This article is about new aspects of the never-ending story of how Apple is protecting MacOS X for running on different hardware than Apple’s. The keyword is virtualization, which allows running unmodified version of Mac OS X as virtualized instance.Two recent news items regarding virtualization of Mac OS X hit the street recently. The first news item is that in their EULA Apple allowed running several Mac OS X server instances on Apple hardware and the well-known company Parallels (which was bought by SWSoft) announced Parallels Server, the company’s hypervisor-powered server virtualization solution, which does exactly that. Parallels Server can run on every x86 server and can virtualize Linux and Windows there, but virtualization of Mac OS X is only allowed on Apple hardware. The second news item was the announcement of a German hacker Alexander Graf at the CCC-congress that he modified the popular open-source emulation software Qemu so it can run an unmodified Mac OS X instance on Linux, but since Qemu is portable, it should work on different platforms (e.g. Windows) as well. In his project description Alexander writes that in the EULA Apple does not mention that Mac OS X is not allowed to be installed in a virtualized environment; that means if somebody installs Linux on Apple hardware and runs a single instance of Mac OS X in Qemu it is perfectly legal. But in the wiki Alexander writes that with his modifications Mac OS X can run on other hardware as well.
Virtualization or emulation as such is nothing new for Apple. Projects like Mac-on-Linux allow running a virtualized Mac OS X on non-Apple PowerPC hardware like the Amiga One or Genesi PowerPC based hardware. But this did not really hurt Apple, because such hardware was too exotic to cause too much headaches in Cupertino.
Another kind of virtualization was even highly welcome at Apple’s headquarters: virtualization of other operating systems inside Mac OS X. Several emulators for Windows which emulated x86 on PowerPC, were available, but with the transition to x86, companies like Parallels and VMSoft created virtualized environments that make use of Windows applications as transparent as possible for Mac OS X user.
The other way around, virtualization of Mac OS X itself on any other x86 computer, is a completely different thing. Apple does everything to prevent such scenarios technically and legally. But is it still justified to prevent installing of a (licensed) copy of an OS inside a virtualized environment? Mac OS X is the only OS running on x86, which is coupled to the hardware of the manufacturer. All open and closed source OSes of other manufacturers can be installed on any compatible hardware; only Apple is protecting its Mac OS X. So my call to Apple is: open your OS for other computers, or other people will do it and with the availability of the solutions described above – it never has been simpler. Learn your lessons from the iPhone: you can forbid hacking of the iPhone as much as you want, but if enough people are interested in it and the solution is very simple, lots of people will do it regardless of what is written in EULAs.
Here are some arguments, why Apple should open Mac OS X and only wins from this decision:
- Apple is afraid of all the hardware it has to support, what will disturb the Mac OS X experience for the user, whose hardware combination might not be supported. Well, OpenSolaris showed how to increase supported hardware in quite a short time. Previous versions of Solaris x86 supported only a small subset of hardware, but this changed quite fast. Take the drivers from FreeBSD, it should not be too hard to adapt them for Mac OS X. Spread a compatibility check program, which tells the user before installation, if his hardware is compatible or not. Every sold package of Mac OS X should contain a CD with such a program, which can be tried out without opening the package itself, so if the results are negative, the package can be returned to the dealer unopened. Vista also does not support every hardware on earth and is still successful.
- Apple is afraid that less Apple hardware will be sold. Well, what I can tell from my friends who bought a Mac recently, they did it not because of Mac OS X (they could have done it five years ago as well), but because current hardware offerings from Apple look very slick, they are competitive quality- and performance-wise, the prices are fair and the status of a Mac-owner changed in Germany from freaked-out designer and experienced computer geek to ordinary computer users, who love their iPod and want to have a well-designed computer on their desk. For them it is also good to know that they can use Windows as a fallback solution. So Mac OS X is not a must for them, they would buy Apple hardware anyway.
- Apple is afraid that Microsoft will immediately stop shipping Office for Mac. This is a valid point, but I am not sure if Microsoft can allow this, because this would immediately strengthen the monopoly debate, that Microsoft is preventing competition by discontinuing an important software product only because the competitor is becoming dangerous.
- The spreading of Mac OS X would only increase software sales for Apple. Currently Apple has very good software offerings for professionals and advanced amateurs for media creation. Adobe shows how to earn very good money with comparable products without selling any hardware at all.
- But is there any interest for Mac OS X outside Apple hardware? I think a lot of people would like to try out Mac OS X on their old hardware and if they like it, the probability that their next computer will be a Mac is quite high, isn’t it?
- Virtualizing Mac OS X on computers of developers helps them to develop multi-platform software, so more of them can consider implementing their software for Mac OS X as well, without investing in a Mac first.
I am sure there are a lot of other arguments as well, so my first wish for the Jobs’ keynote at the coming MacWorld: mr Jobs, please open MacOS X! [ ed. note: this article was written before the keynote]
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
EULA’s are not legal and they will not stand up in court. Well, at least that is the story here in the EU.
Also, never mind running OS X in virtualisation, google for hackintosh….
Speculative question: Are open source licenses legal in the EU, or are they also illegal? Seems to me that if one is illegal, all must be. (Go ahead, mod me down, but I can’t find anything on Google supporting or refuting this, so have to ask. And please cite sources).
Apples and oranges, as it were. EULA’s generally attempt to control how software is used, wheras OSS licenses generally attempt to control how software is distributed only and assert no control over how an individual uses it.
OSS licenses rely on the power of existing copyright law, which already deals with distribution, and at the very least the GPL, for one, has been found legally valid within the EU.
The problem with EULA’s is two-fold: In many cases they are trying to enforce restrictions against privileges users may already have by law within their jurisdiction (ie. the ability to reverse-engineer, fair-use provisions for copying media, etc.) which would generally invalidate those provisions, and the second problem is the question of enforcing click-through or break-the-seal as a valid form of contractual agreement.
So EULA’s are not necessarily illegal per se, but often the provisions they try to enforce or the manner in which users are forced to accept the terms, are.
You’re pretty much dead on. What many people keep missing is that distribution licenses like the GPL don’t really need to be “tested in court”, in contrast to user licenses.
If you distribute GPL software without complying to its terms, the authors simply sues you for copyright violation. The GPL doesn’t even come into play. Unless you as the violator invoke it, in which case you’re left to argue that somehow the GPL gives you distribution rights even if you don’t agree to its terms.
i wonder how that works with GPL3 and its new “use” related clauses…
The only angle I can see someone trying to get out from under the GPL3 clauses with would involve directly attacking copyright law itself… perhaps arguing that all open source code should be public domain or somesuch.
