Apple has seeded build 8B1027 to Apple Developer Platform owners. This build brings Transition Kit systems up to version 10.4.2, and in-sync with the current released version of Mac OS X for ‘ordinary’ Macs. This build includes new tactics to prevent piracy of Mac OS X.
The new version will be cracked and seeded on popular torrent sites within a similar time-frame. This isn’t even security through obscurity, this is security through blatant denial. I’m not a proponent of OS X x86 piracy, but jeez, they could at least SLIGHTLY try.
As long as the Apple hardware tax/premium over white boxes is worth the extra goodies of just everything working, then the pirating won’t be a big deal, that means $500 miniMac will be okay for me.
But doesn’t MOL side step already?
in plain english please ?
are they releasing test versions for developers to get an idea about programming for os x on intel ?
are they releasing point versions that will not have any backwards compatability ?
was it just my browser or was there loads and loads of that article missing ?
The Best way to promote the Authentic Intel MAC is for Apple to start to build and sell them.
And in about 2 days their new ‘tactics’ will have been broken by pirates, Apple will then seed a new build with new protections in place, and those will be cracked as well. Repeat ad infinitum.
Are the protections implemented on individual software? Then the OS is not really locked but the apps would need to see a few things in place in order to function. I’m sure Apple’s using these developer machines just to see what’s a gonna happen…
Jb
why does apple not simply allow OSX to run on any hardware? As far as i know their main revenue doesn’t come from the hardware anyway. They could just sell MacOSX for intel. If they don’t want to support all sorts of different hardware they could just say “you can buy and install our operating system on any hardware, however if you install it on non apple hardware you are on your own and we will not support it.”
>”why does apple not simply allow OSX to run on any hardware?”
Because then they lose the sale of hardware.
>”As far as i know their main revenue doesn’t come from the hardware anyway.”
Actually, thats wrong. Most of theire revenue does in fact come from hardware sales.
>>
Actually, thats wrong. Most of theire revenue does in fact come from hardware sales.<<
I thought in terms of hardware their main revenue is the ipod – not the PCs or Laptops, but i might be wrong
>I thought in terms of hardware their main revenue is the ipod – not the
>PCs or Laptops, but i might be wrong.
Its divided in half now. Apple doesn’t sell as many Macs as they do iPods, but the margins are higher on their computers than on iPods.
Apple has always been a hardware company, the only reason they deal with software is to promote the sale of their hardware.
I am not sure about the revenue generated by apple computers vs Ipods. Ipods are hardware anyway.
My guess would be because the common user wouldn’t know what’s going on. You’d have people selling computers with OSX on them, but with unsupported hardware. It would be flakey, and then all you’d hear is “Macs suck, my new AMD Mac from X-company does work.” Then when someone calls in for tech support, and Apple tells them to bugger off, or offers to sell them more expensive hardware you’ll hear even more complaining and bad PR.
I would imagine it would be something like the Windows bluescreen, mostly caused by bad 3rd party drivers, but blamed on windows itself all the time.
Well I doubt that is Apple’s reason not to sell it that way, but I does seem like a problem either way. It doesn’t “Just work” if it doesn’t work properly.
I understand that this could be a bi problem – the drivers and consequently bad press. But surely there would be a way to overcome this. I mean Linux now works with most common hardware, also as i said Apple could just make it very clear that they will not support any non apple hardware, people would then naturally either stick with apple hardware or the more adventures ones, who like tinkering etc. would use it on other hardware … and those people i guess would hardly complain. It just seems unnecessary to go to such lengths to tie the OS to their hardware, especially as someone will crack it anyway.
Well, you said it yourself:
MOST hardware now works with Linux
That’s the whole point Your Mac runs smoothly because Apple knows exactly what hardware is in it. As soon as the user starts having to regularly juggle with drivers and such-like just to get the thing to work, the whole experience goes out of the window
Yes and that was my point. I don’t understand the huge effort that is put into it to lock the OS down. The normal user would probalby stick with apple hardware anyway. But then there are others who like to experiment, there could be a whole community that would start coding for MacOSX drivers on other hardware, just like is happening with Linux and those people would either a) informa themselves what already works and doesn’t or b) not bother. If i buy new hardware i inform myself at the moment whether it plays nicely with Linux (as i am using linux), why would that be such a big problem for apple?
I think the reason he/she brought up in the first reply; that the regular user wouldn’t understand what is going on, is still valid. A vendor could build cheap general PC-boxes and get MacOS X/x86 running “pretty good” on them. The regular users would buy them, run into trouble, and blame Apple. Or something like that.
Don’t forget that Apple already has tried allowing other hardware manufacturers to sell computers running Mac OS. It didn’t turn out to be a good idea.
You could argue that the situation has changed alot since then and that simply allowing people to run a copy of OS X on commodity hardware is different than having other companies build Macintosh clones. This might be so, but the fact that Apple has bad experience with Mac OS running on hardware other than their own remains true.
“…It would be flakey, and then all you’d hear is “Macs suck, my new AMD Mac from X-company does work…”
Wasn’t it the same on Windows? And I tell you what: WinXX owns the desktop, some people even say they have a monopoly.
It’s IMHO the best Apple can do: Licence it to Dell, IBM, HP, <put in your favourite PC seller>. Accept illegal copies, let the people play around with a cracked OSX. Try to increase the market share to 10 or 15%.
Then commercial software devs will release OSX versions, open source devs port software (if not already done), OSX gains public interest. There are millions of people who want to switch but don’t dare to try out Linux. Give them an alternative and MS will be history
It could be so easy IMHO…
because steve jobs is a control freak. apple wants to sell an experience, not hardware. they want to sell an experience, not software.
Which I can’t entirely fault them for.
But I do fault them for their heavy handed tactics.
Just ask any mac owner who owns a G4 which won’t boot OS9. At least they had some sort of an excuse with the G5 machines, they could’ve hid-behind/claimed that “OS9 won’t work on 64bit processors” but with machines which are still g4 class it’s plain simple heavy handed BS.
Apple has been doing this kind for years. This is just the latest example.(and most obvious example)
If apple had MS’s marketshare computers would not be as prevalent as they are now.
Nobody likes a bully. And that’s what apple is. And it’s that simple. Just ask any owner of a G4 what won’t boot OS9.
If it was really my computer, I’d be allowed. But a mac is more like a “permanent loan”.
just because the processor is the same doesn’t mean non of the other internals didn’t change..
they offered dual g4’s that booted into 9 for a while, but 9 lacked proper support for dual processors not to mention any of the other niceties os x offers..
wanting to boot into os 9 with a new dual g4 is just silly, and if it were absolutely necessary there were otherresellers to buy your macs which could boot into 9
“Nobody likes a bully. And that’s what apple is. And it’s that simple. Just ask any owner of a G4 what won’t boot OS9.”
Hi, I’m an owner of a G4 that won’t boot OS9, and I’m glad. Anyone who wants to run that old-fashioned pile of crap can find an old-fashioned computer to do it on.
There’s no way I would have ever bought a Mac just to run that pile of platinum coated turds.
simple. that will basicly get them into a head to head battle with microsoft. and what will happen from that? no more ms office for mac
no need have priates torpedo the apple, they just pulled the plug themselfs.
and dont say that it may not happen based on the loss of income for microsoft. they can take that loss and it will be hardly noticed as the real strength of the office suit comes when its tied into a exchange server over a active directory enviroment.
