Linked by David Adams on Wed 30th Nov 2011 20:23 UTC
Editorial A reader asks: "Can someone comment on the legality of using my brother's old Snow Leopard DVD to install OS X? My brother has Lion, so why can't he choose to give it to me? It doesn't violate Apple's 1 license per 1 computer policy."
Thread beginning with comment 498529
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The bottom line
by cmost on Thu 1st Dec 2011 01:24 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Regardless of the "gray areas" the bottom line is this: if you're not installing OS-X on a Macintosh computer than Apple isn't going to be happy about it, they're not going to support you and they'll do everything in their power to stop you. Period.

Reply Score: 1

RE: The bottom line
by LobalSurgery on Thu 1st Dec 2011 02:46 in reply to "The bottom line"
LobalSurgery Member since:
2006-09-07

Regardless of the "gray areas" the bottom line is this: if you're not installing OS-X on a Macintosh computer than Apple isn't going to be happy about it, they're not going to support you and they'll do everything in their power to stop you. Period.


I agree with your first two points, but as a Hackintosh user for the last 18 months, I would describe Apple's prevention activities towards the community as downright lackluster. Indifferent, even. I upgraded to 10.7 through the app store with a paid download. Using available tutorials/tools, I was surprised how painless it was (I installed 10.6 with a legitimately purchased install DVD). 10.6.X and 10.7.X upgrades are not exactly foolproof, but when something does go wrong, fixes usually involve an extension rollback. Point being, it could be a lot more difficult than it is.

I'm not sure why Apple hasn't taken a more active role against using OS X on non-compliant hardware, but the fact is that it does not require activation or verification (at least not at this time). Of course, such measures certainly do not prevent Windows 7 from being pirated. Perhaps Apple figures that there will always be those individuals who will find a way but that they are an acceptably small minority of users. Running a Hackintosh isn't exactly rocket science, but it's not stupid simple either; maybe this is enough of a roadblock to most people.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: The bottom line
by bert64 on Thu 1st Dec 2011 15:35 in reply to "RE: The bottom line"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

I get the impression that Apple don't especially care unless you are producing hackintosh clones and selling them commercially...

They don't really go out of their way to make OSX not work on non apple hardware, they just don't include drivers for anything other than the hardware they provide, and they require an EFI firmware (which isnt an apple only thing, other manufacturers are just much slower to move forward).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: The bottom line
by zima on Wed 7th Dec 2011 22:59 in reply to "RE: The bottom line"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Running a Hackintosh isn't exactly rocket science, but it's not stupid simple either; maybe this is enough of a roadblock to most people.

Or at least, enough of a roadblock for what Apple targets as Mac users? ;p (come on, you set such opportunity up :p )

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: The bottom line
by MOS6510 on Thu 1st Dec 2011 06:03 in reply to "The bottom line"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Apple has a lot of power, but I doubt you can find any examples where Apple wielded this power to go after Hackintosh owners. Did they even go after iOS jailbreakers?

PCs running OS X don't get intentionally disabled, sites offering how to make your own Hackintosh don't get letters from Apple, the LA police doesn't raid your house.

They're even pretty cool with their OS media. No install keys, no limit to the machines you can install it on and upgrade version are really full versions.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: The bottom line
by zima on Wed 7th Dec 2011 22:14 in reply to "RE: The bottom line"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, Apple clearly expressed a desire for jailbreaking to be an offence prosecutable under DMCA (a quick bunch of links as always on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking#United_States_legal_i... ) - now, why would they desire that, hm?...
(also Apple claimed, and court in Psystar case affirmed, that OSX has intentional technical measures to prevent hackintosh practices)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: The bottom line
by steve_s on Thu 1st Dec 2011 11:37 in reply to "The bottom line"
steve_s Member since:
2006-01-16

I really don't think that Apple give a crap what hardware you, as an individual, run Mac OS X on.

The only scenario where they do care is if somebody tries to commercially resell computers running Mac OS X.

Apple puts restrictions on their license to say "only run this on genuine Apple hardware" because they don't want to open themselves to having to offer support to people attempting to run OS X on non-Apple hardware.

Yes, there are technical hurdles to installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. That's down to the fact that Apple doesn't need to support anything besides the hardware they have manufactured. That's not malice, just practical reality - they're not going to spend thousands of engineering hours to support hardware they've never shipped.

Apple has never bothered to put any kind of technological restrictions on the installation of Mac OS X. There has never been any copy protection or license codes. They are completely aware that Mac owners regularly and routinely "pirate" major updates of OS X. The only thing they have done to tackle this issue is to radically reduce the price of their OS upgrades.

History has clearly shown that Apple will do nothing at all to try to stop individuals from installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: The bottom line
by Morgan on Thu 1st Dec 2011 12:19 in reply to "RE: The bottom line"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Well said. My take on it is similar: Apple doesn't necessarily like that you put OS X on your generic PC, but they're not going to waste time and money trying to stop you. It's been my experience that Hackintoshers generally tend to already own at least one Mac, and even if they don't, they might eventually get frustrated with the whole process and buy the real thing.

Apple has mostly been a hardware vendor, writing great software in order to sell their hardware for profit. They also make lots of money from iTunes, which just so happens to run on their "competitor's" OS, and probably makes them more money than iTunes users on their own OS.

It's the Psystars of the world they want to quash, as they cut into one of Apple's real money makers: Hardware sales. Why buy a $3000 Mac Pro when you can get more or less equivalent performance for $1000 and still run OS X? That scares them, and they take action at that point. Again though, they never went after the Psystar customers, just the company itself.

Edited 2011-12-01 12:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: The bottom line
by zima on Wed 7th Dec 2011 21:50 in reply to "RE: The bottom line"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple has never bothered to put any kind of technological restrictions on the installation of Mac OS X. There has never been any copy protection

At least early machines, and OSX of their times, relied on TPM; IIRC.
And anyway, we have Apple themselves claiming there's a technological protection, falling under DMCA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar_Corporation#Legal_issues even affirmed by court) - will you argue with them?

Reply Parent Score: 2