The Merged Hackintosh Thread

[NoSmokingBandit]

This will be fun.

Do you think you could seriously make a case that OS X is it's own system? No. It's an operating system, just like windows. If you don't like it, you don;t have to use it. By similar logic, I could force verizon and at&t to sell their phone OSes for all phones.

The difference is that AT&T and Verizon dont sell their OS as a separate product. I can go to the apple store and pick up a fuilly functional copy of leopard on a disc, i cant do that with at&t's OS. Your point it moot.
It is an operating system, just like windows, and windows works on every piece of x86 hardware barring performance restrictions. So if OSX is just like Windows should it not also work on all x86 machines?

 

[Muncher]

This will be fun.


The difference is that AT&T and Verizon dont sell their OS as a separate product. I can go to the apple store and pick up a fuilly functional copy of leopard on a disc, i cant do that with at&t's OS. Your point it moot.
It is an operating system, just like windows, and windows works on every piece of x86 hardware barring performance restrictions. So if OSX is just like Windows should it not also work on all x86 machines?

My point is still valid. AT&T and Verizon don't sell the OS as a separate product because they give updates for free, which Apple only does for minor updates. Almost all phones use ARM processors, so why should Verizon tell me I can't use the OS on one phone for my AT&T phone? Because it's their product. The last really major successful anti trust suit that comes to mind was against Bell, and they dominated the market. You also sort of proved my point. You said that "if OS X is just like Windows," but then if it is an operating system and not another creature entirely (which is where you should be making your point), then apple has alternatives and is not monopolizing the market.

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

My point is still valid. AT&T and Verizon don't sell the OS as a separate product because they give updates for free, which Apple only does for minor updates. Almost all phones use ARM processors, so why should Verizon tell me I can't use the OS on one phone for my AT&T phone? Because it's their product. The last really major successful anti trust suit that comes to mind was against Bell, and they dominated the market. You also sort of proved my point. You said that "if OS X is just like Windows," but then if it is an operating system and not another creature entirely (which is where you should be making your point), then apple has alternatives and is not monopolizing the market.

You are completely missing what i am saying. I cant go to a store and buy a copy of at&t's os. I can go to a store and buy osx though. How can you not see the difference here? Apple is forcing you to buy one product in order to use a different product and you are able to buy both independently. OSX and a Mac are not a single product, they are two separate, distinct products and are sold as such. AT&T doesnt allow me to buy the OS separately, the absolute only way of getting it is to buy their phone because the phone and the OS are one single product.
I can use osx without a mac, and i can use a mac without osx. Tying them together is anti competitive, no matter how you look at it.

What if Fender decided they are only going to allow their guitars to be played through Fender amps. you could plug a Gibson into a Fender amp, but if you want to use a strat you are forced to buy a fender amp. Surely you would not think that to be a reasonable use of the market. Fender has a sound that nobody else can replicate and in order to do that they now expect you to buy two completely separate products.

 

[MacUser2525]

You make it sound as if people have "a right" to use Mac OS X without paying for Apple hardware, as long as they have enough skill to read and use the info they find online.

People do have the right to use to use a product they have purchased however they choose to do so and even without they have every right to use the GPL software included in every OS X install without restriction from Apple or anyone else..

So while you've described some of the users and why they went the hackintosh route, I still don't see how the presence of hackintosh sites work in Apple's favor.

Well I can tell you personally how they have benefited from me one family pack and single user retail purchase of Leopard, an aluminum keyboard and Bento. Then add in Griffin who got money from my purchase of a FireWave and iMic along with Elgato for the EyeTV software this is money that went into the Apple ecosystem that would never have been spent without me running OS X...

I agree, and that's where it looks like they're headed unless their business plans continue to evolve. Is Apple tolerating and/or preparing for a larger hardware base (over many years)? They've already done it with Safari, iTunes, iPhone, iPod and Quicktime. I can't imagine them not wanting more Redmond piE.

Who knows perhaps they will see some sense on the issue.

By the way, I just had a solution to this entire problem. If apple were to sell their product normally, and then a "PC" version for $1 Trillion Dollars + Tax, where Steve Jobs would fly the person into apple headquarters and give them the box amidst the cheers of hundreds of apple employees about to get the biggest bonus of their lives.

