Slashdot Log In
Mac OS X on x86 Videos Get Apple's Attention
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Aug 17, 2005 06:01 PM
from the almost-getting-away-with-it dept.
from the almost-getting-away-with-it dept.
RetrogradeMotion writes "The OSx86 Project is reporting that Apple has served a legal notice to MacBidouille, a French news site that posted videos and instructions on running Mac OS X on x86 hardware . You can find an English translation of the MacBidouille notice on the OSx86Project's forums. This is the first known legal action by Apple regarding the hacked version of OS X and calls into doubt the future of other news sites, similar to the OSx86 Project." Slashdot previously covered the story of hacking Mac OS X onto non-Apple hardware and followed up again a few days later.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Mac OS X on x86 Videos Get Apple's Attention
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 758 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Followed up? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Followed up? (Score:5, Funny)
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Power
Duplicates are News
Re:Followed up? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here are the instructions I used to get it running on my USB drive in my Intel system. [tech-recipes.com]
I would never have tried OSX except for this challenge. Obviously, it's not the most stable thing in the world... but it's mainly the challenge of hacking this little project together.
Is it practical? Only that people will explore OSX... and yes, some people will like it and switch. For me, however, it was just the challenge of showing my apple fan-boy buddies that I too can run OSx.
Re:embrace it! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://ieatcrayons.net/)
Re:embrace it! (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.cyberspice.org.uk/ | Last Journal: Thursday February 26 2004, @10:59AM)
Re:embrace it! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm thinking that the majority of slashdot readers have never actually worked for a proprietary software company.
Contrary to popular believe on slashdot, software is not a money printing machine. On the surface it may look like software has a near 90% margin with economies of scale but the readers here seem to forget about hidden costs such as support and "free" upgrades and patches.
Compared to hardware, software has a great deal of after market costs associated with it.
I would argue that software can end up having a lower margin than hardware after all of the after market costs are factored in.
I've worked in technical support dealing with software issues in the past and I'm also a developer of in-house software for a major multi-national organization. I can tell you that software is neither cheap to develop or maintain.
Re:embrace it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is a hardware company first and foremost. But they also have a part of them that makes straight up software like the apps you mentioned. OSX does not fall in the later.
OSX is made to sell the hardware. They make the other apps to make money and maintain viability.
If they were to ditch the hardware and sell OSX as a stand alone, it would carry prices higher then their pro-apps. OSX is priced simply to keep things moving and selling hardware.
And no, the benefit of going intel is not to repackage other peoples mainboards in a pretty case. They did it so they can have a real supplier who delivers product. Apple will still make very custom boards just like they always have. They do that for a reason, to make a good box. They have no interest in making ATX hack jobs like the developer boxes. Besides, creating their own boards is a non-issue to them. It's not hard for them, they have done it for ages, and they still use companies like ASUS as manufactures for them anyways.
Its doubtful you will even see intel sockets in the intel macs. Expect cpus to be on daughter cards and such the same as they are today.
So it starts... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.nickcatalano.com/)
Re:So it starts... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://inglorion.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 06 2005, @07:17AM)
No, because most people pay for the OS when they buy a machine, and companies often take group licenses for software (MS Office, SQL Server,
Also, every computer that runs Windws, pirated or not, strengthens Microsoft's position. The people using that computer will be used to Microsoft software, and likely prefer to use that over alternatives. Thus, pirated copies of your software keep the users away from the competition, and may lead to sales further down the road. You don't want to alienate those users by trying to make them pay.
Of course, if some group is massively pirating your software, it may be better to do something about that group. But even for that you don't need a whole building of drones; you can get the FBI to help you.
Re:So it starts... (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
Maybe, but I doubt it. Running a shipping version of OS X on a generic PC isn't going to be as easy as using the old "Magic Sack", which let you plug Mac ROMS into an Atari ST.
They can tie it to encryption keys on their mother boards, they can use custom microcode in the GPU, they could even get Intel to make them slightly modified CPUs that are only available to Apple.
