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
Lurch_Mojoff said:
I fully understand and it's a mistake on Apple's part. Imagine if they hadn't opened up the iPod to Windows users, I'm sure that decision pained them to no end.
I've been saying it since the early days of Quicktime, Apple's strengths are in its SOFTWARE, the hardware doesn't matter. In retrospect, the fact that the Mac has gone from 68k -> PPC -> Intel bears that out. Look how much the hardware hasn't mattered. Look how nicely OSX runs on Intel when it was made for PPC. The hardware doesn't matter. The hardware is a commodity bought in bulk from a vendor. The software is what makes it special. Steve Jobs just can't let go of the hardware. He's a 19th century guy in that regard. Though I do have to wonder, in the back of my mind, whether he will someday unleash OSX to compete against Windows on the desktop at large. The Intel Mac movement could just be a positioning of the chess pieces. Or maybe I give Steve too much credit.
While I've said the hardware is irrelevant, there is a niche there for Apple to fill with innovative, well designed hardware. They can be the Bose of computers. Apple is cutting off its nose to spite its face.
Again I have to ask what the long term strategy is. Even with Apple's recent successes, they will NEVER move beyond 5% of the market. Unless they adopt a strategy like Dell, which is to go rock bottom and be a loss leader selling product as cheaply as possible. That's the only way to build market share. Will they be satisfied with a small but profitable segment of the market? That's been the line this whole time. But a larger world out there awaits them. The world dominated by Microsoft with its operating systems and applications. Curious that Apple has brought back applications (iLife, iWork anybody?). Could it mean something? Throw in the Yellow Box rumors...
I could have bought a cheaper/more powerful computer than my MacBook Pro and put OSX on it. I could buy a nice 3 lb ultraportable and have OSX on it within a week. I already have OSX running on a Gateway. But I didn't -- I'm giving Apple my hard-earned money for a MBP.
weg said:
of course, if they did write in measures to only run on apple-produced hardware you'd still have people attempting to hack os x onto regular x86 computers. the only sure thing would have been to stick with powerpc. that would have limited os x to emulated environments on non-apple systems.
Photorun said:
People like you make me hope I see OSX sold on street corners with Taiwanese labelling for $1.
MeatBiProduct said:
Don't know much about apples beginings, eh?
I personally think that they did a good job with this. A little light hearted humor with a sprinkling of DMCA warnings. These guys efforts should be focused on making a linux flavor that would be able to hold its own to OSX (not that some already don't). Or something more productive than breaking the law and trying to screw apple out of their hard work and intelectual property.
Such wording in license agreements is of dubious validity. Once a consumer has legally purchased a copyrighted work, they have all the fair-use rights.barstard said:
Record companies have stamped a message on every CD to the effect that you can't copy it for ANY PURPOSES. But, despite the warning, you have the right to copy that CD under fair-use -- so long as you're using it for things that are protected by fair-use (putting it in your iPod = OK. Burning mix-cd for listening in the car = OK. Buring copy for friend or putting it on file sharing networks = NOT OK).
Same goes for software, which is just another form of copyrighted work. The EULA does not trump fair-use any more than the warning on a CD does. There's a reasonable argument that using the software on multiple machines (again, for your own use -- not sharing with friends) is a protected right, as would be installing it on a machine that's outside of the system requirements (i.e. a non-Mac).
Obviously, Apple doesn't have to provide support for usage on a machine the software wasn't intended for, and Apple can use whatever technical measures they want to try and prevent it, but if somebody figures it out they hardly have the right to stop you from doing it (provided you legally own a copy of the software, that is) or from sharing the methods you used (provided you're not sharing any of Apple's actual copyrighted work).
I thought "hacking" was making legal changes by contrast to "cracking" being illegal?
I appreciate the terms tend to be used interchangeably by the public - but I wouldn't have thought they'd be confused on this forum.
From http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/hacker.html
I appreciate the terms tend to be used interchangeably by the public - but I wouldn't have thought they'd be confused on this forum.
From http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/H/hacker.html
someone has to explain this to me, why this is illegal,
I bought a osx and I can't install it on any computer I want, and they entitled me as thief?
second thing,
why apple pissed off by those hackers, do they just like osx so much that they want to share funs with everyone else, especially pc guys which never been brought to heaven before?
I bought a osx and I can't install it on any computer I want, and they entitled me as thief?
second thing,
why apple pissed off by those hackers, do they just like osx so much that they want to share funs with everyone else, especially pc guys which never been brought to heaven before?
weg said:
Yes they did.
So far, 10.4.4 was the toughest to crack and i expect Apple to implement even better protection. For most of us, it's been a joke to run OS X on a pc. I mean, only a few configurations fully support OS X, and even then you're one update away from being left out in the dark again. Far from a working, everday system. Worse, if you have a late nVidia card, you aint getting squat from it. A lot of what makes OS X special is not useable.
Anyway, OSx86Project was already treading a fine line. Too many people were openly advocating "never" buying OS X. Gee, what did you think was going to happen morons? Much more interesting is how Apple was locking down OS X to run only on approved hardware. That's where our focused
badmofo9000 said:
It's all about making every single hacker's life miserable 24 hours a day. That way Johnny Thinkin-About-It doesn't become a hacker too.
David
weg said:
Sure they did.
Firstly, the poem is copyright Apple, so anyone reprinting the poem without Apple's permission is in breach of copyright.
