Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Disabling Support for Intel Atom Processor in Latest 10.6.2 Build?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
uberamd
macrumors 68030
I grow tired of this whole "Apple is evil for only letting me put OS X on Apple branded hardware" argument.
This thread is VERY funny because the justifications people come up with for why the EULA doesn't apply to them are insane. I bet some of you could convince yourselves that you are superman if you tried hard enough. Pathetic.
- You can only play XBox 360 games on an XBox 360. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
- You can only play PS3 games on a PS3. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
- You can only play Wii games on a Wii. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
- You can only play N64 games on a N64. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
- You can only play blu-ray discs in a blu-ray licensed player. How is that fair but allowing OS X only on Apple hardware unfair?
- This list can go on and on forever
This thread is VERY funny because the justifications people come up with for why the EULA doesn't apply to them are insane. I bet some of you could convince yourselves that you are superman if you tried hard enough. Pathetic.
flopticalcube
macrumors G4
Oh well either buy and Apple computer along with the OS or suffer the consequences / wrath of. Goto Ubuntu, Steve doesn't care.
And as far as disabling the synchronization for the Palm Pre, keep it coming.
There's no "wrath." Anyone running an unsupported system (whether a non apple branded computer, or a Mac Pro with unsupported sized RAM sticks, or whatever) knows that what they have now may or may not work tomorrow as Apple's software changes.
People running a version of OS X that still supports their system can continue using that system. Now maybe if software update forced itself on your computer, and if it was proven in the first place this was even done to curb "hackers", you might have a "wrath argument" 🙂
What do you expect? Decimal points? A Windows Vista busines Ultimate can be around 375 dollars (SRP). And Dell might get it in 37.5 dollars.
They tell you lies. Look at this links:
http://www.networkclue.com/os/Windows/licensing/index.aspx
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-The-Windows-OEM-License-Dies-with-Its-Computer-88220.shtml
Or better, read the license agreement your OEM Windows has. I am not copying it here, it is too long.
But google it: Windows OEM license.
And also. Microsoft is not responsible for your Windows OEM copy, but your hardware provider. Microsoft only deals with retails copies.
Oh, I am 100% for being able to completely customize a system.
As for standard case appearances, yeah, Apple is definitely in the lead (in my opinion) when it comes to case design (although the Mac Pro's appearance is a bit... dated at this point).
However, I rather like the mATX case I used for my i7 build - something to be said about cramming essentially a Mac Pro into a large shoebox-sized footprints, all with standard PC components. 😀
MH01
Suspended
As others have mentioned, there are differences in hardware that prevent you from simply taking a XBOX 360 game and playing it in a PS3 or Wii.
One other hole in that "counter-argument", is the fact that most games are released across all platforms, and thus there's no reason to even need to do a drop-in, unless you wanted to use one copy across multiple systems. But then I'd have to ask: why? You have the console it's native too. It's optimized for that console's hardware.
As for Blu-Ray, Blu-Ray uses a specific laser wavelength that isn't the same as that of a DVD, HD-DVD, CD, Videodisc, etc. Once again, a technical limitation.
Note: I personally don't care whether Apple officially restricts OS X to only its hardware or not. I just hate when people use bad examples. 😉
uberamd
macrumors 68030
Your perspective isn't being supported buy the courts.
Show me where there is a LEGALLY binding contract. The problem is EULA are contracts in the way most states or the federal government would define them. Even if they where to be some how considered legal as a concept you still have documents that would be declared illegal anyways due to their content.
The reality is companies are loosing right and left with respect to these so called EULA. The latest is Autodesk a huge company that sunk a lot of money into trying to prevent resale of it's software. Look it up if you want, the decision came down a few months ago. Like wise the record companies lost one last year with respect to the resale of CDs. The right of first sale has been established for a very long time and can not be taken away with a simple EULA. That is only one component of an EULA that creates legal trouble for companies.