“why does apple not simply allow OSX to run on any hardware?”
** Apple makes most money from hardware.
** People would try to install Mac oS X on their cheapo trasho PC and then complain incessantly about the “bad” Mac OS X if it doesn’t work. Apple can’t support every piece of PC hardware right out of the box, and it will take years before drivers trickle in.
** Moreover, this is not about freedom or about Steve jobs being a control freak. This is about people who want a free lunch at Apple expense. Get a life.
simple. that will basicly get them into a head to head battle with microsoft. and what will happen from that? no more ms office for mac
But it looks to me that Apple is starting to develop there “out” plan for MS office anyway.
I think it’s because Apple doesn’t want to compete head to head with Microsoft right now. MS is huge, and although Apple is very profitable right now because of their iPod sales and their increase in the sales of their computers, MS could still play dirty and cause direct harm if Apple were to become a direct competitor by selling OS X on commodity PC hardware from Dell, HP, etc.
I think this is the logical first step to do this though. Once they have OS X running well, with most of the developers up to speed with the new hardware, they may begin selling OS X for other select hardware.
People claim that the Apple hardware is more expensive. They fail to realize that Apple is offsetting the cost of the OS development (which I heard is in excess of $40 million per version, though I could be wrong, I just remember reading that somewhere) with the price that you pay for a Mac. If Apple were to move towards software, they would have to raise their prices for the OS (instead of $129) to continue to get the same margins. They’ll want to continue to get those margins though, they need them to remain profitable without having the massive volume that Dell and the other system makers have.
-pojo
The hackers will eventually fail. One of the primary reasons Apple moved to Intel was that they would get the bulletproof DRM hardware that Intel can’t get any of the PC manufacturers to agree to use. And Intel finally gets a customer who wants a locked down PC.
The theory that the hackers are somehow smarter than the people building the software and hardware itself is just plain stupid. I have yet to meet a hacker who knows anything most programmers don’t. The fact that the ‘hacked’ build of OSX still won’t run on 99% of the PC hardware out there speaks volumes about the relative skill of the quality of the hacker community.
Viruses exist for Windows because Windows has design flaws that have never been fixed. It has relatively little to do with the skill of the virus authors, and this is just an extension of that proof.
The theory that the hackers are somehow smarter than the people building the software and hardware itself is just plain stupid. I have yet to meet a hacker who knows anything most programmers don’t. The fact that the ‘hacked’ build of OSX still won’t run on 99% of the PC hardware out there speaks volumes about the relative skill of the quality of the hacker community.
Every security can be cracked. There is are no such thing as bulletproof security measures, no such thing as bulletproof software.
And of course the hacked build of OS X for Intel doesn’t run yet on standard boxes– it’s only been available for a few months– you can’t expect much to happen in a few months with a build that no self-respecting programmer will touch.
You have to realize that Apple’s open-source Darwin base is going to bite Apple in the ass. Everyone in the world can program drivers for OS X, because of Darwin being open-source. In fact, Darwin x86 already has quite a fe drivers– they will be easily adapted and used to make OS X for Intel bootable on as much hardware as possible.
I would find that a shame. However, Apple has called that upon itself the day it switched from IBM to Intel.
of course you know this, but running darwin on generic x86 and running os x itself are worlds apart..
now i’m not saying apple’s going to be able to prevent this, but getting open source drivers on darwin and enjoying final cut pro on your amd is a whole different ballgame..
in the end, apple need’s to only secure the GUI… that is what really makes it a mac after all..
as far all security being crackable, this may be true, but you dont have to make something crackproof, you just have to make it that much of a a pain in the ass, or the risk not outweighing the reward..
though, i fail to see how apple will be able to do it.
The hackers will eventually fail. One of the primary reasons Apple moved to Intel was that they would get the bulletproof DRM hardware that Intel can’t get any of the PC manufacturers to agree to use. And Intel finally gets a customer who wants a locked down PC.
LOL thats the best joke I’ve heard all week! hackers fail at breaking ‘secure’ hardware/software ? History tells a completely different story.
The theory that the hackers are somehow smarter than the people building the software and hardware itself is just plain stupid.
Do hackers exploit code in ways the original designers never concieved? Yep – that must mean they are surely a knuckleheaded bunch!
Have hackers broken security measures that were advertised as ‘bulletproof’ in the past ? Surely.
I have yet to meet a hacker who knows anything most programmers don’t.
Thats because most hackers are programmers, as if that is not obvious.
The fact that the ‘hacked’ build of OSX still won’t run on 99% of the PC hardware out there speaks volumes about the relative skill of the quality of the hacker community.
I think you are confusing hacking/cracking with device driver development.
The hackers will eventually fail. One of the primary reasons Apple moved to Intel was that they would get the bulletproof DRM hardware that Intel can’t get any of the PC manufacturers to agree to use. And Intel finally gets a customer who wants a locked down PC.
You mean the hackers that beeped out the iPod firmware through the piezo speaker? Or the guys that hacked the XBox with its hardware encryption, public keys, etc., both through hardware AND through software? Those hackers?
And those are both “closed” machines. What horrors will they be able to create on a machine where they have R/W access to pretty much the entire thing and a nifty shell and suite of tools to boot?
Make no mistake, it WILL get hacked, but it won’t get used. The headaches alone won’t make a dent, and that’s all Apple needs to do. Just make it aggravating and frustrating enough to make buying their machine simply that much easier to do.
The fact that the ‘hacked’ build of OSX still won’t run on 99% of the PC hardware out there speaks volumes about the relative skill of the quality of the hacker community.
Uh, no, it speaks to the hardware support in the x86 dev version of OS X.
A couple apparent laws of recent computing come to mind…
1. pirates will pirate. Sooner or later, they’re going to crack it.
2. The more desirable the product, the sooner #1 will come to pass.
2+2=?
Releasing an x86 capable macOS X… and trying to protect it from piracy?… That’s even more of a fool’s game than trying to protect windows. Microsoft has been playing this game and losing at it for years; and that’s with a product that many people hate. Sounds about as worthwhile as the security system in an ’05 Escalade parked amid a lineup of stolen ’85 Celebrity’s. Might as well wear a bullseye.
There is something both satisfying and depressing about watching a company like apple take its first step into the same vicious spiral that has engulfed microsoft’s entire business.
A couple apparent laws of recent computing come to mind…
1. pirates will pirate. Sooner or later, they’re going to crack it.
2. The more desirable the product, the sooner #1 will come to pass.
These aren’t new laws. Simplified, they have always been;
1. Lack of physical security means lack of assurance of any security.
2. A thousand eyes makes light work of hard problems.
This is not to say that installing OSX x32/x64 on non-Apple kit is a legitimate use of the software. It does mean that Apple shouldn’t be surprised when it happens.
Ideally, Apple should;
* Make it moderately annoying for normal users to install on non-Apple hardware; remind the honest to be honest.
* Make the restrictions modest so that the annoyance does not cause Apple’s customers to be burdened by the restriction; don’t piss off your customers.
