Mac OS X 10.6.2 Confirmed to Drop Support for Intel Atom Processors

[MattBaker]

Handling EULA refunds

The Apple store does, obviously, since they are the retail arm of Apple and as such follow Apple policy.

Thus negating your argument. If a store refuses to refund the software, then maybe you'll have a leg to walk on when you go to court and claim the EULA was invalid, until then, you're just a whiner.

There's a way to handle this: Intuit (whom I despise for other reasons) does the refunds directly even if you buy their software in a retail store.

You mail them the receipt & the box, and they mail you back the retail price including the sales tax.

 

[pdjudd]

Try buying OS X from Fry's Electronics. Walk outside, open it up, then walk back in. Tell them you wish to return it for a refund, stating that you decided you did not want to accept the EULA.

See what they tell you.

That doesn't change anything Apple entitles you to a refund under their terms. Frys isn't listed. Therefore take your return up with Apple corp. Fry's is just an agent of Apple. As I explained tirelessly before, retailers are not the same as licensees and thus have different obligations.

For example, you get arrested by the police. You want to dispute your arrest. You don't demand to see the chief or the cop that slapped the cuffs on you and demand to be un-arrested (even though they can release you) - you take it up with the court system that can grant you release or can keep you in Jail. If you get released - the judge issues the order - the cops don't release you. Retail scenarios work the same way - retailers obligations only go so far. Once you cross the line, they get to back down and refer you to the correct entity.

Apple gives you the right of return - they don't (nor nobody else does) state that that return has to be performed at the same retailer that sold you the box since Apple doesn't control actions of a retailer

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Just an observation:

People who rate this "Positive" and who rejoice at this, are real miserable beings.... They gain nothing, but are happy that others have lost something.

Apple had to go out of its way, to prevent OS 10.6.2 from running on Atom. The most likely reason they did it, is to make sure that there isn't any hardware which could possibly compete with their upcoming tablet.

Sometimes, I wonder, what would happen, if MS decided to disable iTunes on Windows, and the ability to sync iPhones in Windows, so that they can protect their Zune hardware.

Or, if after all the bitching about Flash by the faithful, Adobe simply stopped developing CS for the Mac, and focused it's resources on the much larger Windows market.

I love Apple products, but Apple is becoming the Evil (mini)Empire: it locks out and tries to sue out of existence all possible competition.

Apple is a HARDWARE company. Adobe makes s/w and a lot of money from Apple users. Moreover Adobe's goal is to make Flash a standard. It's hard to make something a standard if 5-10% of web surfers don't have access to it.

Microsoft is primarily a s/w company. Anyone can create apps that run on its OS, just like they can for OS X. To intentionally block a company for competitive reasons would land it right back in court (You remember the antitrust suits from the 90's right?).

But where Microsoft does make hardware it rarely makes it Mac compatible. In fact, I think the only hardware they make that works w/ Macs are a few mice and keyboards.

So please don't preach that Apple has a moral duty to make it easy for hackers to use OS X on non-Apple hardware. Apple is a business, just like Adobe and Microsoft. They are going to protect their business model accordingly.

As a hackintosh owner I'm a little sad this could be the end of the line b/c Apple doesn't make anything that competes except for maybe the MBA which is 3x more expensive and way overpriced, even by Apple standards.

Ultimately, we must recognize Apple is a business, not our friend. Its going to do what is in its best financial interest, not yours. Its primary loyalty is to shareholders. Also, when it comes to computers and OS X, Apple is still an asterisk, with 5-7% market share, far from being able to have the power of an empire of any size.

 

[pdjudd]

Ok, define that. Apple's share of hardware sales are increasing. That's great. Their share of the OS market? Fairly flat.

Well, since Apple sells millions of computers, that should have a 1:1 growth concerning OSX since OSX comes with all macs. The problem is that growth is fairly obfuscated becasue Apple's market share is shared with the PC industry as a whole and that grows large too. OSX share grows with their hardware hare, but the growth overall when you look at the industry as a whole is less visible.

One thing we have to remember is that Apple is not obsessed with marketshare. Apple knows that not worth obsessing over. Their concerns are with pure profit something that is much more visible and much more meaningful.

