The Prospects For Virtualizing OS X

seriouslywtf writes in with a look at the current state of the question: will people eventually be able to run Mac OS X in a virtual machine, either on the Mac or under Windows? Ars Technica has articles outlining the positions of two VM vendors, Parallels and VMWare. Both have told Ars unequivocally that they won't enable users to virtualize OS X until Apple explicitly gives them the thumbs up. First, Parallels: "'We won't enable this kind of functionality until Apple gives their blessing for a few reasons,' Rudolph told Ars. 'First, we're concerned about our users — we are never going to encourage illegal activity that could open our users up to compromised machines or any sort of legal action. This is the same reason why we always insist on using a fully-licensed, genuine copy of Windows in a virtual machine — it's safer, more stable, fully supported, and completely legal.'" And from VMWare: "'We're very interested in running Mac OS X in a virtual machine because it opens up a ton of interesting use cases, but until Apple changes its licensing policy, we prefer to not speculate about running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment,' Krishnamurti added."

OS X is already virtualised.

OS X is already virtualised - it has been for ages. [osx86project.org] Not supported, but certainly doable.

Be nice if Apple gave a bit more help to their customers however - I am not a big fan of artifical restrictions.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

It seems to me the article is talking more about the legality of doing it, not the possibility. Apple therefore, has no obligation to support something it doesn't license.

I do agree with you about the restrictions. If I legally obtain OS X, there should no reason I shouldn't be able to run it under a virtual environment.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

It seems to me the article is talking more about the legality of doing it, not the possibility.

Although the article does talk about the 'legality' of running OS X on non-Mac PCs, it would seem to me that there is nothing illegal about this whatsoever (as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).

No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

There's a difference between "legal action" and "illegal". A company could instruct its lawyer to send you a C&D letter. That's technically a "legal action". However, what you are doing may not be illegal, and you may be forced to prove that in court if the company sues you for ignoring it's C&D demand.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

Apple's software license for OS X says that you can only run it on Apple hardware.

Actually, looking here http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ [apple.com], the phrase is "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."

So it sounds like if you write "Apple" on a Post It and stick to your PC, you can virtualize away.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

it sounds like if you write "Apple" on a Post It and stick to your PC, you can virtualize away.

At which point you violate Apple's trademark instead.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

Yes, but in Soviet Russia, Apple's trademark violates YOU!

<.<
>.>

*runs*

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

How about if I cut *an* apple in half and stick *that* on my PC?

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

Or maybe if you set the PC on top of an Apple you're okay...

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple.

This statement brings to mind images of young casually dressed men and women storming their offices with gayly decorated weapons with rainbow Apple logos and shouting grammatically incorrect and utterly meaningless slogans that nevertheless get great press and everyone forgets about it by three days out because they're too busy writing op-ed pieces on the relative social and economic costs and benefits of trying to break up Microsoft again.

Well, it did.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

Take a deep breath, and repeat after me: The world is not the USA. The USA is not the world.

There are plenty of other countries that take the viewpoint of installing a program onto a hard drive, and running it, as being an expected part of using the software, and hence not in violation of copyright. Installing it onto a second hard drive without wiping it off the first, on the other hand, is (and fair enough too.)

In those countries, you do not need a license granted to you to use the software - it is implicitely granted when you purchase the software. This may make it perfectly legitimate to use the software in manners that contradict the EULA.

Naturally, the usual disclaimers apply: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice; seek a lawyer for information relevant to your specific situation; etc., etc., etc.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

Yeah, no. Installing the software only on Apple hardware is a *condition* of the license, not a convenate. If you fail to abide by the conditions, you have no license.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

you refuse to abide by the EULA then, under copyright law, you have no right to copy the work

Utter Nonsense (at least in the US):

Looking at United States Code, Chapter 17 [copyright.gov]:

117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

[emph mine]

It is amazing to me just how many people in this forum believe they have to give up their rights because an EULA tells them to.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

Buying the product does not make you an owner of a copy of the work.