What “use” related clause? There is no such thing in GPL3.
What happens to an EULA once software becomes obsolete, for example, Windows 98. Is the EULA just rescinded and people can just do whatever they like with the software?
They are not only legal, but nowadays in Europe they are virtually mandatory.
Why should we mod you down? I think it is a good question.
I guess I can answer that to some degree.
The GPL and other open source “licenses” can be interpreted in terms of copyright. You have the copyright of a product and allow others to reproduce it under certain rules. That is perfectly legal in terms of copyright. You are not restricted in using the software, though.
EULAs generally restrict you in using the software you bought. They try to be some kind of contract. And such kinds of “contracts” are void here.
Yet you don’t need contracts to have your copyright. You only need to create/publish (depending on national law) something.
Please correct me if I was wrong.
You’d be surprised how many buttons are pushed with my question. Many people, especially on forums such as OSNews and Slashdot, like to spout things with no support, and mod people down who ask for proof.
Can you point me to a reading that states this? Many people make such claims, but fail to support them, so I would like some proof. Online legislation postings would be great. Too bad Google doesn’t have “concept search”.
I’m not sure if this is what you’re looking for, but it does give you a very good “plain english” explanation of the MS EULA vs. the GPL:
http://www.cybersource.com.au/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf
Well I could give you the link to the German wikipedia on EULAs, that sums it up nicely, but I doubt most people here understand German, neither will they understand Austrian law –> I could provide you with some paragraphs on contracts.
Even if you’d say an EULA is a contract some of the parts would still be void, as there are some kind of rules what is feasible in an AGB (Standard form contract), I could also provide you with paragraphs on that.
So if one is interested in the actual paragraphs I could provide you with these, at least the paragraphs I know of.
Please do. It’s what I’m looking for. I don’t trust Wikipedia for such controvercial topics as EULA vs GPL for obvious reasons, so getting actual legal text would be good for understanding it.
The § I posted are Austrian law. I did not post the text of law here, neither am I a lawyer, so there are likely more § on that matter.
The KSchG handles contracts between a consumer and a corporation. The ABGB on the other hand is in force for everybody.
First on the contract part.
As a consumer you buy something in a store. The contract is that you go to the cash and pay for it. (§ 863 ABGB)
Both, the cashier and the consumer accept the contract, that has to include at least a product and a price, by paying and accepting the money.
In a restaurant the contract would be if you order something.
Everything that should be in the contract has to be mentioned/written down, otherwise it won’t be in the contract. So if you order a steak in a normal restaurant and don’t say you are vegetarian and wanted a vegetarian “steak” it’s your problem.
You have to be able to read AGBs before that — so that it could be part of the contract — in a store a big sheet of paper at the cash “These is our AGB”, or a note of the cashier should be enough. The AGB would be void if it was only on the back of the bill, because you allready negotiated a contract. So the problem with EULAs is that you see them after you bought the product, after you negotiated the contract.
contracts: § 859 ff ABGB
If you accept the EULA as contract, because you buy something online and there you have to click a “I have read the EULA” button, before you can do so. (in this case it would be an AGB):
§6 KSchG
§ 864a ABGB
§ 879 (3) ABGB
could make some of the points void — in a court case in fact.
Generally for Austrian consumers it is helpful to contact the “Konsumentenschutz” (a part of the “Arbeiterkammer”), they have lawyers there and they sometimes sue companies because of their AGBs (they can do that because of § 28 f KSchG).
actually READ an EULA versus the GPL.. sometime .. then compare those rights with what you get when you purchase a CD or buy a book. Technically there is no need for an EULA, what’s copyrighted is the “recording” of the software to the shiny disk, much like a CD is the recording of a copyrighted song played. The idea of copying to your computer shoudl be “fair use” just like playing a CD in a computational/player device. So the work is protected under normal provisions of the law. EULAs attempt to tell you that you can’t read certian parts of the code, how many networks you can connect to, etc… Imagine attaching the same “EULA” to the patent on a table saw, or hammer, etc .. it would be silly!
I have read various EULAs and most open source licenses (every EULA for every piece of software I have installed on my computers, every open source license for every piece of open source software I have downloaded to read or compile). I asked nothing of the word of the licenses, I asked for clarification of the laws governing them. Both are contracts, yet both are governed differently (yes, every license is a contract), and this difference, with provisions for each, is what I am asking about.
Also, your use of “should” will most certainly kill your argument, as “should” and “does” are completely different, and in arguments of existing practice, “should” is an opinion with no base. (Just some FYI for your next debate).
You are correct.
An EULA and a copyright license are two very different things. The first one governs how a work may be used, the latter governs how it may be copied. Copyright licenses have a very established legal foundation. EULAs have no such thing.
Lots of correct answers have already been made and I don’t want to repeat them. I want just add a video of a speech held by law professor Eben Moglen held in Harvard. It’s very interesting if you are interested in this topic.
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=6345039926759549406
An EULA is not a license, but a License Agreement. The GPL is not a license agreement, but merely a License. There’s a catch here. Besides that the GPL does not restrict usage in anyway. It only kicks in when distributing.
The Apple EULA (and the MS ditto) is not illegal as such, but it is none the less mostly void in most european countries, since it restricts rights that cannot be restricted according to law. Not even voluntarily.
Even if that were the case, the DMCA is most certainly legal and it has stood up in court, as is the case here. Besides, Apple would be complete idiots to allow OS X on other platforms and damage their hardware sales in the process.
Correction: the legality of the DMCA as a whole is not known. No DMCA case has ever gone before a court – all have been settled out of court. A lot of people, included the MPAA, have indicated that they have their doubts about it’s constitutionality; but so long as it never goes to court, it’s an effective tool for those that invoke it.
Even if it did go to court, it’d most likely take years, maybe even decades to sort out the mess. and gods help whoever gets stuck footing the legal bills
Commercial vendors and professional use of virtualized osx will never move forward unless it is santtioned.
Look what they did to the thinksecret.com guy. They closed down his website and he was just spreading rumors.
a Hackintosh vs a natural install. The first is fine for the hobbiest at home but the later opens osX up to non-geekdom and developer/business uses where using a hack to get it working would not be acceptable.