-jcr
Re:So it starts... (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday November 01 2005, @12:35PM)
You can knock Apple wanting to control things as much as you want, but I can tell you that as an Apple consumer the reason I stay with Apple is because they control their hardware. Things work. I'm not interested in defending anything that leads to Apple quality going downhill because I want to continue using Apple products in the future.
Talk about control, I see control freaks on the other side of this as well. If you want total control how about using Linux, which you can mod/change/hack to your heart's content. Or is it just more fun to try to do the "forbidden" thing?
Re:So it starts... (Score:4, Insightful)
The control drives more people away than it attracts not because it is not "open" as in "open source" but because the anal-retentive arrogance level is off the scale and that drives away third-party hardware and software vendors thus lessening the end-user's range of things they can do.
I have zero doubt that Windows, as great as it is relative to its competitors, would ever have done one percent as well as it did had Microsoft been so freakishly controlling as Apple was from the beginning of the Macintosh. Similarly, the PC platform would have been as widely adopted as it was had Compaq and company not done their number on IBM the way they did. The PC genie out of the bottle, Windows open to writing apps with a solid well-documented architecture to go by, it's not hard to see why it is where it is now.
That same nature of things allows Linux, BSD, and a dozen other things to run on the PC, and as time goes by Windows-like architectural standards will eventually and inevitably coalesce despite the present "do it because it is hard and not correct or beautiful" mindset contaminating Linux.
PC hardware was open long before "open source" in the most meaningful way of "open" and that is documented, easily understood, and sensible. A variety of vendors come and go in the direction of it and the end-user purchasing habits control what stays and what doesn't on it, not the vendors from above, and Apple needs to grow up and see that the only thing they can meaningfully controll is their software and that the best way to grow their market share is to co-opt the hardware that is majority dominated by Windows and Linux.
I have no faith in them to do so however. They are still too much like IBM was with microchannel and OS/2. Still daydreaming about total end to end domination of one single overall platform. IBM has that with their AS/400 more or less but how many of these are getting sold every day at the local stores?
Oh, that's right, none. Present popularity aside, the insane and insipid insistance on proprietary control isn't winning any love from the majority of Apple's user base. Continued religious worship of the Mac/Apple, solid positioning to compete as a Wintel alternative (as much as it is), and plain anti-MS sentiment are the bulk of Apple purchases. Apple should let it go and get on with being the only real competitor to Windows on the desktop.
Linux zealots may not like it, and like it even less that the one to challenge Redmond was born of BSD roots, but do you childishly want the competition with Micrsoft to be your pet platform or do you just want to see the competition happen at all? If the latter, then support the guerilla porting of OSX to the PC. In sufficient numbers it might even sink in to the ever-dense and deluded Steve Jobs.
Machiavellian tinfoil hat conspiracies that Jobs is intending for this aside, it has to happen. Linux isn't going to win that kind of sheer power any time soon. Apple could practically do it tomorrow. And that competition will only help Microsoft Windows users in the long run. We all benefit from that more than waiting for one distro or another to do more than cause a shurg from Redmond.
Re:So it starts... (Score:4, Funny)
I hear they're working overtime to get new features into Vista.
Apple HQ (Score:5, Funny)
"Quick! To the Applejet!"
Re:Apple HQ (Score:5, Funny)
(http://bleakinc.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 23 2005, @09:00PM)
Re:Apple HQ (Score:5, Funny)
That's correct. And if something were to happen during flight they could escape by using their iPods.
Re:Seriously, here's the solution to Apple's probl (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~panaceaa | Last Journal: Friday July 14 2006, @09:19PM)
Re:Seriously, here's the solution to Apple's probl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, here's the solution to Apple's probl (Score:4, Interesting)
They could mitigate that problem by including excellent generic drivers for NICs and being able to load drivers on the fly from their website by having the OS transmit the PnP ID of the unknown devices. Of course, I wouldn't care to speculate on the bandwidth requirements of such a scheme. I must admit that it would take some uber skills to pull off.
