Slashdot Log In
Hacker Turns $300 Apple TV into Cheapest Mac Ever
Posted by
Zonk
on Sat Apr 07, 2007 04:07 AM
from the another-bite-at-the-buck dept.
from the another-bite-at-the-buck dept.
An anonymous reader wrote with a link to a Wired story about a fun play-along-at-home project: Turning Apple TV into a very tiny workable computer. "Apple TV is dead, long live the Mac Nano. Sort of. Just two weeks after Apple released its streaming media box to the public, hackers successfully installed OS X, Apple's desktop operating system, on the $300 device, making it the cheapest PC Cupertino has ever sold. 'The breakthrough is done, OS X runs on Apple TV!' wrote Semthex, the anonymous hacker responsible for the mod, at his website. 'Now we got (the) low-budget Mac we ever wanted.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Of course.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What I want to know is when is it going to run Ubuntu... (grin)
Re:Of course.. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, but it's not that simple: many embedded devices run some kind of desktop OS (Windows, Linux, as opposed to an embedded OS like VxWorks), but running a generic version of the OS on the device is noteworthy because there's more to it than just sticking a shell in it: usually one has to reorganize the bootloading process, making a custom image of the OS, possibly make custom drivers, etc... So making an Apple embedded device running a custom OSX run a generic version of OSX isn't necessarily trivial, and is interesting.
What I want to know is when is it going to run Ubuntu... (grin)
If it can boot OSX, it surely can boot Linux without much work at all. That on the other hand is old news.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course.. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you buy an appleTV you're essentially guaranteeing that you will, in the future, be buying content for it too. The price of the content you buy for the appleTV makes it cheaper, just like most game consoles.
This is why I expect Apple will do everything they can to fight against people running a flexible system that can run whatever content they want on their artificially cheap hardware. I would be surprised if Apple's lawyers didn't start coming out of the woodworks soon.
Parent
Re:Of course.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Of course.. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, except a lot of that hardware doesn't even work. From TFA:
"... the resulting installation is unable to take advantage of all the Apple TV's hardware. Without video acceleration, games can't floor the graphic chip's throttle. There's no audio or
And if that counts, I can beat the price. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Of course.. (Score:5, Insightful)
-----
People have jumped through a lot of hoops to attempt to justify to themselves running the hacked Mac OS X on non-Apple systems, coming up with ridiculous sophistries like "What if I have an Intel iMac, but want to only run Linux on it, and then want to use that same OS X license on my Gateway laptop???"
AppleTV is an interesting case, because it is an "Apple-labeled" product, which is what the Mac OS X license agreement [apple.com] stipulates. And that's the key.
The license agreement specifies that Mac OS X can only be run on an Apple-labeled computer. And that is Apple's right. Now, you can ignore it, or ignore legal frameworks that may (or may not) enforce license agreements within certain countries/jurisdictions, and so on, but that's why running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware is "illegal". There are NO prohibitions to doing things like hacking the kernel, etc. It's open source, and you can do with it what you wish regardless.
But there are still some interesting considerations:
- There is no way to legally get a standalone, retail copy of Mac OS X (Intel) for AppleTV, unless you make arguments about transferring an abandoned license from another Intel-based Mac. (And no, there is no conventional Mac OS X license that comes with AppleTV, either explicitly or implicitly.)
- Technically, you could purchase and run Mac OS X Server 10.4.x (Universal) and legally run it on AppleTV - there would be no prohibitions to this.
- Mac OS X 10.5.x (Leopard) will be the first version of Mac OS X to have a legally purchasable standalone retail Intel version (actually, Leopard will be Universal).
But there are some other things to think about:
- Even when Leopard ships, at retail pricing, it's still $299 + $129 for AppleTV + Mac OS X. It's $171 more for a much more capable Mac mini. However, $171 may be enough to get people to consider this.
- This will really be interesting if Leopard can run unmodified on AppleTV (i.e., without a hacked kernel).
- This will still be relegated to the hobbyist/experimenter/hacker crowd, as you need to disassemble AppleTV in order to do this, image drives, have another Mac handy, and so on, not to mention that the warranty is likely void while OS X is installed on the machine (which of course is reversible, etc.)
So while this is all very interesting, please consider the fact that there are no legal ways to get Mac OS X for it currently.
This post is obviously not for people who think EULAs are BS, or that since it's an Apple product "it's okay", or that since it has some stripped down OS X on it already, "it's okay" to also install OS X from their friend's iMac, etc.
I'm simply raising the legitimate concerns surrounding licensing on AppleTV, some of which get interesting with Leopard since it is, indeed, and Apple-labeled computer, and Leopard will be available standalone.
