Mac OS X on x86 Videos Get Apple's Attention 758
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.
Apple is not just ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is not minor league engineering department attached to a powerhouse marketing deparment.
It's also attached to a powerhouse legal department.
Think Different !!!
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ubiquitous piracy made Microsoft Windows big and Linux a contender. It's hard enough to get people to try another operating system when it's free.
Not that I'm supporting piracy, because I'm not, but at this point you'd have to be a nut to grab something like this (not necessarily stable, anybody could have altered it) and install it on your system, with the risk of losing whatever else you've got on there. The kind of nut that could be an excellent customer down the road if Apple capitalized on this fanaticism and offered legit demos of the technology in lieu of the illegal downloads already out there.
I suppose it wouldn't jive with their strategy of keeping their innovations under wraps until release, but as long as the toothpaste is out of the tube you get better results with the carrot than the stick.
Re:embrace it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hrmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Suing someone to stop them from doing something sometimes means they actually don't want anyone to do it. Apple has a very obvious reason to keep OS X off of generic PCs, and I'm sure they're happy to flex a little muscle when someone obviously broke their NDA and provided OS X x86 to someone else, gave a public demo of it, or provided info on it.
Re:OSx86 Project Should be safe (Score:4, Insightful)
Did this surprise anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's be honest... (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight...According to your line of thinking, If I park my car in a shitty neighborhood and it gets stolen, even though I knew there was a chance and put an alarm in my car, I shouldn't have any legal recourse and the thief is not legally liable??
It's obvious YANAL...
Tempting Apple (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:There you go again (Score:3, Insightful)
What? Because they don't like someone publishing instructions for pirating their acclaimed software? OS X was solely responsible for a lot of mindshare of Apple among computer enthusiasts. How would you like it if somebody posted instructions for getting your main asset for free, circumventing the restrictions you have imposed on it?
Well... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
M$ learned this lesson a long time ago, only chumps sell hardware. The profit margin on a cdr and small pamphlet is much higher.
And made sure to not to prosecute too successfully (Score:4, Insightful)
It's additionally fishy that they took their first action against a French site when so many American sites were doing the same thing. It's like they waited for the info to get out, wanted everyone talking about it, then made some sort of action against a foe far from the center of the limelight and in another country, which only steps up the difficulty in achieving success.
It's pretty clear that Apple, usually quick draw McGraw with the legal complaints, sat on this one because they saw the benefit of these copies getting out and getting people talking and excited about OS X.
Re:Bug May be? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes but... (Score:3, Insightful)
But they make just as much money from selling 10 copies of OS X for $100, as selling 1 PC for $1000.
An OS they could probably sell at least 10x more easily, because there are thousands of PCs out there running Intel hardware already, and it should be much easier to convince people to put up $100 to try an alternate, superior OS than to throw away their machine and buy a whole new setup for $1000 a piece... that's thousands of potential customers for an OS offering, if they can just get a reputation of being better than Windows.
Most PC users are not going to be switching to macs anytime soon, Apple could would not likely to be selling these people thousand dollar machines -- they are deluding themselves if they think they will want to do that. (Most people would probably more readily dive for Linux than want to go out and buy all new hardware)
It could be much more profitable to capitalize on a special version of their OS too, make sure the version that runs on their own hardware is faster, more efficient, and includes more features... converts to their OS would then be encouraged to transition to Apple's hardware to gain more speed and the extra capabilities; whereas, for people with small budgets -- getting an off-the-shelf x86 system and slapping Apple's "starter" OS on it would be good for basic needs.
Re:Seriously, here's the solution to Apple's probl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, here's the solution to Apple's probl (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:embrace it! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm thinking that the majority of slashdot readers have never actually worked for a proprietary software company.
Contrary to popular believe on slashdot, software is not a money printing machine. On the surface it may look like software has a near 90% margin with economies of scale but the readers here seem to forget about hidden costs such as support and "free" upgrades and patches.