Actually, if they could make something like this work seamlessly, that would be sufficient grounds to consider switching right off the bat.
Re:Seriously, here's the solution to Apple's probl (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several problems with this.
Apple is not just ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is not minor league engineering department attached to a powerhouse marketing deparment.
It's also attached to a powerhouse legal department.
Think Different !!!
Re:Apple is not just ... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.wavenger.com/)
Of course, you're referring to their hardware engineering, not their software engineering. Poopoo on their silicon all you want, I'll even help in a few areas. However, the mere fact that so many geeks are working desparately to run their OS on commodity hardware testifies to the fact that their applications and operating system departments are anything but minor-league.
Re:So Apple ARE evil!! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.homestarrunner.com/)
Re:So Apple ARE evil!! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/...id=44091&cid=4592270)
And you've always been shallow and ignorant in making that assessment. They [apple.com] make [apple.com] some [apple.com] other [apple.com] stuff [apple.com] that you seem to have overlooked.
They're picking on geeks with the desire to hack and make stuff work!
No, they're picking on geeks with a willingness to break NDAs, pirate pre-release operating systems, and not pay for anything.
OSx86 Project Should be safe (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://ndansmith.net/)
Re:OSx86 Project Should be safe (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OSx86 Project Should be safe (Score:5, Informative)
(http://valdot.org/)
1. Software is no different than any other intellectual property like a book or music CD.
2. You own your copy of OS X, Windows, Linux, *BSD, including the physical media. It is only copyright law and nothing else that prevents you from distributing copies. However, the GPL is the author's public declaration that you may distribute.
3. There is a whole wealth of information of what consititutes a valid contract, and a EULA is not one. If you press a "button" on your screen that says "I Agree," that does not mean you have agreed to anything in a legal sense.
4. Apple, Microsoft, Linus own the *copyright* on their respective works. It means they get to dictate the terms of *distribution* and nothing else. Otherwise, you can use the software any way you want.
5. The GPL only pertains to distribution of code and has nothing to do whatsoever with usage. If you don't agree to the terms of the GPL, you can still use the software.
Bottom line is that anything you buy in a retail transaction is yours to own and use, although you are restricted from distributing copies per copyright law. There are *real* software contracts out there (ie Microsoft site licenses, Bloomberg feeds, etc), however.
Re:OSx86 Project Should be safe (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://ndansmith.net/)
Furthermore, Apple has no legal oversight of all the documentation which has been generated by OSx86 hackers. The installation docs belong to those who prodeced them; Apple does not own them just because the notes concern their product. As we all know, these installation guides have been distributed freely on the net, and MacBidouille posted these notes on their site. Also, the video depicts something that may or may not be a crime. As we all know from watching the news, distributing a video which documents crime is not a crime in itself. Apple did not produce the video, so they do not own it. The usage of their trademarks should be covered under fair use. It is not illegal (nor should it be) to document crime, even by telling exactly how it can be done and showing the crime being comitted.
The point is that this story and my post have nothing to do with EULAs, the GPL, licensing, copright law and basic tenets of private property. It has to do with news, freedom of information, and free speech rights.
Gave it time to spread the hype (Score:5, Interesting)
Given how fast Apple's legal department is capable of acting, it's a little odd that it took this long. I was speculating with a friend that Apple probably wants to make sure that the hype has time to take hold before it cracks down. It's interesting how they have to do a balancing act between being too heavy-handed and making sure that people keep talking about their products.
It would have been relatively simple for Apple to personalize each copy of OS X Intel that it sent out to developers. I find it pretty strange that we haven't heard about legal action against whomever distributed their copy. Perhaps Apple purposely didn't watermark the installers so the balance could tilt towards hype without them having to sue a developer.