There are also no prohibitions on using a modified kernel, but one very interesting question might be, does Apple consider AppleTV a "computer", since that is what the Mac OS X license agreement explicitly states?
-----
The point is that right now, there is NO way to buy Mac OS X (Intel) separately at all, license agreement or not.
If people want to make ridiculous arguments like "what if I just dropped four grand on a Mac Pro, but now suddenly only want to run Windows Vista on it, but I still want to use the OS X license on my Sony Vaio," more power to them. They can make their own moral/ethical determinations. If they want to ask if it's "legal", the answer in many jurisdictions is still, "probably not", because of what the EULA says.
The other consideration is that Apple is a hardware company and prices Mac OS X accordingly. They're also the ones who put hundreds of thousands of manhours and billions of dollars, collectively, into R
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There is not at present, and never has been, a standalone, installable version of Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) available via Apple Developer Programs.
The only version that is available is Mac OS X Server 10.4.x (Universal), but that is Mac OS X Server, not Mac OS X.
So the statements to this effect I have made in my post are correct:
There is no legal way to get Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) separately. It only ships with CPUs.
Further, even if Mac OS X 10.4.x (Intel) we
Re: (Score:2)
I'm simply laying out the arguments for the people who are looking for *legal* ways to justify it.
And Leopard will present an interesting case, since:
- It will be purchasable as a standalone product
- Running Leopard on Apple TV does not appear to violate the Mac OS X license agreement on its face
- Even more interesting if Leopard runs unmodified (i.e., without a kernel hack)
- More interesting still if an installation method can be found that doesn't require disassembling Apple TV
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As I've said elsewhere, the Family Pack argument isn't a bad one, and frankly, it seems reasonable to believe it within the "spirit" of things. But even that doesn't change that there is still no wa
Not necessarily (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux booting on AppleTV (Score:3, Informative)
Given we had OSX running on the AppleTV back on March 30, I'm not surprised that the article missed Linux is running with full nvidia hardware acceleration. After 5+ years, the journaled HFS support in the kernel is basically worthless though (FIXME).
As usual, AwkwardTV has the scoop--
http://wiki.awkwardtv.org/wiki/Linux_on_Apple_TV [awkwardtv.org]
thanks gimli!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Of course.. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Of course.. (Score:4, Insightful)
OS X PPC and OS X Intel are different products.
Parent
Twice! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Twice! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I'd actually be more interested if they could boot Linux on the thing. It'd be much easier to experiment with a USB flash drive before risking bricking your device. If you didn't need any ports the thing lacks, it'd be attractive relative to cobbling together a mini-itx system.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This could get interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Which means it's of fairly limited use, atleast for now. I'm guessing that'll improve over the next couple of months though.
And if it's possible to clock the CPU up to 1 GHz (it's underclocked to 350 MHz?), maybe put in some more RAM and upgrade the HD, $300 ain't so bad for a HTPC with a design that your wife can accept in the living room. It having HDMI, DVI and WLAN isn't a bad thing either if they can get that working.
Re:This could get interesting (Score:5, Informative)
# 1.66Ghz Intel Core Duo
# 512MB memory
# 60GB hard drive
# combo drive
is only $519?
After doing all the upgrades, the price difference between it and the refurb Mac mini won't be that much.
Parent
Re:This could get interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Also a mac Mini is One tenth the physical size and a heck of a lot quieter than any desktop PC I have come across.
I can use my Mac mini in my living room and not hear it. Yet I can hear the steady hum from my pc's in the next room over.
Compare Apple's to Apple's. At least price out a shuttle, or a custom mini-itx setup before you compare the tiny mac mini to a dud.
Yes I said Dud. Both dell's I have bought were cheap pieces of crap. even the machine I custom built was better and cost a lot less. It wasn't always so. There is a dell at work that keeps on going. Of course it is now 13 years old.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
From the article:
This story is really an addendum to the original, which we saw [slashdot.org] on Slashdot earlier this week.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a cool hack (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't see people going out to buy this for a new (even secondary) Mac.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What are you smokin'? Show me something in a 1.1x7.7x7.7 inch package that looks good and can be a media PC (Xvid playpack!) or a auto PC for $300. The closest thing is the Mac mini at 2x6.5x6.5 inches at $600. Double the money will buy you a lot more, but $300 bucks is toy money. I be stackin' me web servers and slingboxes all over the place for that price point. Plug in a 10" LCD and a DC converter and this guy goes in my
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, one big problem is that I can't legally sell a product based on installing the real Mac OS X on this, so it would have to rely on non-Apple software upgrades to the machine.
Re:This is a cool hack (Score:4, Interesting)
AFAIR running OSX on non-Apple hardware is illegal.