I love’s me a good clean hack but I can see the advantage in an official release with the hardware DRM removed.
Eulas very commonly are lawful. There is nothing in EU law that makes them unenforceable. It depends on the provisions they contain.
There are two or three things they cannot do, not because they are Eulas, but because no contract which is a condition of sale which tries to do that will be lawful in the EU. Not even if you personally read and sign it before you open the package.
The first thing is, no post sales restrictions on use of a purchased product will be valid. Once you have bought it, you can do what you like with it, within the laws of the land. So, Apple does not have to sell copies of OSX by itself. But having done so, it cannot tell you what to run it on. And it cannot get around this by pretending that though you have walked out the shop with a CD and no further payment obligations, you have in fact leased or licensed it and not bought it. It is a purchase. The reason for this is very simple: if a car manufacturer could impose post sales restrictions on use, it would, and would force you to buy parts only from it. If a tool supplier could do it, it could make you buy the pro versions before you could legally use them in way of trade. Etc.
This is one thing. The second thing is it cannot force you to lower your statutory rights under consumer protection and trade law in consideration of selling to you. So whatever your rights are about warranty, return and so on, you still have them, no matter what the Eula or any other agreement says.
The conclusion of this is very simple. If OSX really does run unmodified under KQEMU, there is nothing Apple can do to stop anyone running a purchased copy of it that way. Nothing.
The same thing applies to running MS Office under Wine. It makes no difference what any purchase agreement says, MS cannot stop you running one lawfully purchased copy of Office under Wine. Or any other emulator.
As the last example shows, before getting too enthusiastically convinced that Apple should be able to stop you running OSX on any other hardware, think about the implications a bit. To do it, you’d have to give similar rights to all sorts of other people for whom you might feel rather less enthusiasm….
The Mac OS X kernel uses IOKit for all device drivers, which is very much incompatible with the FreeBSD driver frameworks. Compatibility shims are impossible to write without reducing functionality to the lowest common denominator, and porting the drivers is a near futile task.
I dont know if you know it (i aso dont know if i can say it here, delete my post if i cant) but Mac OSX actually run on non-apple hardware, and driver status is not that bad. Driver ARE prted from FreeBSD and Linux (rewritten based on old code). OSX work very well on PC. Personally, i own a mac book pro so i dont have to use it (i dont even use mac os at all, i am a linux user). More than that: apple dont used osx86 project back in 2005. Back at the time, they did nothing (almost) to break the patch (they did from 10.4.1 to 10.4.2, but it was a major rewrite of some part). They almost allowed us to do it, because some people did port application to universal binary before comercial product, and found problems and bugs that were corected. Before the first x86 mac, it was almost fine for apple to see hackintosh.
After that, things did change, but not tthat much. When x86 goes out, apple did start to send legal letter to website and did close the most illegal one. After 2 month or so, they stoped again. Since that, they did not try to break the patch and osx86 still work with the two years old anti-tmp-kernel patch. Many drivers have been writen for product. Many open darwin driver have been hacked and improved and many project have been made. Apple dont seem to want to stop this, but i dont really know why anymore, probably for advertising, i dont thing nobody that use osx86 full time will buy a PC again, it is the most plausible explanation…
I think you missed most of what I said: I said nothing about Mac OS X running on non-Apple hardware, I wrote only of driver porting. I cannot find through Google any mention of drivers being ported from FreeBSD. A driver “port” would equate to a >50% (roughly) rewrite, as shimming the FreeBSD code into the C++ IOKit framework is a large undertaking, and can only seriously be done by either a complete rewrite, or a very large rewrite.
The need to run OS X on cheaper hardware than you can find for sale at an apple store might be as easy as searching craigslist or ebay. You never know what kind of deals you might find. At least this way you can run Apple’s software the way it was intended to be run (on Apple hardware) and it won’t cost you as much (time or money!)
Wow what an eye opener shopping for new ram too stuff in my wife’s macbook was. A gig of ram at the Apple Store; 300$. A gig of ram at a third party retailer; 100$’ish.
If secondhand isn’t your thing, you may be able to skip ebay and craig’s list and find competitive pricing from a third party Apple retailer instead. The Apple Store is where they make there money; factory outlet, it ain’t.
You’ll notice that some things are clearly priced so that you’ll shop elsewhere, if you know to, and others priced so that you buy from them. RAM upgrades are a good example at 2x the cost of a discounter, but Apple’s 1.8″ 64G SSD drive costs 2/3 as much the closest competitor’s product at New Egg.
Booo.. them.
I’ve never been able to fully support the “what the market will support” method of markups. Mind you, I always see these things from the customer side so I find a standard markup percentage too be fair rather than the first method mentioned.
I’ll keep your tip in mind though next time I have to upgrade parts in one of the two osX boxes at home. I’m not faithful to the brand name so which ever retailer can give me the parts for the most reasonable price wins my business on a buy by buy basis.
If we paid a standard markup, we would pay a hell of alot more for consumer electronics.
we would also be the most half assed communists ever
History of Darwin tells everything about this company policy:
http://www.synack.net/~bbraun/writing/osfail.html
Fine link. All you really need to know.
Indeed, this article is worth a read.
If Apple said “we guarantee and support OSX on the following hardware” and then listed specific motherboards, graphics cards and processors, I don’t see what the problem is. Pro audio companies such as Digidesign do this all the time. Go ahead and run it on unsupported hardware, we won’t stop you, but you can’t cry to use when it doesn’t work.
I would most definitely jump on board to OSX if I could build my own machine.
Last check at Newegg.com for a Core 2 Quad and an Intel brand motherboard equipt computer build was under $1500, including the monitor. Coupled with a stable and secure (more than Windows anyway) OS for $130 (not $300) and I’d call that quite a good deal.
Edited 2008-01-25 14:57 UTC
For one, the problem is that there are people who will still go and cry at Apple because something doesn’t work and when Apple tells them to scram the Intertubes will explode with people calling Apple names and generally bitching about it (see the “calamity” around the first iPhone update and the bricked de-AT&T-ed handsets).
Of course there is also the small matter of lost revenue for Apple, due to diminishing Mac sales and selling Mac OS X for $130 instead of however Apple makes from it right now.
All in all, fun times for Apple and insane benefit for their clients.
Why can’t Apple just say “if you run OS X via virtualization, or a hack, you’re on your own; without a valid Macintosh serial number we won’t reply to your question.”
End of story.