 

[pdjudd]

There's a way to handle this: Intuit (whom I despise for other reasons) does the refunds directly even if you buy their software in a retail store.

You mail them the receipt & the box, and they mail you back the retail price including the sales tax.

Adobe does something similar for their downloads too. You sign a form that swears on a stack of holy books that you deleted all copies. Include a receipt and Adobe refunds your money.

 

[TwoBytes]

guys and gals, no sweat!

the hackintosh community is already working on a way to replace the kernal. Yes it's not as nice as using the apple stock but hey, hackintosh lives on.

 

[zweigand]

Then you should have stated hardware market share, to be precise. And I'm all for Apple gaining market share in the hardware market. It puts impetus on the other manufacturers to improve their product offerings.

However, the RDF Mac crowd here tends to always throw out "Mac share is increasing!" Ok, define that. Apple's share of hardware sales are increasing. That's great. Their share of the OS market? Fairly flat.

I'm pretty sure Apple would be perfectly happy to sell 100,000 Macs to run as Windows machines 24/7.

I'd be happy for them too!

 

[mytdave]

yes

I wonder if Apple actually 'supported' Atom in the past- by that I mean going out of their way to insert/modify code to ensure OS X would run on Atom CPU's.

My guess is that OS X is basically compatible on Atom 'as is' without any customization necessary, and that Apple actually went out of its way to make sure OS X would not run on Atom CPU's.

Or a third (and equally possible) explanation is that Apple wasn't trying to support or deny Atom processors, and some change in 10.6.2 for other purposes just ended up being incompatible on Atom.

Does anyone actually KNOW which is correct?

Read previous posts. Apple had to go out of their way to make sure 10.6.2 won't run on Atom CPUs.

 

[pechspilz]

Right now I'm running 10.6.2 on my MSI Wind with no problems. I just made a copy of the previous kernel and replaced the one that came with 10.6.2. Yes, you need some basic Terminal skills and you need to know how the mount command works but that's about it. It's running faster than ever!
See here for some clues: http://www.trick77.com/2009/11/08/snow-leopard-10-6-1-msi-wind-u100/

 

[pdjudd]

Ultimately, we must recognize Apple is a business, not our friend. Its going to do what is in its best financial interest, not yours. Its primary loyalty is to shareholders. Also, when it comes to computers and OS X, Apple is still an asterisk, with 5-7% market share, far from being able to have the power of an empire of any size.

That is a very good statement.

 

[Bafflefish]

That doesn't change anything Apple entitles you to a refund under their terms. Frys isn't listed. Therefore take your return up with Apple corp. Fry's is just an agent of Apple. As I explained tirelessly before, retailers are not the same as licensees and thus have different obligations.

Once again: "YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WITHIN THE RETURN PERIOD TO THE APPLE STORE OR AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTOR WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND"
So Fry's is not an authorized distributor? Last time I checked, they were. And thus, I should be able to return OS X to them for a full refund per the details of the EULA.

Apple gives you the right of return - they don't (nor nobody else does) state that that return has to be performed at the same retailer that sold you the box since Apple doesn't control actions of a retailer

Apple's EULA says you must return it to whom it was obtained. Apple lists return policies for their own stores and online sales, but state nothing of allowing you to return opened software from other distributors/retailers to Apple for a full refund.

Me thinks you're wrong

Edit - Just called up the Biltmore and Chandler Apple stores. Both said that they do not accept opened copies of OS X purchased at other stores.

 

[Bafflefish]

I'm pretty sure Apple would be perfectly happy to sell 100,000 Macs to run as Windows machines 24/7.

I'd be happy for them too!

Given Steve Job's stated distaste for all things Windows, I find this highly questionable.

I'm sure they'd be happy that they sold Macs. I don't think many would be happy if it were the case that most of those Macs were used as Windows machines exclusively. They allowed/assisted with the installation of Windows because it helps them sell systems, but I doubt anyone can argue that they'd prefer if users only ran OS X.

