of allowing you to return opened software from other distributors/retailers to Apple for a full refund.

Me thinks you're wrong ;)

Edit - Just called up the Biltmore and Chandler Apple stores. Both said that they do not accept opened copies of OS X purchased at other stores.

[Bafflefish]

I'm pretty sure Apple would be perfectly happy to sell 100,000 Macs to run as Windows machines 24/7.

I'd be happy for them too!
Given Steve Job's stated distaste for all things Windows, I find this highly questionable.

I'm sure they'd be happy that they sold Macs. I don't think many would be happy if it were the case that most of those Macs were used as Windows machines exclusively. They allowed/assisted with the installation of Windows because it helps them sell systems, but I doubt anyone can argue that they'd prefer if users only ran OS X.

[Giuly]

I don't get the hype about this one. You use 10.6.0/1 kernel now on 10.6.2 (Which AMD, Pentium 4, Pentium Dual-Core, and the like-users have to use anyways, works well), and switch to a patched kernel once 10.6.2-xnu-source comes out.

Where's the problem? Why are they downgrading to .1? Incaptable of copying a single file and edit one string? Get a MacBook Air then, or install Windows.

IMHO

[Bafflefish]

Well, since Apple sells millions of computers, that should have a 1:1 growth concerning OSX since OSX comes with all macs. The problem is that growth is fairly obfuscated becasue Apple's market share is shared with the PC industry as a whole and that grows large too. OSX share grows with their hardware hare, but the growth overall when you look at the industry as a whole is less visible.

One thing we have to remember is that Apple is not obsessed with marketshare. Apple knows that not worth obsessing over. Their concerns are with pure profit something that is much more visible and much more meaningful.
I don't think Apple should be concerned with marketshare either, as to be quite honest, they'll likely never be more than a niche.

That having been said, people around here sure seem to care a lot about marketshare ;)

[scottness]

Sucks for the Hackintoshers :(, but I can't blame Apple for pulling support for the Atom. Makes good business sense as they're mainly profiting from hardware. They can't continue to put out decent productS if they don't make a good profit.

[pdjudd]

Once again: "YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WITHIN THE RETURN PERIOD TO THE APPLE STORE OR AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTOR WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND"
So Fry's is not an authorized distributor? Last time I checked, they were. And thus, I should be able to return OS X to them for a full refund per the details of the EULA.

No - Fry's is not a licensee. As a distributor they have the independent option to do a returns but apple cannot force them to. That is very different from a distributor. If Fry's is unwilling to return it, you go to Apple. The terms lay that out plainly. Fry's has no obligation to support Apple's license. They just sell the box wrapped up. Once you open the box you are doing license negotiation with Apple. That's the line you cross.

[pdjudd]

Edit - Just called up the Biltmore and Chandler Apple stores. Both said that they do not accept opened copies of OS X purchased at other stores.
But what about the Apple as a corporate entity or Apple Legal? There is a reason I was careful when I said Apple and not Apple Retail.

Now I will tell you, it may not be easy to get a return, but the EULA says you do have that right.

[Bafflefish]

No - Fry's is not a licensee. As a distributor they have the independent option to do a returns but apple cannot force them to. That is very different from a distributor. If Fry's is unwilling to return it, you go to Apple. The terms lay that out plainly. Fry's has no obligation to support Apple's license. They just sell the box wrapped up. Once you open the box you are doing license negotiation with Apple. That's the line you cross.
Licensee? What? The EULA makes no mention of returning a product to an Apple licensee. It specifically states to Apple or to an Apple authorized distributor, of which Fry's Electronics is. Call up Fry's Electronics if you want, and ask "Are you an Apple authorized distributor", and they will answer that they are.

Thus, per the very-specific wording of the EULA, I should be able to return OS X, opened, for a full refund to Fry's.

[Amdahl]

There is no law that prevents tying two components together to subsidize the cost of one product. Companies do that all the time. I fail to see your point.

According to Apple, there is such a law. They claim Sarbanes-Oxley requires them to charge for where costs are incurred. That means they can't be subsidizing OS X development with hardware. It actually is being covered by the OS X price, which is set at $29 for Snow Leopard. Or $129 for Leopard. And that means the value in the hardware bundle is similar, meaning there is not any subsidization. Because that would be illegal.

