Archeopteryx writes "According to Wired's 'Gadget Lab' blog, Snow Leopard's next update, OS X 10.6.2, will block the Atom processor and will disable many 'Hackintosh' netbooks. It is indeed true that OS X will run just fine on some netbooks if you install the right drivers and ktexts, but Apple's EULA has always specified that the license was applicable only to Apple hardware. There have always been processor types specified in OS X and that have to be worked around now for those who want to use an Atom or similar non-Apple-adopted processor, so this is likely no more than a hiccup on the road for the OSX86 crowd. But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware — priced accordingly of course — for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted, like the netbook? The only reason OS X is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms. I could just pay for a license to use it."
Apple's target market aren't going to put up with the kinds of shenanigans it takes to get a hackintosh running, whether or not they pull this kind of stuff.
Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share. I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.
Additionally, as long as Jobs is at the helm, this will never happen. He's made it very clear that Apple doesn't sell hardware or software, but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two.
Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share. I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.
So, in other words, Apple wasn't charging enough for MacOS licenses, and they guessed wrong about how willing customers would be to keep buying Apple branded hardware.
Why does this doom future OS licensing? Why can't they just charge enough for the OS X license so that they'll stay profitable if it turns out people only want the software?
You seem to have quite an optimistic view on the benefits of software licensing. While I do think the consumer would benefit from a more open OS X licensing model, I'm not sure Apple would benefit:
1) If Apple enters an all software market, they lose a major selling point of their hardware and enter an area with more competition and a lower barrier to entry (see: Linux). OEM licensing could potentially be more profitable, but I'm unconvinced that the market for OS X is much bigger than the market for Macs - users, particularly businesses, are often held back by software requirements rather than by the price premium.
2) Apple likes dictating what hardware you purchase - cheaper, more standard tower blocks don't fit with its image as being refined and premium, and the netbook market has far lower margins than they currently reap on MacBooks. One MacBook purchaser could well bring more profit than 5-mac-netbook purchasers. Apple doesn't want to enter a race to the bottom - they make plenty of money through brands that are seen as higher quality.
3) Why? It gives them higher margins and it's unclear whether the market share increase would offset that.
Most importantly, in my opinion:
4) Apple is so profitable because they have created their own "premium computer" market that is far larger than anything held by Alienware or Dell's Adamo. They do this by creating products that appear relatively unique and are functionally different from competitors' equivalents thanks to unique software, design and minor features (such as battery life on their laptops). Without OS X, a Macbook is just another expensive laptop. There is also some level of positive feedback - unique hardware makes the software appear higher quality, which makes the hardware seem more unique etc - and some of the major selling points depend on hardware-software integration.
I'm not saying it isn't possible that Apple would benefit from opening up their software, but it's far from being certain.
Just because Apple's first attempt to license the OS was unsuccessful doesn't mean that it can't work now, if it were executed properly. Now that Macintoshes run on normal PC hardware, Apple could just expand the range of supported chipsets/hardware and certify systems from major OEMs to be MacOS compatible. The hackintosh community has already done a great deal of work in supporting regular hardware - if you buy the correct parts and download one of the easy-to-install MacOS distros, there's almost zero tinkering to be done. If the hobbyists can make that much progress, Apple could obviously do a much better job. If they could seriously challenge Windows with a strategy like this, I think it could be far more lucrative than the hardware profits they reap from their 10% marketshare.
Nice of Jobs to limit his market but that's not what I'm buying. I own a Mac but the Apple experience leaves a lot to be desired and in some cases modified systems preform better at a lower cost than the real thing. Where Apple gets it right it gets it right but when it gets it wrong (iTunes, iPhone as anything but a music phone) it gets it really wrong. One size does not fit all.
Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share. I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.
The clones didn't expand the Mac market because Apple would not let them. The clone maker's designs had to be approved by Apple. At least some were required to use Apple motherboards. PowerComputing showed at trade shows several models in development that would have taken the Mac to new markets--but they could not get permission from Apple to sell them.
The net effect of Apple's restrictions was the all the clone makers really were licensed to do was put Macs in different cases.
But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware — priced accordingly of course[...]
No it doesn't! You did. YOU want that, so YOU asked it. It isn't inherit to the facts. An inherent question would be "If Apple isn't support them Atom, then what chip will they use for [speculated product]?"
The statement in the summary is equivalent to:
Today ADM said it will no longer sell soybeans to people with the letter 'R' in their name. That raises the question - shouldn't ADM make soybeans that taste like root beer?
"Apple stops supporting something it never supported". What a story. Is anyone surprised? In fact, since hackintoshes are almost certainly eating into Apple's hardware sales (maybe not by much, but they must), this is an obvious thing to do. Why maintain support for something you don't use and is probably causing you some financial harm.
I remember with Apple stopped shipping drivers VESA Local Bus sound cards and the internet went NUTS. Same when Dell stopped shipping PPC drivers with their Xeon servers.
No, wait, Apple never officially supported those (if they had existed), and Dell didn't tell people they would ship PPC drivers with Xeons, so no one was surprised.
How dare Apple stop supporting unsupported hardware for people who aren't paying Apple for the software they may have simply stolen?
Come on. I know people on/. want to be able to put OS X on any computer... but is this really a surprise? This isn't much of a story, it's just another excuse for the licensing/purchasing/monopoly/first-sale debate we have in every Apple article.
In fact, since hackintoshes are almost certainly eating into Apple's hardware sales (maybe not by much, but they must), [...]
Not true.
Indeed, that the majority of Hackintoshes seem to be for market segments Apple has no presence, or are explicitly refusing user demand, in, then it's hard to see how anyone could argue they "must" be "eating into Apple's hardware sales".
They blocked hardware - in this case, the Atom processor. That's not the same as "stop the support" of the hardware. They went out of their way to make sure it didn't work. That's different from dropping drivers or support.
Apple is not going to sell the OS by itself. I don't know why this has to even be repeated, but Apple is a hardware company and to sell boxed copies of OSX than ran on generic hardware would simply be shooting themselves in the foot.