 

[Giuly]

I don't get the hype about this one. You use 10.6.0/1 kernel now on 10.6.2 (Which AMD, Pentium 4, Pentium Dual-Core, and the like-users have to use anyways, works well), and switch to a patched kernel once 10.6.2-xnu-source comes out.

Where's the problem? Why are they downgrading to .1? Incaptable of copying a single file and edit one string? Get a MacBook Air then, or install Windows.

IMHO

 

[Bafflefish]

Well, since Apple sells millions of computers, that should have a 1:1 growth concerning OSX since OSX comes with all macs. The problem is that growth is fairly obfuscated becasue Apple's market share is shared with the PC industry as a whole and that grows large too. OSX share grows with their hardware hare, but the growth overall when you look at the industry as a whole is less visible.

One thing we have to remember is that Apple is not obsessed with marketshare. Apple knows that not worth obsessing over. Their concerns are with pure profit something that is much more visible and much more meaningful.

I don't think Apple should be concerned with marketshare either, as to be quite honest, they'll likely never be more than a niche.

That having been said, people around here sure seem to care a lot about marketshare

 

[scottness]

Sucks for the Hackintoshers , but I can't blame Apple for pulling support for the Atom. Makes good business sense as they're mainly profiting from hardware. They can't continue to put out decent productS if they don't make a good profit.

 

[pdjudd]

Once again: "YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WITHIN THE RETURN PERIOD TO THE APPLE STORE OR AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTOR WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND"
So Fry's is not an authorized distributor? Last time I checked, they were. And thus, I should be able to return OS X to them for a full refund per the details of the EULA.

No - Fry's is not a licensee. As a distributor they have the independent option to do a returns but apple cannot force them to. That is very different from a distributor. If Fry's is unwilling to return it, you go to Apple. The terms lay that out plainly. Fry's has no obligation to support Apple's license. They just sell the box wrapped up. Once you open the box you are doing license negotiation with Apple. That's the line you cross.

 

[pdjudd]

Edit - Just called up the Biltmore and Chandler Apple stores. Both said that they do not accept opened copies of OS X purchased at other stores.

But what about the Apple as a corporate entity or Apple Legal? There is a reason I was careful when I said Apple and not Apple Retail.

Now I will tell you, it may not be easy to get a return, but the EULA says you do have that right.

 

[kate-willbury]

who cares anymore? windows 7 is now better than osx. half the threads on here are about mac users installing it via bootcamp now. hackintoshes won't even need to exist anymore because everyone having a 'genuine' mac will just be running windows anyway.

 

[Bafflefish]

No - Fry's is not a licensee. As a distributor they have the independent option to do a returns but apple cannot force them to. That is very different from a distributor. If Fry's is unwilling to return it, you go to Apple. The terms lay that out plainly. Fry's has no obligation to support Apple's license. They just sell the box wrapped up. Once you open the box you are doing license negotiation with Apple. That's the line you cross.

Licensee? What? The EULA makes no mention of returning a product to an Apple licensee. It specifically states to Apple or to an Apple authorized distributor, of which Fry's Electronics is. Call up Fry's Electronics if you want, and ask "Are you an Apple authorized distributor", and they will answer that they are.

Thus, per the very-specific wording of the EULA, I should be able to return OS X, opened, for a full refund to Fry's.

 

[Amdahl]

There is no law that prevents tying two components together to subsidize the cost of one product. Companies do that all the time. I fail to see your point.

According to Apple, there is such a law. They claim Sarbanes-Oxley requires them to charge for where costs are incurred. That means they can't be subsidizing OS X development with hardware. It actually is being covered by the OS X price, which is set at $29 for Snow Leopard. Or $129 for Leopard. And that means the value in the hardware bundle is similar, meaning there is not any subsidization. Because that would be illegal.

Apple themselves said so, when explaining why they were, for the first time, charging iPhone and iPod Touch users for updates.

 

[Bafflefish]

But what about the Apple as a corporate entity or Apple Legal? There is a reason I was careful when I said Apple and not Apple Retail.

Now I will tell you, it may not be easy to get a return, but the EULA says you do have that right.

Apple's online sales and return policies reference their online store, and their retail stores. Both only allow returns for products purchased from those entities.