Apple themselves said so, when explaining why they were, for the first time, charging iPhone and iPod Touch users for updates.

[Bafflefish]

But what about the Apple as a corporate entity or Apple Legal? There is a reason I was careful when I said Apple and not Apple Retail.

Now I will tell you, it may not be easy to get a return, but the EULA says you do have that right.
Apple's online sales and return policies reference their online store, and their retail stores. Both only allow returns for products purchased from those entities.

If Apple allowed purchases from non-Apple owned retailers or distributors to be accepted, they'd likely have a policy for it. From what I can tell, they don't.

It seems like you're really pushing hard to "prove" that the EULA isn't misleading. It is, in regards to its return policy. And it could probably be challenged in court. Would a challenge win? I don't know.

In the past the courts have shown a dislike for companies making it especially difficult for consumers to return products, so it would just depend on how difficult Apple would make it to return it (such as having to contact Apple legal, go through a lot of documentation, send it in, wait for a refund, etc.).

[zweigand]

Given Steve Job's stated distaste for all things Windows, I find this highly questionable.

I'm sure they'd be happy that they sold Macs. I don't think many would be happy if it were the case that most of those Macs were used as Windows machines exclusively. They allowed/assisted with the installation of Windows because it helps them sell systems, but I doubt anyone can argue that they'd prefer if users only ran OS X.
No, if the majority of the Macs they sold ended up as 100% Windows machines they would not be happy. It would be a sign that OS X has lost it's edge.

Not that we need to worry about this, it's not going to happen. It was just a statement belittling the whole Windows/OS X marketshare statistics.

[Bafflefish]

No, if the majority of the Macs they sold ended up as 100% Windows machines they would not be happy. It would be a sign that OS X has lost it's edge.

Not that we need to worry about this, it's not going to happen. It was just a statement belittling the whole Windows/OS X marketshare statistics.
I agree that marketshare statistics, in regards to operating systems, is relatively useless. I was more trying to just make fun of the fact that people here often seem to give Apple's "increased marketshare" more credit than what it really means (i.e., increased hardware sales =/= increased % of the OS market or an increase in those "abandoning" Windows).

[wizard]

Their choices are to either continually spend resources ensuring that Atom support works, or to keep a chunk of possibly broken code around in their OS until the end of time. Neither really sounds attractive, if they've decided not to use Atom in anything.

The biggest problem with ATOM is that it requires entirely different optimization techniques than those used for mainstream Intel micro processors. So dead code is a real problem if ATOM support just kinda hanged aroung for awhile. The lack of optimizations however shouldn't keep ATOM from executing code though.

This is why I'm suspecting a focused attempt to keep OS/X from working on Netbooks.


I have no idea how many resources it might have taken, though, so it's hard to say if it was reasonable to keep it in as a hedge against the possibility they'd pick up an Atom in the future.

Actually optimizing for ATOM probably would take as much effort as tailoring OS/X for ARM. As to picking up ATOM in the future that will be a problem. The issue is that you can go 64 bit with ATOM but there is no road map for that on ARM. Yes I do believe 64 bit will be important on these mobile devices in the very near future. 1 GB of RAM should be a snap in a tablet today with much more in the near future a reality.

In any event it looks like the Love affair with ATOM has come yo a sour end at Apple.


Dave

[pdjudd]

According to Apple, there is such a law. They claim Sarbanes-Oxley requires them to charge for where costs are incurred. That means they can't be subsidizing OS X development with hardware. It actually is being covered by the OS X price, which is set at $29 for Snow Leopard. Or $129 for Leopard. And that means the value in the hardware bundle is similar, meaning there is not any subsidization. Because that would be illegal.

Apple themselves said so, when explaining why they were, for the first time, charging iPhone and iPod Touch users for updates.
Which was true back when the law was in place. SOX has changed nw so they no longer have to use this method of accounting.

Apple has never accounted it's OS or the vast majority of it's products on a subscrtiption like plan like the iPhone - it calculates it outright. I doubt Apple's costs on it;s products relate to SOX really since SOX doesn't set a minimum price.

It's irrelevant anyway to the discussion. Apple, Like every company out there changes for their software. What difference does it make how much they charge?

Oh, and Apple has NEVER charged for iPhone software updates nor have they done so with the iPod upgrades, nor the Apple TV. In fact the only thing they charge for is 5 bucks for the Touch update which is believed to go away for the next big update. My quote was about tying, not about product pricing.