Compared to hardware, software has a great deal of after market costs associated with it.
I would argue that software can end up having a lower margin than hardware after all of the after market costs are factored in.
I've worked in technical support dealing with software issues in the past and I'm also a developer of in-house software for a major multi-national organization. I can tell you that software is neither cheap to develop or maintain.
Not running their OS (Score:2, Insightful)
Here Apple has people wanting to run their OS so badly on Intel hardware that they're hacking apart betas to do it, and running systems with no native applications yet.
A savvy business person might realize that there's an opportunity to be selling the Mac OS now. But not Apple. They'd rather serve lawsuits to try and stop some of their most enthusistic fans. Heaven forbid that we (Apple) ever lose control over who's allowed to run Tiger. The SJ-RDF has got to really be running overtime on this.
It's not trolling or flamebait to speak the truth.
Re:Bottom line for me: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not running their OS (Score:4, Insightful)
But you miss Apple's entire point. They don't want people running OSX on any computer save an Apple brand computer. Period. Why is that so hard to understand? Poeple unwilling to buy an Apple computer are obviously not wanting to run OSX bad enough.
People don't like a crapshoot (Score:3, Insightful)
Because it would be a crapshoot whether the full version would work well with any given hardware configuration. People don't like paying full price for a crapshoot. The "safe mode-like" version, on the other hand, would have an excellent chance of working with their hardware.
It's hard to underestimate the public's intelligence, but I think you people are doing it when you suggest that the users would totally ignore the glossy brochure that I described in the grandparent post, and conclude that OS X on a Mac would suck as much as the $19.95 trial version for PCs.
Re:One word. (Score:2, Insightful)
... but it will all be over in a year or so (Score:3, Insightful)
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 the know how after decades of making their own motherboards.
"Legit demos of the technology" (Score:3, Insightful)
__________________
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 audience of PC users who can try OS X (most users can't or don't have time to hack OS X)
- Apple actually makes a little money off these people's curiosity
- Apple doesn't have to worry about supporting thousands of different PC configurations
- Gives Apple an opportunity to provide a "switch incentive": the PC user will get their $19.95 refunded when they buy a Mac
Accompanying the unsupported version of OS X should be a really slick glossy brochure explaining the many ways in which the full, supported version is superior. (For example, the unsupported version probably won't come with Quartz Extreme. It should probably ship with crippled versions of the iLife apps.)
It is time to grow up - beer is not "free" (Score:4, Insightful)
Get real jobs and get the fuck out of your parents basement already.
If you feel that "you" are entitled to be paid for the work that you do, you should feel obligated to pay for the work of others in kind if you make use of the products and services they provide.
If you cannot work for free then you should not expect software, music or movies for free either or for companies to provide support for hardware they did not sell or licence.
If you do not like the licence terms of a product, don't use it. You cannot use that as an excuse to pirate software.
Remember, even open source software can have terms that you must agree to in order to use it.
Re:embrace it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well which one? Adobe? Microsoft? Or were you referring to the guy that made the program to bid 3 seconds before my ebay auction expires? It is possible to make more money in software than hardware.
"Also, if they switch, then they start over with a marketshare of 0%, and have to fight against Windows brand recognition, and against the people that depend on certain parts or apps in windows. Not cool."
The ipod & itunes are increasing apple's brand recognition [forbes.com]. As for fighting Microsoft, apple doesn't have to destroy Microsoft in order to succeed. Apple has less than 5% of the computer market. If they sold 5% of the computers after the switch they would be doing great for apple. As for starting out with 0% marketshare, I'm sure those who currently have a mac will completely forget apple when they see a dell running Microsoft.