Now your are just being foolish.

 

[paduck]

I don't think that the Mac OS software business is subsidizing the hardware side of Apple. At about $90/copy, Mac OS probably pays for itself, but I don't see there being huge profits there. Especially if you take that and the cost of iLife into consideration whenever Macintosh hardware is purchased. You go a long way towards the cost of a lowend Mac Mini with just iLife and Mac OS X in the base price.

The Hackintosh community is really for hobbiests who are technologically adept. That is not what Apple is appealing to with Macintosh (remember the advertising slogan "it just works"?) Interestingly, even the Apple II was targeted at giving a simple system to hobbiests and mainstreaming the microcomputer. People who are looking for hardware customization or more bang for their buck assume certain risks if they want to go with Mac OS. As long as they are doing it themselves, there is little impact on Apple's bottom line. The problem for Apple is the corporate entities trying to make money with industrial-sized processes, full up support, warranties, etc. that cut into Apple's sales. Apple does not want to be seen as a generic PC consumer product and they will protect that image from clone makers. They will not do it with the hobbiest though because there isn't any real exposure.

 

[Muncher]

Apple does not want to be seen as a generic PC consumer product and they will protect that image from clone makers.

I forgot about that argument. If releasing OS X ruins the product (by ruining its "it just works" image), then that's already a solid case for apple. Look, I'm a big free software plan. I'm going to build a linux computer as soon as I get the money. Apple isn't anywhere near anti-trust territory in market share yet.

People do have the right to use to use a product they have purchased however they choose to do so and even without they have every right to use the GPL software included in every OS X install without restriction from Apple or anyone else..

Now your are just being foolish.

Yes, they have the right to use the GPL software in OS X. That's why apple releases the OS portion of OS X and keeps it at parity. May I refer you to Darwin?

I think my solution is quite practical; no one would ever get the money to pay for it, protecting apple from having to actually make it, and if anyone ever were able to pay, apple would have the money to hire every half-decent computer monkey in the world to keep it working perfectly. They could even rewrite it from scratch a few times over.

 

[MacUser2525]

Yes, they have the right to use the GPL software in OS X. That's why apple releases the OS portion of OS X and keeps it at parity. May I refer you to Darwin?

You can refer all you want what none of you people never address is that OS X requires GPL software (not their own code they have released OTHER PEOPLE'S code that has its own license) to even boot let alone run the graphics. I as an end user have a right to run GPL software without restriction which Apple places upon it/me by saying you can run the software on only Apple approved machines.

 

[Muncher]

You can refer all you want what none of you people never address is that OS X requires GPL software (not their own code they have released OTHER PEOPLE'S code that has its own license) to even boot let alone run the graphics. I as an end user have a right to run GPL software without restriction which Apple places upon it/me by saying you can run the software on only Apple approved machines.

You don't have the right to run the non-GPL code in the OS. Like I said, of course you can run the Open Source stuff, that's what Darwin is for.

Linux? - Open Source, GPL or similar
BSD? - Open Source, GPL or similar
OS X? - Closed Source Proprietary, Apple EULA

 

[MacUser2525]

You don't have the right to run the non-GPL code in the OS. Like I said, of course you can run the Open Source stuff, that's what Darwin is for.

Linux? - Open Source, GPL or similar
BSD? - Open Source, GPL or similar
OS X? - Closed Source Proprietary, Apple EULA

Darwin is the kernel that is not at all what it is for in fact when an effort was made to do an open source project using it Apple shut them down you people just don't get it. You cannot close source a GPL piece of software and Apple by distributing this GPL software cannot place any further restriction on the software than they received this is clearly stated in the GPL, this is what they do with their EULA by limiting the hardware a clear restriction of use. Apple does not allow you to run only the GPL portion of the OS because you are limited to even if you wanted to boot single user mode so only using the bash shell to using their hardware to do it you know that silly restriction of your use thing that your not allowed to do contained in the license for bash. Then with most countries in this world once you bought and paid for an item you are entitled to use it in any way you see fit you have paid for Apple's part of the deal so they have no complaints to make that is their bargain I sell you this disk for this amount of money. And before you get on your EULA as a contract deal a contract requires informed consent meaning you must be shown the terms to agree too them before the sale, Apple did not show me nothing they happily took my money without a question as to the use of their product.