None, of all those who arise Phoenix-like every few months or years, lamenting the state of the OS world they find themselves in, you may notice, wants to buy the Apple hardware to run OSX on. Apparently, the natural conclusion goes right over their heads... they are not Apple customers.
They seem to think that paying for a retail copy of OSX would make them Apple customers. They are wrong; that would make them Microsoft customers, because Microsoft is the vendor that uses sales of stand-alone OS's as it's business model. Go buy it; there's a snappy new version out right now, I hear.
People buy Apple hardware because of the software. This is not by accident, it's not a secret, and it's been going on three decades now. You would think it would sink in at some point.
Now, for those who get OSX to run on whatever hardware they manage to get it to run on, why the uproar over the Atom? Aren't you guys supposed to be hackers?
Go hack. Half the fun, (for some all the fun) isn't running the software, it is figuring out how to get the software to do what you want.
If they're not hackers, but they want a pre-made boxed solution to their own pet OSX on x86 project, I suppose I understand all the whining.
It's all they know how to contribute to the whole project. Good luck with that.
It was bound to happen the moment Apple moved to the intel platform and started using commodity hardware. What this article is saying is that Apple will not consider a low-cost low-power computer with an Atom inside it. Guess you won't find that option in the next refresh of the mac mini. They're being anal of course, since they're actually adding extra code to lock out that processor series.
The summary is misleading. The original source of all this hubbub is http://stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news [tumblr.com]. Basically someone noted that a lot of stuff in the kernel has changed so that the Atom processor that developer was using no longer works after the build. They list three work around methods. There is no inside information that this is an intentional attempt to block Atom processors as the summary's wording strongly implies.
The summary then goes on to speculate about the improbable and impractical wet dream of the writer that Apple should start licensing OS X to generic PC makers, completely ignoring the economic realities involved. You might as well end a summary of an article about MS losing an antitrust case by claiming it raises speculation MS will open source Windows under the GPL.
they make the program, they may not be able to "tell" you what not to do with it, but they can make their program however they want to. and if they dont want it to run on a certain system, guess what, you cant TELL them not to do that. however not giving them your business, or whine, is about all you can do.
Which had annoying legislation like the DMCA not passed, we could actually change that. Really we need sane copyright laws, yes, Apple should be allowed to block Atom CPUs but I should be able to hack in support if I feel like it.
You can. Reverse engineering is explicitly allowed. Distributing a program for the purpose of circumventing copy protection, even if it was found through reverse engineering... is not.
So if a large corporation wanted to put Mac OSX on all their internal computers, and was OK with doing internal support on non-Apple hardware, they could modify the distribution and use it internally, but it'd have to be for internal use only, and telling someone else how to do it, selling the software to do it, etc, might run afoul of the law.
For better and worse.
Note: I am not a lawyer, but this is what I've gleaned from the DMCA. My advice is not legal advice and I am not liable for it.
At which point they could refuse to sell the update to anyone who hasn't registered their purchase of an Apple computer. Currently that's a hassle they prefer not to make their users go through, but if they had no other way to limit distribution to owners of Apple computers supported by that update, that would certainly be an option. At which point you wouldn't be able to legally run their software because you wouldn't be able to buy a copy except on eBay secondhand (and you know how well that would work).
The cost model for MacOS is the opposite of the one Microsoft, HP printer/cartridge, and razor vendors use: the fixed and variable costs are front-loaded on the initial purchase and minimized on the updates. Conversely, Microsoft practically gives away Windows licences via OEMs and nails you on the upgrades. I actually think it makes sense that the MacOS X incremental upgrades are cheaper and the up-front costs of the hardware are higher. I don't have a lot of sympathy for you trying to game the system/business model. Seriously, if you want to run MacOS X so much, buy a MacOS box sized for your needs. You can multi-boot or virtualize Linux, Windows or any other O/S you care for. I don't see why anyone would care whether your efforts at running MacOS on unsupported hardware are being stymied.
Now sure you can say: if you can't virtualize MacOS then you are concerned about its long term availability and your ability to access your applications and data in the future. Now that's a good point, one which I can appreciate since my wife's G4 iMac has been in the shop for the last month because of the lack of availability of replacement power supplies. However if that is an overriding concern for you, then run Linux on commodity hardware where that concern is addressed. But you can't always get everything you want and sometimes you have to make a decision on what's more important to you. Apple has basically made it clear they are only interested in doing business with those people willing to accept their business model. If that model's not acceptable to you, then too bad. Move on.
They ought to start wondering why it is that many of us give fuck-all about their precocious shite hardware and realize it's the operating system people are after.
You still don't get it. They know that some people feel the way you do and don't care. They have a business model for making money. You play ball with them or they keep their ball. Seriously all business is like that. There's a value proposition offered by the vendor. If it works for you, you buy; if not, you don't. If you're a big enough customer, maybe you can negotiate if it's worth it to the vendor.
Starbucks isn't going to change their roast recipe because my wife finds their coffee too strong and, as long as they feel their model works at making them money, their renumeration and hiring practices also aren't likely to change significantly because somebody has a problem with it. That's the way business works. As long as Apple continues making a lot of money by successfully positioning themselves as a premium vendor, they're not going to change to accommodate you if it's going to cut into their healthy profit margins. While it's best to keep your customers happy, you are not part of Apple's targeted customer base. That's their decision to make. Deal with it.
For what? apple doesn't have to support hardware it doesn't want to. Just like Windows doesn't support sparc. MSFT should be brought up on anti trust charges for not porting every windows app to Sparc, and Cell, and arm.
This isn't a case of "not supporting" a specific chip. By default it worked just fine, and is working just fine for many people currently using OS X on the Atom. No, this is a case of deliberately disabling a working feature for the express purpose of forcing you to buy their hardware over another's.
You never code in support and it doesn't work on certain hardware? No big deal. Hell that's the case for a ton of stuff on Hackintoshes already - people don't bitch because their sound card or NIC doesn't work - they generally go out and buy one that's noted on the net as working. Code that is working fine but sabotaged on purpose is another issue entirely though.