Then look at Apples attack on Pystar. They have pretty much ignored their own EULA and have instead tried to twist copyright law to their favor. Why? Well maybe they fear the judge taking the EULA to the outhouse and whipping his ass with it.
Respecting contracts is fair and accepted, when both parties agree to the the fair and legal terms. This is not at all what we are talking about here. It is obvious that the EULA are not legal and clicking a button or opening a shrink wrapped package is not agreeing to any thing. The obvious problem with the shrinked wrapped EULA agreement is that you can't even read the thing with out agreeing to it. In any event I be interested in any law or fragment of law that validates this idea that a contract can be agreed to by clicking on a button.
Dave
First the EULA are not contracts!
Nope clicking through a bunch of garbage implies nothing.
And you see that as legally binding? The fact is nothing is negotiated and no exchange or barter took place so there is no contract.
Show me where there is a LEGALLY binding contract. The problem is EULA are contracts in the way most states or the federal government would define them. Even if they where to be some how considered legal as a concept you still have documents that would be declared illegal anyways due to their content.
The reality is companies are loosing right and left with respect to these so called EULA. The latest is Autodesk a huge company that sunk a lot of money into trying to prevent resale of it's software. Look it up if you want, the decision came down a few months ago. Like wise the record companies lost one last year with respect to the resale of CDs. The right of first sale has been established for a very long time and can not be taken away with a simple EULA. That is only one component of an EULA that creates legal trouble for companies.
Then look at Apples attack on Pystar. They have pretty much ignored their own EULA and have instead tried to twist copyright law to their favor. Why? Well maybe they fear the judge taking the EULA to the outhouse and whipping his ass with it.
Respecting contracts is fair and accepted, when both parties agree to the the fair and legal terms. This is not at all what we are talking about here. It is obvious that the EULA are not legal and clicking a button or opening a shrink wrapped package is not agreeing to any thing. The obvious problem with the shrinked wrapped EULA agreement is that you can't even read the thing with out agreeing to it. In any event I be interested in any law or fragment of law that validates this idea that a contract can be agreed to by clicking on a button.
Dave
uberamd
macrumors 68030
Meh, missing my point I think. The fact is that people don't s**t bricks over the fact that you need an XBox 360 to play 360 games. Instead, people accept that as the way things go. So why is it that hackintoshers feel that they are a special group that deserves the ability to use OS X on their non-Apple systems? OS X was specifically designed to work only with Apple hardware, just as 360 games are designed to only work with the 360 and blu-ray to only play in blu-ray players. So why do people have such a hard time accepting the fact that OS X is designed for Apple hardware?
hitekalex
macrumors 68000
Circumvention of SMC validation isn't piracy either. And neither is violation of DMCA (which has no meaning outside of US anyway). When I rip DVD that I legally own in the US, I may be violating DMCA, but I am not engaging in "piracy" (as the term is commonly used).
Reason No. 2 - Flash
Maybe... Jobs is magically making Flash not **** by disabling Atom Support... nobody would have seen it! I swear to god if Flash is not fixed i'm taking my Snow Leopard disc and chucking it at his head 😡 and fix quicktime X... its ****!!!!!
Maybe... Jobs is magically making Flash not **** by disabling Atom Support... nobody would have seen it! I swear to god if Flash is not fixed i'm taking my Snow Leopard disc and chucking it at his head 😡 and fix quicktime X... its ****!!!!!
Did you even read the link?
The article talks about how DRM chip is not used in Mac OS X encryption, but how non-Apple hardware is prevented from running Mac OS X.
From the article:
Around the same time in 2006, I also wrote about kernel-level binary protection in Mac OS X. As that article explains, it is actually binary protection that ties Mac OS X to a specific class of hardware. The mechanism is partly implemented as a special-purpose virtual memory (VM) pager that is interposed between the kernel's higher layer and the vnode pager.
And it explains how it is achieved:
What is the correct answer?
The key (actually, a pair of 32-byte values) comes from the System Management Controller (SMC). Unlike in the case of a TPM, accessing this key involves no cryptography, no random numbers, no hardware securityit's merely obfuscation.
