Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Feb 2007 17:46 UTC, submitted by MacosXrumors
Mac OS X "Parallels recently made a definitive statement saying that the company won't be making it easy for users to run OS X in a virtual environment anytime soon. The reasoning behind this was because they don't want to put their users at risk of breaking the OS X EULA - unlike Windows Vista, there is no version of OS X that can be run under a virtual machine - and more importantly, they don't want to strain their (currently good) relationship with Apple. As a followup to that statement from Parallels, I was able to also get in touch with Srinivas Krishnamurti, VMWare's Director of Product Management and Market Development in order to get VMWare's official position on the matter. "Apple does not currently allow running Mac OS X in a virtual machine," he said. "Apple is an important partner and VMware respects Apple's intellectual property."
Thread beginning with comment 213179
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tshehan
Member since:
2006-12-08

Oh please, it is their product, which they produce to run on their hardware. When you purchased the hardware the software was included as part of the purchase price, not offered al a carte. Your sense of entitlement is misplaced.

Reply Parent Score: 2

chas_martel Member since:
2006-12-04

entitlement has nothing to do with this conversation.

Man, I did not realized how many Mac fanboys
visited this site.

Oh, and I am typing this on a MacBookPro (Intel).
But I am not a mac bigot. We all realize that
OS X is Apple property to do with as they see fit
nobody is arguing that point. It is just like
the people that own songs. What I am talking
about is 1) Apple being hypocritical and 2)
my desire to use Linux as the host in a virtualizing
environment. I wonder if those that favor apple
in this discussion feel about MS not wanting Windows
to be a virtualized OS. Recall, they favor
Windows being the host.

Reply Parent Score: 5

thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

Chas, you do make a good point, it's not a scenario I'd considered, but for some makes perfect sense.

However, in Apples case (not being a fanboy, just know a little (stress "little" of the history here), Apple need to sell h/w.

Ever since day one for them they have been a h/w company that just happens to make good software too. If Apple were to "allow" //'s and VM to run OS X, then so many people out there would continue to use their current PC and put OS X on that. Apple may sell the OS, but not the h/w. OK, if those PC users were never going to buy a Mac, then no harm done.

Who knows, maybe this would work, maybe if you run OS X virualised you'd realise what you were missing and go buy a real one. But maybe not. Apple has been hurt by opening up the OS once before, so will tread carefully here.

This means that you (for the short/medium term at least) won't be able to run OS X by Apples terms under Linux (or Windows).

However, maybe osx86 is an answer for you, you already have an OS X licence, and from what I understand, you can get OS X to run under VM (not sure about //'s). I understand why you could have a problem with this too (as I would), but it's just a though.

Personally, I do think Apple want to allow this eventually, but they need to control it (as any company should I guess)... Remember, Linux and MS aren't concerned about selling boxes, only the OS. I don't think you won't see MS opening up the XBox anytime soon.

Reply Parent Score: 1

subterrific Member since:
2005-07-10

You have been trained by companies to believe they have the right to tell you what to do with the products you buy from them. We are the ones buying their products, giving them money to stay in business. Companies exist to serve our demands and when they stop doing that, other come along to replace them. We have the right to do whatever we want to with the product after we've purchased it. EULA are BS. Loyalty to companies is BS.

Reply Parent Score: 5

cwdrake Member since:
2005-08-09

You are completely wrong in two of your statements...

1) "Companies exist to server our demands..." - NO THEY DON'T! Companies exist soley to serve the interests of those who OWN the company. If I start a business, the NUMBER ONE priority is to make me money. Now, if I want to maximize the potential of my business making me money, I better make my customers happy, but I have absolutely no obligation to anybody but the owners. This is the most basic principle of business.

2) "We have the right to do whatever we want with the product after we've purchased it." - The problem here is that with software and music, you do not own the product you purchase. You only pay for the right to USE that product and you must do so in accordance with the license you have been given for that use.

Reply Parent Score: 1

shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Oh please, it is their product, which they produce to run on their hardware. When you purchased the hardware the software was included as part of the purchase price, not offered al a carte. Your sense of entitlement is misplaced.
No, when you offer a service or product to the public then you have a responsibility (often enforced by law) to treat your customers fairly.

Reply Parent Score: 1

jimveta Member since:
2006-09-21

Oh please, it is their product, which they produce to run on their hardware. When you purchased the hardware the software was included as part of the purchase price, not offered al a carte. Your sense of entitlement is misplaced.

No, it's not even a "sense" of entitlement--it should be our right to do so. How would you like it if you bought a set of wheels and the manufacturer made it "illegal" to mount those wheels on various cars?

Reply Parent Score: 3