* Do not try and prevent everyone from using OSX x32/x64; restrictions won’t work and they tend to cause problems for legitimate customers at some point.
who says microsoft is losing?
did they make it difficult enough for the common person to not bother? yes they did.
actually they knew they couldnt eliminate piracy, they never intended that to begin with.
Apple is doing a good thing with their continued countermeasures. If anyone can break these cracker fools backz it will be the Apple.
Apple hasn’t sprung OS product activation on you yet. That will be fun. In all seriousness, Apple’s OS will continue to be broken and will be a huge inconvenience for the casual PC user looking to use MacOSX and will be unacceptable for anyone doing professional work on an X86 Mac.
Apple should focus on their real problems instead of estranging users with DRM/TPM crap. Apple is loosing users by the thousands to Linux right now. If Apple doesn’t soon offer a whole lot more for the money they charge they are going to be nothing but a iPod manufacturer pretty soon.
Er yeah, that’s right. Apple are loosing thousands of users to Linux all the time, yet have the second fastest growing market-share in the US computer market. Definitely
Er yeah, that’s right. Apple are loosing thousands of users to Linux all the time, yet have the second fastest growing market-share in the US computer market. Definitely
You’re forgetting something…Market Share doesn’t count free downloads. Anyone running Debian, Ubuntu, a downloaded version of SUSE, etc are not counted. Also, if you buy a copy of SUSE, you can install it on as many computers as you want. In other words, no one will ever know who has more market share. Anyone claiming otherwise is just guessing.
you can buy a copy of os x and install it on as many computers as you want as well.. you’ren ot supposed to, but there is nothing built into the OS preventing it.
as for no one ever knowing who has more market share, thats just silly.. you may not ever be able to get a 100% accurate census, but to think you can never really know who has the most is silly..
we all know who has the most right now, and no one in their right mind would argue otherwise
The guy was correct. but he was also incorrect.
He was incorrect, in that, you can tell how much market share linux has by the amount of sales each distro has, and total them up.
however
He was correct by saying that we will never know how many free downloads/ dual boot/ multiple installs of linux are in use. This is the user base. We can never know the size of the userbase, and this is the important one.
There have been attempts to count linux users, but they all amounted to nothing.
Apple is not loosing users because of linux. They have completely different target users.
I sure hope not, “loosing” (sic) someone sounds pretty drastic!
No-one seems to have bothered considering what may really be happening here.
These are DEVELOPER TRANSITION boxes. Apple has no reason (and nobody has a right to expect it of them) to maintain backwards compatability with previous developer builds. The reason this software no longer works may well be simply due to updates Apple has made in order to improve the whole system. This transition requires some pretty powerful stuff software-wise and I’m sure Apple want to fine tune it as much as possible in the run up to the first Intel Macs.
You know, in the sea of bullshit that surrounds this here place; you provide the small bit of sanity that makes me come back to osnews.com – thank god we have people like you to calmly explain things vs the rampant anti-Apple anti-anything-that-can’t-be-put-together-with-parts-optained-from-the- local-computer-shop geeks.
Oh, and just in a nutshell to any nuts out there; Apple OWN the hardware, they OWN the software – if they don’t want you to run their software on unauthorised hardware, then tough titty; don’t like those rules, then don’t buy the bloody software! IIRC Steve doesn’t appear in peoples houses and place a gun to the back of peoples heads saying, “YOU MUST BUY AN APPLE MAC!!!!!”
Kaiwai,
Re: Oh, and just in a nutshell to any nuts out there; Apple OWN the hardware, they OWN the software – if they don’t want you to run their software on unauthorised hardware, then tough titty; don’t like those rules, then don’t buy the bloody software! IIRC Steve doesn’t appear in peoples houses and place a gun to the back of peoples heads saying, “YOU MUST BUY AN APPLE MAC!!!!!”
Except Apple is basically telling consumers if they want OSX then they’ll have to buy systems only from Apple to run the OS and other Apple related software. Sorry but that’s complete B.S. It’s also a perfect example of vendor lock-in and being a monopoly as they lock the consumer to Apple and ignore fair competition.
Oh and by the way Apple didn’t design the hardware so they don’t own it. They are just having the system built which are easily available through other distributors except in this case they lock each installation of OSX to each computer sold by Apple.
It’s beyond me why the DOJ will target Microsoft for such monopolistic tactics but not Apple, at least not yet. Hopefully with enough consumer feedback things will change, especially when more consumers realize that Apple is selling software on the same hardware offered by competitors but also with the EULA telling them that they can only run OSX on hardware sold by Apple, not the competitors.
Quite simply apple does not have a monopoly. You can be as much a bully as you want in a market, but until you CONTROL the market you are nota monopoly. Even being a monopoly is not illegal, just the illegal leverage of one. There is nothing inheritantly wrong with being a monopoly. It just means you are popular enough through one means or another to have a vast majority of the market share. It is not until you start using this monopoly to take control of other fields and forcing people out that it becomes illega. All quite simple.
Except Apple is basically telling consumers if they want OSX then they’ll have to buy systems only from Apple to run the OS and other Apple related software. Sorry but that’s complete B.S. It’s also a perfect example of vendor lock-in and being a monopoly as they lock the consumer to Apple and ignore fair competition.
Then don’t bloody buy it! again, where is Steve demanding, with a gun to your head, that you *MUST* purchase an Apple Mac loaded with MacOS X? last time I remember, Apple is a business just like anyother; they’ve made the decision to restrict their software to the hardware they sell – no different to SGI only offering IRIX on their MIPS hardware or IBM only offering AIX on their POWER based servers.
Oh and by the way Apple didn’t design the hardware so they don’t own it. They are just having the system built which are easily available through other distributors except in this case they lock each installation of OSX to each computer sold by Apple.
True, they don’t own the hardware; when you purchase their hardware, you now own it; you can, if you want, uninstall it, and put Linux, FreeBSD or Windows on it, if you so wish – even Apple has said that they wouldn’t stand in your way, if you so choose to go down that route.
It’s beyond me why the DOJ will target Microsoft for such monopolistic tactics but not Apple, at least not yet. Hopefully with enough consumer feedback things will change, especially when more consumers realize that Apple is selling software on the same hardware offered by competitors but also with the EULA telling them that they can only run OSX on hardware sold by Apple, not the competitors.
Using that logic, why don’t the DOJ come out and punish PalmSource for not making their PalmOS freely available so that I can install their PalmOS onto my iPaq? why not attack Microsoft for not allowing me to purchase a copy of Windows so I can install it onto my palm device?
Please, cut the crap; there is no monopoly, just as there is no anti-competitive steps by Microsoft. Microsoft was created by consumers like YOU choosing to run a PC, preloaded with Windows – YOU made that chose, your predecessors CHOSE to support the PC over other alternatives like Atari, Amiga and Apple – you’ve now shat in your bed, put up with the stink.
Oh, and sunshine, Microsoft has the SAME OEM restrictive licencing as Apple; once you have installed the OEM version on the machine, that OEM EULA is stuck to the machine – you have NO rights to transfer the licence, you CANNOT resell the licence and you CAN’T install it onto another PC (aka, transferring the licence).
>Please, cut the crap; there is no monopoly, just as there is no anti-
>competitive steps by Microsoft. Microsoft was created by consumers like
> YOU choosing to run a PC, preloaded with Windows – YOU made that
>chose, your predecessors CHOSE to support the PC over other
> alternatives like Atari, Amiga and Apple – you’ve now shat in your bed,
> put up with the stink.
