Apple Legal vs x86 Mac OS X

[~Shard~]

This is the part I'm curious about as well, the restriction on the dev kit was relatively lax, just look on how long it took to crack it successfully, the range of hardware it can run on is growing rapidly.

...

... but I think that something bigger is going on here than what we're first seeing.

I agree. One thought that popped ito my head was that perhaps Apple wants people to pirate and hack OS X for PCs. After all, way back in the day, Bill Gates encouraged the "illegal" copying and distribution of his Windows software when it first came out, simply to get it out there and get it mainstream, in use by many poeple, legal or not - look what it's done for him and MS. Perhaps Apple has a similar strategy as well to try and get masses of PC users on OS X. Mind you, there is a difference between installing pirated software (easy) and hacking a hardware system to run an OS (harder), but nonetheless, in this day and age, once something like that gets out there, and more PC users start using OS X, it could spread quite quickly. You'll have Mac users who also have PCs, and want to run their favorite OS on their PC, PC users who simply want to try it, and hackers who may not even like OS X (initially) but want to do it because it's a challenge. 😉 And from there, it spreads.. all before Vista is released... 😎

 

[bretm]

I couldn't disagree more. Microsoft makes money because they sell 95% OS's. Apple is also very profitable, but makes it's cash off of hardware sales.

Ignoring iPod, and figure the average Mac user spend $1500 on equipment. That means they'd have to sell more than 10 Tigers to make up for it (i'm speculating here - i really don't know what kind of margins these products have). So, the userbase would have to increase by 10 fold, which would put Mac OSX at 50% of the market (10 times 5%), and I highly doubt that's even a remotely obtainable goal - as M$ will step in and start giving away Windows for free until Apple goes under. (man, am I being speculative!)

Furthermore, OS's can just up and run on "any ol' hardware". The OS has to know how to talk to, for example, a CD ROM drive, which means the manufacturer has to write a driver to act as the "interpreter". Anyone who's worked with a homegrown box knows that drivers are one giant pain in the butt when they don't work, and I'm perfectly happy that Apple is currently free and clear of supporting random hardware.

I hope it *never* happens, and let them concentrate on hardware (which they rule at) and software (which they rule at) and not support calls (which they're ok at).

Apple doesn't have any "Manifest Destiny" at work here, and I don't really care how much marketshare Macs have, and neither should you. They have "enough" now, as I have no problems finding software, and rather enjoy being the underdog. They are profitable in all departments right now, and do not have shrinking marketshare.

You are so narrow sighted it's not even funny. You're trying to compare hardware sales to OS sales. And you make a good point on the tenfold thing. However, you seem to have neglected the other 90% of the HIGH MARGIN software that Apple sells, which is what the PC world is drooling about and wish they could run on their machines. Products that cost MORE than a hardware box like Shake and Final Cut. Awesomely powerful DVD authoring like DVD Studio Pro and cutting edge motion graphics like Motion. When they sell a copy of FCP for a grand you can bet the margin is a lot higher than the $1500 computer it runs on. It'll run on a mac mini for that matter. What do you think the margins on mini's are? Maybe $75. The high ticket items would at least offset your numbers quite a bit if not negate them. You were just calculating for OSX and it's market share. But they'd be increasing their market share of all their apps to every PC model out there if they released OSX for intel boxes. I think many users would love to run Apple's line of great software, even the iLife and iWork stuff. And they'd have to buy a copy of OSX (much much much cheaper than windows's most comparable version at $300). It would make up for the hardware sales loss, which c'mon, would hardly be any losses at all. The 3% buying apple hardware are a loyal apple faithful and they'd still be buyign apple computers for the cool factor. And let's not forget that apple boxes will be coming waaay down in price with the new chips and the new hardware that it off the shelf. Apple will be saving money and competing right along side other high-end boxes like Sony. And let's not forget the number of windows users that will be buying Apple boxes instead of a sony box to run windows on. Why would you pay good money for a Sony box when you could get an apple one for the same price.

Think outside the box and you'll see that a company that has the best software and the best hardware can't lose when it expands it's possible market by 95% in one instant.

 

[Eric5h5]

What I think would work is if Apple went to ROMs for their OS. Upgrade your OS? Take out the old OS chip and put in the new one. I think that'd be the most successful.