 

[gazzanova]

some interesting news

Apple has never filed for copyright protection for its Mac OS X operating system with the U.S. Copyright Office

link

 

[icoffee]

Re: "Insanely Mac leads to Psystar"

Re: OSX on x86 machines

Don't blame Insanely Mac, or any of the zillion or so other sites around the Net that cover the topic of running OSX on x86 machines. Pandora's box was opened when Apple switched from PPC to x86. Blame Apple.

That's true, although IM, aka osx86project, was one of the first sites out. Now there are many more sites that concentrate on OSX86 and even general computing sites like TUAW, Lifehacker, etc. cover mods and hacks, e.g. the netbooks or Mac desktop replacements.

I can't say I agree with your other points, but again, no one has really answered WHY Apple doesn't shut all of these sites down. They've been so protective for years, that I find it hard to believe they're just turning a blind eye.

So again, I ask, "Why hasn't IM and all the other hackintosh sites been shut down?"

People do have the right to use to use a product they have purchased however they choose to do so and even without they have every right to use the GPL software included in every OS X install without restriction from Apple or anyone else..

They may have "the right," but I don't think that U.S. and other laws agree...yet.

Well I can tell you personally how they have benefited from me one family pack and single user retail purchase of Leopard, an aluminum keyboard and Bento. Then add in Griffin who got money from my purchase of a FireWave and iMic along with Elgato for the EyeTV software this is money that went into the Apple ecosystem that would never have been spent without me running OS X...


Who knows perhaps they will see some sense on the issue.

Now your last answer seems to be one part of the picture and answers my question of why these hackintosh sites haven't been shut down. Thank you. Hackintoshes do seem contribute to Apple sales...at the very least, if Mac OS X is paid for, then Apple receives some $$$. You also make a good point that accessory and 3rd party manufacturers also benefit as their Mac products get purchased.

Now looking at the numbers, IM claims to have nearly 300,000 members on their site. I would bet that the active number of users is around half, and the number of active installations is 3x the active member amount (I'm just using averages here and accouting for other sites like osx86hu, hackint0sh, etc.). That's roughly .5 million total working hackintosh intalls. If ArsTechnica claimed 22 million Mac users worldwide in 2007, then the number of Hackintosh users alone is roughly 2-3% by my calculations. That's a small but significant number. So does Apple lock down when it reaches 5%, 10%, 25%?

 

[nomar383]

Let's be honest here. OSx86 will never be mainstream or hold even a percentage of the overall OS X sales. They just have bigger fish to fry than a few hobbyists, such as us

 

[icoffee]

Let's be honest here. OSx86 will never be mainstream or hold even a percentage of the overall OS X sales. They just have bigger fish to fry than a few hobbyists, such as us

Other posters have pointed to a lack of product such as mid-tower case and more recently netbook. If "hackintosh" is for hobbyists and/or users who can't/won't shell out for a MacPro/Notebook, by my medieval math skills, hackintosh is 2-3% of products sold. My guess is a mid desktop, other notebook, and netbook introduced in the Apple product line would be far fewer sold than the AppleTV - a product Steve J. has spoken of as a "hobby" and if introduced might cut into existing product sales.

Apple also doesn't compete in the netbook category, yet. Some links below.

BTW, I'm pretty certain there are other products which sells in that low margin, but it's still interesting that the "hobby" has continued this long after the Intel switch.

Finances and sales http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10071819-37.html
Another http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/12/notebook-pc-sales-outpace-desktops-good-news-for-apple-aapl

Hackintosh netbooks - http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/334/C16724/
BoingBoing post: http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/12/17/osx-netbook-compatib.html

Searches source: http://news.google.com

You don't have the right to run the non-GPL code in the OS. Like I said, of course you can run the Open Source stuff, that's what Darwin is for.