But this isn’t the scenario that Apple wants. It would be the worst thing for their mindshare (not to mention their hardware sales), as people would start buying these cheaper machines.Then there would be this growing cloud of frustration as people find software failing left and right on their shiny new unsupported Mac.
Maybe professionals can deal with internals specifications like motherboards, sound cards, graphics processors, but the average consumer is not going to bother with that. To most people, computers are just black boxes with a number that tells you how fast it is and how much music you can store on it.
In the end, the only way Apple can provide such an integrated package is to keep it closed and under control. It’s nice when you don’t have to worry about device drivers and compatibility.
For example, OS X has no trouble doing all of the visual GUI magic that it does on my Macbook, yet under Ubuntu, GXL/AIGLX still craps itself when I try to bring up a simple GLUT program. This is not because it’s a faulty piece of software, it’s because there isn’t (or wasn’t) a team of people responsible for making sure it could work with my GMA950.
In the end Apple’s vertical solution makes it so you can spend less time getting your machine to work, and more time doing work with your machine.
Agreed. I have plenty of PC hardware already, much more than I need or use on a daily basis. I would like to experience Mac OS both for fun and as a software professional but I can’t justify buying even more hardware just to experience some piece of software that won’t run on my existing hardware due to some contrived and artificial limitation.
Its not a matter of apple not wanting to spend the resources on supporting other hardware (though that does play some part obveously). Its mostly a matter of apple wanting to overcharge for hardware. Think about it. If suddenly you were aloud to run osx anywhere, then suddenly they have to compete with cheaper 3rd party hardware. People aren’t going to pay 2x as much for mac hardware when they can get the same thing at, for example, dell. OSX sales would increase, but their pc hardware sales would all but vanish.
They are no better or worse than every company in existence though. They just want to make as much money as they can in whatever sleazy quasi legal/moral/ethical way they can. They don’t care about the customer any farther than “are people stupid enough to buy this?”. And if they aren’t stupid enough to buy it, then its “Is there a cheap enough way to force people to buy it?”. Of course, in both cases, in the software industry, and starting to appear in hardware there is “How can we get them to buy it again, without getting it again?”
Edited 2008-01-25 19:54 UTC
You really don’t get it. In the world of business, Apple is ranked on their gross revenue. In other words, the total cash they take in. So, by being a COMPUTER company that happens to sell a computer with an OS they and OSS wrote on it, They take in boatloads more than $120 per copy of each Leopard install disk. If they were to sell Leo to run on any hardware even with a Caveat Emptor (buyer beware) AND turn down any support calls without a valid serial number or other means to prevent supporting your hackintosh, they would still be walking down the EXACT same path they did when they licensed the OS to third party manufacturers. Their computer sales go down and pittance of money for a Leo disk compared to computer sales will cause their gross margins to plummet even if thousands and thousands of geeks go out and purchase a copy of hackLeo. Selling a copy of Leo at any price to people who don’t own (and wouldn’t eventually replace) a Mac would be jeopardizing their financial standing.
(Trivial to that, by setting up a separate channel of Hackintosh computers also dilutes the user experience to potential buyers. If you’re okay with a few problems but show off your Hackintosh, what’s that person to think when it does something outside of the normal experience? Say it’s exactly fine to the point of not even showing a BIOS screen (which Macs do NOT have), what happens when that (less skilled) person wants a Hackintosh and somehow manages to build it? Does he know who to blame when things go wrong? Could be the hack. Could be Apple. What’s the perception when more and more people build a Hackintosh? That Macs are no better than anything else out there. Sales therefore decline that way as well.)
I want Apple to continue to turn out insanely great stuff, not be faced with the challenges that a Hackintosh creates.
Pecos Bill
I don’t work for Apple nor own shares of Apple.
I think they could do that without legal problems. What OSes they support is up to them, a different story is if they only allow there own products to be installed on Windows, or make it hard for their competition.
Though I doubt they’d do it. I read somewhere that MS Office gains MS more money than Windows, so they’d only reduce their revenue.
Edited 2008-01-25 15:15 UTC
If Apple wanted to go down that path of opening OS X to other hardware, that’s easily the same as asking them to license FairPlay out to every other MP3 player maker, as well as support all the other players via iTunes. I don’t see that happening, either, because the biggest differentiator between Apple hardware and the other hardware that their competitors haven’t achieved is slick user interface and software in an integrated package that all “just works” (more or less) quite smoothly, and Apple is in the market catering to the TUE (Total User Experience) and that’s their business model. The last time they allowed their OS to run on clones, it didn’t work out very well, and that was when the clones were restricted to the same relatively-low-volume CPU selection and supporting hardware, and it cut deeply into their bottom line because all the cloners had no worries about reducing their individual machine profits compared to Apple’s.
So, I’m logically concluding that the day Apple opens OS X with the blessing that it runs on non-Apple hardware is also the day they voluntarily license out FairPlay and iTunes to every other media player maker, and when all their shareholders decide to piss away all their stock value, and when hell freezes over.
The Mac cloners also produced machines that had better specs then the Macs produced by Apple at the time. Less money plus more performance is generally a winning combination.
iTunes should recognize other mp3 players, at least on OS X. It’s annoying that it doesn’t, and since it’s bundled, it killed off the other OS X media players.
Maybe I have permanent brain damage from FOSS and Windows, but I would think that Apple would license FairPlay to other mp3 players and collect licensing fees, and I would also think that Apple would want to make iTunes as ubiquitous as possible. More FairPlay capable players and more installations of iTunes would increase sales for the iTunes music store.
Apple makes most of their profit from the iPod hardware itself: the music store exists as the loss leader (or at least not for the profit itself in a meaningful way) to enhance the value of the iPod, all in line with the TUE business model.
Again, back to the OS X question: even if other vendors made OS X-capable machines, it could seriously dilute the image Apple tries to market, that of some degree of exclusivity, as well as the TUE: even if the machines that are sold are of lesser components and quality, chances are, in order to grab the market, the competitors will accept a much lower profit per machine in order to sell it: Apple still doesn’t win, because, once again, their model is that the software/content sells the hardware, and that’s where they get the most profits from.
Oh, edited to add this: iTunes doesn’t at all keep you from using other players, and it still allows you to download songs (albeit non-FairPlay protected ones) for use on other players, though I’m not aware of it synching to other players (that can be done with other software) so Apple still provides some support for selling songs otherwise, but… the overall TUE is by far going to be best with their hardware.
