Apple Disabling Support for Intel Atom Processor in Latest 10.6.2 Build?

[geveke]

You people are taking this EULA thing way too seriously. Really.
I know that a lot of people learnt to handle Photoshop on school-copies, or simply stolen ones. Once they turned pro, they bought their own license. Adobe must be aware that such a complicated package cannot be bought just to try it out. They stay in business because people steal it.
I'm not saying that building Hackintoshes will eventually lead to higher Mac sales, though. It's just a hobby. Most Hackintosh builders I know own more than one Mac, but do it just for fun. And I've read threads where people boasted about having an AMD box that runs Final Cut Pro. So what? Do they actually make prime time television with it? No. They don't know how to handle FCP, they just want to see it's possible.
It's like putting a Ferrari engine in a Subaru: It's pointless, and you sure wouldn't rely on it to get you to work every day. But sure enough, there are people who think it's great fun to try and make it work.
Is it legal? I'm not sure. Is any harm done? Definitely not.
Can you call these people freeloaders? If they torrent their copy of OSX, install it and use it every day to make a living, then yes. But I seriously doubt if that happens a lot. It takes days and days to have a stable install, that can let you down at any given point in time. It's simply not worth it.
If Apple drops the Atom, that's fine. Why should they support a part they don't intend to use? But to the Hackintosh builders it's probably all in the game. They don't complain about it, because they know they are not entitled to support. They have to figure it all out themselves. That why it's a hobby: just a bit of a puzzle. And in the morning the real job. On a real Mac.

 

[Maserati7200]

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.

You're right it isn't piracy. But you still aren't allowed to do it, period. Apple didn't have to make OSX for you. Now that they did, if you want to use it, you have to agree to the EULA. It's really simple, I honestly don't see what you don't understand.

 

[zub3qin]

IF Apple was going to release a tablet running OS X or a netbook, I'd be in favor of this.


But they are not.


They are releasing a tablet that will play movies, run apps like iPhone, and do email/safari.

Basically, a large screen iPod Touch.


So why stop those of us that WANT a smaller device to run OS X?
Release something we want, or else we will make our own.

 

[Maserati7200]

IF Apple was going to release a tablet running OS X or a netbook, I'd be in favor of this.


But they are not.


They are releasing a tablet that will play movies, run apps like iPhone, and do email/safari.

Basically, a large screen iPod Touch.

HOW do you know that? There is no confirmation that Apple will ever release this thing, it might be under development and dropped. If it does get released, we don't know what OS it will run.

 

[weckart]

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.

Doesn't even begin to sound like a contract to me. What law school did you attend?

 

[iSee]

You can call things whatever you want, but your labeling things doesn't make them so. I guess by your logic, me buying a copy of Windows 7 is "piracy" too, because from Apple's perspective they just lost a sale of OS X.

Get this into your heads people - piracy and violating the EULA are not the same thing, not even close.

Like I said, I'm not talking about the EULA. Also, your example has nothing to do with my logic.

Look: Taking software without paying for it is piracy, right? We all agree on that, I assume.

So what is it called when someone underpays for software? E.g., if they pay for an upgrade when they don't own the previous version? Or buys the single user license and installs it on three machines. If you don't want to call it piracy, fine. Let's call it cheating, or stealing, if your prefer.

With OS X I think you are underpaying if you install it on non-Apple hardware. That's because I think the price of the hardware subsidizes the development and maintenance of the OS. It's hard to be sure of that, but if selling OS X independent of hardware was a viable business Apple would already be doing it. When they tried it they almost went out of business.

 

[Amdahl]

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.

Actually, if it is *just* used to prevent operation, it is not a DMCA device. If it also has a copy protection purpose, then it would probably qualify. Has Apple made a DMCA circumvention claim?

I think since Apple dropped TPM(which would have been a DMCA protected device), they may not have a DMCA protection.

With OS X I think you are underpaying if you install it on non-Apple hardware. That's because I think the price of the hardware subsidizes the development and maintenance of the OS.

Sarbanes-Oxley.

It's hard to be sure of that, but if selling OS X independent of hardware was a viable business Apple would already be doing it. When they tried it they almost went out of business.

But they ARE selling it independent of hardware. After they sell it to you, they then try to restrict your usage of it. That would not be enforceable in court, I believe, in the USA. In other countries, it is already a legal precedent that it isn't enforceable.

