Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
OS X Businesses Operating Systems Apple

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mac OS X on x86 Videos Get Apple's Attention

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:09PM (#13343542)

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

    It's also attached to a powerhouse legal department.

    Think Different !!!

  • Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)

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

    Ubiquitous piracy made Microsoft Windows big and Linux a contender. It's hard enough to get people to try another operating system when it's free.

    Not that I'm supporting piracy, because I'm not, but at this point you'd have to be a nut to grab something like this (not necessarily stable, anybody could have altered it) and install it on your system, with the risk of losing whatever else you've got on there. The kind of nut that could be an excellent customer down the road if Apple capitalized on this fanaticism and offered legit demos of the technology in lieu of the illegal downloads already out there.

    I suppose it wouldn't jive with their strategy of keeping their innovations under wraps until release, but as long as the toothpaste is out of the tube you get better results with the carrot than the stick.

  • Re:embrace it! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FLAGGR ( 800770 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:14PM (#13343570)
    Yeah, even though they make so much money of their hardware, I'm sure they'll realize how cool it is and embrace their os, most copies of which are stolen developer previews, running on hardware that they make nothing off of.
  • Re:Hrmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wankledot ( 712148 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:14PM (#13343571)

    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.

  • by wankledot ( 712148 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:16PM (#13343581)
    I'm sure it is. The only copy of OS X for x86 available right now is the one provided to developers with the x86 dev boxes. I'm almost certain that it's against the rules of the NDA to talk about it publicly like this.
  • by blibbler ( 15793 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:17PM (#13343586)
    When has Apple been frivolous with their IP? They have already sued people for distributing Tiger over BitTorrent, and that was for an OS that would only run on hardware that they had sold.
  • by joetheappleguy ( 865543 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:18PM (#13343596) Homepage
    I don't see how Apple can hold people legally accountable for something that they should have predicted.

    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)

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

    However, Apple is always most jealous of rumors of actual product intros. If they were planning to release OSX86 for generic PCs, they might very well go after these sites to manage the launch better with prelaunch secrecy. The intense interest in commodity OSX86 generated by these videos also serves to increase the demand, which therefore increases Apple's likelihood of releasing such an unbound OS.

    This move offers all kinds of reasons to believe that dualbooting Windows/Mac will be reality in the foreseeable future. That also means VMWare Mac/Windows/Linux instances, all onscreen at once, on some kind of 14THz P12.
  • Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jocknerd ( 29758 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:23PM (#13343629)
    I would still buy another Power Mac over anything put out by Dell. Just open the cases of each and tell me which one you'd rather have.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:27PM (#13343651)
    Ubiquitous piracy made Microsoft Windows big and Linux a contender.
    Maybe I'm not reading it correctly, but are you saying that "Ubiquitous piracy made Linux a contender?" How can one pirate a freely available, freely distributable OS?
  • by FLAGGR ( 800770 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:29PM (#13343661)
    Apple isn't trying to take over the x86 market with their switch. Apple sells hardware. OSX is the OS that happens to be made by them and bundled with said hardware. Although I'm sure Apple would like 90% market share, that's not what they are going for. Nothing has changed in Apple's market strategy. They're still going to be different from your run of the mill Dell pc's, it's still the old Apple, just with a different cpu. The CPU is one chip in the computer. They'll still make custom motherboards and everything. They will continue to be the underdog marketshare wise, and Steve Job's will still make a assload of money to buy fuel for his private jet, just like it is now with powerpc.

    Attributing Windows' success to piracy is a common but retarded argument. What else was there for x86 that was competition for Windows in terms of ease of use? Yes, I hate Windows, but MacOS never ran on the open hardware, only on apples. Windows simply suited the typical computer-idiot person, and with Microsofts marketing and shoddy buisness deals, it won out. If Windows success was because of piracy, then why are they so rich? Average Joe doesn't get a friend to burn him a copy of an OS, and then go gee whiz this is good, I'll buy the 300$ copy to support the cool guys that made this!
  • by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:30PM (#13343669) Homepage Journal
    ``It amazing in what regular intervals Apple comes up with reasons for me not to buy an iPod or a Mac.''

    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)

    by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:35PM (#13343702) Journal
    Welcome to x86 land. Please leave all expectations at the door.
  • Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by william_w_bush ( 817571 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:36PM (#13343716)
    Conversely, selling 20 million $200 operating systems every 2 years is better than selling 1 million $1000 computers, considering the margins leave about $250 profit.