Edited 2008-01-25 18:24 UTC
Exactly, Total User Experience.
Apple is the only one doing it, wich is why they seem so slick & everybody wants one (even you haters secretly drool).
hell thats why this is a story.
And your asking them to give that up?
Please.
Personally it think Linux needs a company that limts the hardware support to provide a TUE. rather than oh most of my laptop works but no wifi, modem or acpi.
1. Apple tells you WHAT you want, and WHY you want it.
2. You want it.
$atisfaction!
Lather, rinse, repeat…
um, OSX86 anyone? this is already done, and you can already run it on standard PC hardware (hey macs are pcs now with EFI instead of BIOS).
you can now even boot a plain apple kernel (doesnt need to be patched) on a PC with the EFI injection happening with the bootloader now.
this isnt news, and hasn’t been since apple announced the switch to Intel CPUs.
Running OS X in an emulated environment would be great. I’ve said it quite a few times that I’d love to do it legally and would purchase a copy of OS X for that purpose. It gives someone like me a chance to use and learn the operating system to increase my tech support skills. I thought about doing a hackintosh build but if I can emulate it legally I’d rather do it that way.
You’re right it would be a really big boon to technicians who have to support a few Macs, they might even be remote. Fire up a VM and troubleshoot rather then buy a piece of hardware that only gets used occasionally, or fire up a VM and trash that install rather then a working one.
Thing about hackintosh is then you almost have to steal the thing. (to get the patched, ready to install w/o hassle version, also to make sure YOU can get it to work before buying etc.) At least if they went with a legal solution, they could sell the OS. I could be sure it’ll work on motherboard X or Y.
Hell, Apple could encapsulate it in a VM and sell that to me. I’d totally buy it. When everyone has to jump ship when Microsoft stops selling XP, they could SWITCH to OSX. I can picture all the DELL laptops with OSX on them now. It would be the best way and time for Jobs to kick Bill in the teeth.
Bounty
GNU Linux / *BSD gets better as time goes. Apple wants complete control, so does Microsoft and others. There is nothing wrong with that, let them have it.
Sooner or later, they will be forced by their users, clients and business partners into what they are against now. Apple, Microsoft and other companies will port their software to FOSS platforms.
I do not care if it happens in one, two or ten years. I am fine with what FOSS offers today already.
BTW, Apple sells closed (and cool) appliances. Not computers or software. Apple does not empower users in the long run.
“BTW, Apple sells closed (and cool) appliances. Not computers or software. Apple does not empower users in the long run.”
Bingo.
Apple is more a predatory monopolist, and more closed, than Microsoft. Apple is also an enemy to open source. To Apple, open source is just another competitor, and openness is diametrically opposed to Apple’s business model.
And I’m saying that as a new owner of on iPod.
I’m also a big fan of FOSS and Linux.
I’m also a big fan of a lot of MS dev tools.
I’m also a big Java fan.
In short, I’m a geek and like good tech, regardless of whom it’s from, or what philosophy it espouses.
What I’m saying is that with Apple, you get what you get. What you sacrifice in customer service, openness, flexibility, etc, you gain in using products that are really really well designed, well built, extremely slick and sexy, innovative, and extremely easy to use.
In other words, because Apple controls everything in their products, from hardware to software, and remains extremely closed about it, they can build products that have the above mentioned attributes.
By contrast, there’s FOSS and Linux. With Linux, you gain tons of flexibility, openness and freedom (and in a lot of cases, great quality, security, efficiency). But what you lose is polish, and you get something that is more “do it yourself, get under the hood” (although that’s gradually changing).
I like this post the best, so I’ll reply here.
I agree, Apple’s biggest, only real leverage on the market is their custom software. Otherwise they’re just another PC maker. Opening OSX won’t ever happen. I’d expect itunes to be opened to somebody else first. Of course they had a really bad experience working with others so far, so don’t hold your breath.
Personally I would like to see Apple simply play FAIR with other OSS projects and open standards rather than open their OS. They seem to have a severe case of NIH.. they love to “borrow” from open source projects, they love to borrow open standards… They like to pay their way into things too.. and encumber everything with some form of patented lockdown.
I’d like to see their tools support OSS formats, OGG, Vorbis, Theora in quicktime/iLife, ODF in iWork, External sites in the iLife internet connections instead of ONLY .Mac… etc, etc. Playing nice with other people’s hardware.. look at the Time Machine debacle that it can’t connect easily to OTHER network stuff you might have… this is getting old to say the least.
Apple can support open communities without hurting themselves.. this is ego in the way, not business, and it is the reason Apple stays in the kiddie leage as far as install base. Apple could come out infront as a prime supporter of open formats.. doing them better than anybody else and setting the bar high. If Apple thinks they’ll ever get as big as Microsoft they’re kidding… Companies will never willingly buy into that scheme again if they break away. The best Apple can do is to build up a “different” way of computing with open standards… but they don’t seem to take the leap yet.
It is not. Why? Because Linux/BSD GUI is still far away from Aqua’s esthetic. Ordinary people will look at the GUI first.
They don’t, but the reverse is applied. Take an example KHTML, it’s originally developed by KDE team, but now they follow Apple’s policy.
Apple is intended for mid-range to upper class persons, not for students/poor geeks. Apple offers high quality hardware at competitive price to PC with the same spec.
Why should they?
OS X is a beautiful operating system, I use it too and you really can’t ignor some major advantages against other operating systems.
But why open it? You wouldn’t say “open Playstation 3s operating system, it’s so wonderfull!” or “please open Wii’s operating system for PCs”.
It’s Software selling with Hardware, where is the difference to game consoles?
Everything works so wonderful because OS X is fully optimized on the hardware. When you take more and more hardware into the boat, it’s getting more and more difficult to give all people the same experience as it is in the moment.
Exactly, why should they.
It’s never an issue of can they but why would they. Keeping OS X and hardware as closed as possible gives you much more control of everything including the OS to new products such as iPods, iPhones, etc.
Everyone keeps calling for Apple and/or MS to open their OSes, but what is the REAL reason, we have open systems such as Linux, Solaris, etc.
So as good as parts of Linux and it’s DE’s are, people are basically admitting that the closed OSes are better.
(We aren’t talking about being open for reviewing bugs/security etc. Let’s be honest and admit that the majority of people calling for this just want cheaper hardware and a cheaper or free OS.)