It wasn't sold to work on random hardware. It was sold to work on hardware that Apple sells. No promises were made, express or implied, that it would work on Atom processors.
It is an express case of disabling things so you can't use it in a certain manner. Hello! That's what the whole Free Software thing is about. Don't use the Apple software if you don't like it. No one misled you about this.
No, they don't. The original Intel Macs used the Core Solo and Core Duo. Those were Yonah; SSE4 wasn't added until Penryn, AFAIK. They do support SSE3, but not SSE4....
Freeloader more like. How many people making Hackintoshes are actually paying for the software and how many get it off a torrent?
Even if they are paying retail price they're still violating the license. A copy of OS X and Mac is profitable for Apple. A copy of OS X and an netbook probably isn't. Now at this point people start to mumble something about buggy whip manufacturers, but guess what, that's a poor analogy. Buggy whip manufacturers went out of business because people didn't want their stuff. If Apple goes under it will be because people want their stuff but don't want to pay.
Even more irritatingly these tend to be the same sort of people who are outraged when some company uses Linux and doesn't make the source code available. And yeah, I know the GPL is a copyright license not an EULA. But in both cases people are using something in a way that the copyright holder has explicitly forbidden. Either you can have a copyright free world, in which case you can run OS X for free and keep your Linux fork closed source, or you live in a world with copyright where both things are illegal.
That being said I don't really like Linux or OS X. Still if you do, it seems like you need to follow the terms of the license the code is under. With Linux that means publishing your code and with OS X it means running it on Apple hardware.
Apple did try selling their OS to run on other platforms. That nearly put then out of business. I think they have a good clue what will work for them and for their customers. We dont' see a whole lot of OS only companies out there. BEOS? even Linux business are tiny compared to apple. Even Oracle bought Sun. Microsoft has Xbox.
After seeing how you write about your "friends", I'm surprised you have any. You accuse them of an inflated self image, yet you write about your perceived superiority over them, based solely on the products they buy.
Licensing aside, they never supported the Atom. As far as I know, they never planned or pledged to support it. Although you may be a customer, you were not an intended one if you installed OS X on an Atom. Apple does not sell anything with an Atom.
This kind of idiotic entitlement mentality is fucking things up for everyone. So, those using the GPL have no right to tell me that I can't close their source and resell it like I want. Why is it that people are so happy to violate licenses to get what they want, then scream and bitch when someone else violates licenses to get what they want? It blows my mind that this crap is modded insightful. What you are advocating is just another form of tyranny. "They don't sell what I want them to sell, so I will force them to do it my way!"
Right now Apple doesn't do any of that serial key, activation, or other call home bullshit. Asshat behavior like yours is going to drive them to either doing something irritating along those lines, or simply pricing a standalone copy of OS X at an obscenely high price and then just sell "upgrades" or some other such nonsense to force the tie to a piece of Apple hardware. If you don't like their terms, don't buy it, that simple. It isn't like the standard EULA where they hide terms until post sale, the Apple hardware requirement is put out there up front.
I suppose you are the kind of neighbor that turns the stereo up at 2am in your apartment because you paid for it and no landlord has a right to enforce the conditions?
You didn't pay for it. You paid for an upgrade of OSX... for the copy that came with the Mac you never bought. You stole it.
You're a damn liar. I'm holding the Leopard box that I walked into an Apple Store and paid full retail price for. Looking at the label, it says "MAC OS X V10.5 RETAIL". The DVD inside says "Mac OS X Leopard Install DVD". WTF part of that sounds like "upgrade" to you?
Where the license and docs inside required as a contingent clause during the contractual exchange when he paid money for the product?
How exactly do you "agree" to be bound and restricted by the "license" and "document" that you cannot get access too until you purchase the product?
Shrink wrap license are unenforceable. If you are to be bound by terms and conditions, they must be present during the contractual exchange (i.e. paying money for the product).
I've never signed a license agreement boxed software. I have for real software licenses. Without a signed licensing agreement, a software sale is just that, a sale. It's not a license, and has no terms.
"Stole" my ass! I'm not sure where all the Apple FanBoys came up with the myth that the $29 Snow Leopard disc is an "upgrade." (Note, I'm a fanboy; I am currently typing on my new 27" iMac).
I walked across the street to the Apple Store the day Snow Leopard was released, and paid $49 for my 5-user Family Pack edition. Nothing on the box, in the printed EULA, printed documentation, or electronic EULA at install time indicates my copy is intended to be an upgrade. In fact, I completely wiped a hard drive and installed it from scratch without any request for a disc containing a previous version. The requirements on my retail box state that it requires a "Mac computer with an Intel processor." That's it. Nothing about a previous OS is mentioned anywhere. Bottom line is it's a fully licensed copy, and purchasing and installing it one time (or five times in the case of the family pack) is not stealing.
So stop calling this an upgrade only. It's not.
I understand Apple's desire to keep OS X limited to their own hardware. The EULA is intended to prevent people like Psystar from making a dime on Apple's IP. Does Apple care about home enthusiasts getting the OS on unauthorized systems? Highly unlikely, if those enthusiasts are handing over $30 for the Snow Leopard disc. It's $30 in their pocket they wouldn't have had, to entertain someone's harmless fun. The removal of the Atom support is likely another cat and mouse game with the likes of Psystar more than it is with the home enthusiast community.
The GPL is a distribution license, not a EULA, and explicitly states that it places NO restrictions on the end user, and that acceptance of the license is not required, at all, to use the software.
Why can't I tell people they can't sell my book when they're done with it? Why can't I tell people where they can read my book? Why can't I forbid libraries from buying my books?
Why shouldn't I be able to restrict what you do with my book after you bought it? What about my rights? You don't have to buy my book. You're free to accept or decline, it's a contract. I don't have a monopoly on books.
Please tell me why the First Sale doctrine should apply to books but not to computer software.