    M$ learned this lesson a long time ago, only chumps sell hardware. The profit margin on a cdr and small pamphlet is much higher.
  • by soma_0806 ( 893202 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:37PM (#13343718)

    It's additionally fishy that they took their first action against a French site when so many American sites were doing the same thing. It's like they waited for the info to get out, wanted everyone talking about it, then made some sort of action against a foe far from the center of the limelight and in another country, which only steps up the difficulty in achieving success.

    It's pretty clear that Apple, usually quick draw McGraw with the legal complaints, sat on this one because they saw the benefit of these copies getting out and getting people talking and excited about OS X.

  • Re:Bug May be? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oberondarksoul ( 723118 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:44PM (#13343749) Homepage
    The difference here is that the Xbox was shipping hardware, whereas the PowerMacs the developer's build of OS X ships on is intended for developers only. Granted, neither company is going to be entirely happy that their hardware's been exploited, but then again, Apple only had their developers (which are going to be far, far fewer in number than the potential number of Xbox users who could crack that security) to worry about.
  • Re:Yes but... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:46PM (#13343758)

    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.

  • by panaceaa ( 205396 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @07:59PM (#13343822) Homepage Journal
    And after PC owners install it, they will conclude that OS X is stripped-down, unoptimized and poorly supported. That's exactly the opposite of the image Apple would like for OSX.
  • by diamondsw ( 685967 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:02PM (#13343841)
    Except a lot of people will be turned off by such a crippled OS. Look how well Windows XP Starter Edition (or whatever it was called) did. Apple wouldn't risk tarnishing their image in such a way.
  • Re:embrace it! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aristotle-dude ( 626586 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:11PM (#13343899)
    Well Apple is not a software company. They are a hardware company that also makes software.

    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.

  • by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:14PM (#13343914)
    So Apple doesn't want people running their OS. What a surprise. Attitudes like that probably explain their current market share.

    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.

  • by RatBastard ( 949 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:24PM (#13343988) Homepage
    Guess what? They don't care. And they don't want to sell you a lisence. They want to sell you a Macintosh computer. They are not intersted in supporting third-party PCs and never have been. Ever.
  • by RatBastard ( 949 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:30PM (#13344035) Homepage
    After years of living in large cities I can tell you a basic truth about a great number of people: people will put great effort in stealing what they wouldn't pay a dime for. I've had numerous posessions stolen that I could not have sold at any price, that I could not have given away. Hell, I used to get rid of my old crap by "accidently" leaving it unsecured in places where it looked like I might be back any second.

    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.

  • by GPS Pilot ( 3683 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:46PM (#13344120)
    Why not sell the full version for full price and don't do any tech support for the people installing it on their white box machines?

    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)

    by DECS ( 891519 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:47PM (#13344124) Homepage Journal
    You mean like BeOS? Amiga? Palm? Apple '94 licensing? Yeah the road to giving your OS away is paved with such stellar sucesses.
  • by AHumbleOpinion ( 546848 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:51PM (#13344140) Homepage
    Apple is going to have YEARS of this ahead of them.

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

    Intel CPUs, and even Intel PCI chipsets and embedded Video, do not make a system PC/AT compatible. Apple has lots of opportunity for customization and they certainly have the know how after decades of making their own motherboards.
  • by GPS Pilot ( 3683 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:52PM (#13344145)
    (Yes, I already posted this, but it really fits as a reply to your post.)

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

    Many advantages to this approach:

    - Simplifies things for PC users who want to try OS X (they don't have to hack the OS)
    - Greatly expands the 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.)
  • by aristotle-dude ( 626586 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @08:53PM (#13344150)
    Beer is not free in the real world. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

    Get real jobs and get the fuck out of your parents basement already.

    If you feel that "you" are entitled to be paid for the work that you do, you should feel obligated to pay for the work of others in kind if you make use of the products and services they provide.

    If you cannot work for free then you should not expect software, music or movies for free either or for companies to provide support for hardware they did not sell or licence.

    If you do not like the licence terms of a product, don't use it. You cannot use that as an excuse to pirate software.

    Remember, even open source software can have terms that you must agree to in order to use it.

  • Re:embrace it! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by humina ( 603463 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:02PM (#13344191)
    " Who do you think makes more money, Apple, or some random software company? Thats right."

    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 []. 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.

