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 Legal vs x86 Mac OS X
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
rxse7en
macrumors 6502
Apple is silly if it thinks it can control the internet.
No matter WHAT they try. PC users will always find ways to install Mac OS X on regular PC's, which means many users will be tempted to buy cheaper PC's to run their Mac only apps like Final Cut Pro.
Apple will never release OS X for PC's, at least not for many, many more years. Apple doesn't make much on software, just like it barely breaks even on music sales (itms). Apple's money has always come from hardware (iPods, iMacs, PowerBooks etc). They are the computer maker with the highest profit margin on hardware-they buy the same, cheap of the shelf PC parts as Dell, even for their monitors, put in the cheapest video cards available, then charge HUNDREDS if not thousands more because their machine can run OS X.
The problem is this: good money doesn't come in until you dominate a market (Apple II, Original Mac OS, iPod). Microsoft makes billions because 98% of the PLANET uses it's various products. Indeed, you can say 100% because of all the non windows stuff by MS out there (I own a MS Mouse, my friend has an XBOX, etc). For Apple to make money of of OS X on PC, they would need to dominate the OS Market, or at least grab a healty chunk of it (30%+) VERY rapidely, and then continue to grab market shares fiscal quarter after fiscal quarter.
Imagine this: Apple starts selling OS X for PC. Some windows users are tempted, many more Mac users, afraid of dishing out $3,000 for a new G5 buy the newest 4GHz PC at $1,200 lets say. Apple just lost $3,000 while selling a $125 software!
The problem is that the Mac market is so small, it cannot generate enough growth in time for Apple's software sales to counter the heavy loss of hardware sales. Now, let's say Apple's does every thing PERFECTLY and that OS X PC is a greater success than anyone could have hoped, how long would it take for Apple to go beyond that critical point? It's market share is at 4% right now. 3 years would be AWESOME (that would mean it would DOUBLE every year!), more realistically, 5-10 (MS won't just lay down and die, 30% of world users won't just switch their whole system overnight). That means that for the next few YEARS, Apple would have to report financial LOSSES quarter after quarter after quarter. That means heavy losses of $$$ in stock value, that could also mean Steve Jobs' getting kicked out by the board members and Apple's business in jeopardy.
No matter WHAT they try. PC users will always find ways to install Mac OS X on regular PC's, which means many users will be tempted to buy cheaper PC's to run their Mac only apps like Final Cut Pro.
Apple will never release OS X for PC's, at least not for many, many more years. Apple doesn't make much on software, just like it barely breaks even on music sales (itms). Apple's money has always come from hardware (iPods, iMacs, PowerBooks etc). They are the computer maker with the highest profit margin on hardware-they buy the same, cheap of the shelf PC parts as Dell, even for their monitors, put in the cheapest video cards available, then charge HUNDREDS if not thousands more because their machine can run OS X.
The problem is this: good money doesn't come in until you dominate a market (Apple II, Original Mac OS, iPod). Microsoft makes billions because 98% of the PLANET uses it's various products. Indeed, you can say 100% because of all the non windows stuff by MS out there (I own a MS Mouse, my friend has an XBOX, etc). For Apple to make money of of OS X on PC, they would need to dominate the OS Market, or at least grab a healty chunk of it (30%+) VERY rapidely, and then continue to grab market shares fiscal quarter after fiscal quarter.
Imagine this: Apple starts selling OS X for PC. Some windows users are tempted, many more Mac users, afraid of dishing out $3,000 for a new G5 buy the newest 4GHz PC at $1,200 lets say. Apple just lost $3,000 while selling a $125 software!
The problem is that the Mac market is so small, it cannot generate enough growth in time for Apple's software sales to counter the heavy loss of hardware sales. Now, let's say Apple's does every thing PERFECTLY and that OS X PC is a greater success than anyone could have hoped, how long would it take for Apple to go beyond that critical point? It's market share is at 4% right now. 3 years would be AWESOME (that would mean it would DOUBLE every year!), more realistically, 5-10 (MS won't just lay down and die, 30% of world users won't just switch their whole system overnight). That means that for the next few YEARS, Apple would have to report financial LOSSES quarter after quarter after quarter. That means heavy losses of $$$ in stock value, that could also mean Steve Jobs' getting kicked out by the board members and Apple's business in jeopardy.
RacerX said:
It is completely different. They aren't showing how to do it. They are just showing that it can be done. Arent Fox was showing people how to commit a crime, not informing that it was possible to commit that crime.
Jeezus....
...the so-called business acumen on this board astounds me.
Let me suggest that changing a business model (going from a hardware based model to a software based model) is far harder than most people think--and is probably harder than changing the processor on a motherboard. More than one company has gone into Chapter 11 by trying to change their model.