Like the Amiga? Then most people wouldn't upgrade their OS. The only way they'd get a newer OS is to buy a new computer. Asking people to open their computers and swap a chip is way too much...it may seem simple, and it is, but people won't do it....

What does Apple do to keep general PPC hardware from running OSX?

Not a thing. Note that there's very little general PPC hardware out there, though. Also I'm not aware of OS X running natively in those cases; it has to be run hosted on Linux through MacOnLinux, and then you're missing out on things like hardware acceleration, so it's not ideal.

--Eric

 

[Arcus]

Like the Amiga? Then most people wouldn't upgrade their OS. The only way they'd get a newer OS is to buy a new computer. Asking people to open their computers and swap a chip is way too much...it may seem simple, and it is, but people won't do it....



Not a thing. Note that there's very little general PPC hardware out there, though. Also I'm not aware of OS X running natively in those cases; it has to be run hosted on Linux through MacOnLinux, and then you're missing out on things like hardware acceleration, so it's not ideal.

--Eric

Make it a cartdridge like the Atari 2600. Sure would boot quickly!!

My 2c - Apple is delusional if they think they will be able to stop people from installing OSX on whatever they want to .

 

[generik]

Not really, because as the article even states:



They are posting videos of "illegal" actions being done with Apple's SDK. I'm not really into legal stuff, but I think they have more than enough reason to be angry or agressive, if they'll obtain anything this way is another matter.

Maybe Apple wants this to be silenced before they make support for others PC's official. Who knows... it could happen.
Maybe they see it like if someone posted a picture of any Apple product before its official release.

It is a violation of terms as agreed between 2 parties in a private contract. Oh, and the fact that most probably the OSX that is being run by the PC is pirated, but to suggest that the terms of a contract IS law is ridiculous! It is so heinously 1984-ish.

Doubleplusgood Apple! Don't think otherwise and be a thoughtcriminal!

 

[ATG]

Good. Why did it take them so long?

 

[froejoe]

... the last thing we want is for OS X to be avaible on any PC......

Actually, it's the FIRST thing I want!

 

[FF_productions]

how much money could apple make if osx ran on a pc? They don't make much money off of their OS right now, but if its expanded to run on a plain pc, could they actually make a lot of money off of it?

BUT, who would buy their hardware if they could run OSX on a 300 dollar dell machine? It's way to risky...

 

[generik]

Why is it exactly we want people to run Mac OS X on any computer. I like it just the way it is Virus free!!! the second we start letting Dell and HP run our system is the day every hacker and weirdo starts writing viruses that will put us in the same boat as windows. As for me I like my quiet Mac world! and I would like it to stay that way.

Are you suggesting *gasp* OSX is not secure?

"OMG!!!! WHAT IF SOME PRON SITES INSTALL PRON WIDGETS IN DASHBOARD!"

Viruses can be prevented by user discretion and not clicking every darned thing in an email that says "click me", spyware... well, that is a vendor issue more than anything else, and we'll see if Apple's software development is truly up to snuff as OSX takes off in the future and there is greater incentive to plant various.. extras.. into our Macs, but please don't say such things!

You do want Apple to succeed don't you? And please don't tell me you think it is elite to own a computer that few do, because you should seriously look at other things in life then.. more like that elusive studio apartment, or that hot sports car, instead of a el-cheapo $2000 computer.

 

[RacerX]

Well, beyond the fact that these are developer systems that are covered under an NDA... the only copies of Mac OS X for Intel are tied to physical hardware.

This is just as illegal as using the copy of Mac OS X that comes with a new Mac to install Mac OS X on other systems. It doesn't matter how any of these people got Mac OS X for Intel... if it is running on anything other than a developer kit, they are breaking their end user license agreement.

Apple has every right to go after these people... and to stop the spread of information that would lead to others trying to do the same thing.

🙄

I seem to recall Arent Fox coming after some sites that showed how to take the free 10.1 upgrade CDs and turn them into regular 10.1 install CDs.

I don't see this as any different.

