Apple Legal vs x86 Mac OS X

[BenRoethig]

If this is the way that Jobs reality distorsion field works... well I think I should get one for myself 😎

I wouldn't. The field has too settings: success and dismal failure. The move to intel could be either or and the stakes are the highest they've ever been.

Fair enough (although I don't understand your second sentence 😱) but for a large shift like PPC->Intel, I would think Apple thought things through carefully and didn't just do this on a whim, not thinking about the possible ramifications.

I guess time will tell... 😎

I went back and redid that sentence. I was trying to do three things at the same time when I wrote it. I really don't think Steve thinks things through in the normal business sense.

 

[~Shard~]

I went back and redid that sentence. I was trying to do three things at the same time when I wrote it. I really don't think Steve thinks things through in the normal business sense.

Gotcha - thanks. And I agree. 🙂

 

[law guy]

And why shouldn't they?

I can't think what the grounds to have someone's photos or video removed in this case. There's no legal protection that even seems remotely plausible. The only think I can imagine is a threat along the lines of "do this, or we'll sue you along the lines of ThinkSecret". They do seem to like to exercise the bully angle a bit though, be it with this sort of thing or biographies that they don't like. I suppose in the end, it works if they can get folks to cave because it's "just not worth having them make life unpleasant" even if there is no legal cause of action. I would threaten to counter-sue them, but the folks they're often going after are Mac-fans with few resources and they know that. I don't like a bully.

 

[Ghibli]

I wouldn't. The field has too settings: success and dismal failure. The move to intel could be either or and the stakes are the highest they've ever been.

This comes with being leaders in innovation. If wasn't for the first pioneers that tried to fly on some "Things" made up from paper fixed with rope, today it would be impossible to go from one side to the wolrd to the other in just a bunch of hours.

I think it will be a success. Just think that on a single forum (which usually is devoted to otther things) the single topic on osX86 has more threads and posts that ALL the remaining site.

I'm not saying that Apple will give "osX for PC" next year, but they are planning this "just in case" scenario. And this tiger leak is part of the plan.

 

[Otto Rehhagel]

I doubt Apple will worry too much about Tiger ... it'll become the Mac OS X vers. 10.0.0 version of the x86 machines -- with quite a few of the current G4/G5 features being reactiviated in the next OS.

And we all know those machines won't resemble the developer box, and it's quite possible Apple will lock down the OS quite in Leopard.

Tiger will be extremely pirated, getting people interested in the new Macs and entire people to buying Leopard.

Good point, however, once people get to use OS X on a budget PC, they will be very reluctant to purchase an Apple.

Consumers will still look at the entrance fee to a Macintosh as being the price of the OS plus hardware they don't currently own. This may stifle Apple's growth.

But to get off topic, I would love to see a dual boot Mac or even a Live OS X. 😀

 

[BenRoethig]

Good point, however, once people get to use OS X on a budget PC, they will be very reluctant to purchase an Apple.

Consumers will still look at the entrance fee to a Macintosh as being the price of the OS plus hardware they don't currently own. This may stifle Apple's growth.

But to get off topic, I would love to see a dual boot Mac or even a Live OS X. 😀

Apple has their own clientele and they want something other than a $300 budget PC. I believe there is a market of Mac OS X on budget PCs, but that is from the crowd that already owns budget PCs (because they, well live on a budget). Those who own Macs will most likely stay with Apple. I myself and tried almost every consumer notebook out there and have not found one that I even like after using my iBook. My desktop is another story, but that's a different tale for a different time.

 

[Analog Kid]

Do you think that one day Jobs woke up and said

"From tomorrow just intel processors. I do not know how will come to the market, but I will think to that another day... For now just put around some hardware and software to the developers, then we'll do something. And I trust ALL my developer's so much that I DO NOT watermark the copies and I will put inside a no-copy protection that will be crackable in a couple of weeks."

To be brief: Yes, I think he did.