And made sure to not to prosecute too successfully (Score:4, Insightful)
It's additionally fishy that they took their first action against a French site when so many American sites were doing the same thing. It's like they waited for the info to get out, wanted everyone talking about it, then made some sort of action against a foe far from the center of the limelight and in another country, which only steps up the difficulty in achieving success.
It's pretty clear that Apple, usually quick draw McGraw with the legal complaints, sat on this one because they saw the benefit of these copies getting out and getting people talking and excited about OS X.
Before anyone starts posting Babelfish links... (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA-DReZYftg | Last Journal: Sunday November 12 2006, @01:05AM)
Ubiquitous piracy made Microsoft Windows big and Linux a contender. It's hard enough to get people to try another operating system when it's free.
Not that I'm supporting piracy, because I'm not, but at this point you'd have to be a nut to grab something like this (not necessarily stable, anybody could have altered it) and install it on your system, with the risk of losing whatever else you've got on there. The kind of nut that could be an excellent customer down the road if Apple capitalized on this fanaticism and offered legit demos of the technology in lieu of the illegal downloads already out there.
I suppose it wouldn't jive with their strategy of keeping their innovations under wraps until release, but as long as the toothpaste is out of the tube you get better results with the carrot than the stick.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://ieatcrayons.net/)
Attributing Windows' success to piracy is a common but retarded argument. What else was there for x86 that was competition for Windows in terms of ease of use? Yes, I hate Windows, but MacOS never ran on the open hardware, only on apples. Windows simply suited the typical computer-idiot person, and with Microsofts marketing and shoddy buisness deals, it won out. If Windows success was because of piracy, then why are they so rich? Average Joe doesn't get a friend to burn him a copy of an OS, and then go gee whiz this is good, I'll buy the 300$ copy to support the cool guys that made this!
you know what Duke Ellington would say... (Score:3, Funny)
It don't mean a thing if it aint got Quartz Extreme
doo wop!
Did this surprise anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple is a hardware company` (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 05 2006, @05:31AM)
You're assuming that people will pay for the OS, instead of pirating it.
Piracy doesn't dent MS's revenues, since they get the Dells and HPs of the world to pay them for every box they ship. Apple doesn't have that luxury.
-jcr
Re:Apple is a hardware company` (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Saturday January 29 2005, @02:22PM)
Look at the hardware companies who made money on just hardware. Commodore (don't knock them - they used one of the largest computer manufacturer in Europe ti'll the day they went backrupt), SGI, SUN, Compaq, Gateway etc etc - all of these companies are either gone or marginialized by cheap "windows" hardware.
Finally - Apple should just raise the price of their OS until it is profitable.
Re:Apple is a hardware company` (Score:5, Informative)
IBM is in the same business in enterprise space, and it's done pretty well for them. For that matter, Red Hat also sells vertical integration, it just services a shorter stack.. only OS, middleware and userland.
Yes, Apple makes most of its profits from the hardware, just like Red Hat makes most of its profits from circles of plastic. That doesn't make Apple exclusively a 'hardware' company, though. It does, however, mean that Apple wants to protect the part of its integration stack that brings in the bulk of the money, and supports development across the rest of the stack.
Intel Mac for under $200 (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_c ontent&task=view&id=27&Itemid=2 [osx86project.org]
Re:Intel Mac for under $200 (Score:4, Insightful)
Tempting Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~Doc%20Ruby/journal | Last Journal: Thursday March 31 2005, @01:48PM)
However, Apple is always most jealous of rumors of actual product intros. If they were planning to release OSX86 for generic PCs, they might very well go after these sites to manage the launch better with prelaunch secrecy. The intense interest in commodity OSX86 generated by these videos also serves to increase the demand, which therefore increases Apple's likelihood of releasing such an unbound OS.
This move offers all kinds of reasons to believe that dualbooting Windows/Mac will be reality in the foreseeable future. That also means VMWare Mac/Windows/Linux instances, all onscreen at once, on some kind of 14THz P12.
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://discuss.futuremark.com/)
Elsewhere, Microsoft claims to have patented the underlying concept of using lawyers as a high-level communications protocol.