[Amdahl]

My educated guess would be that they are working on something that is roughly ARM-compatible, while more powerful than an ARM processor usually is. I think it is a reasonable guess, obviously stating it as fact is not correct.
Neither is correct. P.A. Semi was absorbed by Apple. So they don't make anything at this point, and they were a PowerPC maker at the time they were acquired.

[pdjudd]

Neither is correct. P.A. Semi was absorbed by Apple. So they don't make anything at this point, and they were a PowerPC maker at the time they were acquired.

So? The iPhone is OSX based and it runs on a non-Intel platform. Who says that the mythical tablet has to as well?

[Amdahl]

It's irrelevant anyway to the discussion. Apple, Like every company out there changes for their software. What difference does it make how much they charge?

It makes a big difference. If OS X is subsidized by hardware, then there is a moral claim that using on non-Apple hardware is wrong. If they aren't, then there is nothing wrong morally with running it on non-Apple hardware, because they have been fully paid.

So? The iPhone is OSX based and it runs on a non-Intel platform. Who says that the mythical tablet has to as well?So? So MacRumors shouldn't call PA Semi an ARM chip maker. They made PowerPCs, and they no longer exist.

[Bafflefish]

Which was true back when the law was in place. SOX has changed nw so they no longer have to use this method of accounting.

Apple has never accounted it's OS or the vast majority of it's products on a subscrtiption like plan like the iPhone - it calculates it outright. I doubt Apple's costs on it;s products relate to SOX really since SOX doesn't set a minimum price.

It's irrelevant anyway to the discussion. Apple, Like every company out there changes for their software. What difference does it make how much they charge?

Oh, and Apple has NEVER charged for iPhone software updates nor have they done so with the iPod upgrades, nor the Apple TV. In fact the only thing they charge for is 5 bucks for the Touch update which is believed to go away for the next big update. My quote was about tying, not about product pricing.
I think you got confused on the issues with the iPhone subscription revenue estimations vs. what he was saying. The change Apple made with how they report iPhone revenue was not due to Sarbanes-Oxley.

What he's referencing is that Apple's charging of a fee to unlock WiFi in the iPod Touch's was attributed by Apple as being due to Sarbanes-Oxley, in terms of the feature being provided post-release and Apple seemingly provided it as free once the consumer had already paid for the iPod Touch. Part of the reason for this was that Apple couldn't justify that they were providing a feature whose cost had already been built into the prior amount paid by the consumer, since it would mean that the update had been subsidized.

This part of SOX has not been changed. It's why when people bring up the fact that the current iPod Touches and iPhones have the capability of receiving FM signals, people mention that Apple might have to charge users to enable it (where as, if Apple advertises it as a feature limited to future iPod Touches/iPhones, the cost would already be built into what the consumer is paying).

This is why you can't say that OS X's low retail upgrade cost is subsidized by Apple's hardware sales. In reality, the revenue from hardware is what provides the largest portion (relative to retail sales of OS X) of R&D funds for further development of OS X (just like how Microsoft used revenue from other products to fund XBOX design, development and manufacturing for the long stretches where the game division was unprofitable), but for technical/legal reasons, that's a different idea than subsidizing the cost.

If you were to total up the cost of OS X development, it's likely Apple technically takes a "loss" for selling it at the price they do. It just so happens that their other sales massively offset this "loss".

[Mattie Num Nums]

Oh, and Apple has NEVER charged for iPhone software updates nor have they done so with the iPod upgrades, nor the Apple TV. In fact the only thing they charge for is 5 bucks for the Touch update which is believed to go away for the next big update. My quote was about tying, not about product pricing.

Didnt Apple charge iPod touch owners for upgrading there OS?

[Bafflefish]

Didnt Apple charge iPod touch owners for upgrading there OS?
Yes, and they still do: $10, if I'm not mistaken.

[pdjudd]

It makes a big difference. If OS X is subsidized by hardware, then there is a moral claim that using on non-Apple hardware is wrong. If they aren't, then there is nothing wrong morally with running it on non-Apple hardware, because they have been fully paid.

The main OSX desktop is subsidized by hardware sales. That just means it gets to extends to other platforms and products. Hardware doesn't have to subsidize one thing. Apple's hardware sales allow it to develop and maintain OSX which is not only used on its main hardware but serves as a core for other platforms and products. I see nothing wrong and immoral about that.

