Apple's worldwide markketshare is a rounding error so it doesnt matter if they support atom or not. Windows supports and that's the deciding factor; Apple doesnt own the PC market Microsoft does
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
You can't help but suspect this move is Apple's attempt at shutting down the growing and popular Hackintosh Netbook community, since Apple has no product line that runs the Atom itself. Mac OS X runs absolutely flawlessly on much of the PC Netbook hardware, once it's configured you wouldn't know you're not on a Mac. Maybe it's in effort to kill the Atom Hackintoh Netbooks in anticipation of the rumored Tablet? Or maybe it's something totally unrelated?
Nothing like a good EULA discussion to burn an hour or so. But really, I don't see this as anything but Apple having no current Atom based products and also ruling out having any in the future. It only makes sense to tighten their code.
Nothing like a good EULA discussion to burn an hour or so. But really, I don't see this as anything but Apple having no current Atom based products and also ruling out having any in the future. It only makes sense to tighten their code.
LTD, I'm not going to quote your reply because it makes my head hurt to read so many interpolations. You're like the TA from hell!
I agree 100% with your determination that Apple styles itself as a premium brand. I still think it's possible to make a premium netbook for $500 without compromising on style or build -- you could just make an MBA with a 9 or 10" screen, for a start. This isn't happening because (a) the margins for Apple aren't as good as on the bigger machines, (b) they're fully signed up to the iPhone/iPod touch/maybe-Tablet at that price point; and (c) there's a snobbery at Apple towards the kind of 'compromised' machines that the masses are happy to buy.
I recognise that snobbery is the flipside to innovation - Apple has to cultivate a disregard for the conventional and the established if it's going to make big leaps in design and interface technology. But there's also a case for doing the simple things well. As long as we're principally using keyboards to write email and touchpads/mice to navigate the internet, many people will find a netbook more desirable than an iPhone, a tablet, or whatever for some tasks. (Like I said, you can happily own an iPhone AND a netbook, and many people do.) You can innovate in your product line while still doing the basic things elegantly, in my view. But if you want a computer that's smaller than 13", Apple begs to differ.
One last thing: I'm a long-term Apple customer/fanboy, so I hope you're right about the savviness of Apple in cherry picking the premium market and disdaining the entry-level stuff. My view is that Apple should be riding this multiyear iPod/iPhone wave by ensuring that there are as many routes into laptop/desktop OSX as possible. But if you take the view that you can't argue with the stock highs, or that the laptop and desktop are going the way of the dinosaur, I have to concede your argument. I also take your point that, until the rumor is confirmed, all of this is speculation. But I suppose we're generating 15 pages of responses because so many of us think that this sounds plausible.
I agree 100% with your determination that Apple styles itself as a premium brand. I still think it's possible to make a premium netbook for $500 without compromising on style or build -- you could just make an MBA with a 9 or 10" screen, for a start. This isn't happening because (a) the margins for Apple aren't as good as on the bigger machines, (b) they're fully signed up to the iPhone/iPod touch/maybe-Tablet at that price point; and (c) there's a snobbery at Apple towards the kind of 'compromised' machines that the masses are happy to buy.
I recognise that snobbery is the flipside to innovation - Apple has to cultivate a disregard for the conventional and the established if it's going to make big leaps in design and interface technology. But there's also a case for doing the simple things well. As long as we're principally using keyboards to write email and touchpads/mice to navigate the internet, many people will find a netbook more desirable than an iPhone, a tablet, or whatever for some tasks. (Like I said, you can happily own an iPhone AND a netbook, and many people do.) You can innovate in your product line while still doing the basic things elegantly, in my view. But if you want a computer that's smaller than 13", Apple begs to differ.
One last thing: I'm a long-term Apple customer/fanboy, so I hope you're right about the savviness of Apple in cherry picking the premium market and disdaining the entry-level stuff. My view is that Apple should be riding this multiyear iPod/iPhone wave by ensuring that there are as many routes into laptop/desktop OSX as possible. But if you take the view that you can't argue with the stock highs, or that the laptop and desktop are going the way of the dinosaur, I have to concede your argument. I also take your point that, until the rumor is confirmed, all of this is speculation. But I suppose we're generating 15 pages of responses because so many of us think that this sounds plausible.