First Sale applies to recordings too. I am allowed to buy a used CD and I can do whatever I want with it. The digital contents of the CD are read into a machine just as software is read into a machine. No one ever said that you were only allowed to look at the bits on a CD. You own your copy and you can do whatever you like (other than copy and redistribute). So why should software be different? Why does the author of a software program get to limit my rights when no other type of copyright holder has such a power?
No, you absolutely can't. First Sale originally became case law because a publisher attempted to do exactly that: include a "license" on that restricted your right to resell the book. In 1908, the Supreme Court (Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) found that anyone that bought a copy of a book was free to resell it. Copyright grants you a right to sell, but does not grant you the right to limit resale after the fact. Period. It was later codified (Copyright Act of 1976) to include anyone that legally owned a copy (even if they didn't buy it).
What makes software so special and different from books and records? It's true that case law hasn't fully caught up, but give me a reason as to why the author of a software product should have any additional rights that are not granted to other copyright holder?
1) You have no such "right." Somewhere along the line some lawyer made this up and then guys with lots of money threatened to bring down big hammers on anyone who didn't respect it. Similarly, I don't have the right to sell you a sock and then sue you for trying to wear it in a competitor's shoe.
2) Good reasons you shouldn't have such a right: it's anti-competitive and bad for the economy when a small handful of companies are able to control how the majority of people are able to use their products to do useful things, or are able to bar competitor's from using their products in completely fair ways. "Apple isn't a monopoly" doesn't negate this fact.
3) Apple has an effective monopoly on certain industries, so the point's wrong on the facts as well.
4) Simply stating, "You were free not to buy my software," is being willfully obtuse. Forgive the hyperbole, but imagine for a moment that Monsanto suddenly decided you could only cook their food in pots they made and sold for ludicrous prices. What good reason could we possibly have to deny them this right (that they simply made up) to control how their consumer products are used after sale? After all, they're not selling food; they're selling the "experience" of eating. And we're perfectly free not to eat!
You can't legally buy OS X for something other than a Mac. It doesn't have to get to the EULA, its clearly stated on the outside of the box.
System requirements are not a legally binding contract. Or do you think it's illegal to try to run software on a machine that doesn't meet the official minimum specs?
If Apples' license isn't valid, neither is GPL, and I can take any GPL app and distribute binaries with proprietary code without any source.
Um, no. The GPL depends only on copyright law. Apple's EULA attempts to impose restrictions that go beyond that.
Don't like it? Change the law, until then, shut the fuck up, we're tired of the broken record.
The law is clear, see 17 USC 117. What we need is for judges to strike down the loopholes that publishers have come up with to remove property rights from software purchasers. And I'm tired of Apple fanboys blindly defending everything Apple does and selling out our rights in the process. Oh, and I have 3 Macs.
ProCD v. Zeidenbert [wikipedia.org], which held shrinkwrap licenses enforceable. Granted, there is another line of cases that disagrees. This means it comes down to where you live, and when the Supreme Court will get off its ass, grant cert, and address the issue.
Seriously, where is my peril for building a Hackintosh. And if it is "illegal" to screw around with hardware and software that I've purchased without any kind of special contract, then seriously... fuck the law. That's just messed up.
If software vendors want me to follow special rules, then they can try to get me to sign a contract. The ethics are pretty clear when enter into a contract and you are not coerced to do so.
Remember that books are licensed, not outright purchased...
Or at least they were, until the courts struck it down with the First Sale Doctrine...
In 1908, in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908), the first-sale doctrine was established. In a later opinion (Quality King v. L'Anza) (see below), the Court described this opinion:
“ In that case, the publisher, Bobbs-Merrill, had inserted a notice in its books that any retail sale at a price under $1.00 would constitute an infringement of its copyright. The defendants, who owned Macy’s department store, disregarded the notice and sold the books at a lower price without Bobbs-Merrill’s consent. We held that the exclusive statutory right to "vend" applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work...
Also, a judge just struck down that idea in the AutoDesk case:
In 2008, in Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk Inc.[6], a U.S. Federal District Judge in Washington rejected a software vendor's argument that it only licensed copies of its software, rather than selling them, and that therefore any resale of the software constituted copyright infringement. Judge Richard A. Jones cited first-sale doctrine when ruling that a reseller was entitled to sell used copies of the vendor's software regardless of any licensing agreement that might have bound the software's previous owners because the transaction resembled a sale and not a temporary licensing arrangement[7].
Moral of the story is, you can't believe everything you read in a EULA.
A LITTLE more expensive? Seriously man, what are you on? Base price is $1200. A 10" EEE PC (with XP not Linux) is only $320. The Mac is damn near four times the price! That is not a little more expensive, that is a whole different category of cost.
The appeal of netbooks isn't just the portability, though that is certainly part of it. The 7" ones in particular can fit in extremely small bags which is useful in some cases (some of our researchers use them to control devices in the field). A big part of the appeal is price. If you don't need much computer, if word processing and web surfing is pretty much all you do, you can have a computer for just a couple hundred bucks.
The MBP is not at all the same market at its price. You are in to the mid range, or upper mid range of normal laptops at this point. That's fine if that's what you need/want, but it is not at all a netbook competitor.
This has always been one of Apple's big problems. Not everyone wants expensive shit. They have somewhat diversified their desktop line, though a consumer tower is notably absent, as it always has been, but their portable line is as pricey as ever. You start upper mid range and go up from there. There's nothing for people who want a minimal system for minimal cost.
No one buys a Mac because its exclusive. Its not, they don't produce too few for market demand any more than Nintendo does.
The idea that people buy Apple software because its 'rare' is just silly, if that were the reason their market existed, then people wouldn't be trying to run OSX on generic hardware.
People LIKE OS X when they use it on a Mac. Having ran OS X on a PC, I stopped, why? Its not worth the effort. I have a job, I make money, I can just buy a Mac and have things work if I want to. Windows supports my Dell, OS X does not, its fine if you want to hack it up because you enjoy doing that, thats not what you're claiming.