Nothing as far as OSX is concerned is "fully paid for" since OSX is an evolving platform that is continuously developed and improved (via bug fixes, updates, enhancements etc). All the consumer ever pays for is physical hardware. The software is never "paid for" its just licensed for a fee. That's why you buy dot 0 releases - software updates are only covered by the license up to a point. Thats the advantage of intelectual property, you can bundle it, and distribute it an any for, you want to.

[observer]

First of all, this is a case of Apple intentionally blocking out the Atom. Processor design is pretty similar as far as instructions go between the Atom and Core 2 Duo, so it's hard/impossible to even contend that Apple "inadvertently" removed support.

It's very easy contend that Apple inadvertently removed support for the Atom. There, I just did it. It's also very easy to contend that Apple did it intentionally, just to cause you pain. Unfortunately, assertion is not the same as fact. If someone who actually knows something describes what support Apple removed, I'll listen.

I've seen claims that people should sue Apple for breaking their unsupported hacks. It's really quite boggling.

[pdjudd]

Didnt Apple charge iPod touch owners for upgrading there OS?

Yes, I even said that in my last post. Here is what I said:

In fact the only thing they charge for is 5 bucks for the Touch update which is believed to go away for the next big update.


Yes, and they still do: $10, if I'm not mistaken.

It's 5 bucks for the latest update. 3.0 might have been 10 dollars. But as I said, accounting principals may require that they have to charge something - it's very likley that no mater what GAAP accounting changes have occurred, Apple may not be roll teh clock back on older products. I am not an accountant though so I cannot say for sure.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Yes, I even said that in my last post. Here is what I said:






It's 5 bucks for the latest update. 3.0 might have been 10 dollars. But as I said, accounting principals may require that they have to charge something - it's very likley that no mater what GAAP accounting changes have occurred, Apple may not be roll teh clock back on older products. I am not an accountant though so I cannot say for sure.

Anyway you spin it, they are charging.

[pdjudd]

Anyway you spin it, they are charging.

So? Where have I ever said that was a problem? Who cares if Apple charges for their products? If I don't want to buy, I don't get to have it. I fail to see the problem and I fail to see where I am "spinning" anything. Subsidizing something does not remove the cost 100% AT&T subsidized my iPhone hardware cost and I still had to pay money to get the hardware. I have no problem with that and nobody forced me into that situation.

Subsidization is designed to reduce costs, not necessarily eliminate them. I fail to see the problem.

Your arguments are not making any sense to me. Apple doesn't care about morals. They are a business. Morals are irrelevant.

[hugodrax]

Instead of complaining just call apple support and see if they can help with your hackintosh.

[Bafflefish]

The main OSX desktop is subsidized by hardware sales. That just means it gets to extends to other platforms and products. Hardware doesn't have to subsidize one thing. Apple's hardware sales allow it to develop and maintain OSX which is not only used on its main hardware but serves as a core for other platforms and products. I see nothing wrong and immoral about that.
You're correct in that Apple's hardware sales allow it to continue to develop OS X (along with other products), because that's how most corporations work. Corporation Alpha brings in X amount of cash. It has to spend Y amount on development of its various products. Hopefully X is greater than Y, but they can apply X however they wish towards Y.

However, for legal reasons, Apple cannot claim that OS X's cost is subsidized by hardware sales. They can say that hardware revenue helps to continue OS X development, but that's a different idea/situation.

Nothing as far as OSX is concerned is "fully paid for" since OSX is an evolving platform that is continuously developed and improved (via bug fixes, updates, enhancements etc). All the consumer ever pays for is physical hardware. The software is never "paid for" its just licensed for a fee. That's why you buy dot 0 releases - software updates are only covered by the license up to a point. Thats the advantage of intelectual property, you can bundle it, and distribute it an any for, you want to.
The consumer pays for a license. Apple could charge you for the 10.6.1 license, for the 10.6.2 license, etc., but they don't. They (currently) only charge for major revision (i.e. 10.X) licenses.

However, that having been said, they can't subsidize the license cost via hardware. Revenue (be it from iPhones, iPods, Mac hardware, etc.) contributes towards OS X's development costs. But in regards to OS X's licensing costs, Apple can charge whatever they want, be it the necessary price to recoup development cost, or at a price that ensures many more people will purchase it (albeit potentially resulting in a loss relative to development costs).