Oh year, there have never been anti-competitive steps by Microsoft. When Japanese PC manufacturers wanted to sell computers preloaded with both Windows and BeOS, Microsoft threatened to increase the price of Windows for these companies and demanded that they should not preinstall the BeOS (only enclose the CD-ROM) and not promote the BeOS in any way. Of course that wasn’t anti-competitive. That’s why Microsoft agreed to pay Be shareholders $27 million after Microsoft was sued. (Be had just sold all of its assets for $11 million at the time, so $27 million was a lot of money.)
> Oh, and sunshine, Microsoft has the SAME OEM restrictive licencing
> as Apple; once you have installed the OEM version on the machine,
> that OEM EULA is stuck to the machine – you have NO rights to
> transfer the licence, you CANNOT resell the licence and you CAN’T
> install it onto another PC (aka, transferring the licence).
At least here in Germany, all these restrictions have been declared invalid by the courts.
Oh year, there have never been anti-competitive steps by Microsoft. When Japanese PC manufacturers wanted to sell computers preloaded with both Windows and BeOS, Microsoft threatened to increase the price of Windows for these companies and demanded that they should not preinstall the BeOS (only enclose the CD-ROM) and not promote the BeOS in any way. Of course that wasn’t anti-competitive. That’s why Microsoft agreed to pay Be shareholders $27 million after Microsoft was sued. (Be had just sold all of its assets for $11 million at the time, so $27 million was a lot of money.)
Those inticements are no more illegal than what alcohol companies offer me at my place of employment; paying extra for a display out the front of the shop; giving extra stock free of charge – its all about wheeling and dealing.
Want to get a bigger deal from Microsoft, you have to make a bigger sacrifice – the deaper the deal, the bigger the restrictions; no different to how AMD, Intel, IBM or any other company operates.
Those inticements are no more illegal than what alcohol companies offer me at my place of employment; paying extra for a display out the front of the shop; giving extra stock free of charge – its all about wheeling and dealing.
Want to get a bigger deal from Microsoft, you have to make a bigger sacrifice – the deaper the deal, the bigger the restrictions; no different to how AMD, Intel, IBM or any other company operates.
Sorry, but that’s ridiculous. No alcohol company has a monopoly. Microsoft had a monopoly. The Japanese manufacturers which had planned to offer a dual-boot Windows/BeOS configuration HAD TO offer Windows, so they were susceptible to blackmail.
And by the way, Microsoft stands convicted as a predatory monopoly in clear violation of the law (even in the US, where a monopoly as such is not automatically illegal), so please stop ignoring that.
Interesting that your story has now changed; it has changed from “if they offer an alternative, they’ll lose their sweet deal’ and now its ‘will lose their licence altogether’ – which one is it? how about choosing a story and sticking consistently with it right through out it.
Oh, and btw, the score system is used for marking down comments that are flame bait – not simply there for the likes of YOU to cowadly hide behind ‘anonymous’ and mark down valid posts that you might disagree with.
Me, I’ve still got 25 points, I’ve used 1 point so far since this system started up – sorry, I mark down ones that are *really* bad, not those whom I simply disagree with.
Except Apple is basically telling consumers if they want OSX then they’ll have to buy systems only from Apple to run the OS and other Apple related software.
And how exactly is this a new thing? This has been the case the whole time, yet people didn’t complain heavily about this situation until Apple switched from a less commonly used CPU architecture to the one with the largest market share. Why should it matter which kind of CPU Apple put in their boxes anyway?
(If the fat binary strategy works well enough, they could even switch between processor families for individual hardware releases – to get the most bang of the buck at any given time)
In the last sentence, it should of course read the most bang for the buck. (pretty please add edit feature
This has been the case the whole time, yet people didn’t complain heavily about this situation until Apple switched from a less commonly used CPU architecture to the one with the largest market share. Why should it matter which kind of CPU Apple put in their boxes anyway?
I think it was a lot easier for people to accept when the answer to “why can’t I run OS X on generic x86 hardware” was: “Because OS X is written for a different processor architecture.”
Now that the answer is “because Because Apple has gone out of its way to articificially limit what hardware OS X can run on,” people are more inclined to see that as a challenge.
thank god we have people like you to calmly explain things vs the rampant anti-Apple anti-anything-that-can’t-be-put-together-with-parts-optained-from-the- local-computer-shop geeks.
And thank god we have people with a low enough level of self-awareness that they’ll post laughable passive-agressive jabs at those they disagree with.
Apple OWN the hardware
Not once you’ve purchased it, they don’t – and no amount of UPPERCASE letters will make it so. I could buy a G5, mod its water cooling system, and call it my “iBidet” and still be perfectly well within my legal rights. Of course, I’d probably get lots of death threats from the same raving Maclots who collectively freaked out over the page detailing a guy putting x86 guts in a G5 case.
StephenBeDoper,
Re: In reply to Kaiwai: “Apple OWN the hardware”
Not once you’ve purchased it, they don’t – and no amount of UPPERCASE letters will make it so. I could buy a G5, mod its water cooling system, and call it my “iBidet” and still be perfectly well within my legal rights. Of course, I’d probably get lots of death threats from the same raving Maclots who collectively freaked out over the page detailing a guy putting x86 guts in a G5 case.
This is the point I’ve been trying to get across to people such as Kaiwai. Apple is so preoccupied as the article suggests to try and stop people from installing OSX on computers in their LAN not purchased from Apple. As a consumer you should have the right to install the OS on hardware of your choosing and if the developer (in this case Apple) doesn’t want to support it I’m sure others will. When someone purchases Windows or a Linux distribution, for example SUSE Linux or Red Hat Linux they can install the OS on hardware of their choosing, not be told by Microsoft, Novell or Red Hat that they have to buy systems from them and screw over fair competition with hardware manufacturers and distributors. For some reason there are some Apple fans that seem to lose sight of the big picture by closing their eyes to how Apple views consumers. My buddy who’s an Apple customer was one of the Apple group hoping Apple would change their ways and finally offer to allowing OSX to be installed on all x86 hardware, even if not sold by Apple. This issue is part of the reason why he is now considering either moving to Linux or Windows so he has more options and not being limited due to vendor lock-in tactics.
Oh and just to clarify I’m a Linux user not a Windows user so I wasn’t defending Microsoft but just using them as an example in my previous post.
Not once you’ve purchased it, they don’t – and no amount of UPPERCASE letters will make it so. I could buy a G5, mod its water cooling system, and call it my “iBidet” and still be perfectly well within my legal rights. Of course, I’d probably get lots of death threats from the same raving Maclots who collectively freaked out over the page detailing a guy putting x86 guts in a G5 case.
Nice to see you’ve made zero attempts to actually follow the thread where by I clarified what I said in response to the first person who responded to me; but hey; why go to all that work when you can belly ache and re-flog the dead horse that has already been given an autopsy.
Apple’s computer hardware sales used to account for %70 of their profit but as of late computer hardware sales only account for %40 of the companies profit. Currently computer hardware (ie desktops and laptops) account %40, iPod devision is %29 and the reset is all software.
So as I see it, it would be allot more profitable for Apple to go heads up with M$ and become a software/costumer electronics company.