Unfortunately, as I've said, what you are claiming is false. You can walk into BestBuy and buy pretty much any Mac you want, no scarcity. You can buy from multiple stores and multiple websites, including Apples own.
There may be some Apple arrogance with the 'haha you run Windows', that is true, but of course pretty much anyone you are referencing falls into that category. They aren't running it because they've got a trendy mac, they're running it because they prefer it over Windows.
Apple knows where the money is, and individually licensing the software isn't it.
To be more precise, individually licensing the software for $129 isn't it. If Apple could charge $400 for MacOS X, perhaps it'd be worthwhile. The problem is that the people who loudly proclaim they'll happily pay for a license will probably hide back into their basements, and pirate a copy instead, because the price they were willing to pay was the one subsidized by "vastly overpriced" hardware.
Complaining about Apple will not hurt them, but withholding your funds from them sure as hell will.
Well, if the 40 people in the world who realize that they can install an os that didn't come on their computer and think that OS X is worth installing withhold their funds then...
apple probably won't notice.
but if all 40 of them come here and complain, then apple will...
Apple's target market isn't going hackintosh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's target market aren't going to put up with the kinds of shenanigans it takes to get a hackintosh running, whether or not they pull this kind of stuff.
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share. I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.
Additionally, as long as Jobs is at the helm, this will never happen. He's made it very clear that Apple doesn't sell hardware or software, but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two.
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share. I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.
So, in other words, Apple wasn't charging enough for MacOS licenses, and they guessed wrong about how willing customers would be to keep buying Apple branded hardware.
Why does this doom future OS licensing? Why can't they just charge enough for the OS X license so that they'll stay profitable if it turns out people only want the software?
Parent
Re:Well, there are a couple solutions to this (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to have quite an optimistic view on the benefits of software licensing. While I do think the consumer would benefit from a more open OS X licensing model, I'm not sure Apple would benefit:
1) If Apple enters an all software market, they lose a major selling point of their hardware and enter an area with more competition and a lower barrier to entry (see: Linux). OEM licensing could potentially be more profitable, but I'm unconvinced that the market for OS X is much bigger than the market for Macs - users, particularly businesses, are often held back by software requirements rather than by the price premium.
2) Apple likes dictating what hardware you purchase - cheaper, more standard tower blocks don't fit with its image as being refined and premium, and the netbook market has far lower margins than they currently reap on MacBooks. One MacBook purchaser could well bring more profit than 5-mac-netbook purchasers. Apple doesn't want to enter a race to the bottom - they make plenty of money through brands that are seen as higher quality.
3) Why? It gives them higher margins and it's unclear whether the market share increase would offset that.
Most importantly, in my opinion:
4) Apple is so profitable because they have created their own "premium computer" market that is far larger than anything held by Alienware or Dell's Adamo. They do this by creating products that appear relatively unique and are functionally different from competitors' equivalents thanks to unique software, design and minor features (such as battery life on their laptops). Without OS X, a Macbook is just another expensive laptop. There is also some level of positive feedback - unique hardware makes the software appear higher quality, which makes the hardware seem more unique etc - and some of the major selling points depend on hardware-software integration.
I'm not saying it isn't possible that Apple would benefit from opening up their software, but it's far from being certain.
Parent
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice of Jobs to limit his market but that's not what I'm buying. I own a Mac but the Apple experience leaves a lot to be desired and in some cases modified systems preform better at a lower cost than the real thing. Where Apple gets it right it gets it right but when it gets it wrong (iTunes, iPhone as anything but a music phone) it gets it really wrong. One size does not fit all.
Parent
Re:No. (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share. I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.
The clones didn't expand the Mac market because Apple would not let them. The clone maker's designs had to be approved by Apple. At least some were required to use Apple motherboards. PowerComputing showed at trade shows several models in development that would have taken the Mac to new markets--but they could not get permission from Apple to sell them.
The net effect of Apple's restrictions was the all the clone makers really were licensed to do was put Macs in different cases.
Parent
Raises a question? (Score:5, Insightful)
No it doesn't! You did. YOU want that, so YOU asked it. It isn't inherit to the facts. An inherent question would be "If Apple isn't support them Atom, then what chip will they use for [speculated product]?"
The statement in the summary is equivalent to:
"Apple stops supporting something it never supported". What a story. Is anyone surprised? In fact, since hackintoshes are almost certainly eating into Apple's hardware sales (maybe not by much, but they must), this is an obvious thing to do. Why maintain support for something you don't use and is probably causing you some financial harm.
I remember with Apple stopped shipping drivers VESA Local Bus sound cards and the internet went NUTS. Same when Dell stopped shipping PPC drivers with their Xeon servers.
No, wait, Apple never officially supported those (if they had existed), and Dell didn't tell people they would ship PPC drivers with Xeons, so no one was surprised.
How dare Apple stop supporting unsupported hardware for people who aren't paying Apple for the software they may have simply stolen?
Come on. I know people on /. want to be able to put OS X on any computer... but is this really a surprise? This isn't much of a story, it's just another excuse for the licensing/purchasing/monopoly/first-sale debate we have in every Apple article.
Re:Raises a question? (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, since hackintoshes are almost certainly eating into Apple's hardware sales (maybe not by much, but they must), [...]
Not true.
Indeed, that the majority of Hackintoshes seem to be for market segments Apple has no presence, or are explicitly refusing user demand, in, then it's hard to see how anyone could argue they "must" be "eating into Apple's hardware sales".
Parent
Re:Raises a question? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
There won't be any "open OSX"; and by the way .... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple is not going to sell the OS by itself. I don't know why this has to even be repeated, but Apple is a hardware company and to sell boxed copies of OSX than ran on generic hardware would simply be shooting themselves in the foot.
None, of all those who arise Phoenix-like every few months or years, lamenting the state of the OS world they find themselves in, you may notice, wants to buy the Apple hardware to run OSX on. Apparently, the natural conclusion goes right over their heads ... they are not Apple customers.
