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
Agree with most on here, I guess its related to the upcoming 'tablet'ish' device rumoured for next year.
I've always been really close in getting a cheapo netbook and then putting OSx on it - but then it just bogs me down with all the hassle i'm going to have to go through. Then came the iPhone.
I've always been really close in getting a cheapo netbook and then putting OSx on it - but then it just bogs me down with all the hassle i'm going to have to go through. Then came the iPhone.
It would definitely lower profits, the hardware and software go hand in hand, quality paired with quality. I believe it would lower market share, as it would cheapen the brand. Apple doesn't need to cater to everyone in that way. To me that would show some sort of desperation on Apples part and for what? I don't want to run SL on a Vaio, it's just weird. Like I said quality begets quality, both hardware and software complement each other accordingly. To pull them apart and mix and match just doesn't make sense. It's like taking a Rolex face and putting a plastic swatch watch band on it.
Exactly, clones circa 1997 anyone? Or Snow Leopard would cost instead more like $350 if it was sold standalone. then you get a completely new group of whiners... "OS X isn't worth more than Windows 7... wtf are Apple smoking." People would pirate it and move on with their lives and Apple would fall into a death spiral again.
These kinds of conversations always amaze me. We're developing more and more a world culture of entitlement. The companies are bullies and we are the victims. This is ridiculous. A company develops something and sells you the right to use it, with conditions. You buy it. You don't like the conditions. So you then claim the company is a bully. Can't people act like intelligent adults anymore?
The reason Apple is Apple is because they sell whole solutions. The micro-second that they start breaking that model, their brand will be ruined permanently. Do you think you won't hear complaints from everyone on the planet that they are having problems getting OSX to work on brand xyz hardware? Of course you will... because everyone feels entitled. There is no way Apple could sell it as an "at your own risk" solution, because they would get hammered daily for problems ... some of the same problems Microsoft has by trying to boil the ocean and run on every piece of hardware known to man. So IF Apple allowed their software to run on other hardware, then they would have to support it. That isn't free. In fact, it would cut deeply into their ability to provide the excellent support they do today on their own hardware, and would cause their whole experience to go down hill fast and/or become much more expensive.
Apple sells whole solutions. You don't like that, then don't buy Apple. It has pros and cons, like everything. But whatever you decide, please stop WHINING about Apple being a bully, or whatever.
I still say the best solution to all of this is for Apple to release a license of OSX that they allow to run on 3rd party hardware, and set the price at whatever the current price is for the most expensive Mac Pro. So you can buy it, if you want to pay for it. They can produce a half dozen copies of it so they have one in stock in their inventory, one at Amazon, one at MacMall, etc. Then they can nail everyone to the wall that tries to run the version licensed only for Apple hardware on their 3rd party hardware.
The reason Apple is Apple is because they sell whole solutions. The micro-second that they start breaking that model, their brand will be ruined permanently. Do you think you won't hear complaints from everyone on the planet that they are having problems getting OSX to work on brand xyz hardware? Of course you will... because everyone feels entitled. There is no way Apple could sell it as an "at your own risk" solution, because they would get hammered daily for problems ... some of the same problems Microsoft has by trying to boil the ocean and run on every piece of hardware known to man. So IF Apple allowed their software to run on other hardware, then they would have to support it. That isn't free. In fact, it would cut deeply into their ability to provide the excellent support they do today on their own hardware, and would cause their whole experience to go down hill fast and/or become much more expensive.
Apple sells whole solutions. You don't like that, then don't buy Apple. It has pros and cons, like everything. But whatever you decide, please stop WHINING about Apple being a bully, or whatever.
I still say the best solution to all of this is for Apple to release a license of OSX that they allow to run on 3rd party hardware, and set the price at whatever the current price is for the most expensive Mac Pro. So you can buy it, if you want to pay for it. They can produce a half dozen copies of it so they have one in stock in their inventory, one at Amazon, one at MacMall, etc. Then they can nail everyone to the wall that tries to run the version licensed only for Apple hardware on their 3rd party hardware.
It concerns me, as well. But if Apple were to let the Psystar/Hackintosh crowd move forward unchecked, the retail price of each OS X upgrade will balloon. If the hardware and OS is no longer a bundle, then sales of the OS will have to make development financially viable without the subsidy of hardware, which would be sucky for all of us who own Apple hardware.
So this was all for the "Apple Tablet", no PA Semi/Apple brand ARM chips for the next revision iPhone? Does this mean PA Semi chips can't be used for any future iPhone models? Anyone??
This is silly
It's nice to play amateur intelligence analyst, but doesn't the simplest answer seem to be that they probably thought they were going to be using Atom at some point, or even had prototypes built with Atom, so they had to code support. Then, they made a decision to not go with Atom in said product (or, probably, ever) and so it makes sense to stop spending time and money supporting that chipset.
It's not a competitive play, because netbooks running hackintosh are not a competitive market for them. It's too tiny, too unsupported, to janky for them to care to kill it, and nothing but an advertisement for getting a real mac to anyone who has gone through the trouble to install on a piece of crap netbook anyway.
Atom support doesn't hurt them enough to spend money to kill it. Nor does it help them enough to spend money to continue to support it.
P.S. I used to work for a business partner of Lenovo, in such a capacity that I was privy to early product knowledge. Companies are glad just to be able to get decent products to market, they don't have time to worry about any clandestine anti-hacker backdoors.