Yes, it does. You're mistaken: that's exactly what owning a copy means.

When you buy a book, you own a copy of the story; when you buy an audio CD, you own a copy of the songs stored on it; when you buy a data CD, you own a copy of the programs stored on it. "Copy" refers to a tangible medium on which the information is stored. Whether or not you have the rights to make any further copies (which would be governed by the EULA, or in this case by an exemption to copyright law), you still own a copy.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

The Mac OS X EULA says you can only run the software on Apple hardware.

I don't get it.

If I run Firefox on an XP virtual machine running on Apple hardware, then that instance of Firefox *IS* running on Apple hardware; it uses Apple memory and CPU in order to do its thing.

If I run OSX in a virtual machine running on Apple hardware then OSX *IS* running on Apple hardware, surely this is the end of the story?

Unless Apple *specifically* exclude virtualisation, I think its a red herring.

so...

Both [vendors] have told Ars unequivocally that they won't enable users to virtualize OS X until Apple explicitly gives them the thumbs up.

So what do people say when vendors behave the same way towards Microsoft?

Re:so...

So what do people say when vendors behave the same way towards Microsoft?

I don't know about people - I can only give my opinion. But I'd say "Microsoft Sucks for doing that."

Legalities aside, OS X will already run in VMware

It is however so slow that you can't do much with it.

Apple is a hardware company.

It's obvious they will never give "permission" to do this. Their whole business model is based on using OS X as a driving force to sell their hardware with high profit margins. Some people might agree that they could survive going the other way but Apple doesn't seem convinced.

That being said I doubt they can do much to stop it. It'll be interesting to see what kind of court cases get brought up over virtualization though. Perhaps they could finally bring the whole EULA nonsense to an end.

it will never happen

For the same reason I don't believe Apple will ever release its software for installation on PCs. Hardware sales are where Apple makes its money, and who would really buy the hardware if they could install OS X on a $300 Walmart PC?

Re:it will never happen

Pretty much no-one. Apple proved this already during the cloning debacle - people immediately started buying Power Computing, Umax, Motorola and other clones because they offered higher CPU specs at the same or lower prices.

Great Example Of Why Apple Changed Their Name

After getting dumped by IBM after IBM landed all three console manufacturers as clients, Apple was pushed closer to being nothing but an overpriced x86 OEM with nice industrial polish and typography.

OS X running freely in the x86 wild pretty much means the death of Apple hardware. Apple has known this for some time now and it is why they are turning their attention towards the iPod side of the company, changing the company name to downplay desktop computers, and have started to slow the OS X upgrade cycle.

Re:Great Example Of Why Apple Changed Their Name

I respectfully disagree. A lot of people care about the entire 'experience' of Apple products, from the quality packaging, to the clean, amazing hardware, to the OS. If Dell started selling OS X on their machines tomorrow, people would certainly jump ship and buy cheaper machines. But I can almost assure you Apple would still be around. I think they just know it's important to their brand to not have another 'clone war' like the mid 90s.

Personally, if Apple licensed OS X, I'd probably buy a cheap HP or Dell desktop for use around the house or for my parents ... but I certainly wouldn't stop buying Apple hardware.

And we see why open-source software is superior

An open-source project would never deliberately restrict its feature set in order to appease some corporation; whatever is technologically possible gets implemented. Corporations trying to limit technologically-possible things by gentleman's agreement is figuratively putting a very small finger in a very large dike; eventually, the whole thing will come down.

Why not!

If it can be done technically why not. If Windows license prevented it I am sure someone would do it anyways. Why is Apple so different???

Also a little off the subject but this brings up lock in!!!

Apple locked the iTunes system to iPod and Europe is steaming and wants it to change. What about Mac OS itself. It is a Apple operating system that is LOCKED to Apple's hardware. Why isn't the EU trying to break that lock in??? You want Windows, buy from MS and buy any vendors hardware (Linux too). Want OS X you are FORCED to buy Apple's hardware too. I wonder if someday Apple will be forced to change by the EU.