They seem to think that paying for a retail copy of OSX would make them Apple customers. They are wrong; that would make them Microsoft customers, because Microsoft is the vendor that uses sales of stand-alone OS's as it's business model. Go buy it; there's a snappy new version out right now, I hear.
People buy Apple hardware because of the software. This is not by accident, it's not a secret, and it's been going on three decades now. You would think it would sink in at some point.
Now, for those who get OSX to run on whatever hardware they manage to get it to run on, why the uproar over the Atom? Aren't you guys supposed to be hackers?
Go hack. Half the fun, (for some all the fun) isn't running the software, it is figuring out how to get the software to do what you want.
If they're not hackers, but they want a pre-made boxed solution to their own pet OSX on x86 project, I suppose I understand all the whining.
It's all they know how to contribute to the whole project. Good luck with that.
Hackintoshes were inevitable... (Score:4, Insightful)
It was bound to happen the moment Apple moved to the intel platform and started using commodity hardware. What this article is saying is that Apple will not consider a low-cost low-power computer with an Atom inside it. Guess you won't find that option in the next refresh of the mac mini. They're being anal of course, since they're actually adding extra code to lock out that processor series.
Crappy Summary, Iffy Article (Score:5, Informative)
The summary is misleading. The original source of all this hubbub is http://stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news [tumblr.com]. Basically someone noted that a lot of stuff in the kernel has changed so that the Atom processor that developer was using no longer works after the build. They list three work around methods. There is no inside information that this is an intentional attempt to block Atom processors as the summary's wording strongly implies.
The summary then goes on to speculate about the improbable and impractical wet dream of the writer that Apple should start licensing OS X to generic PC makers, completely ignoring the economic realities involved. You might as well end a summary of an article about MS losing an antitrust case by claiming it raises speculation MS will open source Windows under the GPL.
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
You can. Reverse engineering is explicitly allowed. Distributing a program for the purpose of circumventing copy protection, even if it was found through reverse engineering... is not.
So if a large corporation wanted to put Mac OSX on all their internal computers, and was OK with doing internal support on non-Apple hardware, they could modify the distribution and use it internally, but it'd have to be for internal use only, and telling someone else how to do it, selling the software to do it, etc, might run afoul of the law.
For better and worse.
Note: I am not a lawyer, but this is what I've gleaned from the DMCA. My advice is not legal advice and I am not liable for it.
Parent
IANAL (Score:5, Informative)
As MacOS is not copy protected, there's nothing to circumvent there, DMCA-wise.
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Insightful)
At which point they could refuse to sell the update to anyone who hasn't registered their purchase of an Apple computer. Currently that's a hassle they prefer not to make their users go through, but if they had no other way to limit distribution to owners of Apple computers supported by that update, that would certainly be an option. At which point you wouldn't be able to legally run their software because you wouldn't be able to buy a copy except on eBay secondhand (and you know how well that would work).
The cost model for MacOS is the opposite of the one Microsoft, HP printer/cartridge, and razor vendors use: the fixed and variable costs are front-loaded on the initial purchase and minimized on the updates. Conversely, Microsoft practically gives away Windows licences via OEMs and nails you on the upgrades. I actually think it makes sense that the MacOS X incremental upgrades are cheaper and the up-front costs of the hardware are higher. I don't have a lot of sympathy for you trying to game the system/business model. Seriously, if you want to run MacOS X so much, buy a MacOS box sized for your needs. You can multi-boot or virtualize Linux, Windows or any other O/S you care for. I don't see why anyone would care whether your efforts at running MacOS on unsupported hardware are being stymied.
Now sure you can say: if you can't virtualize MacOS then you are concerned about its long term availability and your ability to access your applications and data in the future. Now that's a good point, one which I can appreciate since my wife's G4 iMac has been in the shop for the last month because of the lack of availability of replacement power supplies. However if that is an overriding concern for you, then run Linux on commodity hardware where that concern is addressed. But you can't always get everything you want and sometimes you have to make a decision on what's more important to you. Apple has basically made it clear they are only interested in doing business with those people willing to accept their business model. If that model's not acceptable to you, then too bad. Move on.
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Insightful)
You still don't get it. They know that some people feel the way you do and don't care. They have a business model for making money. You play ball with them or they keep their ball. Seriously all business is like that. There's a value proposition offered by the vendor. If it works for you, you buy; if not, you don't. If you're a big enough customer, maybe you can negotiate if it's worth it to the vendor.
Starbucks isn't going to change their roast recipe because my wife finds their coffee too strong and, as long as they feel their model works at making them money, their renumeration and hiring practices also aren't likely to change significantly because somebody has a problem with it. That's the way business works. As long as Apple continues making a lot of money by successfully positioning themselves as a premium vendor, they're not going to change to accommodate you if it's going to cut into their healthy profit margins. While it's best to keep your customers happy, you are not part of Apple's targeted customer base. That's their decision to make. Deal with it.
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Insightful)
For what? apple doesn't have to support hardware it doesn't want to. Just like Windows doesn't support sparc. MSFT should be brought up on anti trust charges for not porting every windows app to Sparc, and Cell, and arm.
pull your heads out of your asses people.
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a case of "not supporting" a specific chip. By default it worked just fine, and is working just fine for many people currently using OS X on the Atom. No, this is a case of deliberately disabling a working feature for the express purpose of forcing you to buy their hardware over another's.
You never code in support and it doesn't work on certain hardware? No big deal. Hell that's the case for a ton of stuff on Hackintoshes already - people don't bitch because their sound card or NIC doesn't work - they generally go out and buy one that's noted on the net as working. Code that is working fine but sabotaged on purpose is another issue entirely though.
Parent
So don't use OS X (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't sold to work on random hardware. It was sold to work on hardware that Apple sells. No promises were made, express or implied, that it would work on Atom processors.
It is an express case of disabling things so you can't use it in a certain manner. Hello! That's what the whole Free Software thing is about. Don't use the Apple software if you don't like it. No one misled you about this.