 

[gio64]

Hi everyone, first timer on forums.
I would like to put my 2 cents worth.
First, Apple has to keep the OS on Macs only because the company's ability of designing and controlling the hardware is one of the reasons why the "Mac experience" is such a great one. Take the hardware out of that equation, and you get just another PC with just another OS.
Second, If Apple releases the OS for any PC, then Apple will submit itself to the following condition: they will only sell hardware if their hardware is equally expensive or cheaper in comparable configurations in comparison to a PC (and this will never take place, since the competition for PC hardware out there is incredible). If instead the OS is not released for any PC, then Apple can still interest PC users, since they offer a better OS and a bundle of Apps along with a computer that is still able to run Windoze if the buyer wants to.
As far as keeping the hackers away from running the OS on any PC, that'll be an almost impossible task. However, if Apple doesn't make drivers for hardware that they don't support, then running Tiger on a PC will be quite a problem, since Apple can stop non authorized hardware manufacturers from writing drivers for their OS (although, this raises a problem with those that want to buy a piece of hardware and put it in a Mactel and cannot access many of the products out there...)
Lastly, I think this move has only one purpose (forget about all the b***t about "power consumption per MHz" and "Intel Roadmap" (after hearing Bush using the "Roadmap" word and seeing his outstanding failures I have developed an idiosyncrasis for that word...): "steal" PC market, luring first borderline consumers, then average consumers.
I think Apple needs to broaden its sales to keep the stock going. We all have read about how impossible it has been for a few years now to keep their stock up and rising, I suspect they are getting to the limit and need to exploit another possibility.
Apple -like I said- sells a PC with something more (and a little bit less): something more is a fantastic OS with a fantastic iLife applications suite (I myself prefer the more professional apps, but I have to admit that what iLife offers for the average user is simply fantastic); a little bit less is that they won't package Windoze with it. But, everyone that has a PC also has a copy of the infamous OS, so they can help themselves to putting it in the Mac and use it if they wish.
What happens from there on, is imaginable.
If 5 years down the road the switch has been successful, I believe they will reach for what I see as being better processor architectures, like the one of the G4/5 (or even AMD), given that such alternatives will still be lurking around at that point (remember, no G5 on Apple means that the G5 market will shrink considerably).
That's how I feel.

 

[Yvan256]

It is a violation of terms as agreed between 2 parties in a private contract. Oh, and the fact that most probably the OSX that is being run by the PC is pirated, but to suggest that the terms of a contract IS law is ridiculous!

Aren't the terms of a contract enforcable by law? I mean, there's no law about installing (even a purchased copy of) OS X on an Intel PC, but you're breaking your contract if you do so (only developpers are supposed to have "OS X-86").

 

[jicon]

Oh- so it's just by coincidence that they offer the best computing experience available? Maybe, but I don't think so.

Oh, so just by coincidence, an iPod dock for a 4G iPod sells for $80 here? ($69 + tax)

A fabric case costs $49 + tax?

A dock cord for $30 + tax?

Encouraging a "Made for iPod" logo in which Apple charges a percentage of sales?

Extremely low margins for resellers?

Oh, but OSX is a marginally better experience than XP... <sarcastic>well then, since that has no corrolation to money or stock in any way, I guess Apple isn't evil akin to McDonald's, Microsoft, or Dell</sarcastic>

 

[Yebot]

A mere thought:

Someone cracks open Mac OSX x86 to run on a PC. The resulting headlines stream quietly through MacMinute.com and other fringe nerdnews venues. The general public is unaware.

Apple Computer files a lawsuit against a site (doesn’t matter which) that posts evidence of OSX running on a PC. The headlines of this act just might make it to CNN, CNBC, FoxNews … etc. The general public (and the stock market) slowly awakens to the idea of an easy-to-use Windows alternative.

 

[Crikey]

Maybe if I make a video of MacOS X booting on my PalmPilot, or my Atari ST, or my Commodore 64, Apple Legal will send me a letter, too.

Is Apple asserting that it has copyright not only in its software, but in any pictures or video taken of its software in operation? This would make for some interesting litigation.

I can see that they don't want people running MacOS X on non-Apple hardware, and they will do what they must to try to prevent it (holds nose against that awful Palladium/TCPA/TCG smell). But threatening Web sites that post videos is not hip.