You’re looking at this issue through the eyes of the common consumer instead of seeing it through the eyes of a business. By opening OS X Apple could increase it’s revenue for both Apple and their shareholders since the majority of companies want ease of migration. Do you really believe a company with over 200 employees is going to take Apple seriously knowing that they would need to spend even more money replacing their current workstations just so they can run OS X? Both competing OS Linux and Windows allow the consumer to install on existing hardware, not force them to buy the software with a new workstation. While I enjoy using OS X I do also admit it would benefit businesses to have Apple revise their EULA to allow it to be installed on other Intel based workstations. Companies could pay Apple for a license to allow OS X to be installed across a LAN similar to how Microsoft prices licenses for business installations of Windows Vista. The point here being that it would be another market for Apple to increase their profits as well lower cost to businesses who want to migrate to OS X.
Edited 2008-01-27 18:20 UTC
> Apple is afraid that less Apple hardware will be sold.
So they seem to think their own hardware products are so uncompetitively priced that nobody would buy them if they had the chance to get OS X for a normal cheap PC?
Isn’t that what more or less wound up happening the last time they licensed MacOS to third-party OEMs?
I already see lots of “clone” Macs offered on local eBay-like sites here in lat.am., each described as having the latest OSx86 build of Mac OS X on it. How much money does Apple get from it? Zero.
If Apple released a generic OS X that runs on random hardware without the need for kernel hacks, lots of people who now wouldn’t normally consider buying one of those randomly built machines would take a second look, since they wouldn’t be running a hacked, non-upgradeable OS anymore.
I really don’t think this would benefit Apple in any way, not to mention that users of Apple hardware would then be penalized by the inevitable “Mac OS X Genuine Advantage”-like activation that Apple would be forced to implement to prevent piracy (currently there is no copy protection whatsoever).
The reason Mac OS X works so well is because Apple is in control of the software AND hardware. They do not want their OS running on a POS $10 video card from China, and they’re not going to fix what ain’t broke.
Windows sucks for a reason — because the whole world wants it to support every single piece of hardware and software in existence, with millions of different configurations.
If Apple started supporting new hardware every time someone whined about it, I guarantee you absolutely that in several years we’ll be hearing about how much OS X sucks.
This is the Mac world and things are different here. You do like the tens of millions of us have done and spend a little extra for the excellent hardware, and get over the fact that you can’t run OS X on your home-made computer with parts from Fry’s.
*Sigh* I really wish people would give up on that bit of idiotic false-dichotomy – especially considering that Apple uses the exact same “home-made” parts that you could buy from Fry’s or many, many other retailers.
Apple simply doesn’t have any real control over the quality of the hardware, since they’re just using hardware made by third-parties – like every other OEM. The best thing that can *truly* be said about Apple and hardware quality is that they tend to choose higher-quality components than many other OEMs.
The simple fact of the matter is that – today – anyone with a reasonable amount of knowledge regarding computer hardware can put together that will have be comparable in quality to any Mac available.
I do understand the economic/financial reasons why Apple hasn’t (and probably won’t) allow OS X to run on non-Apple hardware – and I’m not going to argue that they *should* do it. But the notion that it’s done to “protect” OS X users from the from the horrors of sub-standard Pee-Cee hardware is nothing but a tin of red herrings.
Requests for Apple to break out MacOS always fall down for the same reasons: Apple has nothing to gain by doing so and a huge amount to lose. In a nutshell, that’s all there is to say.
Disengaging MacOS from Apple’s hardware would demolish their business model – which has just delivered record turnover, sharply increased profits and even more sharply increased sales of Mac hardware. It would invite the ire of all Apple’s competitors – not good for business – and it would lead to rampant piracy. Finally it would destroy Apple as one of the world’s most desirable and highly valued brands. The error is to think that Apple is a computer company in the computer business. I doubt they think that. They’re in much more of a lifestyle business in my view. Any CEO who decided to throw all this to the winds by licensing out MacOS would be barmy and, almost certainly, soon on the receiving end of massive stockholder litigation. You may not like this and I’m sure plenty of people don’t, but in the end it’s “just business”. Apple has settled for being a high-ticket, high-margin boutique rather than a supermarket. It’s what works for them.
In the meantime, there’s a very easy way of running MacOS. You buy a Mac. No the least black joke behind these “please license out MacOS” articles is the certain knowledge that only a tiny percentage of those agitating for it would actually pay for the software. I’m sure everyone on OSNews would pony up, but basically we’re talking piracy, are we not.
But that by no means they should condone it, or support it, or enable it in any way.
Most users buying Apple are buying the Apple experience — the whole kit. From the machines, to the OS, to the Stores and AppleCare.
Apple takes you by the hand throughout the entire process.
The Apple stores by me are ALWAYS packed with people, whether they’re shopping for hardware, software, asking questions or being taught something.
Apple can care less about some geeks running their OS on whatever hardware. But that’s no reason to make is “easy” for them.
The single largest consumer for virtualization services is basically those doing development on the client side (for testing), or large deployments on the server side. Neither of these are the core market groups for Apple. Apple has yet to make a strong foray in to the enterprise. I don’t know of any large Mac OS Server deployments. I’m sure they exist, but I don’t know of any. Everyone who’s virtualizing uses Linux. And small to medium offices (specifically graphic arts offices) just buy servers, and don’t run virtualization at all.
For those testing products against an old version of the OS, the hurdle today for that is minimal. Buy a Mac Mini and test it on that. Get one off of Ebay.
Virtualization is simply not a market driver for Apple, so there’s no reason to make it easy for Mac OS to run on anything but Apple Hardware. And worth their time to prevent.
Take the drivers from FreeBSD, it should not be too hard to adapt them for Mac OS X. Wrong, MacOSX uses “IOKit” which is very different from FreeBSD’s kernel driver interface.
current hardware offerings from Apple look very slick, they are competitive quality- and performance-wise, the prices are fair Wrong, I need more than one mouse button and I don’t want to have to remove 50 screws to upgrade my own hard drive.
Office for Mac. This is a valid point Wrong, the Office debate is “what’s the best price/performance for OASIS document handling?”
You’ve clearly not had any meaningful experience with the current Mighty Mouse that comes on iMacs, then: while it visually has a single large button (at least from outward appearances) it has far more than that in practice, though it does depend on you activating it in the correct manner.