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they don't. The original Intel Macs used the Core Solo and Core Duo. Those were Yonah; SSE4 wasn't added until Penryn, AFAIK. They do support SSE3, but not SSE4....
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Freeloader more like. How many people making Hackintoshes are actually paying for the software and how many get it off a torrent?
Even if they are paying retail price they're still violating the license. A copy of OS X and Mac is profitable for Apple. A copy of OS X and an netbook probably isn't. Now at this point people start to mumble something about buggy whip manufacturers, but guess what, that's a poor analogy. Buggy whip manufacturers went out of business because people didn't want their stuff. If Apple goes under it will be because people want their stuff but don't want to pay.
Even more irritatingly these tend to be the same sort of people who are outraged when some company uses Linux and doesn't make the source code available. And yeah, I know the GPL is a copyright license not an EULA. But in both cases people are using something in a way that the copyright holder has explicitly forbidden. Either you can have a copyright free world, in which case you can run OS X for free and keep your Linux fork closed source, or you live in a world with copyright where both things are illegal.
That being said I don't really like Linux or OS X. Still if you do, it seems like you need to follow the terms of the license the code is under. With Linux that means publishing your code and with OS X it means running it on Apple hardware.
Parent
Apple did try selling their OS, so did BEOS. (Score:5, Informative)
Apple did try selling their OS to run on other platforms. That nearly put then out of business. I think they have a good clue what will work for them and for their customers. We dont' see a whole lot of OS only companies out there. BEOS? even Linux business are tiny compared to apple. Even Oracle bought Sun. Microsoft has Xbox.
Parent
Re:Apple did try selling their OS, so did BEOS. (Score:5, Interesting)
After seeing how you write about your "friends", I'm surprised you have any. You accuse them of an inflated self image, yet you write about your perceived superiority over them, based solely on the products they buy.
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of idiotic entitlement mentality is fucking things up for everyone. So, those using the GPL have no right to tell me that I can't close their source and resell it like I want. Why is it that people are so happy to violate licenses to get what they want, then scream and bitch when someone else violates licenses to get what they want? It blows my mind that this crap is modded insightful. What you are advocating is just another form of tyranny. "They don't sell what I want them to sell, so I will force them to do it my way!"
Right now Apple doesn't do any of that serial key, activation, or other call home bullshit. Asshat behavior like yours is going to drive them to either doing something irritating along those lines, or simply pricing a standalone copy of OS X at an obscenely high price and then just sell "upgrades" or some other such nonsense to force the tie to a piece of Apple hardware. If you don't like their terms, don't buy it, that simple. It isn't like the standard EULA where they hide terms until post sale, the Apple hardware requirement is put out there up front.
I suppose you are the kind of neighbor that turns the stereo up at 2am in your apartment because you paid for it and no landlord has a right to enforce the conditions?
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't pay for it. You paid for an upgrade of OSX... for the copy that came with the Mac you never bought. You stole it.
You're a damn liar. I'm holding the Leopard box that I walked into an Apple Store and paid full retail price for. Looking at the label, it says "MAC OS X V10.5 RETAIL". The DVD inside says "Mac OS X Leopard Install DVD". WTF part of that sounds like "upgrade" to you?
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Interesting)
How exactly do you "agree" to be bound and restricted by the "license" and "document" that you cannot get access too until you purchase the product?
Shrink wrap license are unenforceable. If you are to be bound by terms and conditions, they must be present during the contractual exchange (i.e. paying money for the product).
Parent
Really now? (Score:5, Insightful)
By reading this comment, you agree to send me $5.
I've never signed a license agreement boxed software. I have for real software licenses. Without a signed licensing agreement, a software sale is just that, a sale. It's not a license, and has no terms.
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL is a distribution license, not a EULA, and explicitly states that it places NO restrictions on the end user, and that acceptance of the license is not required, at all, to use the software.
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why can't I tell people they can't sell my book when they're done with it? Why can't I tell people where they can read my book? Why can't I forbid libraries from buying my books?
Why shouldn't I be able to restrict what you do with my book after you bought it? What about my rights? You don't have to buy my book. You're free to accept or decline, it's a contract. I don't have a monopoly on books.
Please tell me why the First Sale doctrine should apply to books but not to computer software.
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Insightful)
First Sale applies to recordings too. I am allowed to buy a used CD and I can do whatever I want with it. The digital contents of the CD are read into a machine just as software is read into a machine. No one ever said that you were only allowed to look at the bits on a CD. You own your copy and you can do whatever you like (other than copy and redistribute). So why should software be different? Why does the author of a software program get to limit my rights when no other type of copyright holder has such a power?
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
> If you want, you can license your book, too.
No, you absolutely can't. First Sale originally became case law because a publisher attempted to do exactly that: include a "license" on that restricted your right to resell the book. In 1908, the Supreme Court (Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) found that anyone that bought a copy of a book was free to resell it. Copyright grants you a right to sell, but does not grant you the right to limit resale after the fact. Period. It was later codified (Copyright Act of 1976) to include anyone that legally owned a copy (even if they didn't buy it).
What makes software so special and different from books and records? It's true that case law hasn't fully caught up, but give me a reason as to why the author of a software product should have any additional rights that are not granted to other copyright holder?
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:4, Insightful)
1) You have no such "right." Somewhere along the line some lawyer made this up and then guys with lots of money threatened to bring down big hammers on anyone who didn't respect it. Similarly, I don't have the right to sell you a sock and then sue you for trying to wear it in a competitor's shoe.
2) Good reasons you shouldn't have such a right: it's anti-competitive and bad for the economy when a small handful of companies are able to control how the majority of people are able to use their products to do useful things, or are able to bar competitor's from using their products in completely fair ways. "Apple isn't a monopoly" doesn't negate this fact.
3) Apple has an effective monopoly on certain industries, so the point's wrong on the facts as well.
4) Simply stating, "You were free not to buy my software," is being willfully obtuse. Forgive the hyperbole, but imagine for a moment that Monsanto suddenly decided you could only cook their food in pots they made and sold for ludicrous prices. What good reason could we possibly have to deny them this right (that they simply made up) to control how their consumer products are used after sale? After all, they're not selling food; they're selling the "experience" of eating. And we're perfectly free not to eat!
