Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

Mac OS X on x86 Videos Get Apple's Attention 758

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
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This discussion has been archived.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

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:02PM (#13343495)
    Is that new-speak for duped?
  • So it starts... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NickCatal (865805) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:04PM (#13343505)
    Apple is going to have YEARS of this ahead of them... I'm just waiting for Apple Jobs to have about 300 postings for "Piracy Specialist" to open up. M$ has to have an entire building just for their piracy group.
    • Re:So it starts... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:22PM (#13343624) Homepage Journal
      ``M$ has to have an entire building just for their piracy group.''

      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, ...). I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft had sold more copies of Windows than there were people using computers.

      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)

      by jcr (53032) <jcr@NOsPAM.mac.com> on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:27PM (#13343653) Journal
      Apple is going to have YEARS of this ahead of them...

      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)

      by Concerned Onlooker (473481) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:03PM (#13343850) Homepage Journal
      This is all hilarious. Apple has at most 3% market share and everybody here wants to hammer them for trying to protect what they have. Until recently it seems Apple had a fairly decent rep on Slashdot. It is, after all, a really nice alternative to using Windows, which everybody also seems to hate.

      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:3, Insightful)

        by KillShill (877105)
        control = support.

        no one here in their right mind would even suggest apple in any way supports non-authorized hardware. but in a few years when osx x86 is on store shelves and some people go in and purchase said software... what the pro-apple people are saying is that said purchasers of software then have no right, legal or moral to install it on the hardware of their choice.

        no software vendor has the moral (legal is up in the air somewhat...)right to tell customers who bought their software, how and where
        • Re:So it starts... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rm999 (775449)
          This is exactly the same argument that I make against Apple worshippers. I don't mean people who worship their products (they do build very good stuff), I mean people who worship the company, often blindly. What these people don't realize, I think, is the draconian control Apple seeks over its customers. Apple doesn't want people taking apart iPods, adding features to it, or using OS X on their own computers.

          Imagine what life would be like if Apple had a monopoly on computers. It would be a lot like their f
      • Re:So it starts... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by suitepotato (863945) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:13PM (#13344261)
        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?

        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.
    • Apple is going to have YEARS of this ahead of them.

      No. This is only possible now because the dev systems are using off the shelf parts. This dev version of OS X is the only one that will run correctly on generic PCs. Once Apple starts shipping proprieatary non-PC/AT architecture hardware OS X will expect and require that hardware.

      Intel CPUs, and even Intel PCI chipsets and embedded Video, do not make a system PC/AT compatible. Apple has lots of opportunity for customization and they certainly have t
    • by noidentity (188756) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:52PM (#13344146)
      "M$ has to have an entire building just for their piracy group."

      I hear they're working overtime to get new features into Vista.
  • Apple HQ (Score:5, Funny)

    by Musteval (817324) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:04PM (#13343509)
    "Terrible news, sir! People are installing our OS!"
    "Quick! To the Applejet!"
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:09PM (#13343542)

    Apple is not minor league engineering department attached to a powerhouse marketing deparment.

    It's also attached to a powerhouse legal department.

    Think Different !!!

    • by happyemoticon (543015) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:53PM (#13343789) Homepage

      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.

  • by ndansmith (582590) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:09PM (#13343544)
    Is it illegal to post this sort of information? If not, can Apple convince a judge that posting this information is harming them, and thus win a civil suit? I doubt it.
    • by wankledot (712148) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:16PM (#13343581)
      I'm sure it is. The only copy of OS X for x86 available right now is the one provided to developers with the x86 dev boxes. I'm almost certain that it's against the rules of the NDA to talk about it publicly like this.
      • I'm sure it is. The only copy of OS X for x86 available right now is the one provided to developers with the x86 dev boxes. I'm almost certain that it's against the rules of the NDA to talk about it publicly like this.

        An NDA only applies to the person who signs it. If Bob Smith signs an NDA and then runs to me and tells me what he saw, I am not civilly liable, Bob is. It's unlikely that anyone at this French web site signed an NDA, as they're a news site, not developers.

    • Is it illegal to post this sort of information? If not, can Apple convince a judge that posting this information is harming them, and thus win a civil suit? I doubt it.

      I suppose it would have something to do with the laws of a particular country. In some countries, it's probably actionable, and not in others. Which is why this is probably an exercise in futility. I'm sure somebody will eventually set up a site in a country where it's legal.

      I'm not really sure why Apple is even bothering. Having looked over
  • by Logic Bomb (122875) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:10PM (#13343553)
    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.

    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.

    • by soma_0806 (893202) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:37PM (#13343718)

      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.

  • by SeaFox (739806) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:13PM (#13343566)
    it should be noted there is an English translation [hardmac.com]version of MacBidoulille always available. Just go to www.hardmac.com instead of MacBidoulle.
  • Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sheetrock (152993) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:13PM (#13343568) Homepage Journal
    This is the kind of thing, ironically, that will hurt Apple's adoption on the x86.

    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.