  • by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:05PM (#13344204)
    And of course OSx86 project didn't violate the contract since they didn't sign a contract. They're reporting on information given to them by the people who violated the contract.
  • Re:So it starts... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by KillShill ( 877105 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:06PM (#13344217)
    control = support.

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

    no software vendor has the moral (legal is up in the air somewhat...)right to tell customers who bought their software, how and where 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.
  • by aristotle-dude ( 626586 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:06PM (#13344219)
    Not this crap again? Revisionist history has a tendency to cloud the facts. Mac Clones were nowhere in the picture when Steve was fired by Scully. It was the incompetence of Scully and Spindler which almost ruined Apple. The clones were a money losing proposition because they did not expand the market, ate into Apple's sales and cost the company in additional support costs. Cancelling the clones was the only choice Steve could have made.

    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?

  • by khazad ( 900803 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:08PM (#13344231)
    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.

    There are several problems with this.

    • Apple doesn't want a user's first experience with OS X to be full of frustration, incompatibility, and clunky graphics. They want a curious PC user's first experience to be like an Apple store - slick, white, and accessible
    • What happens when an OEM, in order to save money, ships the stripped down OS X with their boxes? Customers will experience problems and call Apple, only to be told that their OS is unsupported. Apple's great consumer relations score [] will go down the tubes.
    • Even stuck with a dumbed-down version of OS X, it would be hard for a user to part with $130 just to get a smoother ride.
  • Re:Yes but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GlassHeart ( 579618 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:11PM (#13344245) Journal
    selling 20 million $200 operating systems every 2 years is better than selling 1 million $1000 computers

    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)

    by suitepotato ( 863945 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:13PM (#13344261)
    Talk about control, I see control freaks on the other side of this as well. If you want total control how about using Linux, which you can mod/change/hack to your heart's content. Or is it just more fun to try to do the "forbidden" thing?

    The control drives more people away than it attracts not because it is not "open" as in "open source" but because the anal-retentive arrogance level is off the scale and that drives away third-party hardware and software vendors thus lessening the end-user's range of things they can do.

    I have zero doubt that Windows, as great as it is relative to its competitors, would ever have done one percent as well as it did had Microsoft been so freakishly controlling as Apple was from the beginning of the Macintosh. Similarly, the PC platform would have been as widely adopted as it was had Compaq and company not done their number on IBM the way they did. The PC genie out of the bottle, Windows open to writing apps with a solid well-documented architecture to go by, it's not hard to see why it is where it is now.

    That same nature of things allows Linux, BSD, and a dozen other things to run on the PC, and as time goes by Windows-like architectural standards will eventually and inevitably coalesce despite the present "do it because it is hard and not correct or beautiful" mindset contaminating Linux.

    PC hardware was open long before "open source" in the most meaningful way of "open" and that is documented, easily understood, and sensible. A variety of vendors come and go in the direction of it and the end-user purchasing habits control what stays and what doesn't on it, not the vendors from above, and Apple needs to grow up and see that the only thing they can meaningfully controll is their software and that the best way to grow their market share is to co-opt the hardware that is majority dominated by Windows and Linux.

    I have no faith in them to do so however. They are still too much like IBM was with microchannel and OS/2. Still daydreaming about total end to end domination of one single overall platform. IBM has that with their AS/400 more or less but how many of these are getting sold every day at the local stores?

    Oh, that's right, none. Present popularity aside, the insane and insipid insistance on proprietary control isn't winning any love from the majority of Apple's user base. Continued religious worship of the Mac/Apple, solid positioning to compete as a Wintel alternative (as much as it is), and plain anti-MS sentiment are the bulk of Apple purchases. Apple should let it go and get on with being the only real competitor to Windows on the desktop.

    Linux zealots may not like it, and like it even less that the one to challenge Redmond was born of BSD roots, but do you childishly want the competition with Micrsoft to be your pet platform or do you just want to see the competition happen at all? If the latter, then support the guerilla porting of OSX to the PC. In sufficient numbers it might even sink in to the ever-dense and deluded Steve Jobs.

    Machiavellian tinfoil hat conspiracies that Jobs is intending for this aside, it has to happen. Linux isn't going to win that kind of sheer power any time soon. Apple could practically do it tomorrow. And that competition will only help Microsoft Windows users in the long run. We all benefit from that more than waiting for one distro or another to do more than cause a shurg from Redmond.
  • Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GlassHeart ( 579618 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:24PM (#13344309) Journal
    it should be much easier to convince people to put up $100 to try an alternate, superior OS

    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.