For the most part Apple has already created a semi-subscription setup with their OS updates being on an 18 month schedule. They would bring in allot more money into the company if they focus on software sales to the general pop and had the computer hardware side be more like Alineware or a customer electronics company (ie iPods and set top boxes).
>”So as I see it, it would be allot more profitable for Apple to go heads up with M$ and become a software/costumer electronics company.”
And lose 40% of their hardware profits? Why would they do that?
I think they’re making the right move by (eventually) offering a PC that can run Windows like any other PC… but also run OS X. In effect, Apple will be offering all the advantages of Windows PCs without losing any of the advantages of owning a Mac.
“In effect, Apple will be offering all the advantages of Windows PCs without losing any of the advantages of owning a Mac.”
All the advantages except one: price. It will be twice as expensive….
yea software sales where MSFT has exactly 2 profitable products that brin g in 70% of their profit margins. Windows, and Office.
Apple would only have the OS so it would lose that war in a hurry.
Second Apple make s the whole product. Once you start selling cheap dells and e-machine with OS X you run into massive hardware problems because Dell is going to cut corners and not use hardware that is rated at the full spec. Why is it Apple, and premium hardware computers keep their value longer than Dells?
Because the supply is relatively small, the depreciation in performance versus newer Macs is tightly controlled by the only supplier, and Dell has a vast number of competitors. There’s also a nontrivial psychological component of the Mac to the people willing to pay for a used one. If there were a larger supply, or value were assigned uniformly across computing devices based upon performance characteristics, then they wouldn’t maintain their resale value. You can look on ebay at other niche hardware from SGI, Sun, and DEC. Compared to a contemporary computer, many models will have performance that isn’t worth paying anything for. If you look at a real-world compute-equivalent x86 computer, it will have a vastly lower value (presuming you can actually find one for sale). Is there a magical quality in these computers that warrants their higher value? No.
Why is it Apple, and premium hardware computers keep their value longer than Dells?
Cause apple users have been duped into believing that the 20 GB hardrive in an old mac is somehow of superior enough quality that it’s worth having over a newer 250 Seagate SATA etc etc on and on….
When all of you people talk about hardware…wth are you people talking about? You do know it’s 2005, correct? I doubt most people here worrying about hardware and “full specs” even know what kind of optical drive, vid card, gigabit ethernet chipset, is even in a mac until they get it home and click on “about this system”…if they even do that.
What’s so difficult about this? You’ve got ATI and Nvidia. Optical drives…Really a problem? Do mac users even know the difference between an NEC, a LITE-ON, and a Sony? Hard drives? Yeah, real compatibility problems there…Samsung, Hitachi, Seagate…omg that’s TOO many!!! How do I know which is superior if Apple doesn’t decide FOR me!!!??
The only “hardware” to fear consists of printers and cameras…and pssst, those don’t count cuz they’re not inside. I’ll admit that those can be bitches, tho…the rest is cake. You macubators have had it so easy for so long that you’ve gone soft…you do know how simple it is to pop hardware in and out of a MB, right? It’s only getting MORE modular if anything…not less.
“Once you start selling cheap dells and e-machine with OS X you run into massive hardware problems because Dell is going to cut corners and not use hardware that is rated at the full spec.”
No, they will be using, like Apple, Asus main boards, seagate drives. samsung memory…. The cases may be a bit different, but that’s all.
No, they will be using, like Apple, Asus main boards, seagate drives. samsung memory…. The cases may be a bit different, but that’s all.
You are assuming that Apple will not design the motherboard and will use off the shell boards. Wrong. Apple loves to show of thier engineering by letting you open the case up and look ala powermac g5. NO PC on the planet has a board or chasis design like it abolutely no wires or cables visible at all.
Asus might manufacture the boards for them they may well use standrand parts, it would be foolish not to. BUt they will probably design the boards tem selves to new formfactors most of thier competitors can’t match. That is what differntiates them now that is what will tomorrow. Creative doesn’t or hasn’t released any thing that looks or is in size to the ipod nano they also have access to all the hardware apple has. Why Not?
Apple’s computer hardware sales used to account for %70 of their profit but as of late computer hardware sales only account for %40 of the companies profit. Currently computer hardware (ie desktops and laptops) account %40, iPod devision is %29 and the reset is all software.
So as I see it, it would be allot more profitable for Apple to go heads up with M$ and become a software/costumer electronics company.
Idon’t know if you read percentages correctly. Let’s apple sells hardware and software 70 % of the profit is hardware and the reast software and services.
Now Apples also sells music player a very profitable business and due to volume. Thier revenues grow because of the musicplayer business and now they have 3 revenue generating units instead of 2.
Let’s do some math (hypothetical numbers):
%40 hardware
%29 ipod + itms
%20 software
%11 Accessories (Mice, keyboards and such) and Service (Applecare)
Anyway you look at it Apple still makes most of thier revenue with hardware (Macs). Theier other business may have grown and thier overall revenues have grown with them. But it would be foolish to give up thier largest chunk of revenue and focus on one of thier smallest chunks.
Apple will need to lock one or more functions of their OS to a chip, probably a G4 PPC based, in order to successfully lock their OS to their machines.
Trying to lock Mac OS X to x86 generic based chips isn’t going to work.
Perhaps they know that already, this developer tease box is to try to find the leaks, prove Trusted Computing s*cks and give hackers a free taste of the candy. Why use and waste PPC G4 chips so early in the game and give up the element of surprise?
Imagine a Mac OS X box that can run most Windows and Linux software in addition to it’s own. Or easily triple boot?
Awesome.
I see this as some kind of marketing/PR strategy.
What did Apple win:
– free advertisment on internet – who would be interested in just “next beta”?
– hackers interest to crack another protection – Apple “develops” MacTels hackers
– some experience with different protection schemes
What did Apple lost:
– [already cracked] old protection schema – actually no loss at all
– some users of hacked MacTel – those wouldn’t buy Mac/OSX anyway.
… ’cause everyone knows that pirates have a patch over one eye ;-P
Got a source where you’re getting those percentages from? Or are you just inventing them on the spot?
I Pirate is not someone who uses a differnt computer than the one intended!
Um, yes it does.
All you need to do is download and patch the iso.
http://osx86project.org/
The fact remains ofcourse that most programs for osx are opensource so even if the developer releases an universal binary that doesn’t run on a hackintosh anymore, there nothing stopping the community from recompiling it again to run with osx 10.4.1
Also rosetta offers the hackintosh user a method to run newer universal binary’s through emulation. It’s not a nice method ofcourse, but it is possible and probably will still be possible in the future.
Open Source software such as….
Adobe Acrobat
MS Office
Real Player
Adobe Photoshop
Virtual PC
etc etc.
Also, hackintosh……how very mature….
I agree that those aren’t open source at all, so you are definitely making a clear point.
However… Adobe Acrobat?
Why?
Doesn’t “Preview” and “print to pdf” work great?
Adobe Acrobat : runs with rosetta
MS Office : runs with rosetta
Real Player: rosetta
Photoshop : rosetta
I’m talking about opensource programs like:
VLC Mediaplayer, Tomato Torrent, Shiira, Darwinports collection, Open Office,Gimp, Adium etc. There are many cool opensource programs to get your task complete. Heck, it can even run Windows programs via Darwine.