Re:OSx86 Project Should be safe (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So it starts... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 to run their software. once the purchase has been made, it no longer still belongs to the manufacturer.
and no one is asking apple to support them. that they go out of their way to prevent lawful uses of purchased software... well it just means that apple is yet another corporation. even with a bought copy they want you to run it on approved CSS-compliant players. never mind that it runs on any x86 computer, they want to unreasonably limit it's use.
because a company is more well regarded than most doesn't entitle them to stomp on the rights of customers. you don't go into a supermarket, walk out with a bag of chips and then you get stopped in the parking lot by the manager saying you may only use approved-brand of dips to eat it with. pick your own analogies, it's all the same. they've got their money, what the customer does with the product afterwards is none of the business of the merchant or manufacturuer.
anyone who tells you otherwise has something other than honest commerce on their minds.
Re:Damn it, Steve... (Score:4, Insightful)
You people just like spreading FUD like this don't you? I know how you think because I used to be one if you. You are jealous of mac users and wish you could either pirate or buy OS X for you PC.
Why don't you guys wait until the Intel macs arrive? Are you all that desperate to run OS X? Can't you buy an iBook off of Ebay to try out OS X?
Re:Seriously, here's the solution to Apple's probl (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several problems with this.
Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're missing that little step 3 where Apple finds a way to increase its OS market share by 20x, especially considering this will literally have to happen over Microsoft's dead body.
M$ learned this lesson a long time ago, only chumps sell hardware.
Dell and Apple both seem to be making money from hardware. While Microsoft's position is undoubtedly lucrative, not everybody can or should be making money under the same business model.
Re:So it starts... (Score:4, Insightful)
The control drives more people away than it attracts not because it is not "open" as in "open source" but because the anal-retentive arrogance level is off the scale and that drives away third-party hardware and software vendors thus lessening the end-user's range of things they can do.
I have zero doubt that Windows, as great as it is relative to its competitors, would ever have done one percent as well as it did had Microsoft been so freakishly controlling as Apple was from the beginning of the Macintosh. Similarly, the PC platform would have been as widely adopted as it was had Compaq and company not done their number on IBM the way they did. The PC genie out of the bottle, Windows open to writing apps with a solid well-documented architecture to go by, it's not hard to see why it is where it is now.
That same nature of things allows Linux, BSD, and a dozen other things to run on the PC, and as time goes by Windows-like architectural standards will eventually and inevitably coalesce despite the present "do it because it is hard and not correct or beautiful" mindset contaminating Linux.
PC hardware was open long before "open source" in the most meaningful way of "open" and that is documented, easily understood, and sensible. A variety of vendors come and go in the direction of it and the end-user purchasing habits control what stays and what doesn't on it, not the vendors from above, and Apple needs to grow up and see that the only thing they can meaningfully controll is their software and that the best way to grow their market share is to co-opt the hardware that is majority dominated by Windows and Linux.
I have no faith in them to do so however. They are still too much like IBM was with microchannel and OS/2. Still daydreaming about total end to end domination of one single overall platform. IBM has that with their AS/400 more or less but how many of these are getting sold every day at the local stores?
Oh, that's right, none. Present popularity aside, the insane and insipid insistance on proprietary control isn't winning any love from the majority of Apple's user base. Continued religious worship of the Mac/Apple, solid positioning to compete as a Wintel alternative (as much as it is), and plain anti-MS sentiment are the bulk of Apple purchases. Apple should let it go and get on with being the only real competitor to Windows on the desktop.
Linux zealots may not like it, and like it even less that the one to challenge Redmond was born of BSD roots, but do you childishly want the competition with Micrsoft to be your pet platform or do you just want to see the competition happen at all? If the latter, then support the guerilla porting of OSX to the PC. In sufficient numbers it might even sink in to the ever-dense and deluded Steve Jobs.
Machiavellian tinfoil hat conspiracies that Jobs is intending for this aside, it has to happen. Linux isn't going to win that kind of sheer power any time soon. Apple could practically do it tomorrow. And that competition will only help Microsoft Windows users in the long run. We all benefit from that more than waiting for one distro or another to do more than cause a shurg from Redmond.