 

[Analog Kid]

Who said hope in humanity lies in the ethics of large corporations? I hate what corporations are doing, but they have no impact on those of us who are firmly grounded in ethics. We like to personify Apple, but at the end of the day, Apple's stockholders/stakeholders will drive its ethics and direction.

If this means humanity follows the ethics of profit driven people, then I too would agree with you. Welcome to Capitalist America. 🙁

Actually, it was the over the top, totally out of perspective, everyone run right now everyone run left responses that were undermining my hope.

Apple sent a letter to a website asking to have sensitive content removed and you'd think Castro quit smoking...

 

[Analog Kid]

They could have sold their OS to the Intel world, but nobody would have bought it. Its a different story now. People want OS X. And yes, Apple's biggest profit is from its hardware now, not OS X. Duh! But if they sell OS X to the masses, that could change very quickly.

Yes, change very, very quickly. I think there's a few case studies around to give you an idea of how quickly: NeXT and Be to name two...

Apple sells only 5% of all new computers. What if OS X were installed on 1/4 of all the other 95% of computers sold. Thats a lot more money than what their hardware brings in. Apple makes about $400 on average for each computer they sell. But they would make about $75 on average for each copy of OS X they sell. They would only have to sell 5 copies of OS X to equal the earnings from each computer they sell. Doesn't seem too difficult.

So the bet here is that they could reach 30% market share before they go bankrupt?

 

[Plymouthbreezer]

About time.

 

[Analog Kid]

This is exactly the point that I think most people miss here. If Apple ditches their hardware business model and goes head-to-head against Microsoft in the x86 OS market, Microsoft will absolutely CRUSH them into oblivion. All other considerations aside, Apple would be complete fools to attempt this. They are a large, profitable company with lots of cash in the bank - why toss all of that away in a feeble attempt to topple the giant which is many times bigger? Not gonna happen!

So no, Apple did not plan this. They may have anticipated it as a necessary evil, but I guarantee they will not simply allow such rampant piracy (especially at this stage when only the dev boxes are out in the wild) and they will not sell OS X for generic x86 any time soon. Maybe if they got their market share up to 25% via legitimate Mac sales and spent years planning, maybe then they could make that leap. But it would still be a foolish and incredible risky leap. Why give up the good thing they have going now? Seriously, who cares about world domination as long as you can make a nice profit?

My only fear as a Mac user is that we're just seeing the beginning of extremely rampant piracy of OS X / x86. People are used to getting things for free on the internet, and if not free, then cheap. 99% of people will buy something that's half as good to save 10% off the price. And people are used to getting their OS for "free" (it just comes with the computer) and not paying the higher prices that Macs command. So what percentage of those who want OS X will pirate it? Buy a cheap PC and download OS X for free since it's too expensive to get a Mac. Will it be comparable to the percentage that pirates Windows (and therefore something Apple can live with) or will it be much higher due to the demand combined with prices that seem unreasonable to the average consumer? That's the big unknown in my opinion.

Interesting times, for sure.

Thanks, bankshot. Well stated.

I actually think the reason that piracy of OSX will be higher is because most people won't intend to *use* OSX, just *try* it. If they were going to *use* it they'd pay for it but they're not going to pay that kind of money just to try something...

 

[Analog Kid]

It occurs to me that probably the best comparison here would be Solaris... Anybody have any insight into what happened to Sun because of releasing Solaris for x86?

It's hard to tell from revenues because it looks like the release coincided with the rise of the Internet. Anything that would serve web pages was selling flying out the door. Sun's having trouble now though because lower cost machines are eating into their hardware sales. They're trying to make a business out of selling Opteron boxes now.

 

[Tamer Brad]

IN MY SPARE TIME I ENJOY PRETENDING TO BE A BUSINESS ANALYST

 

[Alvin777]

Hi. I'm sure Apple knew that this would happen because it's been said by Steve Jobs himself, that no matter how tight anything is nowadays, it will always get hacked. It's all in favor of Apple, in the event that it gets hacked, they could always use the cease and decease due process and at the same time they now know the methods of the hacks are now. It's also a great marketing coincedence where the users, are also now the beta testers of x86 Tiger.