It's possible, but it's extremely risky with many modes of failure, and generally is attemped only when it's the last option. There's no guaruntee of success and there's damn near a lot of chance to fail.
...the so-called business acumen on this board astounds me.
Let me suggest that changing a business model (going from a hardware based model to a software based model) is far harder than most people think--and is probably harder than changing the processor on a motherboard. More than one company has gone into Chapter 11 by trying to change their model.
It's possible, but it's extremely risky with many modes of failure, and generally is attemped only when it's the last option. There's no guaruntee of success and there's damn near a lot of chance to fail.
LaMerVipere
macrumors 6502a
I agree, Apple is just fighting a losing battle with this one. As long as Apple is using x86 hardware there will be some hacker out there who figures out a way to get OS X to run on non-Apple hardware.
I know Apple can't just sit back and allow this to happen like it doesn't care, but they must know their efforts are futile.
I know Apple can't just sit back and allow this to happen like it doesn't care, but they must know their efforts are futile.
bretm said:
Final Cut Pro is sold at a near loss. It doesn't generate enough sales to repay the technology Apple builds in to compete with Avid (remember, they originally bought it from Macromedia only because they wanted to create a freeware called iMovie. Only after they were apprached by Soderberg and Walter Murch did they click and realise they had something hot on their hands). Again, the only reason why they don't offer a PC version of the software (if they were making a fortune of of it, trust me they would, just like they did with iPod and iTms) is that FCP, Shake etc sells G5's and PowerBooks. Want Photoshop? You can run it on a cheap PC. Want FCP? You NEED a costly G5, and since you're a pro user that means 12 new machines every 2 years for your company or whatever.
Developing something like FCP Suite cost a fortune. Buying all the technology in it from other companies liek they did cost even more. I mean Soundtrack pro is now being readied to counter Pro Tools! Check how much Avid makes on Pro tools, Apple GIVES it away in FCP!
gwangung said:
Absolutely. And it doesn't mean it CAN'T be done, it just mean it'd be so risky, no board of director would gamble a healty company that is worth billions on it.
Quartz Extreme
macrumors regular
arrowoods said:
There are key differences between Windows and Mac OS X that prevent this kind of thing from happening. Take this example:
A user running Windows XP goes to install the latest version of QuickTime on his computer. He downloads the installer and installs it. It never asks him for a password.
A user running Mac OS X goes to install the latest verstion of QuickTime on his computer. He downloads it, mounts the disk image, and opens the package. It asks him for an administrator password. QuickTime then installs.
Programs in XP automatically inherit the rights of the user, which is, needless to say, very insecure.
So, being that a would-be OS X virus author would want to run a program with administrator access, he needs the administrator password. How would he go about this task?
A common tactic would be to use a keylogger which, aside from being an outright crime, also requires getting into the part of the operating system that interprets keystrokes, right down to the kernel/driver level, which requires an administrator password. Another common tactic would be to extract the password. Unfortunately for them, the password for OS X systems is encrypted, and then stored in a place that only an administrator can access. Another tactic would be to use a brute force attack, which most operating systems, even XP, are able to detect easily and throw in delays to slow down the process.
And this is only one example of how OS X has inherently better security than Windows XP. I'm not saying that Mac OS X is completely bullet-proof and will never ever have a virus, but it is significantly less vulnerable. And while market share does have a part in this, the primary reason is that OS X is more secure, plain and simple. And so far it's working!
dwwd said:
and they may aswell make it a free download to REALLY p*ss on Microsoft's financial fire. 🙂
bretm said:
I don't think it's such a narrow-sighted view. Surely it's not a comprehensive explaination of every factor involved, but I think it points more towards reality than your view.
You say Apple will increase their market share if Apple licenses their OS and Apps to PC manufacturers. How exactly is this so? If Dell offered a pull-down menu on their system configuration page offering OS X instead of Win XP, how many people do you really think would make that choice? It's just as scarey a propostion as it is today. That purchaser most likely knows nothing about Mac OS X, and has no software to work with it.
You also seem to underestimate the value of Apple hardware sales. Remember that Apple sold over 1 million Macs last quarter, which represents a 43% increase over the previous year's quarter. Do you really want to mess around with that?
You also say "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." There's no indication that is true.
Remember what history has taught us. Motorola, SuperMac, Umax, Radius...these are all companies that competed with Apple to sell Mac OS systems, and nearly put Apple out of business. As long as the Mac's market share remains as low as it is (which really doesn't matter to me), there's only enough room for one company to sell Macs.
SiliconAddict
macrumors 603
*shrugs* So I'll just get the tips off of IRC and bittorrent. I already know one person who has X running on the same model as my X31 Thinkpad. Worse case I will e-mail him asking for some info. Its a moot point anyways. There are a number of sources that are working on bootable Tiger DVDs that will do all the work for you. No SSE3 -> 2 convert, etc.