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux doesn't beat Windows in every respect (and neither does MacOS X), but it's quite a bit cheaper than either. Why has it been so hard to convince people to even try Linux, and why doesn't MacOS X suffer the same problems?
Most people would probably more readily dive for Linux than want to go out and buy all new hardware
Nonsense. If this was the case, everybody would be running Linux now. The fact is that people are far more willing to continue using their old computer (which is why Windows 98 is still not quite dead), or buy a new computer. Linux is a distant third choice (and so is a Mac), in terms of popularity.
for people with small budgets -- getting an off-the-shelf x86 system and slapping Apple's "starter" OS on it would be good for basic needs.
Wouldn't people with these really small budgets rather run a free beer OS? Besides, even $300 Dell boxes come with Windows.
Re:It is time to grow up - beer is not "free" (Score:3, Insightful)
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 bucks or so and walking out of the store, you're still a "pirate". because you intend to use it on a computer you already own (x86).
if that doesn't go against all the rules of commerce people know, then the world is in major trouble.
apple = anti-consumer. show how it is otherwise and i'll change my mind. and software licenses that restrict your ability to use said software lawfully is not a valid argument.
and yes, i will buy osx86. i want to use it on my computer. and i will not infringe the manufacturer's copyright and will not distribute it. and in your eyes i'm still a pirate. nice world you live in, but i don't want to live there. i'm going to work for change, even if people like you think the manufacturer has a right to tell you how to use a product once it has been sold.
Re:So it starts... (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine what life would be like if Apple had a monopoly on computers. It would be a lot like their famous advertisement from 1984, except Apple would be the ones on the big screen, yelling down on the masses. Microsoft controls software in a terrible way, but at least they don't control hardware like Apple would like to.
As I always say, if Apple controlled the computer industry today, computers would cost 5000 dollars and run at 200 MHz.
Re:embrace it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is a hardware company first and foremost. But they also have a part of them that makes straight up software like the apps you mentioned. OSX does not fall in the later.
OSX is made to sell the hardware. They make the other apps to make money and maintain viability.
If they were to ditch the hardware and sell OSX as a stand alone, it would carry prices higher then their pro-apps. OSX is priced simply to keep things moving and selling hardware.
And no, the benefit of going intel is not to repackage other peoples mainboards in a pretty case. They did it so they can have a real supplier who delivers product. Apple will still make very custom boards just like they always have. They do that for a reason, to make a good box. They have no interest in making ATX hack jobs like the developer boxes. Besides, creating their own boards is a non-issue to them. It's not hard for them, they have done it for ages, and they still use companies like ASUS as manufactures for them anyways.
Its doubtful you will even see intel sockets in the intel macs. Expect cpus to be on daughter cards and such the same as they are today.
Re:There you go again (Score:3, Insightful)
and after you have enumerated that right(s), ask yourself if that is reasonable. and if so, reasonable by most people's understanding of commerce or by a corportation's understanding.
Re:OSx86 Project Should be safe (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, Apple has no legal oversight of all the documentation which has been generated by OSx86 hackers. The installation docs belong to those who prodeced them; Apple does not own them just because the notes concern their product. As we all know, these installation guides have been distributed freely on the net, and MacBidouille posted these notes on their site. Also, the video depicts something that may or may not be a crime. As we all know from watching the news, distributing a video which documents crime is not a crime in itself. Apple did not produce the video, so they do not own it. The usage of their trademarks should be covered under fair use. It is not illegal (nor should it be) to document crime, even by telling exactly how it can be done and showing the crime being comitted.
The point is that this story and my post have nothing to do with EULAs, the GPL, licensing, copright law and basic tenets of private property. It has to do with news, freedom of information, and free speech rights.
Re:Now that's the Apple I know! (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is a monopoly in the Apple market? WTF, so any company is a monopoly as long as you define "the market" in terms of that company's products? I guess that makes McDonalds a monopoly - in the market for McDonalds food. And Gap is a monopoly in the market for Gap clothing. And so on.