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday March 13 2007, @02:39PM)
Re:Bottom line for me: (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.trilobite.org/)
Re:Not running their OS (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.trilobite.org/)
But you miss Apple's entire point. They don't want people running OSX on any computer save an Apple brand computer. Period. Why is that so hard to understand? Poeple unwilling to buy an Apple computer are obviously not wanting to run OSX bad enough.
Re:Not running their OS (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.plkr.org/)
So let me get this straight:
Totals:
Dell: $999.00
Microsoft: $15.00 (or whatever)
Apple: $0.00
So you think Apple should let you pay Dell and Microsoft to run their OS, all while giving Apple not a single cent? You think this is what they should allow?
Don't you understand? All of this "running-OSX-on-Intel-today" means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the end-result of running OSX-for-Intel on the customized hardware Apple is designing with Intel.
All this does is provide Apple with an exact blueprint of where to lock down the OS even tighter, to prevent 'hacking' when they release it. Besides, with Intel's LaGrande chipset, the whole OS runs in a silicon-locked sandbox, separate from anything else, and strongly keyed to the silicon itself. You literally CANNOT get inside without the proper key.
All of this hacking around with OSX today on Intel today, is going to rapidly become very irrelevant when they release their own boxes.
Re:Not running their OS (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.yahoo.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday May 22 2005, @10:57AM)
For $999 you can get two Dell PCs, a keg of beer, and a night with three Welsh hookers. Don't ask me how I know. The point is, you must be used to paying Apple prices, that figure is way off.
Re:Now that's the Apple I know! (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday November 10 2006, @10:38PM)
I nominate that for the "dumb-ass statement of the month" award.
It is time to grow up - beer is not "free" (Score:4, Insightful)
Get real jobs and get the fuck out of your parents basement already.
If you feel that "you" are entitled to be paid for the work that you do, you should feel obligated to pay for the work of others in kind if you make use of the products and services they provide.
If you cannot work for free then you should not expect software, music or movies for free either or for companies to provide support for hardware they did not sell or licence.
If you do not like the licence terms of a product, don't use it. You cannot use that as an excuse to pirate software.
Remember, even open source software can have terms that you must agree to in order to use it.
Re:Why would Apple care? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://blandfordexaminer.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday September 21 2004, @05:40PM)
Apple's whole philosophy is "it just works" - they want to be able to control the hardware so they can be 100% sure that all their boxes work as they should without having to support every piece of hardware under the sun, especially as this would mean running into the same problems with a lack of support or hardware specs from manufacturers that Linux has over the years.
To your average man-on-the-street, all computers are the same - Apples might come with shinier boxes, but a computer is a computer - and if he sees OS X running poorly on a white-box x86, he's going to assume it's the fault of the OS.
Apple don't want that. It damages their image.
You could argue that they could, quite easily, make more money selling OS X to all and sundry than they can by guarding their 5% of the market and locking the OS to the hardware, but that's just the Apple way, and they're being successful with it. Why should they change a profitable business structure?
Burn, karma, burn (Score:5, Insightful)
- People with the Intel transition kits are under NDA
- The VAST majority of people installing Tiger on off-the-shelf Intel hardware are doing it using pirated copies
- Installing OS X on said Intel hardware is against the clickwrap license
- Instructing people how to obtain said pirated goods and then specifically do something that's against both NDA and license agreements is quite far over the top.
There's a lot of sites out there that are posting Torrent links and how-to videos that are basically forcing Apple's hand in this matter.
What the hell do you expect Apple to do? Not defend their IP when sites get that far out of line? The way the legal system works, Apple *has* to respond, even if they don't want to.