Ohh yes, hackintosh, Mac OSX 10.4.1 on an Apple Intel Developer Transition System Clone, is that more mature for you..geez
ok so now they’ve expanded the definition of piracy to include using an OS on a platform it’s not intended to be used on by the software vendor?
Down with stupid EULA’s whatever I buy with my money is mine – period. This stupid “rental”-like agreement for purchase price tactic that EULA’s take is getting old.
ok so now they’ve expanded the definition of piracy to include using an OS on a platform it’s not intended to be used on by the software vendor?
Down with stupid EULA’s whatever I buy with my money is mine – period. This stupid “rental”-like agreement for purchase price tactic that EULA’s take is getting old.
One problem with your statement though. People use the word buy when it isn’t appropriate. When someone says they are going to “buy” Windows, they are not actually buying Windows. They are paying for a copyright license to use the software. You own the disc that the software came on and the pretty box, nothing more. It is up to the copyright holder to dictate how the software is used.
“You own the disc that the software came on and the pretty box, nothing more. It is up to the copyright holder to dictate how the software is used.”
This is simply wrong as a matter of law. The law on copyright is not this. The law on copyright forbids unauthorised copying. It does not dictate what machine you can install the software on. People really need to understand this. You have actually bought one copy of the software. You really have. Just like you have bought one copy of a book, or a CD. Just like copyright law cannot stop you running Office under Wine.
There may be other aspects of the Eula to restrain your behaviour, but copyright does not, in this respect.
One thing that people are forgetting is that when the first Macintel gets released to the public, it *will not* be running on current-generation intel processors. No P4’s, no Pm’s. The next set of intel chips are going to offer much better TPM and DRM-on-chip to lock down the OS.
The current builds are running on a stock P4, which is like locking your paper house with a big ol chunky lock. Apple would not released OSX86 with that little protection, that’s for sure.
Lol, Apple can throw in whatever hardware checks they want. But you have to remember that the weak point is the software. What is to stop people finding ways to edit the OS X ISO and remove whatever checks Apple puts in place?
Exactly the same tactic was used to crack Microsoft’s XP OS, where no matter how many checks MS threw at it, the security mesures they implimented had usually been overcome in hours.
This is the reality of X86 – some of you guys (possibly those comming from the Apple side of the fence) may be new to it – but that is the way it has been for as long as I can remember in computers – which is something like 12 or 15 years. What makes you think Apple will be able to change the world overnight?
GJ
Because Apple has changed the world overnight – it’s called the iPod. What’s to say they can’t do it again?
Dude are you insane? How can you call releasing a mp3 player changing the world overnight? All they did was release a crappy player that doesn’t even offer any extra features and is basically a fashion accesory.
Get your priorities right, there are more important things in the world than some shitty player.
This is what consumerism does to people….
So… which piece of Apple marketing did you take that word-for-word from?
“Better to be a pirate than to join the navy.”
More like these are new tactics to prevent compatibility.
This is the same as DRM. They say its all about piracy, but they really want you to buy their hardware. Its vendor lockin.
I know that software could run just fine on my hardware. But Apple obviously doesn’t want to sell it to me.
Guess I just saved $120/year almost 50% off the cost of my next upgrade.
The last couple of decades are littered with the corpses of operating systems that took on Microsoft, and OSX would be the next in line if they tried to take on MS on their own turf. Technical superiority and ease-of-use don’t often compete well against manufacturer/develoepr lockin and monopolistic practices. Apple will still face the same challenges they face now convincing software developers and manufacturers to invest in their platform. One cannot assume that OSX marketshare will hit double digits upon it’s release, and it would take something of that magnitude for the third-party market to embrace it. That is one reason that I cannot see OSX being released as a standalone OS. Marrying the OS to the platform gives the manufacturer far more control over the user experience, even if to the detriment of the user’s flexibility.
The second is that it would greatly depreciate Apple’s intrinsic brand value. Let’s face it, Apple could build an abacus, maybe something stylish with lots of chrome and some black and white enamel, sell it for $5000 and some people would line up outside their stores to buy it, gushing with phrases like “groundbreaking” and “innovative”. Sure, some people on this board would laugh if it ever happened, but you can bet your bottom dollar that others (like kellym, maybe) would jump in and point out that the $5000 Apple iAbacus isn’t more expensive than competitive abacus offerings, it’s just that Apple doesn’t let you buy a lesser abacus like other companies might.
See, brand value is something companies work very hard to build and earn and it can almost define the market value of their organization. A loyal customer base isn’t as prone to cost comparisons or critical analysis. Apple charges a premium for their hardware because people have become accustomed to a positive experience with Apple and are willing to pay more because they perceive better value than, say, Dell can offer because of that positive experience. It’s not something you can put a clear number on or cleanly measure, it’s an intangible asset. And it’s a completely legitimate business strategy, one that smart companies jump through hoops developing.
If Dell can sell OSX PC’s for $999 that seem to work just as well as a $1599 Apple MaC, even if it’s a little slower or a little less pretty, then OSX users might start questioning the value equation and next thing you know, Apple is facing market competition on hardware for their own OS. Their own brand name will have become devalued by other companies.
And if Apple gets out of hardware platforms altogether and sticks to OSX and iPods, well, their investors will likely punish them and they will slowly fade into oblivion. OSX alone isn’t strong enough to gamble the company on and iPods will face more and more competition in the industry. It would be a fragile strategy at best.
At the end of the day and hysteria aside, who really cares if Apple locks the OS to the platform? People survived with OSX on PPC, and while I’m not Apple’s biggest fan I can certainly understand the valid and intelligent business reasons for wanting to do so. More importantly, 99% of the users out there simply won’t care. The 1% that do care will either find a way to work around it or may choose to boycott the platform, I’d be willing to bet that for those few either way, Apple likely won’t care themselves.
“Sure, some people on this board would laugh if it ever happened, but you can bet your bottom dollar that others (like kellym, maybe) would jump in and point out that the $5000 Apple iAbacus isn’t more expensive than competitive abacus offerings”
You gotta love these guys you try at every corner to give the illusion that Apple gear is somehow more expensive than comparably equipped competitors or is somehow not worth what is charged… even if it means equating leading-end design and usability to a centuries old counting devices to sell the point. You guys amaze me.
Truly pathetic.
“Because Apple has changed the world overnight – it’s called the iPod. What’s to say they can’t do it again?”
I own an Ipod my friend – but it’s anything but revolutionary. That is just taking thing too far. It’s a nice design – but that’s it. It’s not even like it’s very innovative. Indeed if recent news is to believed it was Creative who got there first.
But anyway, the Ipod doesn’t have much to do with piracy (except that Itunes ‘uncrackable’ DRM has been cracked too). Pircacy has been around in X86 world since long before the Ipod – and during it’s rise – and it will still be here long after the Ipod has been forgotten too.
The problem you see is with that word ‘uncrackable’. Big companies often tout their security as uncrackable – but that is nothing more than a red rag to a bull to an awful lot of very clever people out there.
The lesson of computers is that anything done by a man can be undone by a man too – so you can be as sure as the grass is green and the sky is blue that the moment Apple claim their OS is uncrackable – that this will inspire a huge competition to prove them wrong.