Linux? - Open Source, GPL or similar
BSD? - Open Source, GPL or similar
OS X? - Closed Source Proprietary, Apple EULA

Agree.

 

[localoid]

...
So again, I ask, "Why hasn't IM and all the other hackintosh sites been shut down?"

Others have given you the correct answer, several times, but here it is one more time -- because these sites aren't doing anything illegal.


Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, the founders of Apple Computer spent their college years making and selling blue boxes to the collegiate masses

Why weren't the Jobs and Wozniak gang "shut down" by the authorities?

 

[icoffee]

Others have given you the correct answer, several times, but here it is one more time -- because these sites aren't doing anything illegal.


Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, the founders of Apple computer spent their college years making and selling blue boxes to the collegiate masses

Why weren't the Jobs and Wozniak "shut down" by the authorities?

Think Different, pun intended. That was AT&T and analogue, this is Mac OS X and digital. I don't think AT&T would have permitted if they knew. Your point about the "legality" - is being tested in court, but that's Psystar and not hackintosh sites being sued. Psystar set up shop in less than a year selling hackintosh, hackintosh sites have been present for years.

 

[localoid]

Think Different, pun intended. That was AT&T and analogue, this is Mac OS X and digital. I don't think AT&T would have permitted if they knew. Your point about the "legality" - is being tested in court, but that's Psystar and not hackintosh sites being sued. Psystar set up shop in less than a year selling hackintosh, hackintosh sites have been present for years.

Does the "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" section from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ring any bells?

Been to any good book burnings lately?

 

[icoffee]

Does the "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" section from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ring any bells?

Been to any good book burnings lately?

You might find the sections from sedition - and on - a bit enlightening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment

 

[localoid]

You might find the sections from sedition - and on - a bit enlightening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment

Obviously, you'd like to be appointed leader of the Thought Police.

 

[nomar383]

This thread makes me happy on so many levels lol

 

[paduck]

... If "hackintosh" is for hobbyists and/or users who can't/won't shell out for a MacPro/Notebook, by my medieval math skills, hackintosh is 2-3% of products sold. My guess is a mid desktop, other notebook, and netbook introduced in the Apple product line would be far fewer sold than the AppleTV - a product Steve J. has spoken of as a "hobby" and if introduced might cut into existing product sales.

I would be surprised if there were 2-3% of the Apple base out there in Hackintoshes. Maybe move a couple decimal places to the left 0.03%. Of 10 million Macs sold in a year, that would be 3,000. That sounds about right to me, I just don't see a massive audience out there - insanelymac has 15,000 registered users. I doubt that they all have Hackintoshes. Psystar could sell 5,000 in very short order, which is something Apple does care about. 5,000 "Macs" from a single source is going to be at least $6 million from Apple sales (at a low $1200 per CPU). Even though Apple is picking up $500,000 in Leopard licenses, they aren't going to walk away from $6 million. They already did the clone scene and saw it cannibalize their sales.

An Apple-branded mini-tower would probably generate plenty of sales, but at the expense of both the high-end iMac and the low-end MacPro, both high-margin items. Apple doesn't see how it fits into their image and the cost of having yet another desktop line (Mini, iMac, and MacPro) starts to get confusing. Remember all the Performa models Apple had during the 1990's? No one could figure out what was what. Product line simplification is perceived as benefiting Apple's sales by making the product line easy for the consumer to understand. Having too much choice would be considered counterproductive.

Apple has three desktop products and three laptop products. They have four iPod models (although I consider the iPod Touch something of a bridge between the iPhone and the iPod line).

Three choices is considered complicated enough. Plus, there are manufacturing efficiencies to be realized as well without having a ton of different models. If Apple's research showed a strong need for a minitower, you can bet they would be selling one. The bottom line is that most people don't need (or don't want) to do their own system expansion. The USB ports on the computer provide enough options without cracking open the case. That is what Apple is selling and that is the market theme of the Mac - it just works, you don't have to add anything. It comes with the software and hardware you need to do what you need out of the box.

 

[icoffee]

I would be surprised if there were 2-3% of the Apple base out there in Hackintoshes. Maybe move a couple decimal places to the left 0.03%. Of 10 million Macs sold in a year, that would be 3,000.