Anyone who doesn't think that the Intel compiles of OS X over the last 5 years hasn't been running on off-the-shelf boxes in Cupertino is seriously naïve. Of course Apple knew it was possible to do this.
anyone notice Darwinports has x86 ports already (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.phpconsulting.com/ | Last Journal: Monday April 17 2006, @10:40AM)
This is pirating nonetheless (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.linuxchile.cl/)
This is pure pirating. For a lot of reasons. First of all, almost every single site I've seen is either promoting or even directly linking to torrents and other P2P references of the Developer's version of Mac OS X Intel. Second, this is indeed a Developer's version of the software. I'm pretty confident that all developers that have been able to get a hold (legally) of the OS had to do so signing a strict NDA, which (again, with no certainty proof but pretty confident of) would probably prohibites them of using it for any purposes other than the porting and testing of their applications, which of course doesn't include trying to run it on non-Apple hardware (which I guess is explicitly forbidden), or discusing and sharing these methods with other fellow developers.
Apple trying to pull the plug on these sites comes as no surprise, even if thousands of hundreds of users would love to run OS X on their PCs, as it finally is _their_ (Apple's) product, they hold all the intelectual property to it and anyone wanting to use it will have to agree to their conditions to do so.
I would expect a similar reaction if there appears some highly publisized websites teaching and offering videos on tax evading practices, of course the IRS (or the equivalent organization on whatever country that happens) would eventually chase them.
legal OS X X86 (Score:3)
(http://cakepoker.com/?share=112024 | Last Journal: Saturday January 31 2004, @09:47AM)
Can you go and buy Mac OS X for X86 right now?
*waits for answer*
Quit yer fuckin bitchin then!
In the words of Master Yoda... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Let's be honest... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://dosomefink.com/)
So let me get this straight...According to your line of thinking, If I park my car in a shitty neighborhood and it gets stolen, even though I knew there was a chance and put an alarm in my car, I shouldn't have any legal recourse and the thief is not legally liable??
It's obvious YANAL...
Re:Hrmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Suing someone to stop them from doing something sometimes means they actually don't want anyone to do it. Apple has a very obvious reason to keep OS X off of generic PCs, and I'm sure they're happy to flex a little muscle when someone obviously broke their NDA and provided OS X x86 to someone else, gave a public demo of it, or provided info on it.
Re:Sad Mac (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday May 04 2004, @09:18PM)
I'd love Mac OS X on Intel PCs. I don't care about getting a manky cheap-black-plastic laptop booting it, but a decent cheap desktop PC, yeah. As you get older you realise certain things - (1) I ain't got the time to get Gentoo to compile, (2) No way am I gonna lose my Unix shell, (3) Nor have I got the time to work out how certain things in Linux/FreeBSD now work since the last release I tried. Mac OS X is the OS for the productive geek, and the amount of desire there is for a generic x86 version shows that many many other people out there think the same thing.
And yes, I have a nice new 1.33GHz iBook here. 'Tis weird, but I'm more productive using it than any computer previous to this one until my old Amiga. It is my first ever Mac too. Used to hate the little buggers, nasty OS, crappy keyboards, boring interface.
Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.bigbrother.net/)
In the end, most people go shopping based on the sticker price. That's why when you open up a dell it's not nearly as elegant.
I used to sell computers at an OfficeMax. We offered, amongst others, Compaq, and Packard Bell. The compaq system were always more expensive than the Packard Bells. When you opened up a Compaq, it was very cleanly layed out and labeled, and the Packard Bells were just frightening. In general the Packard Bells were the source of endless hardware problems.
But which one do you think we sold more of?
Now granted, Packard Bell was so poorly made that it's not an apples and oranges comparison here. But if Dell's are cheaper can run the same software, it could seriously hurt Apple's bottom line.
Remember that the clones almost killed Apple.
Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
M$ learned this lesson a long time ago, only chumps sell hardware. The profit margin on a cdr and small pamphlet is much higher.
Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday February 21 2003, @08:57PM)
You're missing that little step 3 where Apple finds a way to increase its OS market share by 20x, especially considering this will literally have to happen over Microsoft's dead body.
M$ learned this lesson a long time ago, only chumps sell hardware.