If I didn't buy a copy it would be illegal. But if I did buy a copy then in the UK at least it would be quite legal for me to run it anywhere I wanted. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act and the Software Directive / Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, any license terms which tried to prevent me from running OS X virtualised or on non-Apple hardware are sure to be tossed out in court.
Rich.
Parent
Re:This is a cool hack (Score:4, Informative)
And all of these "hacked" instances of Mac OS X 10.4.x running on non-Apple hardware are using a hacked kernel from Mac OS X 10.4.3 (!) from the development systems that shipped with BIOS - nearly all of the work was done for them.
Once Leopard ships, it will require a *significant* amount of work would be required to get Leopard running on non-Apple hardware, much less hardware with BIOS (including VMs). Even if someone does get Leopard running on non-Apple hardware, it will very likely require particular brands of motherboards, etc...meaning people have to go out and buy something anyway.
None of the hacks from 10.4.x, especially the critical kernel, will be able to be reused on 10.5.x. Even now, no one has successfully used a newer 10.4.x kernel on non-Apple hardware - it's all still the old 10.4.3 development kernel that was never released that supported BIOS. Ugly, ugly hack.
So no...there's no legal way for you to get Mac OS X for Intel, even in the UK. Unless you use sophistry to build ridiculous arguments about reusing the license from the Intel iMac that you "no longer want to run Mac OS X on" anymore, etc.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes... on a PPC CPU. Apple does not include the x86 version of OS X Tiger in retail copies. You would not be running what you bought. ("I bought a copy of the Boston Pops doing Beethoven's Fifth symphony, so it should be quite legal for me to download any version of Beethoven's Fifth ever recorded.")
PowerMac G4 Tower (Score:4, Interesting)
I won't be impressed until someone shows me a programmable/extendable device for under $40 (for new, not used). The $300 price point is not really an exciting price point when you consider PCs have been under this for a while.
I recently spent like $65 on an Athlon 64 X2 3600+ Brisbane cpu. a few other parts and it's a whole computer. Granted an Apple TV is a really tiny computer, and it hooks up to a TV in a very convenient way (but doesn't hook up to a CRT/LCD without some effort). For a tiny computer it's not a bad deal, but if smallness is not a priority then there are better bargains out there to be sure.
Blue & White G3 Tower (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The little ATI Rage card handles Tiger's fancy graphics quite nicely though.
I have 4 hdds in my B&W G3 after I put in a SATA controller and got the dual-drive trays to replace the single drive trays. (same trays fit in the early G4 systems too)
Cheapest Mac ever (Score:2)
Expensive Embedded (Score:2)
Count in OSX license and it is not so cheap... (Score:2)
But I would love to see Linux running on Apple TV - for ultimate unix/linux hacker minibox Apple TV looks nice.
we're almost there ..... (Score:2)
Why? I want to velcro the ATV behind my LCD TV or on the ceiling with my projector (haven't decided which yet) and only have to deal with a single power cord. I don't want to put my 2TB mythbackend in the same room as my TV. I want it in my rack in the far corner of the basement where it can happi
Tiny Mac, tiny hardware spec (Score:2)
The main problem is going to be the RAM; only 256MB and not upgradable. The Intel Macs seem to use more memory and I often find Safari using more than 256MB of physical memory on its own. Soldering on new TSOP memory chips is something I'd pay quite a bit to avoid having to do...
Aside from the small memory, there a stack of other aspects that are missing or diminished compared to the Mac mini. At the top level, the CPU is 6
Phenomenal graphics power... (Score:3, Informative)
Phenomenal graphics power... itty bitty memory space.
Forget stolen (ok-unlicensed) OSX; Where's MythTV? (Score:4, Funny)
It's not difficult to cheez together a MythBox for ~$500.00, but it'd sure be nice to have some of that slick apple hardware running Myth.
It's got a USB port, and a 40G HDD, so you'd still be at about $500.00 if you added an external USB video encoder (There are has some supported by Myth--Plextor makes 'em IIRC) and boxed up a spare HDD from another computer.
Still, I'd buy one instead of the MicroATX setup I'm eyeballing today.
Which is just an overly verbose way of saying...
Nice...but will it run linux?
(Sorry, had to do it).
Yawn... (Score:3, Interesting)
What I'd like to see is putting Linux on it and turning it into a full-blown living room appliance. In terms of hacking the Apple TV has much potential, it could easily replace the XBox as most useful hackable livingroom hardware. It has more powerful hardware, has an HDMI port, and appears to require less messing around with the hardware.
The only thing that sucks is lack of RCA and S-Video outputs, for those of us who don't give a flying shit about HDTV. My existing TV set works fine, thank you very much. What the hell was Apple thinking?!