There's also the fact that far more Mac users will buy an OS X upgrade/installation at $29 vs. $129. At $129, I'd be willing to bet that OS X piracy would be fairly high.

[NC MacGuy]

Instead of complaining just call apple support and see if they can help with your hackintosh.

That is the downside of hackintosh. No computer hardware support, no OS support. Upside is I can get 3 Mini10s for same price as one MacBook so if it's broke, throw it away and get another.:p

[Bafflefish]

It's 5 bucks for the latest update. 3.0 might have been 10 dollars. But as I said, accounting principals may require that they have to charge something - it's very likley that no mater what GAAP accounting changes have occurred, Apple may not be roll teh clock back on older products. I am not an accountant though so I cannot say for sure.
But that's just it, the GAAP accounting changes *ARE NOT * related to the fees Apple charged for the iPod Touch WiFi update. They are two completely separate situations.

Edit - And Apple charging iPod Touch users $10 for an OS update is nothing more than Apple recouping development costs. That has nothing to do with Sarbanes-Oxley. If it did, Apple would also have to charge iPhone users, which they don't.

[CmdrLaForge]

And I suppose you drive 55 all the time too. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I can't tell which is more obnoxious..

1) Hackintoshers who feel violated

or

2) fanboys who want to tar-and-feather anyone who dares to "think different"

seriously.. Fanboys, the hackintoshers aren't hurting you, and hackintoshers, it's a hack. Fix your hack.


I cannot understand why you're so personally annoyed by people who hackintosh. Stop being the morality police.

Hmmm - I think I didn't really made clear what I wanted to say. I have zero problems with anyone using software for which they have no licence. If I wanted a hackintosh - that means a netbook I guess I would hack one myself BUT if an Apple update would break it I definitely wouldn't blame Apple for it. Same thing for jailbroken iPhones or Palm trying to sync the Pre with iTunes. If it works - fine. But there is no RIGHT for it either.

[Bafflefish]

Hmmm - I think I didn't really made clear what I wanted to say. I have zero problems with anyone using software for which they have no licence. If I wanted a hackintosh - that means a netbook I guess I would hack one myself BUT if an Apple update would break it I definitely wouldn't blame Apple for it. Same thing for jailbroken iPhones or Palm trying to sync the Pre with iTunes. If it works - fine. But there is no RIGHT for it either.
This is how I view it.

I think part of the problem is that whenever you see news posts like today's, you get a few of the hackintosh users coming in complaining that Apple made some change (which Apple has full right to do), as well as the Apple diehard fanbois who make it one of their missions in life to try and stop/decry anything Apple themselves don't do. Thus, the two camps collide and a lot of entertaining drama results.

[BaldiMac]

But what about the Apple as a corporate entity or Apple Legal? There is a reason I was careful when I said Apple and not Apple Retail.

Now I will tell you, it may not be easy to get a return, but the EULA says you do have that right.

Licensee? What? The EULA makes no mention of returning a product to an Apple licensee. It specifically states to Apple or to an Apple authorized distributor, of which Fry's Electronics is. Call up Fry's Electronics if you want, and ask "Are you an Apple authorized distributor", and they will answer that they are.

Thus, per the very-specific wording of the EULA, I should be able to return OS X, opened, for a full refund to Fry's.

You are both making the assumption that Fry's will not accept the return. If they are an Apple authorized distributor, they have to accept the package for a refund if you do not agree to the license, unless the license is printed on the outside of the package. Now, of course, any individual Fry's employee could be uninformed.

According to Apple, there is such a law. They claim Sarbanes-Oxley requires them to charge for where costs are incurred. That means they can't be subsidizing OS X development with hardware. It actually is being covered by the OS X price, which is set at $29 for Snow Leopard. Or $129 for Leopard. And that means the value in the hardware bundle is similar, meaning there is not any subsidization. Because that would be illegal.

Apple themselves said so, when explaining why they were, for the first time, charging iPhone and iPod Touch users for updates.

Apple has never charged iPhone user for updates. Apple never claimed SOX requires them to charge where costs are incurred. Of course you can subsidize the cost of software development with hardware.

The claims that you are attributing to Apple were made by forum posters and bloggers. Apple only cited accounting implications.