If Apple controls "the system" on their hardware, why can you delete OS X and install Linux on a PPC Mac?
Re:Bottom line for me: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ever? Seems like you forgot about the clones era.
Burn, karma, burn (Score:5, Insightful)
- People with the Intel transition kits are under NDA
- The VAST majority of people installing Tiger on off-the-shelf Intel hardware are doing it using pirated copies
- Installing OS X on said Intel hardware is against the clickwrap license
- Instructing people how to obtain said pirated goods and then specifically do something that's against both NDA and license agreements is quite far over the top.
There's a lot of sites out there that are posting Torrent links and how-to videos that are basically forcing Apple's hand in this matter.
What the hell do you expect Apple to do? Not defend their IP when sites get that far out of line? The way the legal system works, Apple *has* to respond, even if they don't want to.
Anyone who doesn't think that the Intel compiles of OS X over the last 5 years hasn't been running on off-the-shelf boxes in Cupertino is seriously naïve. Of course Apple knew it was possible to do this.
anyone notice Darwinports has x86 ports already (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why would Apple care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's whole philosophy is "it just works" - they want to be able to control the hardware so they can be 100% sure that all their boxes work as they should without having to support every piece of hardware under the sun, especially as this would mean running into the same problems with a lack of support or hardware specs from manufacturers that Linux has over the years.
To your average man-on-the-street, all computers are the same - Apples might come with shinier boxes, but a computer is a computer - and if he sees OS X running poorly on a white-box x86, he's going to assume it's the fault of the OS.
Apple don't want that. It damages their image.
You could argue that they could, quite easily, make more money selling OS X to all and sundry than they can by guarding their 5% of the market and locking the OS to the hardware, but that's just the Apple way, and they're being successful with it. Why should they change a profitable business structure?
Re:There you go again (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth seems to be that we just don't know what Apple's long term strategy on OS X is. They may indeed go for software only sales on standard boxes, or they may go for locked-down software only for their boxes.
The immediate strategy seems to be the latter. Will that still be the case in two years? Who knows?
We *do* know that this is not an issue of a legitimately bought copy being installed on commodity hardware. It's an issue of illegal copies being installed in direct infringement of Apple's IP rights. Not a single copy has been sold, legitimately or otherwise. Even the developer boxes are leased out, being still Apple property in both hardware and software.
The core issue is that people are pirating software. Unless Apple want to lose their IP rights through inaction, they must respond, even if only to crucify the developers responsible and shut down the torrents as much as possible.
Re:Apple is a hardware company` (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the hardware companies who made money on just hardware. Commodore (don't knock them - they used one of the largest computer manufacturer in Europe ti'll the day they went backrupt), SGI, SUN, Compaq, Gateway etc etc - all of these companies are either gone or marginialized by cheap "windows" hardware.
Finally - Apple should just raise the price of their OS until it is profitable.
Re:Cat...out..of...bag... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why a few weeks though?
Do you have to buy a new motherboard to get the chipset with Intel based ethernet / sound / video?
I've looked at building such a box and a motherboard that supports everything is quite cheap. Add a low-end P4, a cheap case, a PSU and you're in business with a custom-made Mac!
However, you do know that even with it running and all hardware supported, it's still a pre-release developer edition of the OS. That is, intended for developers like Adobe to port their apps across, not as a stable daily use OS.
The final x86 release may use quite different protection, that may not even run on the same chipsets. The reason this one has been so easily hacked, is that the developer machines use standard Intel chipsets so that their limited run (probably less than a few hundred have been sold) is cheap to manufacture.
So yes, with just a few hundred bucks of components, you're saving about half the cost of a Mac Mini. However, it may be stuck running a partially functional developer release, so just be warned.