I assume, since they can't use the hardware where Tiger is working (they could see that through the hardware and software lists that work on this hack) on the MacIntel launch, they have been preparing a custom made Intel processor, same with the BIOS if it has this at all. I feel, like on the Macs, it won't be a BIOS where you could edit it. It's all automatic like what the Mac has been using through the years. Of course all the parts that uses the bus are all standard but are the latest and greatest. I believe it won't have SLI or anything dual but will just have custom multicore or "BIOS" but standard multicore Intel and an equivalent ATI video card that matches the RSX from the Playstation 3. I feel it will be priced at about the same as the Playstation 3 so that nobody switchs to Sony with OS X in it (remember that the PS 3 can run on Linux and it's been said that it can run any modern OS should the distributor wills so).

God bless,
applecatholic.com

 

[aquajet]

Big difference. Apple had nothing to replace the loss of hardware sales with. They could have sold their OS to the Intel world, but nobody would have bought it. Its a different story now. People want OS X.

And yes, Apple's biggest profit is from its hardware now, not OS X. Duh! But if they sell OS X to the masses, that could change very quickly. Apple sells only 5% of all new computers. What if OS X were installed on 1/4 of all the other 95% of computers sold. Thats a lot more money than what their hardware brings in. Apple makes about $400 on average for each computer they sell. But they would make about $75 on average for each copy of OS X they sell. They would only have to sell 5 copies of OS X to equal the earnings from each computer they sell. Doesn't seem too difficult.

Even if what you say is true (where are you getting these figures anyway?), what exactly is your plan to get 25% of computer users not currently using Mac OS to use it? I simply don't understand why people think that by simply licensing Mac OS X will cause millions and millions of people to switch. 😕 I don't believe it's that easy.

 

[VicMacs]

man hte guys from thepiratebay just crack me up.... sorry apple... they're cool.... (I have never downloaded anything from their site)

 

[Sun Baked]

Big difference. Apple had nothing to replace the loss of hardware sales with. They could have sold their OS to the Intel world, but nobody would have bought it. Its a different story now. People want OS X.

And yes, Apple's biggest profit is from its hardware now, not OS X. Duh! But if they sell OS X to the masses, that could change very quickly. Apple sells only 5% of all new computers. What if OS X were installed on 1/4 of all the other 95% of computers sold. Thats a lot more money than what their hardware brings in. Apple makes about $400 on average for each computer they sell. But they would make about $75 on average for each copy of OS X they sell. They would only have to sell 5 copies of OS X to equal the earnings from each computer they sell. Doesn't seem too difficult.

Even if what you say is true (where are you getting these figures anyway?), what exactly is your plan to get 25% of computer users not currently using Mac OS to use it? I simply don't understand why people think that by simply licensing Mac OS X will cause millions and millions of people to switch. 😕 I don't believe it's that easy.

Problem is the stock price is related to revenue and the profit generated on that revenue.

A computer right now is worth between 5-20 Mac OS X Unit sales in revenue.

Takes a lot of OS sales to make up the hardware revenue ... and MS will fight you very hard to keep their market share.

So no telling when revenues will go back up, especially if MS fights a price-based war to keep marketshare -- which they can keep up far longer than anyone else on the planet.

If a company suddenly tells Wallstreet that they are going to be hacking off 25-50% in corporate revenue from now on because they are shutting down a very profitable business (people usually sell corporate units like Apple's hardware business for billions) -- they will be punished quite hard, Apple may be trading at $10-15 the day after the announcement and stay down there until revenues and profit creep back up.

Basically the shareholders are going to be asking for blood on a software only model ...

Edit: Companies sell their soul for more revenue in order to keep revenue growing, often going bankrupt in the process -- giving up a massive amount of revenue from HW sales without a huge immediate payoff is unusual.

 

[RacerX]

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.

Okay... when did Arent Fox (Apple's legal council) ever show people how to commit a crime? 😱


🙄

I would have to think that there is some law against lawyer's showing people how to steal from their client's.