I wouldn't. The IM forum lists close to 300,000 members.

An Apple-branded mini-tower would probably generate plenty of sales, but at the expense of both the high-end iMac and the low-end MacPro, both high-margin items.

I agree.

If Apple's research showed a strong need for a minitower, you can bet they would be selling one. The bottom line is that most people don't need (or don't want) to do their own system expansion.

I also agree. A lack of tablet Macbook also hasn't affected them. Let's see how the netbook phase plays out. BTW, this still doesn't really answer the question of why hackintosh continues...

 

[Cerebrus' Maw]

Surely it is an issue to do with sales. Providing information is much different then acting upon it and making a profit.

While these sites provide the information(Life hacker etc) , they dont make any money out of it, and therefore do not cut into Apple sales. While one might argue that a user will now head out and buy just OS X alone, rather then the OS and a computer, this is at the consumers discretion. There is nothing stopping a non computer user from just going out and purchasing a retail version of Leopard. Perhaps Apple realizes that shutting down such sites will create a bigger mess then targeting commercial sites. Stirring up these people would quite possibly result in an even greater impact on Apple, rather then just hammering the purely commercial companies.

A site like Pystar was making a direct profit out of it, money that in another universe would probably have gone to Apple. And not just the OS alone, this includes hardware too.

Apple are targeting the providers (Psystar) rather then the End User. As has been said, many people make these Hackintosh's as a hobby, more bang for your buck. If said people were activily making a profit from it by making these computers and selling them, I would bet a million bucks that Apple would pounce on it.

 

[dukebound85]

I also agree. A lack of tablet Macbook also hasn't affected them. Let's see how the netbook phase plays out. BTW, this still doesn't really answer the question of why hackintosh continues...

as has been answered numerous times in this thread, if you are questioning why IM is still up, its because its doing nothing illegal. simple as that. it does not host any illegal files. all it does is have people share information.

i really dont know why you keep on continuing to ask this question multiple times and not bother to recognize the answers given to you......



by your logic, any and all jailbreak forums/guides should be shut down. any and all sites discussing how to copy dvd's to your computer should be shut down. any and all sites talking about how to mod game systems/apple tv's should be shutdown. the list goes on

 

[icoffee]

Surely it is an issue to do with sales. Providing information is much different then acting upon it and making a profit.

I agree.

Apple are targeting the providers (Psystar) rather then the End User. As has been said, many people make these Hackintosh's as a hobby, more bang for your buck.

Agree with first but not second. "Bang for your buck" is subjective.

as has been answered numerous times in this thread, if you are questioning why IM is still up, its because its doing nothing illegal. simple as that. it does not host any illegal files. all it does is have people share information.

Why do you assume that I think IM is doing something illegal?

i really dont know why you keep on continuing to ask this question multiple times and not bother to recognize the answers given to you......

My question seems to have many answers, so I continue to question.

by your logic, any and all jailbreak forums/guides should be shut down. any and all sites discussing how to copy dvd's to your computer should be shut down. any and all sites talking about how to mod game systems/apple tv's should be shutdown. the list goes on

Tis the season to make lists, but I never said any of those things nor imply the use of such failed logic. fail, much love.

 

[dukebound85]

Why do you assume that I think IM is doing something illegal?

Because that should be the ONLY basis on which it would be brought down. If its not illegal, no reason to bring it down. Since you are wanting IM to be shut down, I can do nothing but assume you think its illegal. It isn't.

My question seems to have many answers, so I continue to question.

Which has been answered. Once again, if its not illegal, then there's no basis to shut down IM. Stop beating this dead horse please...its suffered enough

Tis the season to make lists, but I never said any of those things. fail.

What are you talking about? It's merely an extension of your "logic". Jailbreaking the iphone is breaking eulas just as is running a hackintosh. Copying dvd's circumvents industry drm measures. Why aren't websites devoted to those not shut down? Answer that and you may just have the answer to your question (hint: its already been posted numerous times by myself and others)

If you question IM with their content solely for information that happens to result in breaking the eula if acted upon by an individual, those other examples are just as applicable, if not more so.