Once that hits the bittorrent net its going to be like trying to take piss out of the ocean for Apple. Its not going anywhere. Meanwhile I will play with X until the introduction of the first dual core PowerBooks.
Apple can play wanna be Microsoft. Scratch that even MS hasn't been this nuts about lawsuits in a while. OK Apple can play wanna be SCO all they want. In the end they are fighting an impossible battle. But if they want to continue. By all means. Go right ahead. Makes them look even more idiotic. I'm still waiting for someone to spray paint THINK LITIGIOUS on an outer wall of their corp HQ because that is pretty much where we are at now. Its amazing how Apple survived all these years without suing the crap out of people.
Once that hits the bittorrent net its going to be like trying to take piss out of the ocean for Apple. Its not going anywhere. Meanwhile I will play with X until the introduction of the first dual core PowerBooks.
Apple can play wanna be Microsoft. Scratch that even MS hasn't been this nuts about lawsuits in a while. OK Apple can play wanna be SCO all they want. In the end they are fighting an impossible battle. But if they want to continue. By all means. Go right ahead. Makes them look even more idiotic. I'm still waiting for someone to spray paint THINK LITIGIOUS on an outer wall of their corp HQ because that is pretty much where we are at now. Its amazing how Apple survived all these years without suing the crap out of people.
This should not surprise anyone. Apple will have to make their hardware a whole lot different if they expect this not be the norm after the MacTel machines are released next year. This was one of the major reasons I was afraid of Apple switching to Intel. Its really too bad that IBM couldn't deliver and Apple learn to cooperate better with them. Everybody loses. Apple makes little money on computers in the next year or so, you and I have to buy a whole new collection of software, and Apple as a computer company could see its end over all this. What a shame. 🙁
Abstract
macrumors Penryn
oskar said:
But showing footage of a crime being committed isn't illegal, especially if you didn't do the crime yourself. Lots of websites have clips of people committing a crime. And news channels aren't doing anything illegal, either. I know you consider it different, but MacBidouille is reporting that it can be done. It's not even an instructional video.
Abstract
macrumors Penryn
PS: Sorry for triple posting, but the 2nd post was an accidental double-post, so I quickly edited it and posted something in there and it didn't register as an edited post.
And then 10 minutes later, I wanted to post again and I'm a bit surprised that nobody else had made a comment in that time period because the story was new. 😱 Sorry again.
Actually, it's very close to $200 for a $499 Mac Mini. The link to the analysis of the parts in the Mac Mini were posted at MacRumors somewhere a few days ago, if not yesterday.
Good point.
Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing from a customer's point of view. As a user, imagine owning a PC capable of running OSX, and yet the only reason someone "shouldn't" run it on an Intel box is because of an artificial reason. There's no technical reason why it can't be done. The moral dilenma isn't exactly high, either. It's like if your mum asked you not to eat cookies in the cookie jar, and yet she leaves the cookie jar on the table with the lid open, and eating one won't harm anyone directly.
I know it'll "harm" Apple, but not really. People need to buy software for their Mac, and upgrade software as well.
However, if someone has to hack the tihs out of it to get it to work, then that person had gone out with the purpose of breaking the law and bypassing security measures placed by Apple, which I feel is a crime. However, at this preliminary stage of the game, I'm not sure if Apple had put any effort into securing it, and it is mostly their fault.
And then 10 minutes later, I wanted to post again and I'm a bit surprised that nobody else had made a comment in that time period because the story was new. 😱 Sorry again.
bretm said:
Actually, it's very close to $200 for a $499 Mac Mini. The link to the analysis of the parts in the Mac Mini were posted at MacRumors somewhere a few days ago, if not yesterday.
Good point.
Personally, I don't see this as a bad thing from a customer's point of view. As a user, imagine owning a PC capable of running OSX, and yet the only reason someone "shouldn't" run it on an Intel box is because of an artificial reason. There's no technical reason why it can't be done. The moral dilenma isn't exactly high, either. It's like if your mum asked you not to eat cookies in the cookie jar, and yet she leaves the cookie jar on the table with the lid open, and eating one won't harm anyone directly.
I know it'll "harm" Apple, but not really. People need to buy software for their Mac, and upgrade software as well.
However, if someone has to hack the tihs out of it to get it to work, then that person had gone out with the purpose of breaking the law and bypassing security measures placed by Apple, which I feel is a crime. However, at this preliminary stage of the game, I'm not sure if Apple had put any effort into securing it, and it is mostly their fault.
Analog Kid
macrumors G3
AoWolf said:
"I don't approve or your methods, Mr. Ness."
"Yeah, well you're not from Cupertino."