I use the MacBook but I must say I hate being artificially forced via DRM, or any other system to prevent me (the customer) from options after I purchase a product.

I spoke to every Apple person I could...

at WWDC 2006, explaining that we would pay extra for Mac OS X Server, if it were possible to run it under VMware ESX. The ability to run Mac OS X (Server or otherwise) under Fusion or Parallels Desktop or even VMWare/Parallels Workstation would also provide a strategic advantage and encourage us to maintain our subscription levels (well over 400 seats today).

Would "virtualizable" OS X lead to piracy? Probably. But as with most piracy, it would not necessarily impact actual sales. Pirates steal things they wouldn't have ever paid for anyway...

VMWare "appliance" of OS X

Most people who use OS X for any time at all love it. Why not give everybody a chance to love it? Why not let developers get a taste for the development tools without buying a new system? What do you think their next computer purchase will look like?

They could work with VMWare to create an appropriately DRMed player if they are that paranoid about piracy. VMWare already has their ACE platform that could probably be extended to include some sort of virtual TPM.

Offer OS X as a bundle with a specially modified VMWare player. Let 90% of PC users see what they've been missing. I bet any piracy will be dwarfed by the gains in market share.

The best case scenario I see for Apple would be for some smart cookie to write a minimal Linux distro that boots up VMWare and OS X inside--a poor man's OS X if you will. Users of such a configuration are likely to be the geeks. They'll start learning ObjC and Cocoa and maybe increase the platform's worth. Even if some geeks are content to run an unsupported configuration like this, and *never* purchase a proper Mac, they'll be a force for conversion and software development.

-Peter

Apple should go for it

Anybody who has used much virtualization knows it's not as good as running the OS on hardware. Apple could permit OSX to run on virtual machines so people could get a taste of it without having to buy new hardware, but buying new hardware would have enough benefits that I don't see this cutting in to Mac sales.

The flipside though is that people may try OSX on a Virtual Machine, not realizing that VMs cut performance significantly, decide that OSX is slow and useless, then stick with Windows. I guess I can see either way.

OS X perhaps the worst OS for virtualization

Mac OS X makes heavy use of hardware accelerated functions: Quartz/Aqua 3D graphics (which unlike Vista's Aero can't be turned off), GPU-rendered graphics processing among others in CoreImage and iMovie, low-latency sound in CoreAudio, ... - likely making it perhaps the worst candidate for virtualization among all operating systems.

Rather lame

...They don't even have the courage to say "It's totally feasible we just can't release it because Apple would sue us into next Tuesday."

But I suppose you attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Maybe they genuinely aren't irritated about this licensing issue and just want to pressure Apple into opening negotiations. Certainly, the recent change from Apple Computer Inc to Apple, Inc. is a good sign--they've acknowledge their business is more diverse than just hardware--they are as much a software company as they are a hardware company, and maybe it can finally not be sacrilege within Apple to say that every VM would not mean one less Macintosh sold and admit that it would be a huge boon to their bottom line. These would be sales of OS X to individuals that you would simply NEVER POSSIBLY SELL A MAC TO. You have to give them the chance to get hooked... That's how I ended up as a Mac user.

I buy Macs because I started using them in school, and when the time came to purchase my own system I got a pizza-box mac. After college, replaced it with a PowerBook, replaced that with a G5 desktop, and am currently saving my pennies for a MacBook. I'd love a chance to get some virtual Mac OS X servers up and running to function as application servers--I think they'd be great. We use VMWare ESX, and it rocks, but it doesn't run... OS X. And XServes are sweet, but they have some shortcomings too. They STILL don't offer dual power-supply or SAS--two of the best features of a wintel server I recently brought online at work. It is sweet as hell--I almost wish I could get an XServe with an Opteron processor (or a Core Duo/Xeon64 etc.) We have to have SERIOUS up-time on Applications or we lose tons of money--what do we do if a PS fails during business hours? 4-hour service is nice, but with the full-load failing over to the second node of the cluster in that time, performance would get pretty bad pretty fast. The literal translation would be slower throughput of students--some people might just walk away and not sign up for classes.