  • by KillShill ( 877105 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:29PM (#13344339)
    actually, GPL software give you MORE rights than you started with and GPL doesn't say anything in how you use software. you can install it on abacus or a wrist watch. the only thing GPL regulates is how software is distributed and it's more than fair.

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

    by rm999 ( 775449 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:31PM (#13344348)
    This is exactly the same argument that I make against Apple worshippers. I don't mean people who worship their products (they do build very good stuff), I mean people who worship the company, often blindly. What these people don't realize, I think, is the draconian control Apple seeks over its customers. Apple doesn't want people taking apart iPods, adding features to it, or using OS X on their own computers.

    Imagine what life would be like if Apple had a monopoly on computers. It would be a lot like their 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)

    by UniverseIsADoughnut ( 170909 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:35PM (#13344368)
    Wow, you are so out of it.

    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.
  • by KillShill ( 877105 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:37PM (#13344384)
    you didn't address the core issue. that being what rights a company has in preventing a lawfully bought copy of software from being installed on the choice of computer the customer wants.

    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.

  • by ndansmith ( 582590 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:37PM (#13344386)
    Wow, did you read the article summary, the linked articles, or my post? The point of this article is that Apple is suing a news agency for documenting the OSx86 phenomenon. They provided information on how to install Mac OS X on a normal PC and they provided video to demonstrate that it can be done. Apple is not going after MacBidouille because they illegally distributed the Developer Kit DVD; they didn't. Apple is going after them for reporting the information.

    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.

  • by dustmite ( 667870 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:38PM (#13344388)

    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?

  • by toddestan ( 632714 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @09:42PM (#13344411)
    They are not intersted in supporting third-party PCs and never have been. Ever.

    Ever? Seems like you forgot about the clones era.
  • Burn, karma, burn (Score:5, Insightful)

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

    - People with the Intel transition kits are under NDA

    - The VAST majority of people installing Tiger on off-the-shelf Intel hardware are doing it using pirated copies

    - Installing OS X on said Intel hardware is against the clickwrap license

    - Instructing people how to obtain said pirated goods and then specifically do something that's against both NDA and license agreements is quite far over the top.

    There's a lot of sites out there that are posting Torrent links and how-to videos that are basically forcing Apple's hand in this matter.

    What the hell do you expect Apple to do? Not defend their IP when sites get that far out of line? The way the legal system works, Apple *has* to respond, even if they don't want to.

    Anyone who doesn't think that the Intel compiles of OS X over the last 5 years hasn't been running on off-the-shelf boxes in Cupertino is seriously naïve. Of course Apple knew it was possible to do this.
  • by ubiquitin ( 28396 ) * on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:10PM (#13344558) Homepage Journal
    Not sure if anyone noticed, but in a completely legal way to discuss and develop for x86 stuff, check out the Darwinports [] list of x86-related ports.
  • by One Childish N00b ( 780549 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:12PM (#13344569) Homepage
    Because if Joe Blow goes round to his cousin John Doe's house to watch a game, and is looking to buy a new computer, is Joe going to be more or less interested in Apple if John tells him OS X has been nothing but trouble on his white-box x86.

    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?
  • by GaryPatterson ( 852699 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:39PM (#13344695)
    Interesting question, but you're asking it far too early.

    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.
  • by Skuld-Chan ( 302449 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:41PM (#13344708)
    This is such a stupid argument to me. One of the wealthiest companies on earth (Microsoft) didn't get rich selling hardware. You can say there different markets - but that doesn't matter - fact is Apple's biggest competitor is Microsoft and they don't make hardware at all.

    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.
  • by michaeldot ( 751590 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @10:46PM (#13344743)

    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.

  • by bfree ( 113420 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @11:21PM (#13344927)
    It may run the leaked developer edition but you cannot assume it will run anything else like an official OSX for Intel release.
  • by justins ( 80659 ) on Wednesday August 17, 2005 @11:26PM (#13344947) Homepage Journal
    Buy an Intel Dell PC ($999.00 from Dell)

    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)

    by aristotle-dude ( 626586 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @12:01AM (#13345077)
    What are Logic, Final Cut, Motion, Shake, etc?

    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.