You can’t be less serious than that. So let’s go through the bullet list:
So why do that? It’s utterly childish to ask Apple to port FreeBSD drivers or provide a CD with some ridiculous software that people do not want to run in the first place – they’re buying the experience, not FreeBSD driver support!
Yeah, let’s just pretend since your friends exhibit certain behavioral patterns then the whole world must work that way… And certainly we’ve seen enough people saying quite the opposite – that they love OSX but Apple hardware sucks REAL bad. So there!
I don’t get how that is relevant at all.
It won’t increase anything at all. Maybe 1% of people willing to run MacOSX on a PC will actually, you know, BUY it, and then 10% of them might consider buying some third-party app. Because we know how it worked with Windows. If it sold so well there wouldn’t be any need to implement those insane anti-piracy schemes.
That is actually contradictory – you don’t want OSX to run on a Mac yet several bullet points later you say that somehow it’s good for Apple to sell Macs. Yeah right. So why not just leave it the way it is?
There are always Apple Stores where you can go check out the OS and chat with a friendly person about your computing needs.
And that doesn’t include the fact that you’ll have to BUY it first anyway to “try it out” so that is quite a ridiculous suggestion. And even if you didn’t have to buy it – it’s still a ridiculous assumption that an average person is willing to try any other OS just because he can. See Linux. Things just don’t work THAT way.
Software development shouldn’t happen just because somebody had a pirated Visual Studio lying around. Software development takes time, skills and a business plan too. Especially when we’re talking about porting. That’s why we have so many Windows apps, but 95% of them are utter crap aesthetically and productive-wise. So you suggest that some half-assed Windows developer without a clear plan in mind starts mindlessly porting his wonderful craplet. That benefits everyone I’m sure. Especially Apple.
So folks, this is a stupid subject to discuss right now. Not until you think Apple will gather 50% of OS market. Then there may be issues a-la Windows concerning their monopoly status and other related things. But right now it’s only some crazy geek’s midday dream. You want cool? Pay the Apple tax and sponsor their R&D. You want open? Use one of the MANY open-source OSes out there. It’s that simple.
To all the people complaining that it is not fair that Apple seemingly arbitrarily restricts your right to run OSX on generic boxes I have a solution for you:
Buy an Apple computer or live without osx. Apple is a buisness and that is the proposition they make to their customers. As much as I would like a mercedes… Mercedes tells me that I have to pay them $50,000+ or live without… so I lived without… I begrudedly drive around an old civic instead… but hey, that’s life… I am not entitled to a product just because I want it.
>I have a solution for you:
Which is a non-solution, since it solves nothing at all.
>Buy an Apple computer or live without osx.
Or find a way to install OSX on non-apple hardware.
>As much as I would like a mercedes… Mercedes tells me
>that I have to pay them $50,000+ or live without
But they do not try to restrict which car mechanic you are gonna go to or which roads you are alloweed to drive on.
>I am not entitled to a product just because I want it.
And Apple is not entitled to restrict how I can use a product I bought.
They don’t sell the OS, they sell the hardware/OS as a sealed bundle. It’s only incidental that you as a computer-savvy individual understand the difference between an operating system and the hardware it’s running on, but Apple’s approach is to simply sell “a computing experience” and if that’s what they’re selling, that’s what you get.
The EULA basically is preventing companies from building supporting infrastructure for OSX separate from the hardware ecosystem. While it’s technically “illegal” for anyone to try to separate the operating system from the hardware, there’s no real possibility that Apple will pursue legal action against the hacker community from running virtualized Mac OSX on non-Mac hardware. However, the moment any other company breaks the EULA and attempts this, Apple’s lawyers will bite them quick. And they don’t have to support hackers in their endeavors.
All the more reason to continue developing free software UNIX operating systems, ala BSD and Linux. Need closed commercial apps that only run on closed commercial operating systems? I guess one can either whine (or wine, haha) about it or simply use free software and help build a free computing ecosystem to address all our constructive needs. And of course, you can simply buy those company’s products on their terms.
Edited 2008-01-25 22:12 UTC
er, apple isn’t telling anyone where they can get their computer serviced (any apple authorized dealer) or which internets people can go on…
oh i see, that was just a bad analogy
It may not be completely open source, but the kernel (Darwin) is, the browser renderer (WebKit) is, and the file formats are generally open (except for Quicktime and iTunes), it conforms to standard UNIX protocols, and doesn’t try to garble up network protocols, even internet-related ones, as Windows is want to do.
Let Mac be Mac, let Linux be Linux, let Windows be Windows, and may the best approach win.
It’s been a few months since the last plea, so here we go again.
Apple makes most of their money on hardware, whether it’s a desktop, laptop, or handheld computer. The hardware subsidises the software, namely Mac OS X.
If Apple make Mac OS X available for other hardware, they’ll have to charge a much higher price for it and that price will be rejected.
You can have your Hackintosh, but it’ll never be truly stable or 100 % compatible. Apple have enough trouble keeping the operating system stable with the various equipment and software available in their own house. We already have disclaimers about hardware needing to be “built-in” or face incompatibility.
For those who believe that Linux will rise up and free us all: it might indeed, but by that time, it will likely be consumed by something better and Mac OS X’s successor will be running on whatever hardware Apple has at the time.
By that i mean turning a blind eye to all of us running Hackintoshes.
I just love running both OS X Tiger and OS X Leopard on my 2 yr old
AMD64 tower that i built for $800. It doesn’t get any better than this.
I’m posting from Tiger now and it is 100% fully working OS X.
I have ILife, Toast 8 Titanium,Visual Hub,Transmission and many
other programs installed and they work perfectly.
I have linux installed on this computer also, but i use OS X 90% of
the time. It is an addictive operating system, Windows isn’t even
on my radar screen.
Cheers!
And out of curiosity, did you pay for either of those versions by purchasing an Apple PC bundled with OSX? No? Then thank you for helping to reinforce the perception that people feel entitled to software without paying for it.
Your actions help support the agenda of proprietary software companies looking for stronger legally enforced software restriction, while simultaneously undermining the efforts of the OSS community to convince ISV’s that users of alternative software aren’t just a cliched group of whiners that simply want software for free.
Good job, and thanks for coming out.
That’s fine. When time will come to change computer (if he has the money) he’ll buy a real Mac.
Hackintosh is a very good propaganda for Apple. It let passionate and technical people to “try” OS-X, and once they try it they can’t go back. Because OS X is FUN to use! With other OSes you have to fight against them.