Crikey

 

[beatle888]

yes they should try that first, why not?

because their dealing with people that are trying to circumvent their product. they know their doing something wrong. why should apple treat them like a baby?

 

[BenRoethig]

You've forgotten that they tried that before in the 90's. There was almost no Apple left after that.

1. There was little difference the Mac OS and Windows, and virtually no difference between Macs and Windows towers. There was no iLife, iPod, iMac, or anything of the sort.
2. Apple would only let small startups licensing the OS effectively keeping the expansion potential nonexistent.

It is you who don't get it. Apple's market share is currently growing not shrinking.

Lets say Microsoft addresses most user concerns in vista. How long do you think it is going to stay growing? I bet someone said the same thing as you 20 years ago. The best businesses are no the most innovative, the best businesses are those who know when to act and when not to.

 

[G.Kirby]

It sounds like Apple is trying to stop the tide from coming in. Valiant, if a bit futile. Once the Intel Mac is released I can see it getting hacked and ported to PC by individuals way smarter than me. It may just be a lot less hassle for Apple to bring out Mac OS-PC for the popular manufacturers…….that should piss-off MicroShit 😀

 

[Marx55]

You are so narrow sighted it's not even funny. You're trying to compare hardware sales to OS sales. And you make a good point on the tenfold thing. However, you seem to have neglected the other 90% of the HIGH MARGIN software that Apple sells, which is what the PC world is drooling about and wish they could run on their machines. Products that cost MORE than a hardware box like Shake and Final Cut. Awesomely powerful DVD authoring like DVD Studio Pro and cutting edge motion graphics like Motion. When they sell a copy of FCP for a grand you can bet the margin is a lot higher than the $1500 computer it runs on. It'll run on a mac mini for that matter. What do you think the margins on mini's are? Maybe $75. The high ticket items would at least offset your numbers quite a bit if not negate them. You were just calculating for OSX and it's market share. But they'd be increasing their market share of all their apps to every PC model out there if they released OSX for intel boxes. I think many users would love to run Apple's line of great software, even the iLife and iWork stuff. And they'd have to buy a copy of OSX (much much much cheaper than windows's most comparable version at $300). It would make up for the hardware sales loss, which c'mon, would hardly be any losses at all. The 3% buying apple hardware are a loyal apple faithful and they'd still be buyign apple computers for the cool factor. And let's not forget that apple boxes will be coming waaay down in price with the new chips and the new hardware that it off the shelf. Apple will be saving money and competing right along side other high-end boxes like Sony. And let's not forget the number of windows users that will be buying Apple boxes instead of a sony box to run windows on. Why would you pay good money for a Sony box when you could get an apple one for the same price.

Think outside the box and you'll see that a company that has the best software and the best hardware can't lose when it expands it's possible market by 95% in one instant.

Man, YOU got it!

Yeahh!

 

[shamino]

Furthermore, OS's can just up and run on "any ol' hardware". The OS has to know how to talk to, for example, a CD ROM drive, which means the manufacturer has to write a driver to act as the "interpreter".

Absolutely true, but don't forget about standardization. Thanks to specs like SCSI-2/3, USB. FireWire, ATAPI, etc., most devices you buy can be supported with generic drivers. You don't need a separate driver for every brand/model CD-ROM drive, just a generic driver for each kind of interface, and it will work with most drives sold.

This is even the case for some PCI cards. For instance, you don't need a driver for a USB interface card. Any card that conforms to the OHCI/EHCI spec will work with the generic drivers that come bundled with Mac OS. There are some cards that don't work (I accidentally bought one), but those cards are almost always in violation of the standard in some way.

The only real exceptions to this rule these days are video cards. They still need OS-specific drivers. Groups like VESA have done a lot of work in standardizing the interface, but the technology has been evolving faster than the standards, so it will probably be several more years before you can get a generic driver that can be used for video.

Anyone who's worked with a homegrown box knows that drivers are one giant pain in the butt when they don't work, and I'm perfectly happy that Apple is currently free and clear of supporting random hardware.

But Apple does support quite a bit of random hardware. I can attach just about any USB/FW device and it just works. ATAPI devices just work (even if Apple's bundled apps don't like generic disc burners, programs like Toast have no problem, so this really isn't an OS/driver issue.) Even some categories of PCI cards just work.

