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 vs. Mac OS X Hackers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
True
True. Although, what I was saying is regardless of copyright, just by doing it you are violating a legal agreement. Just different ways to get at it, probably whatever threatens the biggest penalty will be used as a way to try and limit the amount of sites offering links to the illegal distributions.
barstard.
snowmen said:
True. Although, what I was saying is regardless of copyright, just by doing it you are violating a legal agreement. Just different ways to get at it, probably whatever threatens the biggest penalty will be used as a way to try and limit the amount of sites offering links to the illegal distributions.
barstard.
Differentiate with hardware iso software
I do understand that the current plan of Apple is to sell hardware through better software. This opens a whole can of worms. Apple has to protect their software from putting it on other x86 brands. Otherwise why wouldn't you - as a consumer- not buy the cheapest brand of PC and put Mac Os X on it.
Wouldn't it be better if they differentiated also on their hardware. Implement ingenieous new combinations of chipsets and other parts in their computers on which the operation system relaies on to give us some spiffy new functionality.
You could efficiently lock down Mac OS X to Apple hardware and Apple wouldn't have to resort to legal threats (wich wont work anyway)
Who cares then if some hobbyist manages to put Mac OS X on a regular PC. It wouldn't work properly and because Apple doesn't sanction it he wouldn't have any help from them either.
I do understand that the current plan of Apple is to sell hardware through better software. This opens a whole can of worms. Apple has to protect their software from putting it on other x86 brands. Otherwise why wouldn't you - as a consumer- not buy the cheapest brand of PC and put Mac Os X on it.
Wouldn't it be better if they differentiated also on their hardware. Implement ingenieous new combinations of chipsets and other parts in their computers on which the operation system relaies on to give us some spiffy new functionality.
You could efficiently lock down Mac OS X to Apple hardware and Apple wouldn't have to resort to legal threats (wich wont work anyway)
Who cares then if some hobbyist manages to put Mac OS X on a regular PC. It wouldn't work properly and because Apple doesn't sanction it he wouldn't have any help from them either.
snowmen said:
Actually. What? I think I get what you mean but you have something the wrong way around.
Caiwyn said:
I'm sure there will be those that read our posts and just think 'well they're stealing software from Apple and if OSX opens up they will probably be prevented from doing so in the future. So here is my response to those that think that - I know you're out there:
Every purchase over GBP 150 requires me to really think long and hard about whether it is worth it or not and anything less requires me to wonder if my money would be better spent elsewhere.
Let's look at my current situation:
I have ordered the MBP because I need more photo processing power and even under Rosetta the MBP offers more than my PB. But I also need a great way of managing my RAW photos.
So which way do I go? Aperture or Lightroom?
I am using the Beta version of lightroom at the moment and I love it, but Aperture's full screen editing really really appeals to me. I could buy aperture and realise that full screen editing aside, it is not for me. That is a lot of cash in the bin.
So I go on to a peer-to-peer network and download Aperture...tut tut I hear you say. Not at all. It may just be me and not the trend but I am an honest broker. If I like Aperture I WILL buy it.
Sometimes when I want to buy music I do the same thing. I download the album of a new artist from a peer-to-peer network and listen to it. If I like it I go to iTunes and buy it. If I hate it I delete it. It allows me to not pay for rubbish that it well marketed. So many albums have one great track and 10 cr*p ones. The same applies to software.
Peer-to-peer is the answer and Apple's business model supports it. Where money is tight the chance to have a full preview is essential.
Tupring said:
Rumours of Apple's near-bankruptcies have been highly exaggerated. In fact, even when they were in dire straits in the Spindler/Amelio era, they always had a lot of cash in the bank. I'm not even sure if bankruptcy has *ever* really been an issue, though people are free to correct me on this point.
More importantly, why has no one commented on the fact that the poem's rhyme scheme is all messed up? It doesn't scan at all! I expect Apple to put the same effort into its anti-piracy poetry as into its products!
dekator said:
Hate to break it to those who practice hinduism or buddhism, but "karma" is now a regularly americanized noun (for decades already). I don't feel this is at all presumptious or absurd, especially since apple has little else at their disposal to browbeat the common folk. And its not like religions or religious statements are ever presumptious or absurd. Mr. Jobs show me some intelligent design, I provocate thou.
edit: he's just trying to be nice b/c he knows that he can't sell computers right now without microsoft office. Give him time and he'll unleash the kraken.