Isn't it ironic

Hmmm...I don't seem to remember any companies having those concerns about running Windows virtualized. And I certainly don't recall Microsoft giving their blessings to anyone to do so.

Double standards make me laugh.

I don't see why...

...Apple couldn't collaborate with VMWare or Parallels to add some sort of hook to their Mac products that would allow OSX to verify that it was running on a Mac.

However, whatever they say about wanting to virtualize OS X, at the moment, Parallels and VMWare are initially pitching their Mac products at people who need to run Windows applications on a Mac. Those people are never going to want to virtualise OS X. Wait for the equivalents of VMWare Server and VMWare Workstation - plus graphics acceleration (which both VMWare and Parallels promise Real Soon Now and which OSX will proably need).

Actually, a more Apple-y thing to happen would be for simple-to-use virtualization to crop up in a future version of OS X. "Click here to create a sandbox for your kids".

translation:

'We're very interested in running Mac OS X in a virtual machine because it opens up a ton of interesting use cases, but until Apple changes its licensing policy, we prefer to not speculate about running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment,'

Means: "we have it running in the lab."

Be careful what you ask for

I guess Apple subsidizes the development of Mac OSX with the hardware sales (price premium?). Now if Apple were to let OSX to be distributed independent of the hardware, the software would have to be sold at a higher price. Moreover, Apple may have to protect against piracy with the much loathe activation schemes that Microsoft currently employs. Be careful what you wish for? Besides I don't believe that OSX has enough mindshare to get many more users to make that model work. OSX link to Apple hardware is not only thing holding back the mass exodus from Wndows.

DRM is to Music as Licenses are to Software

Now that Jobs is on record as being supportive of a DRM free world, maybe he can be convinced to support allowing OSX "content" on any device, as well as music on any device. Or does DRM-free only apply to other people's content?

End result?

We all know that people are running Mac OS X in VMware all over the place. We also know it runs slow as hell? Why? Because there are no vmware tools to be installed in your Mac OS X running in vmware. All this article means is that we will not see vmware tools released for Mac OS X until Apple gives the go ahead to run Mac OS X in vmware.

Great for developers

It would be very useful to be able to run OS X in a VM for testing different versions. I have to test my software in 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5. Of course it won't help with PowerPC versions, but it would be nice to be able to use 10.5 without rebooting.

Smells like a speculation...

but until Apple changes its licensing policy, we prefer to not speculate about running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment

Is it just me, or is "until Apple changes its licensing policy" actually imply they've already speculated?

MacinVM

Well,
if the license states one copy of the software running on one Apple made PC (I am using a C2D 17 Macbook right this moment) why not
boot into XP (Bootcamp) load up VMWare or Parallels and create a VM running OSX ? This scenario is plausible, funny thing about it though,
once the VM is made the where and how its ran legally is up to the end user.

one smalll hiccup with this plan for us in the US, Apple encrypts a few of the OS binaries and decoding them outside of Apples scheme would seem to be a
violation of the some really stupid US copyright law as you would be circumventing a 'digital' protection, any emulator that copies this process without
Apples consent might be in some trouble. I for one as a long time Apple customer would love to see more folks using the OS even it its in a VM, it will certainly
run better on the real deal but it might still the the fence sitters a chance to play without a substantial investment.

Can we have it *supported* ?

We all know that OSX has already been run under VMWare, but having recently tried it, I would much prefer if it was SUPPORTED by VMWare and Apple (don't really care about Parallels unless they release a free Linux version) mainly due to performance issues than legal ones.

For a start it runs pretty slowly (especially past 10.4.1) even with the little speed fixes, probably as there are no VMWare Tools to speed up disk, network, sound and graphics; and that it doesn't seem to work at all if you have Intel-VT enabled.