[pdjudd]

You're correct in that Apple's hardware sales allow it to continue to develop OS X (along with other products), because that's how most corporations work. Corporation Alpha brings in X amount of cash. It has to spend Y amount on development of its various products. Hopefully X is greater than Y, but they can apply X however they wish towards Y.
Indeed. In affect that is what Apple's business motives are. That's what I have been trying to say!

However, for legal reasons, Apple cannot claim that OS X's cost is subsidized by hardware sales. They can say that hardware revenue helps to continue OS X development, but that's a different idea/situation.

Which is why I used "tying" and wasn't trying to state things from a literal legal perspective. My statements were more of "for what it's worth" than anything else. I was trying to say what you were right above. Apple bundles its software with its hardware becasue its profits are in hardware. That's how most people should view Apple's business strategy. Legally speaking, everything has a cost even if we as the customer never sees it or pays it directly.

I used tying since that is a perfectly legal behavior and it accurately describes how Apple sells its computers. All other software is licensed of course but the computer and the license is tied together. I was mearly trying to describe how they sold their product. They sell it by a tie. How they fund everythign internal is a whole different issue that I got dragged into.

I think we should avoid talking about Apple's tying business anyway. As far as I am concerned, it's Apple's legal right to sell their products that way.


The consumer pays for a license. Apple could charge you for the 10.6.1 license, for the 10.6.2 license, etc., but they don't. They (currently) only charge for major revision (i.e. 10.X) licenses.
Indeed. They could charge of anything if they could get away with it. They don't have to give anway anything if they don't have to. That's not inconsistent with my views.

However, that having been said, they can't subsidize the license cost via hardware. Revenue (be it from iPhones, iPods, Mac hardware, etc.) contributes towards OS X's development costs. But in regards to OS X's licensing costs, Apple can charge whatever they want, be it the necessary price to recoup development cost, or at a price that ensures many more people will purchase it (albeit potentially resulting in a loss relative to development costs).

Legally, no. They aren't subsidizing license costs - they subsidize the development costs of OSX. Which is what you are saying of course and what I have been trying to get across. Maybe I may not have made that distinction clearer but I hope I am now.

There's also the fact that far more Mac users will buy an OS X upgrade/installation at $29 vs. $129. At $129, I'd be willing to bet that OS X piracy would be fairly high.

Agreed. Which is why Apple probably lowered the price down. As a rule of thumb Apple is going to charge what the market bears as long as that works to their advantage. As the iPod Touch updates prove, they nay not be able to do that as I am certain that Apple would just rather give those away like they do with all of their other firmware updates.

Whatever Apple charges it's products is their own choice. That's the bottom line here.

[Stepint0sh]

I cannot see how people would like to use an atom cpu as a stable processor. My girlfriend has a netbook with an atom cpu and it's slow as hell. Even my Mac Mini with a 1.83 GHz is sometimes slow as hell, but maybe that's because I'm used to my MacBook Pro and my Hackint0sh with a quad core.

I don't mind hackint0shes, but I do mind if the machine running OSX is a fast and capable machine. Why would you want to run it on a slow machine (it's pretty much useless to run it on a pentium 4 as well). :)

[pdjudd]

You are both making the assumption that Fry's will not accept the return. If they are an Apple authorized distributor, they have to accept the package for a refund if you do not agree to the license, unless the license is printed on the outside of the package. Now, of course, any individual Fry's employee could be uninformed.

Most retailers have a written policy regarding returning opened software - they just won't. My memory muight be a bit hazy, but a I believe that a retails obligation ends when you open the package (unless it's defective). Now Apple has an end run around this - Their box directs you to their website to read the SLA meaning that opening up the box is no longer required. Most products do the same thing - redirect you to a website to refer you to licensing terms. That way the only reason a retailer should need to return a product is to replace a defect.

My guess the intention is that Apple (or whoever) probably doesn't want the retailer to be an arbitrator of an agreement between teh company nd consumer. Apple is licensing the software to you - not to Fry's who licenses it to you. Apple doesn't want Fry's or any other retailer to have any say in the terms. I assume the lawers would rather keep it simple too and avoid getting a business involved when they don't need to.

As far as I am aware, Fry's is like any other retailer that sells software - they are not officially apple sanctioned acting as a direct front for Apple - they are just a reseller.