Re:Intel Mac for under $200 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not running their OS (Score:5, Insightful)
For $999 you can get two Dell PCs, a keg of beer, and a night with three Welsh hookers. Don't ask me how I know. The point is, you must be used to paying Apple prices, that figure is way off.
Re:embrace it! (Score:3, Insightful)
They are tools used by professionals and serve as an incentive for those professionals to buy the latest and most expensive Apple hardware to run it. Rarely will you see professionals buying pro apps with out buying new hardware to run it on.
You mention the price of those apps but you fail to realize that the software sales account for a small percentage of revenue and profit on the balance sheet. Just take a look at any of AAPL's quarterly reports.
Software upgrades are again small potatoes compared to hardware sales and I would like to point out that the hardware comes with OS X and iLife for "free".
Software development costs for non-pro apps are subsidized by hardware sales. The price you pay for upgrades are just that, "upgrade" pricing.
Apple offers the first version free with your hardware purchase and subsequent versions cost money.
Re:So Apple ARE evil!! (Score:5, Insightful)
And you've always been shallow and ignorant in making that assessment. They [apple.com] make [apple.com] some [apple.com] other [apple.com] stuff [apple.com] that you seem to have overlooked.
They're picking on geeks with the desire to hack and make stuff work!
No, they're picking on geeks with a willingness to break NDAs, pirate pre-release operating systems, and not pay for anything.
Re:Unfortunately... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 their data, in a nice, comfy, well-lit space, surrounded by items for sale.
Word-of-mouth and the theoretical iPod "halo effect" sure help, too, but Apple's main drive at getting people to try Mac OS X is in the hands-on experience of their playground-like retail stores.
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 really don't see how one can come to this conclusion. We're talking about people that have already expressed that they 1) won't buy Apple hardware; 2) won't buy Apple software; 3) are willing to break the law in order to avoid paying for both. Basically, the people least likely to become customers.
Re:Intel Mac for under $200 (Score:1, Insightful)
And for just half the price of a Mac, you get :
*A crappy computer
*ugliest case ever made [buypcdirect.com]
*a pirated, incomplete, buggy, unsupported OS
*virtually no available software
*little chance that it will run a final version
*shit performance
Jesus Christ, people. I'm a poor college student and I'm not *that* cheap.
Re:embrace it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Followed up? (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, buy a Mac and get that chip off your shoulder.
Re:So it starts... (Score:1, Insightful)
Do not forget, that the most people DO NOT buy the software. Most companies DO NOT sell the software. If you "buy" Windows, or office, or Nero Burning ROM, you in fact just pay for a LICENCE to use said software on said number of computers in a manner alowed by the licence. Period.
I work as a software developer (among many other things). The company I work for sells the software. We usually sell it to the sole customer and our customer can do whatever he wants with the SW. The price is, however, very, very different from what you pay "for" Windows XP.
Re:So it starts... (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe there's a basic component of most contract law (at least in the US and most UK-based Commonwealth countries) that for it to be enforceable, both sides must receive something worthwhile. Ah, the legal term is consideration [wikipedia.org] (and there's a lot of interesting issues around it, that Wikipedia article is well worth reading).
How could anyone be held to terms for which they don't gain something worthwhile in return?
Re:So it starts... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they give it to you under the clear understanding that you only install it on their hardware and you BUY it and then do otherwise you're in breach of contract
So... If you saw popcorn for sale in a supermarket marked "only to be salted by expensive-brand-salt(tm)" and you buy it, what sort of offence are you commiting if you use generic cheap salt? It's the same thing, except for with software and technology all sanity and reason automaticly seems to go out the window. They are selling you a product. You are not agreeing to anything, especially no restrictions.
If they want you to have it only under certain condifiotns, then don't sell it in places and ways that makes them lose control. Make people who buy it sign a contract stating the terms of use, and no, a shrink-wrap licence is not a contract.
Ofcourse any sane software company realizes that this would be impossible while maintaing a decent amount of sales for their products.