Then as VMWare doesn't have a guest option for it so you have to use Other/Linux/FreeBSD/WinNT and manually edit the .vmx files, this isn't a major issue like Tools though. I seem to recall Workstation 5.5 had a "Darwin" guest.

Then there are the patches you need to actually get it working, which equally apply to getting it working on bare metal PC's - AMD fixes, SSE3 emulators and various kernels, thus ruling out actually using a legit copy of OSX.

Also 10.4.8 won't even boot to the installer so you have to boot and run the disk utility from a previous version of OSX. If it was supported by Apple, then these last two points wouldn't be an issue.

Personally I don't think Apple will ever allow virtualisation or non-Mac hardware - unless they turn completely into a software/iPod shop, which seems likely I guess - hey it's not "Apple Computer" anymore!

It seems if you want to run whatever OS you want on your computer, you have to buy a Mac and Parallels (or VMWare Fusion) but personally I'd prefer a Linux host and OSX guest. Actually that's a thought, would it be against EULA to run a virtualised OSX on a Mac running Linux, it's still Apple hardware.....?

Already Done

VMWare and Parallels may not be willing to let users run OS X in their virtual machines, but there are others that do. For example, Mac-on-Linux [sourceforge.net], QEMU [bellard.free.fr], and PearPC [sourceforge.net]. All these are open-source, too.

Re:Already Done

Notice anything about those solutions? They are not aimed at the consumer market, are not commercial enterprises, and are very limited in their ability. Creating software that can only be used legally in a weird edge case is one thing. Profiting by commercially marketing software that can only be used legally in an edge case is called "contributory copyright infringement." Now I can see the use case for OS X used legally in a VM (if you have Apple hardware and want to run OS X in a VM on top of some other OS, or if you live in a country with copyright laws that are different than the US). I can see arguments that contributory copyright infringement laws are a bad thing, and many of our other copyright laws are also negative for society. In this particular case, however, I do see the point of view from Apple. The market is dominated by a monopoly. Apple's best product would directly compete with that monopoly. Even if it is greatly superior, both recent history and the economics of monopolies show they will lose in that market if they try to compete. The classic strategy for competing against a monopoly is to build a separate vertical chain of supply the monopoly cannot undermine (hardware under your OS and apps on top of it). This is exactly what Apple has done.

Lots of people on Slashdot like to think Apple could abandon the tie between their OS and hardware and everyone would benefit. Those people mostly think that, not because they objectively looked at the market and understood it, but because they want it to be true because it would benefit them directly. It is not true. Unless MS's monopoly is broken up or ousted by tertiary market intrusions, Apple must maintain their tie in to survive. If EULAs are rendered null and void, Apple will stop selling their OS separately at all and probably start selling slightly more expensive boxes with a OS tied to a hardware signature and either sell upgrade versions (which suck) or provide free upgrades for some period of time, like 5 years. It is simply the reality of the market

For anyone out there who want Apple to stop tying their products, simply fixing the market will likely cause that to happen. Break MS into at least two competing companies, each with full rights to Windows, and in two or three years Apple will be forced to unbundle by the now competitive market and they will be able to do so without being killed. Problems like these are best solved at a higher level, rather than micro-managed.

Already done with no repercussions

On PPC MacOnLinux *already* runs OS X as a guest OS with no problems at all, and as far as I know Apple has never hassled them about it - probably because other than Apple sources of PPC machines are few and far between and it didn't represent a significant source of loss.

If you have an old PPC powerbook around I highly recommend it.

Future?

I already do, on VMWare workstation / openSUSE 10.2

It won't happen

At least not while Jobs is still with Apple. Everyone seems to think these days that Apple is the company that sells OSX. Well, they're not. They're the company that sells Apple-branded computers, which incidentally run OSX. Their business plan includes selling hardware, with software added as an extra benefit - contrast with Microsoft which are in the business of selling software. Virtualization would cut into their hardware sales, so they won't allow it.

Would it be marketable?