  • by dr.badass ( 25287 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @01:35AM (#13345468) Homepage
    I've always seen Apple as company selling pretty things to women who want to send email.

    And you've always been shallow and ignorant in making that assessment. They [] make [] some [] other [] stuff [] 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.
  • by dr.badass ( 25287 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @02:16AM (#13345593) Homepage
    This is the kind of thing, ironically, that will hurt Apple's adoption on the x86.

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

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

    I think Apple's strategy might involve the 100+ retail stores [] 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18, 2005 @02:28AM (#13345632)
    OSx86 Project's CEpeep researched building a x86 machine that will run Mac OS X for Intel for under $200.

    And for just half the price of a Mac, you get :
    *A crappy computer
    *ugliest case ever made []
    *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)

    by Goth Biker Babe ( 311502 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @02:39AM (#13345665) Homepage Journal
    It's not the absolute wealth. It's never the absolute wealth. Neither is it the sales. It's the money made from the money used. I.e. the margins and the rate of return. Which would you prefer investing $1 million and getting $1000 back or investing $100,000 and getting $200 back? In that respect Apple's getting it absolutely right. Being a relatively low volume premium product manufacturer. It's simple economics.
  • Re:Followed up? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18, 2005 @06:10AM (#13346132)
    Proving both to them and everyone on Slashdot that you're either too poor or mean to just BUY the OS that you so desperately want.

    Seriously, buy a Mac and get that chip off your shoulder.
  • Re:So it starts... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18, 2005 @06:57AM (#13346213)
    no software vendor has the moral (legal is up in the air somewhat...)right to tell customers who bought their software

    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)

    by Pete ( 2228 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @07:41AM (#13346299)
    You're getting a little confused between contracts and licenses here. But even if a shrinkwrap EULA was accepted in all courts as having the legal weight of a contract (and it isn't), there would still be a question as to whether it was reasonable.

    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 [] (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)

    by trezor ( 555230 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @08:07AM (#13346360) Homepage

    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)

    by Goth Biker Babe ( 311502 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @08:28AM (#13346479) Homepage Journal
    There's a balance between the extra sales you gain from selling to non Apple hardware users and the support nightmare of having hardware specifications you don't control. The advantage that Apple has with OS-X only running on their hardware is that they know their hardware intimately. They have a reputation and having people complain because OS-X doesn't run on their particular brand of motherboard etc will not help it one iota. Have you seen the number of drivers there are on a windows install disk?
  • by amichalo ( 132545 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @08:50AM (#13346584)
    This definition [] ought to get you started on the right track to better understanding yourself. It nearly quotes your "Women are, in general, ..." statement.

    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.

  • by ph4te ( 901242 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @08:54AM (#13346605)
    Because that would involve paying $1800 for a PC that will undoubtedly be slower than my current one, and judging from the current DRM-mania would be unupgradable for the most part. As for eBay. No. I'd rather pay $120 for an OS and run it on my current computers than pay $500 for a 5 year old slow-as-a-dead-dog laptop that still costs that much because it has a fancy neon blue Apple on it.
  • Re:embrace it! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18, 2005 @08:55AM (#13346609)
    OSX is priced simply to keep things moving and selling hardware.

    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)

    by jscotta44 ( 881299 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:10AM (#13346673)
    Let me get this right - you are supporting the theft of software and then claiming that is where Apple's revenue will come from - and you are calling me "cartooney"?

    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.
  • by Mistah Blue ( 519779 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @09:17AM (#13346714)

    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)

    by fnj ( 64210 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @10:16AM (#13347234)
    In the end, most people go shopping based on the sticker price.

    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)

    by GrassMunk ( 677765 ) on Thursday August 18, 2005 @10:30AM (#13347360)
    More likely the mac fan boys will be al upset and use heavy CAPS and act like elitist jerks. Its just a stupid operating system. Whats the big deal. So you over paid for a stylized toaster that runs a nice *BSD derivative. I didnt, i put OSX on a free computer that i got from work. Its just cool to be able to do that. Now calm down and relax with the caps. It just makes you LOOK LIKE A CHILD who is having a hissie fit.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 18, 2005 @06:45PM (#13351579)
    Any online poll would be a waste of time.

    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 19, 2005 @01:09PM (#13356273)
    Database? Filemaker. Apple owns it, and it consistently beats Access in the view of PC Magazine and others.

How come financial advisors never seem to be as wealthy as they claim they'll make you?