If you want control then don't put it out in the public. If it's in the public, it's a product everyone can buy (no contract involved) and thus should abide ordinary rules regarding products and use. Which means that the producer gets to say jack shit about how people use their product. How hard is that to get?
Why does the fact that the product is software has anything to do with the restrictions applied to it, compared to any other product for sale? It's an artificial construct that it requires or deserves special treatment. The software itself is protected by copyright, and IMO that's all the protection it needs.
Re:embrace it! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So Apple ARE evil!! (Score:3, Insightful)
But heh, you wanna live your life judging people not as individuals, but because of the group they are born into, that's your thing. Perhaps when you start viewing people as individuals, you will be ready to join the "adults" group, one group that no one is born into.
But I digress...It is clear from your statements and your own admissions that you are ignorant when it comes to Apple as a corporation. Rather than flame you for it, I invite you to, at the risk of changing your mind, check out Apple's website and learn more about them as a company and the products they invent and sell. You will find that their website offers both non-technical and highly technical information. You may also better understand how Apple has reinvented itself from the company it was to a company admired, not admonished, by the likes of those technical males on Slashdot, and the women who blindly follow them.
Re:Damn it, Steve... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:embrace it! (Score:1, Insightful)
Ahh ok, thats why upgrades costs 150$ while something like windows you can just keep patching it for years to go. If i get this right, apple makes you fork out 150$/year basicly... if so well, that sounds like a software company with a subscription model
Re:It matters not (Score:2, Insightful)
First, I believe that open source software is going to become the standard throughout the world. An interesting thing about it is that is that mostly it is free. If Apple were to go to a pure software model as you suggest, how to you propose they make money by competing against "Free"? While I am not Microsoft supporter, I do understand their predicament. They are fighting the same thing. And because software is going the commodity route very quickly (witness the growth of Linux and BSD), I say that Apple going the pure software route is a sure path to oblivion.
And, why is selling hardware a losing battle? It is a product and they can make one of the best-if not the best-hardware products on the planet. Why cannot they continue doing this? Hardware is not going to become free (like software can) anytime soon. Not, that is, if you actually follow the laws and buy your hardware. However, if you support smashing store windows and grabbing your hardware in the real world as you do figuratively smashing windows and grabbing software for free (software you are supposed to pay for), then I can see why you might think that hardware sales will go away.
Sony and Microsoft have learned that software is profitable so long as people actually pay for it. Sony, also knows that controlling the entire experience is important to quality of the experience. That is why there are no licensed builders of the PlayStation - Sony builds them all. And why they aggressively go after anyone that provides software that allows playing of their profit maker (the software) on anything but their hardware. You may not be familiar with it, but Connectix, an emulation company, used to make a product that allowed the playing of PS/2 games on the Mac. It was extremely cool software. But Sony shut it down with legal action as soon as they possibly could. Sony knows that they can allow that to happen. You obviously don't get it though.
Re:MY Software, MY Choice (Score:3, Insightful)
At this point... WRONG!
The development version of OS X on x86 is Apple's property. That equipment is leased to developers. If you're hacking it you're nothing but a pirate at worst, and breaking your contract with Apple at best.
Re:Yes but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh sure. That's why most of the vehicles on the road are Kia Spectras. That's why not many people buy SUVs, whose capabilities they never or practically never need or use.
Re:Followed up? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:does anyone want this? (Score:1, Insightful)
There's a bit of a gulf between clicking "YES" on the "Would you buy OS X for generic PCs?" poll, and actually forking over the $300 or so Apple would have to charge to for it to make up for a lost hardware sale.
Nearly every Slashtard on here would click 'yes', but when boxes actually hit store shelves, they'd just bitch about the price (which they do NOW, when they don't even own Macs!) and fire up their BitTorrent clients to steal it.
Re:``poised to take on Microsoft'' (Score:1, Insightful)