And since those are the people relatives and friends call when they need a new computer… it will be natural for them to suggest to buy a REAL Mac (hackitoshes are too complex to install and maintain by ‘normal’ people).
… just buy a Mac. Simple as that. Apple *is* a hardware company. They ALWAYS have been. I bought my Mac because the form factor is great, my 3 year old Powerbook looks newer than any PC laptop out now (my opinion obviously), and OS X is the most usable OS (again, my opinion).
Apple isn’t opening up while Steve Jobs is there, you can count on that. Personally, I don’t want them too either.
So “what if” the listed points mentioned in the article turn out to be the complete oposite of what it is said if Apple opens Mac OS X? Further on, Apple goes out of business. What will we do then? Please keep in mind, I am with you here BUT as much as I want Apple to open Mac OS X, doing so will be a very bad decision. Pay attenion to how many companies have tried competing with the all mighty Microsoft. Remember Be? How about IBM-OS/2? Oh no, please don’t mention Linux. I can confidently say, as long as XFree86/X.ORG is being used in its current state and as long companies are forced to open up the source code, Linux will *never*, *never* reach even the surface of average Joe’s desktop. Oh yes, heard of eComStation? Of course you have. eCS isn’t going anywhere and it will end up like BeOS. Should Apple open Mac OS X, it will be Be all over again.
Now let me clarify, I want to see Max OS X as an open system but doing so can hurt Apple. I reckon the best thing to do is to leave it the way it is. Find loop holes in their EULA where a tech savy person can install Mac OS X without getting sued. This way, the techy will get the chance to use Mac OS X and Apple will continue to operate.
Edited 2008-01-26 09:32 UTC
Apple would commit most likely suicide with “Opening” OSX. Obviously the threat is: ISV’s who sell much cheaper hardware preloaded with OSX.
And if you can buy OSX separate for your OEM PC, what’s the chance you will buy an Apple in the nearby future?
The arguments are wrong…
1. If Sun can do it why can Apple. People who use Solaris X86 are quite technically competent. Most of them are either old time Unixers or Linuxers who decided to work with real Unix. If your video card doesn’t work, or have full resolution oh well or hold on I know how to fix that, or they install Solaris X86 on an el’cheapo box with hardware that barely works and the windows drivers just make sure the kernel doesn’t blow up trying to access the broken features, They would know that they may not have solid hardware so if problem occur it is the hardware fault not Solaris. For OS X they target the average computer user they will go Oh OS X can work on new systems… Lets install this on my sub $200 el’Cheapo ™ PC. Oh man it runs slow!, there are a bunch of graphic problems, oh and it crashed. OS X sucks. While if they actually experience it on a faster and balanced architecture then they will go wow this is pretty cool.
2. The hardware looked just as cool years ago even during OS 9. I still see adds where people are using a titanium powerbook. It is the fact that by switching to Intel people are less afraid of using OS X knowing they can use Windows if they didn’t like it. Also with intel it is easier to explain the performance across platform a 667mhz G4 Powerbook runs faster then a 1.2Ghz P4? Who knows the benchmarks are mixed… But Comparing Intel with Intel it just makes it easier for the common person to choose. Back in the PowerPC Days people thought apples were fancy but they thought they were slow and expensive (even if they were just as quick). That being said Moving OS X open will hurt the hardware because yes a lot of them get it because it is fancy. But given a choice of Fancy or cheap a lot of people will go with cheap. In America the biggest Sin we can make is to buy something for more if we can get something else for less.
3. Microsoft can make office suck more and more over time… Right now with Office 2008 they got rid of VBA support (although earlier version barely worked as well). But just like with IE, and Media Player they can take longer and longer gaps between updates. Then finally they have a version that is so bad that most people start switching off. Then Microsoft can say well they have this alternative we don’t want to do this any more.
4. Are you talking about iLife? It is handy and kinda fun but in reality it is not a big seller, If that was the case I would say make iLife for windows if they wanted to boost software sales. The pro apps are very expensive and just as good as their windows counterparts. But increasing software sales at expense of hardware is not good for apple. I doubt that OS X even open can take on windows. Sure you may get say 25% market share but that is with a group of finicky people not committed users.
5. Lets try out a modern OS on Old Hardware to see if we like it. Lets try out this Prius off road and see if we like it. OS X like Vista uses some serious juice to make it run at best performance. It is not a light weight OS. It is a user level OS running on old hardware, will make sure they hate it and will avoid using it and discourage others from doing the same.
6. OK I agree with 6. But that would just be opening up OS X for developers.
i waited too long to post a comment that’ll get seen… but…
Why do people keep on wanting this to happen?
It’s hardware that Apple makes it’s money on, NOT software. If they ‘opened up’ OSX and let it run on other hardware, they’d kill their own hardware sales. Apple tried this in the past, and their licensees made better hardware than they did and were slowly killing Apple. It does. Not. Work. for Apple. It would also be a support nightmare; instead of having a severly limited amount of hardware to have to worry about running on correctly, they’d have to start writing more and more drivers and hope they work. They haven’t the resources to test the multitude of possible configurations.
It’s not worth it monetarily, to Apple. At all. it makes NO business sense and would be a really DUMB move.
Stop dreaming and just be happy with cracked copies half running on your hardware or buy a Mac.
Edited 2008-01-26 15:20 UTC
Put simply, explicitly allowing Mac OS X to be used on generic hardware just isn’t in its interests.
While “others will†if Apple doesn’t do it, the number of people who would be willing to use it is pretty small (for what it’s worth, I have four Macs, and also have a Dell laptop running Mac OS X).
Apple doesn’t want Mac OS X to run on everything if it doesn’t involve everybody buying Macs, and Apple isn’t actively seeking to be a monopoly PC hardware maker—everything that Apple has said indicates that it doesn’t want to be the next Dell (not least because Apple does considerably better than Dell as far as its shareholders are concerned).
Every few months, people trot out the “Apple needs to open Mac OS X†line, usually accompanied with lots of reasons why people want to run Mac OS X in ways that Apple hasn’t sanctioned, but very few reasons why it’s at all in the interests of Apple or its shareholders to do it: from Apple’s perspective, there are very few reasons to do it (basically: because a very limited number of potential customers want it), and a myriad reasons not to.
People are, of course, welcome to continue writing blog posts and articles about why they think it’d be a good idea for Apple to do it, but nobody’s yet adequately addressed any of the reasons why Apple doesn’t do it.