It's not stealing
As I've said before, read your license agreement that comes with Mac OS. It's not STEALING if you install YOUR copy on a PC, but it is a violation of your license agreement with Apple, both because you have it installed on more than one machine, and because you have installed it on a non-Apple-
labeled computer! If you download a copy of Mac OS from the internet you are stealing regardless of whether it is a hacked copy or not.
Sorry, I mistook your bracket's meaning! But it would still be a violation.
barstard.
Tupring said:
As I've said before, read your license agreement that comes with Mac OS. It's not STEALING if you install YOUR copy on a PC, but it is a violation of your license agreement with Apple, both because you have it installed on more than one machine, and because you have installed it on a non-Apple-
labeled computer! If you download a copy of Mac OS from the internet you are stealing regardless of whether it is a hacked copy or not.
Sorry, I mistook your bracket's meaning!
But it would still be a violation.barstard.
It's not theft
I've never visited the site in question so I don't know what their ethos is, but just to play devil's advocate for a minute, apart from violating the DMCA I can't see what is wrong - on the face of it - with getting OSX to run on generic hardware. Putting the economic factors to one side, like the fact Apple's hardware sales could potentially tank, if they have purchased the OS from Apple* then it's not theft to try installing it on a different machine. Provided all the participants of the site buy their own copy and get instructions only from the website then Apple aren't losing anything. The only reason they have anything to say is because of the DMCA. Otherwise this project is really no different from getting OSX to run on unsupported beige G3s.
For the commercial and economic reasons though, I'm against it. I just think people are confusing this with theft.
*not sure if they are selling boxed standalone copies or not yet considering the only computers that officially run the OS come with it pre-installed however presumably once 10.5 hits the shelves then my point will be more relevant.
I've never visited the site in question so I don't know what their ethos is, but just to play devil's advocate for a minute, apart from violating the DMCA I can't see what is wrong - on the face of it - with getting OSX to run on generic hardware. Putting the economic factors to one side, like the fact Apple's hardware sales could potentially tank, if they have purchased the OS from Apple* then it's not theft to try installing it on a different machine. Provided all the participants of the site buy their own copy and get instructions only from the website then Apple aren't losing anything. The only reason they have anything to say is because of the DMCA. Otherwise this project is really no different from getting OSX to run on unsupported beige G3s.
For the commercial and economic reasons though, I'm against it. I just think people are confusing this with theft.
*not sure if they are selling boxed standalone copies or not yet considering the only computers that officially run the OS come with it pre-installed however presumably once 10.5 hits the shelves then my point will be more relevant.
Apple should be aggressive when it comes to issues like this. Mac OS is for Macs. Let PC users drool all they want. They try to get OS X to run on their machines because that is something that they will (debatable) never have. Unless they get Macs that is...
I'm glad the project to get Mac OSX on PC's have been taken offline. Hackers I believe aren't in it to spite Microsoft, they are in it to spite the general population and to feed their narcissism.
I know the poem will not deter people from downloading it, some idiots still believe doing this isn't illegal!
I know the poem will not deter people from downloading it, some idiots still believe doing this isn't illegal!
safXmal said:
Absolutely. Apple should be emphasising that OSX performs much better on Apple hardware. Not just faster, but more reliable, available and scalable. Who knows how to optimise OSX for specific hardware better than Apple?
If they improved their support offerings, they could additionally emphasise that no-one knows how to troubleshoot issues better than Apple either. And as retailers aren't going to be installing OSX on PCs, only the tiny number of Unix gurus and a few curious students will actually attempt to put OSX on their PC.
This model has worked well for Sun - OpenSolaris is Open Source, but nearly everyone uses Sun's shrinkwrapped Solaris on either Sun's x86 or Sparc kit. Only a tiny percentage bother to install OpenSolaris on some other x86 kit (because Solaris on Sun kit just works better and you can 'phone them for support if you have problems).
Choppaface said:
I agree. Apple have this group of hobbyists that are currently working against Apple but nethertheless have valuable skills. Apple should be trying to harness that power for Apple's good - channelling it into OpenDarwin. All they would need to do is give OpenDarwin an unbranded version of OSX with a rubbish theme in place of Aqua and hold back on some of the performance improvements. The Open Source community would quickly replace the broken theme with a nice one (that doesn't look too like Aqua because Apple has design patents protecting the look of Aqua).
Everyone will know that OpenDarwin is a poor man's Mac OS X and that for best performance just get Mac OS X on Apple kit, but for hobbyists, students, some academics and try-before-you-buy it will be good to go. Kills the osx86 black market and hacking community without too much in the way of side-effects for Apple. Heck, it could actually benefit Apple by improving their Open Source image and introducing more people to Mac OS X through an unofficial try-before-you-buy.