If Apple allowed purchases from non-Apple owned retailers or distributors to be accepted, they'd likely have a policy for it. From what I can tell, they don't.

It seems like you're really pushing hard to "prove" that the EULA isn't misleading. It is, in regards to its return policy. And it could probably be challenged in court. Would a challenge win? I don't know.

In the past the courts have shown a dislike for companies making it especially difficult for consumers to return products, so it would just depend on how difficult Apple would make it to return it (such as having to contact Apple legal, go through a lot of documentation, send it in, wait for a refund, etc.).

 

[zweigand]

Given Steve Job's stated distaste for all things Windows, I find this highly questionable.

I'm sure they'd be happy that they sold Macs. I don't think many would be happy if it were the case that most of those Macs were used as Windows machines exclusively. They allowed/assisted with the installation of Windows because it helps them sell systems, but I doubt anyone can argue that they'd prefer if users only ran OS X.

No, if the majority of the Macs they sold ended up as 100% Windows machines they would not be happy. It would be a sign that OS X has lost it's edge.

Not that we need to worry about this, it's not going to happen. It was just a statement belittling the whole Windows/OS X marketshare statistics.

 

[Bafflefish]

No, if the majority of the Macs they sold ended up as 100% Windows machines they would not be happy. It would be a sign that OS X has lost it's edge.

Not that we need to worry about this, it's not going to happen. It was just a statement belittling the whole Windows/OS X marketshare statistics.

I agree that marketshare statistics, in regards to operating systems, is relatively useless. I was more trying to just make fun of the fact that people here often seem to give Apple's "increased marketshare" more credit than what it really means (i.e., increased hardware sales =/= increased % of the OS market or an increase in those "abandoning" Windows).

 

[wizard]

IT is hard to say what Apple is up to here.

Their choices are to either continually spend resources ensuring that Atom support works, or to keep a chunk of possibly broken code around in their OS until the end of time. Neither really sounds attractive, if they've decided not to use Atom in anything.

The biggest problem with ATOM is that it requires entirely different optimization techniques than those used for mainstream Intel micro processors. So dead code is a real problem if ATOM support just kinda hanged aroung for awhile. The lack of optimizations however shouldn't keep ATOM from executing code though.

This is why I'm suspecting a focused attempt to keep OS/X from working on Netbooks.

I have no idea how many resources it might have taken, though, so it's hard to say if it was reasonable to keep it in as a hedge against the possibility they'd pick up an Atom in the future.

Actually optimizing for ATOM probably would take as much effort as tailoring OS/X for ARM. As to picking up ATOM in the future that will be a problem. The issue is that you can go 64 bit with ATOM but there is no road map for that on ARM. Yes I do believe 64 bit will be important on these mobile devices in the very near future. 1 GB of RAM should be a snap in a tablet today with much more in the near future a reality.

In any event it looks like the Love affair with ATOM has come yo a sour end at Apple.


Dave

 

[pdjudd]

According to Apple, there is such a law. They claim Sarbanes-Oxley requires them to charge for where costs are incurred. That means they can't be subsidizing OS X development with hardware. It actually is being covered by the OS X price, which is set at $29 for Snow Leopard. Or $129 for Leopard. And that means the value in the hardware bundle is similar, meaning there is not any subsidization. Because that would be illegal.

Apple themselves said so, when explaining why they were, for the first time, charging iPhone and iPod Touch users for updates.

Which was true back when the law was in place. SOX has changed nw so they no longer have to use this method of accounting.

Apple has never accounted it's OS or the vast majority of it's products on a subscrtiption like plan like the iPhone - it calculates it outright. I doubt Apple's costs on it;s products relate to SOX really since SOX doesn't set a minimum price.

It's irrelevant anyway to the discussion. Apple, Like every company out there changes for their software. What difference does it make how much they charge?

Oh, and Apple has NEVER charged for iPhone software updates nor have they done so with the iPod upgrades, nor the Apple TV. In fact the only thing they charge for is 5 bucks for the Touch update which is believed to go away for the next big update. My quote was about tying, not about product pricing.