[AidenShaw]

My girlfriend has a netbook with an atom cpu and it's slow as hell.

How much memory, and spinning or solid-state hard drive?

My netbook with 2 GiB and a cheap SSD isn't "slow as hell". It's slow compared to the i7, but for mail/web it's fine.

[BaldiMac]

Most retailers have a written policy regarding returning opened software - they just won't. My memory muight be a bit hazy, but a I believe that a retails obligation ends when you open the package (unless it's defective). Now Apple has an end run around this - Their box directs you to their website to read the SLA meaning that opening up the box is no longer required. Most products do the same thing - redirect you to a website to refer you to licensing terms. That way the only reason a retailer should need to return a product is to replace a defect.

My guess the intention is that Apple (or whoever) probably doesn't want the retailer to be an arbitrator of an agreement between teh company nd consumer. Apple is licensing the software to you - not to Fry's who licenses it to you. Apple doesn't want Fry's or any other retailer to have any say in the terms. I assume the lawers would rather keep it simple too and avoid getting a business involved when they don't need to.

As far as I am aware, Fry's is like any other retailer that sells software - they are not officially apple sanctioned acting as a direct front for Apple - they are just a reseller.

You are missing the "authorized" part of Apple "authorized" distributor. It is a contractual relationship.

[Cerebrus' Maw]

And I suppose you drive 55 all the time too. :rolleyes:

Seriously, I can't tell which is more obnoxious..

1) Hackintoshers who feel violated

or

2) fanboys who want to tar-and-feather anyone who dares to "think different"

seriously.. Fanboys, the hackintoshers aren't hurting you, and hackintoshers, it's a hack. Fix your hack.

I have no problem with hackintoshers, but, I don't think they deserve anything either. And the fanboys need to step away from the cool-aid and remember a computer is just a tool, and that EULAs are some of the most vile legal documents on the planet.

Post wins </thread>

[Mattie Num Nums]

Post wins </thread>

Agree

[KnightWRX]

Try buying OS X from Fry's Electronics. Walk outside, open it up, then walk back in. Tell them you wish to return it for a refund, stating that you decided you did not want to accept the EULA.

See what they tell you.

Why would I try proving or disproving your point for you ? How about you go to Fry's and try that and tell us how it went. Also, be sure to attach any summary judgments in your court case against Apple, seeking to invalidate it's EULA on the grounds of Fry's refusing to reimburse you.

[gnasher729]

But that's just it, the GAAP accounting changes *ARE NOT * related to the fees Apple charged for the iPod Touch WiFi update. They are two completely separate situations.

Edit - And Apple charging iPod Touch users $10 for an OS update is nothing more than Apple recouping development costs. That has nothing to do with Sarbanes-Oxley. If it did, Apple would also have to charge iPhone users, which they don't.

Dear Bafflefish, have you noticed that Apple's revenue and profit of iPhone sales are spread over eight quarters? If you pay $400 for an iPhone today (just to make it a nice even number), Apple reports $50 revenue this quarter, $50 next quarter, $50 the quarter after that and so on. These fifty dollars are what the iPhone updates are paid from.


According to Apple, there is such a law. They claim Sarbanes-Oxley requires them to charge for where costs are incurred. That means they can't be subsidizing OS X development with hardware. It actually is being covered by the OS X price, which is set at $29 for Snow Leopard. Or $129 for Leopard. And that means the value in the hardware bundle is similar, meaning there is not any subsidization. Because that would be illegal.

Apple themselves said so, when explaining why they were, for the first time, charging iPhone and iPod Touch users for updates.

That is nonsense. Apple can charge whatever they want for whatever they sell, they can decide to make losses in one area and recouping that money somewhere else, there is no law against that whatsoever. Here is Sarbanes-Oxley requires: Once you have stated what revenue and cost you had for a product that you sold, you can't then spend money on delivered products later on. Apple can't today say "we sold an iPod Touch for $200 that cost us $140 to make, that's $60 profit" and then next year give you a free update that cost Apple $10 to produce. For every Mac that Apple sells, a certain amount of money is not reported as revenue but held back to cover warranty repairs. In the case of the iPhone and Apple TV, revenue is reported over eight quarters. Tell me, what product have you bought in the past where the maker gave you something additional later without any payment?