    • by FLAGGR (800770) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:29PM (#13343661)
      Apple isn't trying to take over the x86 market with their switch. Apple sells hardware. OSX is the OS that happens to be made by them and bundled with said hardware. Although I'm sure Apple would like 90% market share, that's not what they are going for. Nothing has changed in Apple's market strategy. They're still going to be different from your run of the mill Dell pc's, it's still the old Apple, just with a different cpu. The CPU is one chip in the computer. They'll still make custom motherboards and everything. They will continue to be the underdog marketshare wise, and Steve Job's will still make a assload of money to buy fuel for his private jet, just like it is now with powerpc.

      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!
    • (Yes, I already posted this, but it really fits as a reply to your post.)
      __________________

      To satisfy the curiosity of the millions of PC owners who might like to try OS X, Apple should sell an unsupported version of OS X for $19.95. It would be a stripped-down, unoptimized version of OS X able to run on almost any x86 hardware, similar to Windows booted in "safe mode."

      Many advantages to this approach:

      - Simplifies things for PC users who want to try OS X (they don't have to hack the OS)
      - Greatly expands the
    • by dr.badass (25287)
      This is the kind of thing, ironically, that will hurt Apple's adoption on the x86.

      How is that? Even when Apple moves to x86, a Mac will still be a Mac, and Apple will still be the only source. Apple will have no more direct competition than it does now.

      It's hard enough to get people to try another operating system when it's free.

      I think Apple's strategy might involve the 100+ retail stores [apple.com] they operate where people can try the aforementioned other operating system for free, with no effort, no threat to th
  • by mooboy (191903) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:16PM (#13343579)
    ..to those running OSx86 on non Intel GMA900 hardware?

    It don't mean a thing if it aint got Quartz Extreme

    doo wop!
  • by blibbler (15793) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:17PM (#13343586)
    When has Apple been frivolous with their IP? They have already sued people for distributing Tiger over BitTorrent, and that was for an OS that would only run on hardware that they had sold.
  • by levram2 (701042) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:19PM (#13343602)
    OSx86 Project's CEpeep researched building a x86 machine that will run Mac OS X for Intel for under $200. The machine has the same Intel chipset on the motherboard and a processor with SSE3. Total includes CPU, MB, RAM, Case, HD, and DVD drive.

    http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_c ontent&task=view&id=27&Itemid=2 [osx86project.org]

  • Tempting Apple (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:19PM (#13343606) Homepage Journal
    I know Apple likes DRM, but usually not just for an empty power trip. As a business risk, the hype about OSX86 threatens Apple only by possibly inhibiting buyers of new Macs who might wait to reinstall over Windows on their existing HW, or some other cheap (commodity) x86 PC. Otherwise, the hype is making Apple seem much more "with-it" than its specialty x86 port would justify. Boosting its stock price, getting new customers who will get a Mac now, or a Mac86 when it's out, getting aboard the train as it passes their station, now that it looks like their kind of ride.

    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.
  • by Humorously_Inept (777630) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:22PM (#13343622) Homepage
    With its latest cease and desist order, Apple demonstrated its new iLawyer program. A method the corporation hopes to use for protecting itself against any forseeable legal disputes in a method that's easy for users to understand. The new, friendly interface speaks English instead of lawyerese and comes dressed in a soft white suit.

    Elsewhere, Microsoft claims to have patented the underlying concept of using lawyers as a high-level communications protocol.
  • Well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:35PM (#13343702) Journal
    Welcome to x86 land. Please leave all expectations at the door.
  • by aristotle-dude (626586) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:53PM (#13344150)
    Beer is not free in the real world. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

    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.

    • actually, GPL software give you MORE rights than you started with and GPL doesn't say anything in how you use software. you can install it on abacus or a wrist watch. the only thing GPL regulates is how software is distributed and it's more than fair.

      software is a product, always has been a product and always will be. that you bought the propoganda that you need a license to use SOFTWARE YOU BOUGHT, is hogwash. in a year or 2 osx86 will be selling on store shelves. by your logic, even after paying the 130 b
  • Burn, karma, burn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dr00g911 (531736) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:09PM (#13344550)
    I doubt this will be a particularly popular view on the situation, but here's how I see it:

    - 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.
  • by ubiquitin (28396) * on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:10PM (#13344558) Homepage Journal
    Not sure if anyone noticed, but in a completely legal way to discuss and develop for x86 stuff, check out the Darwinports [darwinports.com] list of x86-related ports.
  • by PinkX (607183) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:15PM (#13344587) Homepage
    DISCLAIMER: I'm both a Mac and Linux/OSS user, a big proponent of OpenSource and Free Software, sometimes developer, own purely Apple machines, use an iPod, etc.

    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.
  • by XO (250276) <blade@eric.gmail@com> on Thursday August 18, 2005 @03:54AM (#13345838) Homepage Journal
    Let me ask all of Slashdot something:

      Can you go and buy Mac OS X for X86 right now?

      *waits for answer*

      Quit yer fuckin bitchin then!
  • by Herbmaster (1486) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:45AM (#13346955)
    Begun, this clone war has.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...