As for making it hard to install – well crackers tend to have a habit of making things easier to install too – and of removing restrictions.
You cannot protect the information that is contained on a CD or a DVD – and while that is true, there will always be piracy.
GJ
>”I own an Ipod my friend – but it’s anything but revolutionary. That is just taking thing too far. It’s a nice design – but that’s it.”
Oh, you’re one of these that thinks that the iPod is popular solely because of the marketing behind it.
No I said it was a nice design – but saying it is a revolution is just stupid.
If listening to music on th move is a revolution, then it was Sony who stated it with the Walkman nearly 25 years ago.
But in what way listening to music on the move ever really fundamentally changed the world I fail to see.
It could be argued that the car changed the world – but a music player? C’mon, talk sense man – you really are just being silly.
GJ
Oh, you’re one of these that thinks that the iPod is popular solely because of the marketing behind it.
The marketing is indeed quite important. There actually isn’t anything really revolutionary behind the iPod; the 1st gen models for instance had huge battery problems, making them simply bad pieces of hardware.
There were harddisk mp3 players before the iPod. We had a Creative one here years ago, before the iPod even came out. It sported a inerface very similar to the iPod’s, did everything an iPod could do.
And that marketing is important can be seen in the fact that the iPod isn’t even close to being as popular here as it is in the US. Why? Well, no marketing campaign here. Nog big events. No radio commercials. No TV commercials. No printed ones.
From my entire circle of friends and family, I know only one who has an iPod (the Mini). For the rest, we have Phillips, Creative, and especialy a lot of them no-name souped-up USB-keys. The iPod is *far* from the 80% market share here.
The fact that the iPod is popular in the US does not mean it is just as popular everywhere else.
Ah yes, the Creative Nomad Jukebox… with dual headphones, for either two people to listen to, or quadrophonic sound. 20 gigabytes, and only the size of a CD player.
I debated getting one. (this was back when I had a 10 gig hard drive)
Are your friends a reflection of Apple’s marketshare??? GEEZzz, that would be simple Apple would only have to give your friends Apple stuff and they would have 100% marketshare in The Netherlands!!!
You must have been living in a cave??? No print + ad campaigns??? Ever been in Amsterdam??? Ever read a magazine??? Printed banners the size of buildings where hanging there. Step in a local store DIXONS or whatever, 4 Creative players a gazillion iPod’s + accesoiries! Indeed it’s not 85% like in the USA but 72% marketshare is a lot higher then the measly 4% Creative has! Oh, and Philips they SUCK BIG TIME software/hardware wise!!! Nice design, bad products!!! But, hey they are masters at marketing 😉 NOT
That’s not what he implied at all. The iPod was about as revolutionary as Honey Bunches of Oats. Sure, they’re both wonderful, and my favorite product in their respective categories, but neither are revolutionary. The Diamond Rio was revolutionary. The iPod is just a very well-executed and polished product.
Free beta testing, that’s all this is when it comes to the pirated copies. Let it “leak” and everyone will do their best to get it to run on X system. Next thing you know, OSX will be supported on most hardware sans Apple’s expense of testing it themselves.. The market drools at the prospect of having OSX on any white-box inplace of Windows. If Stevie J knows whats good for him, after they build up enough info to support the customer support, the Pir8 flag will once again wave over Cupertino as OSX is set free.
I just quickly ran through the posts for this article and the level of ignorance demonstrated by some posters boggles my mind:
1. Apple WILL lock down their hardware. The code is there, it has been reviewed by others. Anyone thinking otherwise has their head buried in the sand. If you find it hard to believe Steve would do this to you, you should be publically flogged for idiocy.
2. It would be beyound stupid for them NOT to do so. Apple is not and does not want to be a software company in a commodity market dominated by MS. Sure at some point they may license OSX to other PC manufacturers, but what they will NOT let happen is a repeat of the failed experiment in clones. They want the same level of control of their platform they enjoyed with PPC, and TPM will allow them that. Apple is all about margins, and people buying OSX for their Dell boxes is lost sales. Wont happen, forget about it.
3. Yes, ipods represent most of Apples revenue. Do you honestly believe they like it that way? The whole argument that Apples wouldnt be concerned about losing hardware sales because their hardware sales are not that significant is just dumb dumb DUMB. They are not switching horses just for the hell of it, the whole POINT is to sell MORE HARDWARE! The fact that ipods took off for them is just a stroke of luck, it isnt a reason to abondon their primary market…
4. TPM will NOT get cracked. That is a pipe dream. The initial dev build was badly broken and only partially implemented security-wise, so it is little surprise it was cracked easily. All the devs builds are is an opportunity to have the code leaked (which is inevitable) and let people beat on it until it gets cracked or they break their teeth on it. The cracks get reviewed, the problems get corrected, and out comes another dev build. Rinse and repeat as necessary.
The only weak point of TPM is on the software side of the implemtation. If they do it properly it is unhackable, and even if hacked the nature of TPM makes the hack generally machine specific.
Ask DirecTV, it took them nearly 10 years to get it right, but there current system has remained unhacked for a few years now. But regardless of the fact that they spent the first 6 or 7 years getting hacked all to hell, no one EVER defeated the actually security measures. All hacks were exploits of backdoors in early cards or through timing attacks using voltage variation. Those kind of attacks are SIGNIFICANTLY more difficult (I would say impossible) for TPM.
Think about this:
1. DirecTV’s signal can be logged by anyone, in other words the encrypted data is easily seen and logged.
2. They Decryption device is a smartcard with a serial interface. All decryption is done by the card.
3. All traffic between the card and the reciever can be easily seen and logged.
4. And finally, without the benefit of a backdoor or glitching the chip itself, no one has EVER managed to break their security.
TPM modules cant be glitched. They dont have backdoors. They dont have nice convenient serial interfaces, and you dont get to look at Terrabytes of data to look for weaknesses. They were designed with years of aquired knowledge in security. Read up on it. This is not an Xbox. It WONT be hackable.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! sUCkeRS
Reading through these comments, it seems people miss the main issue for Apple.
We know that the current model requires them to restrict the hardware X runs on. This is not just because they need the hardware margins. It is also because they have higher hardware margins than any other PC vendor.
We also know that Apple hardware is no different from anyone elses hardware. Asus makes the main boards. Samsung makes the memory. The same disk drives are used. The same CD/DVD writers. The same psus. We know that Apple does not buy these components in greater quantities than anyone else. Therefore their costs cannot be lower.
It follows that, if the margins are higher, and the products the same, and the costs of purchasing the components the same, the prices must be higher. So the business model is that they will sell the same hardware as everyone else, but at higher prices. The buying motive will be partly brand, partly to run X.
The question is: is this a sustainable, or the best, business strategy? This issue has nothing to do with piracy, controlling the user experience or any of that stuff. It is just to do with the behaviour of the market and the likely outcomes from the strategy. My own feeling would be no, its not the best, nor is it sustainable. Why?
Because the gap between Apple’s OS and other competitors is decreasing. In the days of Windows 3 it was huge. With 9x it was smaller. With 2000 and XP they fell behind. Now with X they are at rough parity. This is not about what we think or like. This is about the vote of the market.