Apple sells Mac OS X to run on PCs. They only want you to run it on Apple branded PCs. But just as IBM couldn't stop people from running IBM-compatible software(specifically, PC-DOS) on Compaq's, neither can Apple really stop OS X from running on Dell. And in IBM's case, it didn't help that they hadn't signed an exclusive licensing arrangement with Microsoft, who was happy to sell MS-DOS to everybody.

 

[maclancer]

The North Korea of the computer world strikes again.

I agree, apple had became a communist organization

 

[Clive At Five]

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.

Your conjecture is purely speculation. Neither you nor I know the composition of pirates and payers within the OSX86 community.

Besides, I never said Apple shouldn't build a fence, but when pirates live in both hackentown and Macland, maybe they should build a fence around both town's auto dealerships.

Piracy is not reason enough itself to take action against the OSX86 project. It's a symptom of a different problem. I'm not a fan of authentication, but if that's what it takes to preserve the OSX86 community, I'll gladly embrace it.

-Clive

 

[hitekalex]

With OS X I think you are underpaying if you install it on non-Apple hardware. That's because I think the price of the hardware subsidizes the development and maintenance of the OS. It's hard to be sure of that, but if selling OS X independent of hardware was a viable business Apple would already be doing it.

Except that Apple does sell OS X separately from hardware: Apple Snow Leopard Mac Box Set

Whether I am "underpaying" or "overpaying" when I buy this $169 box set is just your speculation. If Apple wants to cross-subsidise MacOS with hopes of selling more Mac hardware - it's just their business decision. Buying MacOS and using it on my own hardware doesn't make me a "pirate". No more so than buying heavily subsidized Sony PS3 (because Sony hopes I buy bunch of games), but never buying any and just using it as a Blu-ray player

 

[HLdan]

While this may be the intentions of the "powers that be" of the OSX community, im pretty confident if you were to poll the OSX86 you would find most do not buy OSX but pirate it.

Agreed. The same goes for Windows. I find it so interesting how so many people complain how expensive Macs are and then some of these same people go out and buy one and immediately set up Bootcamp. Does everyone own a separate copy of Windows??? I highly doubt it. The torrent store gets a lot of business from Windows users and Hackintoshers.

 

[Bafflefish]

But just as IBM couldn't stop people from running IBM-compatible software(specifically, PC-DOS) on Compaq's, neither can Apple really stop OS X from running on Dell. And in IBM's case, it didn't help that they hadn't signed an exclusive licensing arrangement with Microsoft, who was happy to sell MS-DOS to everybody.

Well, the reason why IBM couldn't stop people from running "IBM-compatible" software on other manufacturer's systems was because, as you mentioned, they did not sign an exclusivity deal with Microsoft. Since the software in question ran on PC-DOS/MS-DOS, it was independent of the hardware itself (in so far as any system that could run *-DOS, could run "IBM-compatible" software designed for PC-DOS).

Since DOS wasn't exclusive, it could be licensed to other manufacturers, who thus could claim IBM compatibility.

It's a different situation with OS X. Apple produces and sells both the software and the hardware (albeit, slightly-modified standard PC hardware). Thus, this isn't the same situation. IBM simply licensed the OS for use with their hardware. Apple actually produces the OS and closely associates it ("ties") it to their hardware. Thus, they can determine how and where OS X is to be installed.

 

[Bafflefish]

Agreed. The same goes for Windows. I find it so interesting how so many people complain how expensive Macs are and then some of these same people go out and buy one and immediately set up Bootcamp. Does everyone own a separate copy of Windows??? I highly doubt it. The torrent store gets a lot of business from Windows users and Hackintoshers.

Oh please, piracy is quite high amongst Mac users and new OS X releases also.

I remember in college, how when 10.1 and 10.2 were released, it seemed like one person would obtain a copy, and then that one copy somehow was passed around to many different people, until finally the person would come looking for it.

I must be strange, but I've always purchased the OS when it wasn't otherwise available. Thankfully, there are easy and legal ways to get an OS for less than the retail cost.

 

[BaldiMac]

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.

A Windows OEM license limits you to one specific computer. A OS X license limits you to one brand of computer. Why is one okay and one not? The fact that a restore disc is "more" comparable to an OEM disc is irrelevant to my question.

Moreover, Microsoft sells full versions of Windows and upgrade versions of Windows. Apple does exactly the same thing. All retail boxes are upgrades. Full versions are only sold with Macs. Why is one okay and one not?

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".

If you create a copy (such as by installing OS X) without the permission of the copyright owner, you have committed copyright infringement unless the copy falls under the limitations to the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

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.

You make huge leaps in logic here. None of the four factors listed would likely favor a fair use argument for personal installations. "Non-profit educational use" does not project to any personal use. The fact that the whole of the work is being copied does not favor fair use. How can you claim that there is no market impact?