It's interesting that they say that the user can return it to the distributor from whom they purchased it for a full refund. Many distributors limit the circumstances under which software can be returned, i.e. unopened packaging.
For those who do not pre-read the EULA, and thus purchase OS X, take it home, open the packaging, insert the disk, see the EULA, read the EULA, and then decide they do not agree with it, depending on where they purchased it, they may not have a "legal right" to return it if they do not agree to the license.
If the distributor notified you before hand that you cannot return opened software, you cannot force them to reimburse you. Since the EULA has not been tested in court, Apple's statement of a full refund is likely an incorrect statement at that point.
Sega v. Accolade.
Fair use also allows violations to further interoperability with products produced by the infringing company.
Thanks for skirting the questions I had asked, bypassing any discussion and jumping right into passing judgement. good job
The keys are used just to prevent the OS to run on non Apple hardware. So I believe it qualifies as DMCA. At least, that's how the article places it.
The thing is, it is exactly the same EULA idea. You cannot install this OEM license in other machine that is not these one. (Although you might, but illegally.)
You cannot install this Mac OS X on other machine that is not Apple. (Although you might but illegally).
So, what Apple does restricting Mac OS X on Apple hardware, has being done in the Windows industry for years with OEM licenses, which are the majority of licenses Microsoft sells.
The OEM license is more akin to the osx restore disc, as i've mentioned earlier. The restore disc is only to be used on the mac with which it came. The retail osx install does not care what mac you install it on , only the fact that it is a mac, much like the retail windows license doesnt care what computer you install it on, as long as it is a computer. Ergo the license on the retail osx disc is not the same as the windows oem license. Not a difficult conecpt to understand, but i suppose if you keep telling yourself apple is always right certain things become hard to hear.
Depends where you are, I suppose. In the UK, at least, optical media, once opened from their packaging, are exempt from normal consumer protection laws in respect of exchange and refund unless said media are faulty, in which case they are exchanged, not refunded unless at the discretion of the retailer. It surely doesn't require explaining as to why this is the case.
It is for this reason that click-through EULAs are routinely ignored, as they generally afford the consumer no opportunity to refuse and obtain a refund.
Absolute garbage - show me the evidence that this is the case otherwise you are just spouting rubbish.
Can you cite any legal evidence for this logical leap? As far as I can tell a _violation of EULA_ constitues merely a _violation of EULA_. Nothing more and nothing less. Until Apple takes me to court, where the validity of it's EULA gets tested, and the judge rules in Apple favor.. I haven't commited any copyright violation.. let alone "piracy".
Yes... "Such as" means a list of examples... but if you continue reading:
OSX86-ers do not hack for profit and there is no market impact on the value of the copyrighted work. If the use does not damage Apple in any way, then the use is fair.
According to Fair Use, it is legal to possess a copy of your DVD media for personal use. However, it is illegal to break the encryption of the DVD to obtain such a copy.
Under the DMCA exemptions, it is legal to unlock your mobile phone to make it carrier independent. However, it is illegal to jailbreak an iPhone - the process required to unlock it.
Fair Use would also allow one to use OS X in any non-infringing way, just like ripping a DVD or unlocking an iPhone. However, to do so, one would have to break Apple's EULA.
The purpose of Fair Use is to protect end-users from overreaching content guardian zealots. The technicalities of "illegally" breaking a DVD encryption, or "illegally" jailbreaking an iPhone, or "illegally" breaking Apple's EULA, are unfortunate omissions of Fair Use, which those same zealots (and forum know-it-alls) utilize to stifle legitimate use of copyrighted materials, and do not represent an ethical "wrong"... simply a legal loophole.
-Clive
Sort of, but your knowledge of Windows OEM licensing is a little off. Windows OEM licenses actually have two EULAs, one for the seller and one for the purchaser.
Every component of a computer, except the motherboard, can be changed and you will not be in violation of the EULA for an OEM copy of Windows. There are even certain exceptions to the restrictions regarding the motherboard.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=885079 is a pretty good read in regards to Windows licensing.