The outcome is, that the strategy only works with committed Apple buyers. You can only get a hardware premium if you are selling an OS that the market perceives as different and better, and the only people who really believe this now are the committed. Now, is a business strategy of selling to the committed at higher prices sustainable? Probably for a limited period only. There is nothing certain about this, but until this year, it was a recipe for declining market share over 10 years. Right now there is a security issue, but that is going away with SP2. Over time, there will be people who will leave Apple. At the end of this road, you end up like Louis Vuitton or B&O. That is, a product which is functionally no better than any other, but twice as expensive. I greatly doubt that this is a viable market posture in PCs.
If you think this, the question is, why doesn’t Cupertino see it? The answer here might be to do with corporate cultures. It always seems safest to carry on with your present business model. The inertia is huge. And you can see the power of it in the ‘think different’ ad campaigns. The failure of the latest one was deeply interesting in this respect – what was interesting was they didn’t se how it would look to the outside world in advance. They and their users are in an odd little world of their own, and if you like, the water temperature is slowly rising, but its hard for them to see it. And they have a mercurial and charismatic and dogmatic leader. Makes it even harder.
The most likely outcome? They will not be able to restrict the OS by Eula or by Copyright law. They will lock it down technically. Their share will fluctuate, but in five years it will be below 2%. They will drift into irrelevance, having missed the big chance. Some of us will regret it.
What we will mainly regret is not what the committed will regret – the failure of Apple, which is of no great moment to us one way or the other. What we will regret is that Apple did not take the chance to become an effective competitor at more than a niche level, which is what the industry needs.
I agree that the 2 reasons for buying a mac will continue to be brand and OSX. But I disagree with your comment that WinXP is on par with OSX. Looking at security alone, although I am not saying that OSX is more secure (that is another kettle of fish) you will find that you have 99% less security and virus problems with a Mac. I have used both and recently installed WinXP without the Firewall installed and it took all of 15 minuites when connected to the internet to get a virus. On my mac I do not use any virus protection or a firewall and have never had a virus! I would say the *only* reason for buying a mac is for OSX and as part of the development is funded by hardware sales I think the model will work for longer than many think.
I fully agree that XP is not even close to OSX. I use both systems but XP is missing so many points now that Vista might be needed to com close to 10.4 but we all know that Apple doe not stand still either!
On my mac I do not use any virus protection or a firewall and have never had a virus!
If you’re not using antivirus software then just how exactly do you claim to know that you’ve never had a virus?
I believe that Macs are far more secure than Windows, and not just because of the smaller userbase (network services off by default, better multi-user design etc.), but your comment is both dangerous and based on really dumb assumptions.
Mac OS X has an excelant firewall, and there really is no good reason for most people to not use it.
It’s people like you who take security for granted that are going to get burned and needlessly so.
Do us all a favor and turn on your Mac’s firewall, and get a decent antivirus software package installed as well. You’re living in a dream world, and if you’re always this careless, it might turn out to be a nightmare.
By the way, a lot of people constrast apple hardware with the supposedly inferior dell etc hardware.
Just head over to Ars Technica and read about apple’s hardware problems on recent releases. Its perfectly good stuff, they are no worse than anyone else, but they are no better either. Which is really not surprising, since they are using the exact same components….
Just like B&O is using the exact same components as its competitors in stereos.
1) Most of the people saying how Apple should market OSX for white-box PCs are just doing so because they’re too cheap to buy a Mac.. which proes the folly of doing it. Most of you would pirate it if it were done, robbing Apple of software and hardware sales.
I bet you all think TiVO should release a downloadable software package for home-brew media-box PCs too…
2) The parallel between late-model G4s not booting OS9 and a Mac not being under the real control of its owner is BS: I have several systems that won’t boot win95 for exactly the same reason.. the hardware has been updated and drivers aren’t released for an unsupported old OS.
3) If people want to dual-boot Windows and OSX they can do it easily enough on an x86 Mac. Just add a three-button mouse ! Don’t ask Apple to ruin OSX by making it a bloated morass of drivers for obscure PC-only hardware…. most of its appeal is in its simplicity and boot-any-supported-system approach which Windows will never have.
I can take the HDD out of my iBook G3 and boot a G5 powermac with it – that sort of cool feature depends on tight hardware control. Windows would just crash in the same circumstances
I Don’t know where the original write got his idea from that modern G4/G5s are not able to boot into OS9
I’m working on a G5 at this very moment and couple of hours ago I ran in Classic mode to use Keycaps
Unless I am very much mistaken, classic mode can run most OS9 apps – I wonder can classic also run OS7 apps?
OS9 runs like a rocket on slow (300Mhz) hardware.
yes is unreliable and crashes some times but it is very, very fast. Meanwhile OSX runs sluggishly on 1Ghz hardware.
So yes it would be nice to experience speed on a G4 without running YellowDog (which cant drive the wireless card),it certainly annoyed me quite a tad when I found that my new Apple computer didnt boot MacOS, should have read the small print I guess..
I can take the HDD out of my iBook G3 and boot a G5 powermac with it – that sort of cool feature depends on tight hardware control.
Nope, it depends on 2 things: a fast/flexible mechanism for detecting hardware, and the prescence of the appropriate drivers. There’s nothing inherent to x86 that prevents what you describe above – just ask any BeOS user.
I believe the problem with Windows is that it detects hardware by querying the BIOS. As I understand it, it does a full scan for all your hardware on install, installs necessary drivers, and looks for changes every time you boot up. On the other hand, I believe that BeOS queries the PCI bus directly to detect hardware (which is apparently a lot faster), and does a full hardware scan on each bootup, and then loads the appropriate drivers. I would assume that OS X does it more or less the same way that BeOS does.
Windows would just crash in the same circumstances
Not true. I’ve moved hard drives with windows (95 through XP) to new computers for many people and, while it’s not completely painless, Windows doesn’t “just crash.” Best case, it takes 5-10 minutes to detect the new hardware and install drivers; worst case, it throws up a bluescreen (or windows protection fault if you’re using 9x) and you have to boot in safe mode to do the hardware detection/driver installation.
Anonymous wrote:
“Apple should focus on their real problems instead of estranging users with DRM/TPM crap. Apple is loosing users by the thousands to Linux right now. If Apple doesn’t soon offer a whole lot more for the money they charge they are going to be nothing but a iPod manufacturer pretty soon.”
I don’t think so. See:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/apr/13results.html
“Apple shipped 1,070,000 Macintosh units and 5,311,000 iPods during the quarter, representing a 43 percent increase in CPU units …”
Dell wishes they had that kind of growth right now. I believe Apple is the only major computer manufacturer that is actually making money at the moment.
(Original poster here)
I was replying to an earlier poster.. there has been some annoyance at the inability to boot OS9 as OS9 drivers can’t be loaded by Classic, which stops a lot of non-X-supported hardware being used. Also some apps won’t run in it…
OS7 apps may or may not run under Classic but you can so easily run a classic Mac emulator as an OS9 app as not to need to worry.
are you sure OS9 drivers can’t be installed into Classic?
The worst case of a OS9 app being used in Classic was Quark 4 where it had a refresh problem, every time you moved the screen it left big white squares on the screen
It’s people like Anonymous (IP: 170.252.64.—) that make me wonder why Apple doesn’t enable the firewall and “secure virtual memory” by default.
I don’t know about the Secure Virtual Memory, but the FIREWALL is enabled by default