Secondly, the poem itself is they key to the copyright protection (it is the decoder ring for the TPM, for the geeks among us). Publishing the key is breach of DMCA.
Thirdly, Apple are using TPM which I think most people would consider a pretty hefty measure to prevent OSX running on any arbitrary PC.
(As an aside, I suggest that the moderators scrub any reprints of the Apple poem from these forums).
windmaomao said:someone has to explain this to me, why this is illegal,
I bought a osx and I can't install it on any computer I want, and they entitled me as thief?
Assuming this isn't a troll… because it breaks agreements with the license you sign when you install Mac OS. Contract violation is against the law in pretty much any country. In the US it is further against the law to break code designed for security of digital media. So those are the legal reasons.
As for Apple's specific reasons I would imagine a list would look a little like this:
1. Supporting all the generic Windows hardware is a pain in the butt and is what is keeping Microsoft slow on the OS updates.
2. Because supporting infinite hardware vendor combinations is difficult the Mac OS would look as sucky as Windows when it fails on some obscure combination of cheap components.
3. Apple makes sweet margins on computers, and this is where Apple makes A LOT of money. One of the reasons is that they don't have to pay themselves for their own OS, so when they sell computers there is more profit for them than when PC makers sell computers. Other reasons include their extremely tough negotiation practices and their demand for certain profit margins in their pricing schemes.
4. Windows hardware is ugly. Whether people know it or not, the sexiness of their Mac is at a subconscious level influencing how much they like the Mac OS.
David
cheapnis said:
You are right, hacking is sloppy programming, cutting down a tree, a politician who lacks diplomacy, a badly written piece or journalism or a badly judged chess move.
Cracking is the act of breaking glass, breaking into a safe, making a smokeable form of cocaine, removing or bypassing software encryption, breaking a password, code or encrypted message, gaining unauthorised access, removing or bypassing a data protection mechanism.
We should try to use the correct term for the situation.
Super Dave said:Assuming this isn't a troll… because it breaks agreements with the license you sign when you install Mac OS. Contract violation is against the law in pretty much any country. In the US it is further against the law to break code designed for security of digital media. So those are the legal reasons.
As for Apple's specific reasons I would imagine a list would look a little like this:
1. Supporting all the generic Windows hardware is a pain in the butt and is what is keeping Microsoft slow on the OS updates.
2. Because supporting infinite hardware vendor combinations is difficult the Mac OS would look as sucky as Windows when it fails on some obscure combination of cheap components.
3. Apple makes sweet margins on computers, and this is where Apple makes A LOT of money. One of the reasons is that they don't have to pay themselves for their own OS, so when they sell computers there is more profit for them than when PC makers sell computers. Other reasons include their extremely tough negotiation practices and their demand for certain profit margins in their pricing schemes.
4. Windows hardware is ugly. Whether people know it or not, the sexiness of their Mac is at a subconscious level influencing how much they like the Mac OS.
David
supporting is hard, but you don't call anyone thief whenever you can't and don't want to support your product, do you?
money is the key point, everybody knows. But why we as user, cares about how much money they'll loose if they do such and such. We should just care about the functionality and our fun.
third, it's funny to talk about illegal to hack when osx is based on darwin which is part of linux. Ask people in linux world not to hack is like asking them not to use computer anymore, which is impossible. The defination of hacking there is just writing code and never stop doing it.
Since i don't feel the need to hump my computer, i won't pay a premium to buy "sexy" hardware. Anyone who bases buying a Mac because it is sexy is a moron, then again, people like that kept Apple afloat during the G3, G4 years.
For the first time in recent memory, Apple finally has competitive laptop prices. Now if they could only concentrate on durability instead of "oh my god! i want to hump my MacBook Pro!"
Back on topic: Apple's protection will get better and better. We've all suspected that Apple was using the community to test its protection mechanisms. The people who really like OS X will switch, for most it will be a passing fancy.
For the first time in recent memory, Apple finally has competitive laptop prices. Now if they could only concentrate on durability instead of "oh my god! i want to hump my MacBook Pro!"
Back on topic: Apple's protection will get better and better. We've all suspected that Apple was using the community to test its protection mechanisms. The people who really like OS X will switch, for most it will be a passing fancy.
mdavey said:
Where are you getting your definitions from? Hacking does not mean, "sloppy programming". Unless Jobs, and Woz are/were hacks.
First the Licensing Agreement that you agree to prohibits the use of the OS on a not Apple computer. It also limits it's use to one computer. Check it out for yourself. Here's quote from the License Agreement:Tupring said:
"This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time..."
So yes, you would be stealing.
mdavey said:
Actually hacker USED to be a term of respect. A good hacker could produce high quality interesting software in a short period of time. In the original Unix communities, hackers produced much of the functionality that powers the internet backbone today. It didn't obtain a negative connotation until companies decided it was bad for people to be so interested in your OS that they would make it work in ways that the OM couldn't be properly reimbursed for. Then the very people that made contributions to your OS to make it usable suddenly became black hat.
Funny how money seems to drive all things, even language.
duffman9000 said:
It is a comparative: http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/comparatives.html
http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hack.html
You could say that Jobs and Woz were hackers that strived for (and occasionally obtained) perfection
jhu said:
...
i think its pretty obvious what they mean by apple-labelled. something with an apple logo on it? and not a sticker...
some people...