I think it's also important to point out that while Apple's restrictions on using OS X with its hardware are, as you pointed out, the result of the SMC and the use of keys to identify hardware, the copy of Windows installed on a pre-built system, very likely has no such software restrictions in place.
Thus, installing it on a new system would be a violation of the EULA, but no further than that (in comparison to your view that installing OS X on a non-Apple system also violates the DMCA).
The amusing thing is that, if someone does try and install their Windows OEM copy on another computer, they can usually call up Microsoft, cite a system failure, and be granted the exception for installation. Admittedly, if the reason for the exception did not actually exist, then they are in violation of the EULA.
agree - my thoughts exactly.
i ran mac osx on an msi wind purely just to test and i still prefer the apple hardware - even with the premium hardware price.
If you think you are the majority, you are insane. If you think the thousands upon thousands who have downloaded the OSx86 torrents all purchased copies, I have a bridge to sell you in New York.
Scenario time. Lets say I own a car lot. What if only 1 in 10 people actually buy my cars, the other 9 people come in at night and steal cars from the lot. As the owner of a lot, should I be setting up fences to prevent this kind of activity?
Roll that into the current situation. Lets say I am Apple. What if only 1 in 10 hackintosh owners actually pay for the OS, the other 9 pirate it off of the intertubewebs. As Apple, should I create blocks in the code to explicitly block out hardware like Atom CPU's that are ONLY contained on unsupported hardware?
And lets face it, a vast f***ing majority of the Hackintosh community are pirates. Once again, if you think any kind of majority of Hackintosh owners purchased OS X legally, well, I have a bridge to sell you.
THANK YOU!
Oh, really? When you install Apple software, don't you see that dialog box asking if you agree with the terms of the EULA? The only way you could install it is if you click AGREE, which means you agree to the EULA. If part of the EULA entails that you can't install this software on non-Apple products, then so be it. If you disagree, click disagree and return the software.
That sounds like a binding contract to me.
Also, we don't even know if Apple is doing this to block Hackintoshers. They might just be optimizing the code, and considering no Apple product now, or in the foreseeable future will use the Atom processor, they have no reason to support it, and might as well tighten the code to make it run better on the processors Apple uses. Having your netbook running the latest version of OSX is not exactly in the best interest of Apple.
It doesnt matter if he is the majority. It doesnt matter if he is the only person with a purchased copy of SL on his pc.
Your car example is flawed as well. If 1 person bought a car and the other 9 people copied that car using their own materials then you havent lost anything. You lost potential sales, but you have the material goods that are still worth what they were a week ago.
It seems like you really dont understand what copyright infringement is, so im just going to leave it at that.
What, is it a surprise to you that in most countries tying is considered to be anti-competitive practice, that's generally detrimental to consumers?? Wow..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)
Tying is the practice of making the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto or de jure customer conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good).
Tying is the practice of making the sale of one good (the tying good) to the de facto or de jure customer conditional on the purchase of a second distinctive good (the tied good).
So long as Apple is independently selling retail copies of Mac OS, and Mac hardware - they're engaging in classic tying as per above definition.
One example of that is the fact that tying GSM phones to a particular carrier (SIM locking) is illegal in a number of countries, and Apple HAS to offer unlocked iPhone in those markets. It is however legal in the US.
BECAUSE YOU CANT PIRATE SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE PURCHASED!! Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you people? I bought it. I can use it as
a coaster, frisbee or burn it if I wanted to. I've never seem so man fanboys in my life. You going to let Apple tell you what time of the day you can use your mac too? Usually these agreements say that they can change the agreement at any time. How could a blanket statement like that ever hold up in court?
Also did you not read the part where it hasn't been proven in court? Apple could put in there any garbage they want. In Europe, it's actually been proven illegal to force these agreements upon consumers.
So you're saying that because some communist dictatorship countries control what citizens drive that my analogy doesn't apply to a democracy that doesn't put up with that BS?
Also I don't even think you read my post because I CLEARLY state that I haven't even made a hackintosh yet! But I'll let you know if I do and I'd like to see you do something about it.