According to Fair Use, it is legal to possess a copy of your DVD media for personal use.

That is not fair use. That is a different limitation on exclusive rights.

However, it is illegal to break the encryption of the DVD to obtain such a copy.

It is not illegal to break an encryption to make a copy if that copy is legal.

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.

However it is legal to jailbreak an iPhone if you do so solely to make it carrier independent.

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.

Fair use is one of many limitations to a copyright owner's exclusive rights. It has nothing to do with ripping a DVD or unlocking an iPhone. Unless you are ripping a DVD to show a short scene is a classroom setting for educational purposes, as an example.

Making a copy of OS X "in any non-infringing way" implies that the copy is either authorized by Apple or falls under the limitations to their exclusive rights. You can find a list of these limitations in the link above.

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.

By "zealots" and "forum know-it-alls", I assume you mean anyone that disagrees with you.

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.

Whether they have lost "potential sales" or actual sales is not relevant to whether or not copyright infringement occurred. Apple has exclusive rights to create copies of OS X, subject to the limitations that I linked to earlier.

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).​

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.

Tying is only illegal in specific circumstances.

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?

You can use the DVD for anything you want. The problem is that you license the software. You do not own it.

Actually, if it is *just* used to prevent operation, it is not a DMCA device. If it also has a copy protection purpose, then it would probably qualify. Has Apple made a DMCA circumvention claim?

I think since Apple dropped TPM(which would have been a DMCA protected device), they may not have a DMCA protection.

Apple has never used TPM to tie OS X to Apple hardware. They currently use an encryption key embedded in the SMC.

 

[sneezymarble]

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".

I don't think the move is a "logical leap". It's pretty simple I think. Apple's OS is licensed and not sold. The idea of software as a license and not a sale is a controversial one but let's just grant that when one pays money for an OSX disc, they get two things: (1) a good in the form of the physical disc, and (2) a license to use the software on the disc contingent upon your agreement to certain terms attached to the use of the software.

If you violate a term in the license you agree to, then per the terms of the license, you are no longer authorized to use the software. Any use thereafter is unauthorized use of the software and the copy you use becomes an unauthorized copy of the software. To have and use an unauthorized copy of some software is just what it is to commit copyright infringement.

I actually don't think that ought to be the case because it entails that any violation of any term in a license agreement is (1) breach of contract and (2) copyright infringement. The case in which this line of thinking was supported is Blizzard v MDY. It's been pointed out how absurd this line is in the case of the WoW EULA/SLA since the WoW EULA/SLA contains terms about what you can and can not name your characters. Thus, using a name not approved by Blizzard is both a breach of contract and also constitutes copyright infringement by way of the line of thinking I outlined above.

 

[Bafflefish]

A Windows OEM license limits you to one specific computer. A OS X license limits you to one brand of computer. Why is one okay and one not? The fact that a restore disc is "more" comparable to an OEM disc is irrelevant to my question.

A Windows OEM license limits you to one specific "motherboard", not computer. *Every* other part in that computer can be changed, and you will still legally have the right to use that OEM license. There are even exceptions for when you can replace every component, including the motherboard, and still use it.

 

[KnightWRX]

No more so than buying heavily subsidized Sony PS3 (because Sony hopes I buy bunch of games), but never buying any and just using it as a Blu-ray player

Bad example. 2 reasons :

- Sony hasn't been subsidizing the PS3. It has been very careful that the console itself is a profit generator this generation. Hence why the PS3 was/is so expensive and why it hasn't come down in price much.

- Sony gets royalties from Blu-ray licenses and thus, sales.

 

[Bafflefish]

Sony hasn't been subsidizing the PS3. It has been very careful that the console itself is a profit generator this generation. Hence why the PS3 was/is so expensive and why it hasn't come down in price much.

The PS3 isn't a profit generator, at least, the hardware itself isn't. Sony is still taking a loss on each PS3 sold, including the PS3 slim.

Now, if you factor in peripherals, software, etc., then it's offset some, but from what I recall of Sony's recent earnings announcement, their game division is still unprofitable. It's simply... less unprofitable now, lol.

 

[Amdahl]

Well, the reason why IBM couldn't stop people from running "IBM-compatible" software on other manufacturer's systems was because, as you mentioned, they did not sign an exclusivity deal with Microsoft.

No, I said it didn't help. Compaq could have tossed a copy of PC-DOS in with their machines, and I'm sure at times, exactly that happened.