The virtualization of MS Windows on Mac OS X makes sense because there is a lot of software available for MSWin that isn't available for Mac OS X. The reverse is just simply not true. The fact that many people like Mac OS X much more doesn't seem to me like a good enough reason to spend the money when you can just get the software you need for MSWin itself, software that would integrate much better with the rest of the system. It seems to me the only reason for virtualizing Mac OS X would be so you can bring it up, look at it, and say ``wow, that's nice''. I could be wrong---it's certainly happened many times before---but I don't think most people would want to pay for that.

an(other) option?

how about a version of os x/os x server that is only licensed to (and tied to) run on a virtual machine? they build bits into the xnu kernel that tie it to apple hardware, so why not another, separate "software-only" distribution that runs on vmware or parallels?

this would be easy, and they could charge out the wazzo for it if they wanted. my workplace would buy it to run supported quicktime streaming services under real os x server on vmware, and i'd wager a lot of other sites would do the same thing.

they could use their virtual machine-oriented software sales to subsidize their hardware prices if they really wanted.

but oh yeah, they're a hardware company.

Re:Why would anyone want to do this?

The only benefits of OS X are software, the hardware is the same as any other Intel PC these days, just has a different shiny wrapper on it.

Re:Why would anyone want to do this?

The fact that Apple is primarily a hardware company is the key. It is not in their interest to allow virtualization of the OS - ever. Jobs wants to lock the OS to Apple hardware because that is where he makes his money. If he wanted to preserve the quality of the experience on non-Apple hardware, he could institute a very rigorous certification program and only license the OS for use on approved systems.

It simply isn't in Apple's best interest. My prediction is that it will never happen, or at least not until Steve Jobs removes the DRM from Pixar movies on iTunes (sorry to be redundant).

Re:Why would anyone want to do this?

Maybe you want to virtualize Mac OS X on a Mac and run it simultaneously with Windows or Linux. Maybe you want to run multiple instances of the OS on a single set of hardware for application separation. Server consolidation for Mac OS X servers is just as valid of a desire as for any other OS.

Maybe you want to test a security hole in an application against a live piece of malware and want to easily roll back the OS. Maybe you want to QA a piece of software in development without mangling an existing stable version, or you'd like to run them side by side when both rely on the same path for certain libraries or config files.

Pretty much any valid use of virtualization for Windows or Linux is a valid use for Mac OS X as well.

Re:need a court case to establish SW ownership!

There is one problem with you argument when you pay apple to run OSX you do not own a copy of it they grant you the right to use it according to their rules. you never own the software. It is carefully worded that way. You do not purchase a copy of OSX you pay for the right to use it. Kind of like an indefinite lease however they can revoke your license if you misuse it.

The software (including Boot ROM code), documentation and any fonts accompanying this License whether on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the "Apple Software") are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Computer, Inc. ("Apple") for use only under the terms of this License, and Apple reserves all rights not expressly granted to you. The rights granted herein are limited to Apple's and its licensors' intellectual property rights in the Apple Software and do not include any other patents or intellectual property rights. You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple's licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself. The terms of this License will govern any software upgrades provided by Apple that replace and/or supplement the original Apple Software product, unless such upgrade is accompanied by a separate license in which case the terms of that license will govern.

In other words you own the CD's/hard drive/DVD but you do not own what is on it. This is standard practice by most software companies. Essentially a Music CD could specify you can only use this on Approved hardware. Any non approved CD hardware you use it on would be a violation. Which is Why James T. Russel is now very well off

Re:need a court case to establish SW ownership!

You already do have these right, for the simple reason which most people don't understand: after you buy something, the supplier will be violating competition law by imposing post sale restrictions on use. They are not enforceable. Whether in Eula, signed contract as you buy or any other form. You cannot impose post sales restrictions on use.

You have also bought it, not licensed it, because licensing requires some kind of continuing financial obligation.

Anyone who disputes this just has to produce either an EC or US case in which (a) a post sale restriction on use has been enforced by the courts, (b) a software sale at retail out of a retail channel has been held to be a license and not a sale.

Go ahead, if you can find one.