Windows forces you to install drivers where generic ones would work just fine (and many times, the drivers that get installed actually are generic), but this is a quirk of Windows, not a fact of life. Computers don't have to behave that way, and many do not. Mac OS does just great with generic drivers, and so do many parts of Linux.

 

[drewyboy]

Micheal Dell is well... i can't use those words to express how I feel here. I was at a conference in 2000 with about 500 people, and wow. Egotistic, self-absorbed are only a few words to describe him. But I guess, what do you expect from a greedy guy who sends out bottom of line machines, other than e-machines, which sadly due to my parents un-educated purchasing we have both of.

 

[shamino]

hmmm. fastest pc on ebay eh?

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5231874383

If this is what it claims to be (and isn't just a scam), then the computer is probably stolen.

These developer systems were not sold to anybody. They are all rentals and have to be returned to Apple by the end of 2006.

 

[G.Kirby]

You are so narrow sighted it's not even funny. You're trying to compare hardware sales to OS sales. And you make a good point on the tenfold thing. However, you seem to have neglected the other 90% of the HIGH MARGIN software that Apple sells, which is what the PC world is drooling about and wish they could run on their machines. Products that cost MORE than a hardware box like Shake and Final Cut. Awesomely powerful DVD authoring like DVD Studio Pro and cutting edge motion graphics like Motion. When they sell a copy of FCP for a grand you can bet the margin is a lot higher than the $1500 computer it runs on. It'll run on a mac mini for that matter. What do you think the margins on mini's are? Maybe $75. The high ticket items would at least offset your numbers quite a bit if not negate them. You were just calculating for OSX and it's market share. But they'd be increasing their market share of all their apps to every PC model out there if they released OSX for intel boxes. I think many users would love to run Apple's line of great software, even the iLife and iWork stuff. And they'd have to buy a copy of OSX (much much much cheaper than windows's most comparable version at $300). It would make up for the hardware sales loss, which c'mon, would hardly be any losses at all. The 3% buying apple hardware are a loyal apple faithful and they'd still be buyign apple computers for the cool factor. And let's not forget that apple boxes will be coming waaay down in price with the new chips and the new hardware that it off the shelf. Apple will be saving money and competing right along side other high-end boxes like Sony. And let's not forget the number of windows users that will be buying Apple boxes instead of a sony box to run windows on. Why would you pay good money for a Sony box when you could get an apple one for the same price.

Think outside the box and you'll see that a company that has the best software and the best hardware can't lose when it expands it's possible market by 95% in one instant.

Hit the nail on the head. Nice one
🙂

 

[aquajet]

I couldn't disagree more. Microsoft makes money because they sell 95% OS's. Apple is also very profitable, but makes it's cash off of hardware sales.

Ignoring iPod, and figure the average Mac user spend $1500 on equipment. That means they'd have to sell more than 10 Tigers to make up for it (i'm speculating here - i really don't know what kind of margins these products have). So, the userbase would have to increase by 10 fold, which would put Mac OSX at 50% of the market (10 times 5%), and I highly doubt that's even a remotely obtainable goal - as M$ will step in and start giving away Windows for free until Apple goes under. (man, am I being speculative!)

Furthermore, OS's can just up and run on "any ol' hardware". The OS has to know how to talk to, for example, a CD ROM drive, which means the manufacturer has to write a driver to act as the "interpreter". Anyone who's worked with a homegrown box knows that drivers are one giant pain in the butt when they don't work, and I'm perfectly happy that Apple is currently free and clear of supporting random hardware.

I hope it *never* happens, and let them concentrate on hardware (which they rule at) and software (which they rule at) and not support calls (which they're ok at).

Apple doesn't have any "Manifest Destiny" at work here, and I don't really care how much marketshare Macs have, and neither should you. They have "enough" now, as I have no problems finding software, and rather enjoy being the underdog. They are profitable in all departments right now, and do not have shrinking marketshare.

DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner! To all those who think Apple can continue to be successful the way they are now by licensing their operating system, read this post again, and again, until you get it!
😀

 

[jiggie2g]

Woah, nice case.

Yeap that's an Antec P180 case which yours truly owns and it kicks the G5 case in the b@lls.