It's nice to play amateur intelligence analyst, but doesn't the simplest answer seem to be that they probably thought they were going to be using Atom at some point, or even had prototypes built with Atom, so they had to code support. Then, they made a decision to not go with Atom in said product (or, probably, ever) and so it makes sense to stop spending time and money supporting that chipset.
It's not a competitive play, because netbooks running hackintosh are not a competitive market for them. It's too tiny, too unsupported, to janky for them to care to kill it, and nothing but an advertisement for getting a real mac to anyone who has gone through the trouble to install on a piece of crap netbook anyway.
Atom support doesn't hurt them enough to spend money to kill it. Nor does it help them enough to spend money to continue to support it.
P.S. I used to work for a business partner of Lenovo, in such a capacity that I was privy to early product knowledge. Companies are glad just to be able to get decent products to market, they don't have time to worry about any clandestine anti-hacker backdoors.
The North Korea of the computer world strikes again.
This is one of the main reasons Apple should have NEVER switched to the Intel platform.
And a testament to the fact that MacRumors is becoming an arm of the hackintosh community.
+1 for the first 2/3 of that post. Windoze suffers from trying to run on everything from a phone to a cray (well not quite, crays are too smart to run that OS) and mac doesn't have that problem, nor does it want it. I think the sell the hardware, sell the software model is great for apple and I'm happy if they just keep doing it.
I don't agree with the last 1/3. Apple shouldn't venture anywhere near trying to license OSX on anything other than totally controlled hardware, it's the very edge of a very steep and very, very slippery slope. Not for any money, you do it, someone buys it, now you're supporting it, let alone the 1000s of copies which get out there pirated and now the messageboards are full of 'oz eks sux becoz I d/led it for free from siberpnk and it wont run on my dell 386'. Stuff like that just hurts your reputation.
I don't agree with the last 1/3. Apple shouldn't venture anywhere near trying to license OSX on anything other than totally controlled hardware, it's the very edge of a very steep and very, very slippery slope. Not for any money, you do it, someone buys it, now you're supporting it, let alone the 1000s of copies which get out there pirated and now the messageboards are full of 'oz eks sux becoz I d/led it for free from siberpnk and it wont run on my dell 386'. Stuff like that just hurts your reputation.
People are not used to having conditions attached when they actually buy something. If you lease a car, you cannot do what you want with it. Buy that car, and you can suddenly take a lot of liberties. This is how people think, as this is what they are used to.
The problem here may be that the concept of a software license is still alien to many. They don't get it. They skip the legalese when installing software, and I don't even blame them.
Sure, there are those who know exactly what it means to violate the terms of a software license. This is not so much the case for others. For them, "I bought it, I can do what I want with it!" is the only thing that makes sense.
Oh, well - if that means my eeePC is stuck on 10.6.1, it's not that big of a deal. Honestly, I wouldn't even be dealing with a hackintosh if Apple would put out a more affordable portable laptop. I like the MacBook Air, but it's hard to justify the price...
And I have yet to find a real issue with Apple other than design change of a product when I've already fallen in love with a particular design. But that all comes with advancements in technology. If this happens you wait it out a bit, cause they are aces in design. It's usually not so crazy anyway and you get used to the new look and feel of whatever it is i.e. the iphone. I loved the original as far as texture and shape and hated this new design at first. I now realize that this is far more practical and the design is still better than anything out there.
Doesn't killing off the netbook hackintosh models are only to make way for Apple "approved" net products, such as the rumored tablet? Why a a mini-dell running OS X when you can have a "mini" Apple 'whatever' running OS X? At least the two stories, rumored tablet and nixing support of Intel Atom Processor, might make some sense.
Apple is just re-creating a market, maybe?!
Apple is just re-creating a market, maybe?!
I don't know if this one is actually true. It makes little sense that support for a typical x86 chip would be removed in an x86 operating system. The Atom has everything that the Mac OS 10.6 kernel theoretically needs to run, including SSE3 and PAE--it should just work for 10.5/10.6 installs.
And besides, even if this is true, the hackintosh community has gotten OS X builds to run on all sorts of different x86 flavors from AMD that aren't specifically supported (and actually work a little differently than Intel's x86 instantiation), so adaptation to this should be no problem.
For example, if Apple was queer enough to add in some sort of "if detectCPU() == "IntelAtom", then fail" logic into the kernel boot process, the hackintosh community will make sort work of it.
And besides, even if this is true, the hackintosh community has gotten OS X builds to run on all sorts of different x86 flavors from AMD that aren't specifically supported (and actually work a little differently than Intel's x86 instantiation), so adaptation to this should be no problem.
For example, if Apple was queer enough to add in some sort of "if detectCPU() == "IntelAtom", then fail" logic into the kernel boot process, the hackintosh community will make sort work of it.
I'd be interested in seeing how Mac OS X will do if Apple opened it up to non-Apple hardware. I know Apple's revenue will tank, but it would be interesting (not necessarily good or bad, just interesting) to see how many copies of OS X will be sold. Not saying this is a good or bad thing, just something that might be interesting to see.
They already knew this, but Apple has chosen not to cater to that particular market.
Yeah, but... I just don't buy the idea that Apple would really go so far in order to shut down the Hackintosh users. They are not even a blip on the radar screen, are they? Also, given how dedicated the Hackintosh users are to working around their many issues when trying to get things to work, I bet a workaround is already being considered.
That being said, I think there would actually be a huge amount of people switching over. People don't want problems, they want ease of use, along with aesthetics. Apple offers both.