[ddTaylor]

Your brother-in-law bought a copy of Snow Leopard that is licensed to upgrade Macintosh computers from Leopard to Snow Leopard. The price is calculated based on what the license allows you to do: It is set under the assumption that the purchaser has paid Apple lots of money for a Macintosh computer, and that the purchaser is upgrading a computer from Leopard to Snow Leopard, so the price is not for Snow Leopard itself, but for the difference between Leopard and Snow Leopard.

So what your brother-in-law is doing is a classical case of rationalising, nothing more. He is lucky that Apple changed MacOS X just to not work on an Atom processor; they could have changed it to return the IP address of every computer running MacOS X on an Atom processor back to Apple.

And then what? What could Apple do if they had this illegally collected data? The EULA has NEVER been tested in court (US, that is - it has in Europe and MUCH of it has been overturned) and the fact that the EULA is not VISIBLE until AFTER you OPEN the software - therefore ending your chance of RETURNING the software is very suspect.

Just a note - Apple does not make the upgrade to 10.6 a REQUIREMENT for installing the software! That was even mentioned BY APPLE! If Apple truly built the new OS (I mean service pack) around owning OS 10.5, why allow for a complete installation on a FRESH system without OS 10.5? Silly, huh?

So is your argument.

D

[pdjudd]

You are missing the "authorized" part of Apple "authorized" distributor. It is a contractual relationship.
True. I deliberately did that. Being an authorized reseller is very different.

For what it's worth (and not against you BalidiMac) Apple's return policy online:
Returns policy
Items purchased at the Apple Online Store between October 31, 2009 and December 24, 2009, may be returned through January 9, 2010. Please note that all other terms and conditions provided in the Apple Online Store Sales and Refunds Policy are still applicable with respect to such items purchased, including the assessment of a 10% restocking fee on any open box item.

Specifically on opened software:
You may return software after rejecting the licensing terms, provided the software is not installed on a computer. However, software that contains a printed software license may not be returned if the seal or sticker on the software media packaging is broken.

That seems to me that Apple at the very least will return it opened or not (re-stocking fee applies of course). I cannot locate terms for Apple's retail stores or the generic terms that official resellers must follow though but it sounds like they must be different.

My posts were about retailers though and they obviously would differ. Maybe Apple doesn't offer a refund process for license rejection after opening for normal retailers specifically because Apple cannot control their return policies. My guess is that Apple's online SLA's are supposed to cover those branches.

[ddTaylor]

SIMPLE IDEA: It's the hardware not the software where Apple makes the money.

Apple sells software in order to give you a global different experience than the one you get with other systems. That does not make sense if you use their hardware but run Windows on it (only) or if you use their software on a PC.
It's easy: Apple doesn't get anything from you running OSX on a netbook. Even if you pay for it, the amount of money Apple gets from the OS is ridiculous. Same with the music: Apple wants you to buy the iPod, not the music (better if you buy it, but I'm sure they don't give a damn if you just download it as long as you listen to it on an iPod).
You are paying for the OS? They don't care, they don't want you to use OSX on a different platform, they want you to buy a Mac.
Have you seen the comercials: GET A MAC. I haven't seen the "GET-A-CRIPPLED-SYSTEM-AND-INSTALL-OSX-TO-RUN-IT-LIKE-CRAP-AND-UNSUPPORTED" comercial, have you?.
The question is not why the Atom is not supported anymore, but why it was supported in the first place.

Because it is a compatible X86 CPU with enough support and horsepower to run the OS. I have SOME programming experience so this may be off the mark - but Apple must have gone out of their way to remove support for a CPU that is basically a Pentium M with all technical abilities to run OS X.

They had to write in the exception for the Atom CPU in order to disable it. It was supported because it looked enough like a legit X86 CPU to run and until later OS 10.5 updates it showed in the ABOUT THIS MAC as an unknown CPU. My guess is Apple might have been working on another multi-platform, back-room test like they did before the PPC transition to Intel - only not as dramatic, of course. They wanted to test the OS on other Intel hardware in order to verify widespread compatibility on their once touted netbook type computer - before the tablet was finalized (potentially).

D

[ddTaylor]

Are the HP minis better than the Dells? I've been looking to get a hackintosh, but have been looking for a system with a better graphics chip.

I went with the Mini 10 at Walmart. It was a super easy process and with nearly no work all the hardware went 100% with no issues or problems.

D