Dell and Apple both seem to be making money from hardware. While Microsoft's position is undoubtedly lucrative, not everybody can or should be making money under the same business model.
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday February 21 2003, @08:57PM)
Linux doesn't beat Windows in every respect (and neither does MacOS X), but it's quite a bit cheaper than either. Why has it been so hard to convince people to even try Linux, and why doesn't MacOS X suffer the same problems?
Most people would probably more readily dive for Linux than want to go out and buy all new hardware
Nonsense. If this was the case, everybody would be running Linux now. The fact is that people are far more willing to continue using their old computer (which is why Windows 98 is still not quite dead), or buy a new computer. Linux is a distant third choice (and so is a Mac), in terms of popularity.
for people with small budgets -- getting an off-the-shelf x86 system and slapping Apple's "starter" OS on it would be good for basic needs.
Wouldn't people with these really small budgets rather run a free beer OS? Besides, even $300 Dell boxes come with Windows.
Re:There you go again (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://inglorion.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 06 2005, @07:17AM)
What? Because they don't like someone publishing instructions for pirating their acclaimed software? OS X was solely responsible for a lot of mindshare of Apple among computer enthusiasts. How would you like it if somebody posted instructions for getting your main asset for free, circumventing the restrictions you have imposed on it?
Re:What the? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://ieatcrayons.net/)
You don't understand. Apple is only switching to Intel because they were getting jacked in the ass by IBM, and Intel had a good roadmap. It's not like they're advertising it as becoming compatibile with PC hardware. The idea is to have it all the same as before, closed hardware and everything, just now Intel happens to be making the cpu's. What these people are doing is getting it to run on PC's instead of 'Macs'
OSX would never survive as an OS if it went open to the x86 platform at large. Windows has too much market share, and o one cares enough to relearn things. Apple makes boatloads off of their hardware, and if they switched to being just a software company with an initial 0% marketshare, they would be fucked. Also, hardware support is a major issue. Everything would cease 'just working', which is a very nice benifit of osx.
If you have a problem with Apple wanting THEIR os which is designed to run only on THEIR hardware, and to take advantage of the less open architecture for greater interoperability with hardware, and putting it all into a complete package, then shutup and just don't buy it, and I'll enjoy OSX for myself thank you very much.
Re:What the? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
In fairness, signs point to the reason having more to do with Apple throwing it's weight around like it was still 1997. Note that IBM announced improved PPC chips just weeks after Jobs revealed the Intel Macs.
The idea is to have it all the same as before, closed hardware and everything, just now Intel happens to be making the cpu's.
Every sign points to this not being the case. There's essentially zero closed hardware in a Mac as is anyway - you can, if you're determined enough, build a generic PPC machine and install OS X on it.
OSX would never survive as an OS if it went open to the x86 platform at large.
I'm not so sure about this, assuming that they kept making Macs and didn't just drop them.
A large part of Apples profits are from the iPod and iTunes. That won't go away. A signifigant portion of Apples current customers will stick with them, still buying Apple hardware, regardless of what they do. A portion will be upset of the switch to x86 and will ditch Apple for it - they'll be gone regardless of whether or not they support generic x86.
So the only loss is from customers who would have bought Apple hardware, but now will buy generic and run OS X on it. The question is if this amount of people is large enough that the additional revenue from the greater amount of switchers (low cost of entry, just like the Mini - but without the performance penalty) won't offset it.
I don't think Apple will do it, but I don't think it's an obvious cut & dried case of a loss, either. I think they *may* do it in a few years, if they see a market for it. They certainly wouldn't be starting over from 0 - the core of the Mac market won't be going away.
Re:Damn it, Steve... (Score:4, Insightful)
You people just like spreading FUD like this don't you? I know how you think because I used to be one if you. You are jealous of mac users and wish you could either pirate or buy OS X for you PC.
Why don't you guys wait until the Intel macs arrive? Are you all that desperate to run OS X? Can't you buy an iBook off of Ebay to try out OS X?