And then it explains:
Why Obfuscate?
view the obfuscation approach as engineering pragmaticism in solving difficult problems. The problem here was that of making Mac OS X reasonably difficult to deploy (from a legal standpointthat is, would involve reverse engineering, breaking the EULA, etc.) on non-Apple hardware. A solution based on the TPM would have been fraught with numerous problems for the developers and maintainers of the solution. As is not uncommon in such cases, obfuscation can be an effective enough solution.
But read the article. Mac OS X has protection that from a legal stand point is as good as as encryption. In order to install and run Mac OS X no non Apple Hardware you have to by pass the protection.
Hackintoshes has to bypass the SMC chip... Yes it easy, but legally speaking, it is illegal.
The un-sophistication of a lock does not make legal to open it.
Well, I think it's only a few hackintoshers (out of the total group) that would likely truly have an issue with Apple attempting to restrict OS X to only Apple designed and supplied systems/hardware.
Most likely accept that it's Apple's right to modify OS X anyway they wish, and instead work on circumventing those restrictions in order to continue to use it. That's half the fun after all.
However, that having been said, this reminds me a lot of how nVidia recently attempted to prevent the use of their GPUs as PhysX PPUs when an AMD/ATI card was also present in the system (being used as the GPU). People circumvented that pretty quickly as well, lol.
I agree with you here. Violating a EULA is not piracy.
I dont have a problem with it. Apple sells the discs with the full OS for whatever they deem reasonable. As long as the person isn't making copies to profit from, then it's apple's issue with their business model. I couldnt care less whether or not they want me to buy more hardware. Software alone doesn't compel me to upgrade my hardware.
Hackintosh community is only a big deal to the most righteous apple fans. Otherwise, who could care what John Doe is doing at their leisure. Apple doesnt have to provide support to them and they are making 30-120 bucks more than they would if the person couldnt access the software alone. Options are there and this small market decided they didnt want them and made their own. tough cookies for SJ and Co.
MH01
Suspended
Alot of the devices you listed will run other OS / Emulators. SO now its just the 360? How about we talk about the Wii?
FoxyKaye
macrumors 68000
My vote's on #4 - straight-up code maintenance. The happy byproduct of which is that it makes running SL on an Atom netbook somewhat more difficult. Which, I'm sure Apple is fine with since they are preparing to release their own "netbook" sometime next year. I think this only makes the case as additional collaborative evidence that whatever Apple releases won't be Atom-based.
uberamd
macrumors 68030
I have never once met a hackintosher that paid for OS X. Not once in my life, and I have met a LOT of people who hackintosh.
MH01
Suspended
Nope your missing the point, if they could hack it they would. People would love to have a PS3 run 360 games. Be nice if the 360 and PS3 had the same internals. OS X is designed to run on Intel hardware....hence why u get hackintosh
By passing "any protection", (encryption, obfuscation, a serial number, a lock or whatever) is illegal if the protection is to prevent you from doing something the owner does not want.
In this case, Apple is the owner of the software, it puts a lock and people break it. You might call it whatever you want. But it is illegal.
I'd like you to clarify something for me.
The article pretty much states that the keys are almost there in plain sight, and that if you look in the right place then you'll find them. From that perspective, hasn't Apple sold me the keys when I bought a Mac? I then use those purchased keys to decrypt OS X when I boot my system. That must be legal since it's the standard operating procedure when booting a Mac.
If I also own a Hackintosh system, what's stopping me from using those same purchased keys to decrypt OS X? I'm not obtaining the keys in a fraudulent manner as they were legitimately sold to me when I bought my Mac.
Conversely, I know two people that use a Hackintosh and bought OS X. I've seen the disks.
*LTD*
macrumors G4
An EULA is a Software License Agreement. It is a contract between a producer and a purchaser of computer software that is included with software.
By the way ?
What do you call when you use a serial number for shareware that you did not pay for it?
Most people would agree it is piracy, but you might have another name for it.