It's a different situation with OS X. Apple produces and sells both the software and the hardware (albeit, slightly-modified standard PC hardware). Thus, this isn't the same situation. IBM simply licensed the OS for use with their hardware. Apple actually produces the OS and closely associates it ("ties") it to their hardware. Thus, they can determine how and where OS X is to be installed.

No. Even if MS-DOS wasn't in the marketplace, PC-DOS also ran on non-IBM machines. Apple hardware products are 'slightly-modified.' The modification is the BIOS and possibly SMC. Compaq had to implement their own BIOS that mimicked the original IBM BIOS function-for-function, so that DOS and most apps would run. This is legal. And as Sega v. Accolade later showed, even infringement is permissible to make a product interoperable.

Apple has made DMCA claims against Psystar, and those may end up succeeding, but plain old copyright will not(unless they AREN'T buying copies). I think the Apple claim that they aren't buying copies is part of their claim that the copy in RAM while it is running is an 'illegal copy,' because they have circumvented the interoperability mechanism. I suspect the DMCA claims may fail if the court feels the mechanism was to prevent interoperability, rather than prevent copying.

When seen in the light of Sega v. Accolade, Apple has created a fancy video game machine that costs a lot, and only runs one cheap game. They don't want anyone else to use the cheap game on cheaper video game machines, and have created an interoperability block to try and enforce this.

 

[Apple //e]

An XP CD burned in 2002 will boot on an Atom. It's "x86 compatible" - that's all that is needed. There's no "supporting code" involved, it's an x86.

Apple will have to actively change OSX to look for the Atom ID and refuse to load if they want to stop this.

i was wondering why it took so long for someone to point this out.

maybe osx will one day get bloated by all the extra lines of code to keep it "incompatible"

 

[Mathlete]

Why is this an issue?

Apple is doing what they have chosen to do as a business.
I'm sure that trying to kill off all the scum that hack the software is better for the company.

Don't agree?

Go whine to someone who cares.

 

[Eidorian]

i was wondering why it took so long for someone to point this out.

maybe osx will one day get bloated by all the extra lines of code to keep it "incompatible"

Oh it's nothing new.

 

[ngdesign]

Steve you A$$, i like your OS so much i would like to install it into all my machines and this is your thanks?

It's like cutting me off after having sexy time (><)

 

[Gaelic2]

At least they're getting the message that people are willing to buy sub $500 hardware.

Alot of people bought the "Yugo" because it was cheap. See any of them around today? They'd be stupid to produce those low end, low profit bits of junk.

 

[cmaier]

A Windows OEM license limits you to one specific computer. A OS X license limits you to one brand of computer. Why is one okay and one not? The fact that a restore disc is "more" comparable to an OEM disc is irrelevant to my question.

Moreover, Microsoft sells full versions of Windows and upgrade versions of Windows. Apple does exactly the same thing. All retail boxes are upgrades. Full versions are only sold with Macs. Why is one okay and one not?



If you create a copy (such as by installing OS X) without the permission of the copyright owner, you have committed copyright infringement unless the copy falls under the limitations to the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106



You make huge leaps in logic here. None of the four factors listed would likely favor a fair use argument for personal installations. "Non-profit educational use" does not project to any personal use. The fact that the whole of the work is being copied does not favor fair use. How can you claim that there is no market impact?



That is not fair use. That is a different limitation on exclusive rights.



It is not illegal to break an encryption to make a copy if that copy is legal.



However it is legal to jailbreak an iPhone if you do so solely to make it carrier independent.



Fair use is one of many limitations to a copyright owner's exclusive rights. It has nothing to do with ripping a DVD or unlocking an iPhone. Unless you are ripping a DVD to show a short scene is a classroom setting for educational purposes, as an example.

Making a copy of OS X "in any non-infringing way" implies that the copy is either authorized by Apple or falls under the limitations to their exclusive rights. You can find a list of these limitations in the link above.



By "zealots" and "forum know-it-alls", I assume you mean anyone that disagrees with you.



Whether they have lost "potential sales" or actual sales is not relevant to whether or not copyright infringement occurred. Apple has exclusive rights to create copies of OS X, subject to the limitations that I linked to earlier.



Tying is only illegal in specific circumstances.



You can use the DVD for anything you want. The problem is that you license the software. You do not own it.



Apple has never used TPM to tie OS X to Apple hardware. They currently use an encryption key embedded in the SMC.

People who like to justify their infringements by making up the law, pay attention to this guy. He correctly states how copyright, the DMCA, and the fair use defense to copyright work (at least in the U.S.).