Apple, give us the chance to buy it legally for X86 and we would. The problem is you're forcing us to buy your hardware to run your software (as usual).
bellis1 said:
Now, I though our Steve was in fact a Buddhist. So there's no problem at all, surely, even if people are going to get all upset if non Buddhists are misusing 'karma' (I'm pretty sure if they do it'll catch up with 'em in the end, it always does)
It's amazing how many people really do support Apple's stand on this, however if it was Microsoft most people really couldn't care less.
What ever happens with Mac OSX I would always buy the newest version out because it is definantly worth of my money, Mac OSes are always a quality products and I do believe people should pay to use quailty products but not dodgy products that are full of bugs (e.g. windows).
I am glad to see that Apple is standing by it's great OS.
What ever happens with Mac OSX I would always buy the newest version out because it is definantly worth of my money, Mac OSes are always a quality products and I do believe people should pay to use quailty products but not dodgy products that are full of bugs (e.g. windows).
I am glad to see that Apple is standing by it's great OS.
This has been said time and again, and I hate I have to repeat it, but obviously it is still not clear to everyone. Mac OS X is the competitive advantage of Apple over Dell, HP, Lenovo and whoever, especially now that they all have basically the same hardware platform. If you had the chance to legally buy Mac OS X for generic x86 computer, would you have bought that spankin' new MacBook Pro in your sig or a similarly spec'ed Dell for a little less $? Oh, by the way, you realize that, because now the development of the OS is partially financed by income from hardware sales, the price of a copy of Mac OS X will have to rise, right?janstett said:
Anyway, I think a bit of poetry and a DMCA notice or two are very far from hardball. One one hand Apple has every right to initiate full scale legal action against each and every one, who has anything to do with this project - from the guys, who distributed a developer (prerelease) version of Mac OS X for x86 for violating NDA, through the people, who post links to and/or distribute copies of x86 Mac OS X for copyright violation, through the people who "hack" the x86 version to run on generic hardware for DMCA violation, to the end user for either copyright violation (i.e using a pirated copy) or license agreement violation (i.e. installing on non-Apple branded hardware and/or installing on more than one system at a time). On the other hand Apple could just implement a rigorous multilevel hardware check routine and/or a complicated activation procedure, both of which will ultimately hurt the law abiding end user.
Oh, and finally on a brief side note, will you people please stop calling the guys behind the OSX86Project hobbyists, for they are not. A hobbyist is someone, who breaks old floppy drives to build totally useless, yet very cool, robots or makes replicas of Apple II from VCR spare parts or something like that.
think about "hacking"
just some thoughts here... if we didn't have "hackers" we wouldn't have PCs as we know them.
Didn't MS "hack" their way into the IBM world?
Didn't Apple "hack" their way into the computer market?
How odd is it that we are essentially looking at identical hardware in which we're forced to use different OSs? When the market is limited, you'll see "hacking" going on, just like in the late 1970's.
I'm not saying it's right... only that you have to understand and accept this will happen, just like Steve did when he decided to start developing OSX and especially when he decided to make the move to Intel.
just some thoughts here... if we didn't have "hackers" we wouldn't have PCs as we know them.
Didn't MS "hack" their way into the IBM world?
Didn't Apple "hack" their way into the computer market?
How odd is it that we are essentially looking at identical hardware in which we're forced to use different OSs? When the market is limited, you'll see "hacking" going on, just like in the late 1970's.
I'm not saying it's right... only that you have to understand and accept this will happen, just like Steve did when he decided to start developing OSX and especially when he decided to make the move to Intel.
bellis1 said:
Imagine if he said "You go to hell... You go to hell and you die!"
nataku said:Apple should be aggressive when it comes to issues like this. Mac OS is for Macs. Let PC users drool all they want. They try to get OS X to run on their machines because that is something that they will (debatable) never have.
I already have OSX running on a Gateway PC. But you know what, I'm still getting a shiny new MacBook Pro any week/month now.
I did it for the geek factor and to prove it could be done. And I'm going to also do the opposite, and do everything I can to get XP to install next to OSX on the MacBook Pro when it gets here.
mdavey said:
Thus the "need" for features only available on the latest Intel offerrings such as SSE3. Which were easily worked around with an SSE2 emulator. So obviously, it wasn't really needed, was it?
mdavey said:
That's not the way I look at it. Back in the day Sun used to be synonymous with Unix, they were the keepers of the flame after AT&T became irrelevant. They owned the market and now they've been eaten alive by the Red Hats of the world. They could have owned the entire Linux space with some timely action but they let it slip through their fingers.