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
You can't legally buy OS X for something other than a Mac. It doesn't have to get to the EULA, its clearly stated on the outside of the box.
System requirements are not a legally binding contract. Or do you think it's illegal to try to run software on a machine that doesn't meet the official minimum specs?
If Apples' license isn't valid, neither is GPL, and I can take any GPL app and distribute binaries with proprietary code without any source.
Um, no. The GPL depends only on copyright law. Apple's EULA attempts to impose restrictions that go beyond that.
Don't like it? Change the law, until then, shut the fuck up, we're tired of the broken record.
The law is clear, see 17 USC 117. What we need is for judges to strike down the loopholes that publishers have come up with to remove property rights from software purchasers. And I'm tired of Apple fanboys blindly defending everything Apple does and selling out our rights in the process. Oh, and I have 3 Macs.
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which case is this? In which jurisdiction was this case?
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Informative)
ProCD v. Zeidenbert [wikipedia.org], which held shrinkwrap licenses enforceable. Granted, there is another line of cases that disagrees. This means it comes down to where you live, and when the Supreme Court will get off its ass, grant cert, and address the issue.
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Begging the question, are we?
Seriously, where is my peril for building a Hackintosh. And if it is "illegal" to screw around with hardware and software that I've purchased without any kind of special contract, then seriously... fuck the law. That's just messed up.
If software vendors want me to follow special rules, then they can try to get me to sign a contract. The ethics are pretty clear when enter into a contract and you are not coerced to do so.
Parent
Re:Who wants to update?? (Score:4, Informative)
Remember that books are licensed, not outright purchased...
Or at least they were, until the courts struck it down with the First Sale Doctrine...
In 1908, in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908), the first-sale doctrine was established. In a later opinion (Quality King v. L'Anza) (see below), the Court described this opinion:
“ In that case, the publisher, Bobbs-Merrill, had inserted a notice in its books that any retail sale at a price under $1.00 would constitute an infringement of its copyright. The defendants, who owned Macy’s department store, disregarded the notice and sold the books at a lower price without Bobbs-Merrill’s consent. We held that the exclusive statutory right to "vend" applied only to the first sale of the copyrighted work...
Also, a judge just struck down that idea in the AutoDesk case:
In 2008, in Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk Inc.[6], a U.S. Federal District Judge in Washington rejected a software vendor's argument that it only licensed copies of its software, rather than selling them, and that therefore any resale of the software constituted copyright infringement. Judge Richard A. Jones cited first-sale doctrine when ruling that a reseller was entitled to sell used copies of the vendor's software regardless of any licensing agreement that might have bound the software's previous owners because the transaction resembled a sale and not a temporary licensing arrangement[7].
Moral of the story is, you can't believe everything you read in a EULA.
Parent
The RDF is strong with this one (Score:5, Insightful)
A LITTLE more expensive? Seriously man, what are you on? Base price is $1200. A 10" EEE PC (with XP not Linux) is only $320. The Mac is damn near four times the price! That is not a little more expensive, that is a whole different category of cost.
The appeal of netbooks isn't just the portability, though that is certainly part of it. The 7" ones in particular can fit in extremely small bags which is useful in some cases (some of our researchers use them to control devices in the field). A big part of the appeal is price. If you don't need much computer, if word processing and web surfing is pretty much all you do, you can have a computer for just a couple hundred bucks.
The MBP is not at all the same market at its price. You are in to the mid range, or upper mid range of normal laptops at this point. That's fine if that's what you need/want, but it is not at all a netbook competitor.
This has always been one of Apple's big problems. Not everyone wants expensive shit. They have somewhat diversified their desktop line, though a consumer tower is notably absent, as it always has been, but their portable line is as pricey as ever. You start upper mid range and go up from there. There's nothing for people who want a minimal system for minimal cost.
Parent
Re:I don't see why they would license it (Score:4, Insightful)
No one buys a Mac because its exclusive. Its not, they don't produce too few for market demand any more than Nintendo does.
The idea that people buy Apple software because its 'rare' is just silly, if that were the reason their market existed, then people wouldn't be trying to run OSX on generic hardware.
People LIKE OS X when they use it on a Mac. Having ran OS X on a PC, I stopped, why? Its not worth the effort. I have a job, I make money, I can just buy a Mac and have things work if I want to. Windows supports my Dell, OS X does not, its fine if you want to hack it up because you enjoy doing that, thats not what you're claiming.
Unfortunately, as I've said, what you are claiming is false. You can walk into BestBuy and buy pretty much any Mac you want, no scarcity. You can buy from multiple stores and multiple websites, including Apples own.
There may be some Apple arrogance with the 'haha you run Windows', that is true, but of course pretty much anyone you are referencing falls into that category. They aren't running it because they've got a trendy mac, they're running it because they prefer it over Windows.
Get a dose of reality and a cluepon please.
Parent
Re:Um... (Score:5, Insightful)
To be more precise, individually licensing the software for $129 isn't it. If Apple could charge $400 for MacOS X, perhaps it'd be worthwhile. The problem is that the people who loudly proclaim they'll happily pay for a license will probably hide back into their basements, and pirate a copy instead, because the price they were willing to pay was the one subsidized by "vastly overpriced" hardware.
Parent
Re:Why continue to reward a company that does this (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if the 40 people in the world who realize that they can install an os that didn't come on their computer and think that OS X is worth installing withhold their funds then...
apple probably won't notice.
but if all 40 of them come here and complain, then apple will...
still probably not notice.
Parent
Re:Mac OS X for generic machines. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, and now NeXT is king of the computer world?
Not king, but alive and gaining market share at a pretty good clip, not to mention an enviable position in smart phones.
I mean they went bankrupt and had to be rescued by Apple
NeXT didn't go bankrupt, they were operating profitably and sold out for about $400M.
-jcr
Parent