Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mac OS X 10.6.2 Will Block Atom Processors

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the caveat-hackor dept.

OS X 1012

Archeopteryx writes "According to Wired's 'Gadget Lab' blog, Snow Leopard's next update, OS X 10.6.2, will block the Atom processor and will disable many 'Hackintosh' netbooks. It is indeed true that OS X will run just fine on some netbooks if you install the right drivers and ktexts, but Apple's EULA has always specified that the license was applicable only to Apple hardware. There have always been processor types specified in OS X and that have to be worked around now for those who want to use an Atom or similar non-Apple-adopted processor, so this is likely no more than a hiccup on the road for the OSX86 crowd. But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware — priced accordingly of course — for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted, like the netbook? The only reason OS X is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms. I could just pay for a license to use it."

cancel ×

1012 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Who wants to update?? (1, Insightful)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957090)

This right after the 'people who don't update because we've been known to harass and accuse them via patches have more malware' article. It's like Microsoft and Apple are trying to compete and see who can belittle and harass their customers the most.

Re:Who wants to update?? (5, Insightful)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957114)

It would seem that this does not actually inconvenience their customers at all right?

Re:Who wants to update?? (3, Insightful)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957226)

Depends on what you call a customer. They have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can or can't install their OS on. They try to with EULAs, but it wouldn't hold up in court if they tried to sue over it. As long as someone is paying Apple for the OS, then they're a customer.

Re:Who wants to update?? (5, Insightful)

uncanny (954868) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957278)

they make the program, they may not be able to "tell" you what not to do with it, but they can make their program however they want to. and if they dont want it to run on a certain system, guess what, you cant TELL them not to do that. however not giving them your business, or whine, is about all you can do.

Re:Who wants to update?? (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957350)

They have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can or can't install their OS on. They try to with EULAs, but it wouldn't hold up in court if they tried to sue over it.

Licensing terms that won't hold up in court if Apple sues you
also won't hold up in court if you sue Apple for declatory relief.

So either no one has thought of this before (highly unlikely)
or nobody is confidant enough to file the lawsuit (more likely).

Re:Who wants to update?? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957376)

You didn't pay for it. You paid for an upgrade of OSX... for the copy that came with the Mac you never bought. You stole it.

Re:Who wants to update?? (3, Informative)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957552)

You can buy an OS X license retail... you know... Never did... Won't do... Not a Mac user, nor a Hackintosh user. I'm fine with Debian, thank you very much.

Re:Who wants to update?? (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957632)

You didn't pay for it. You paid for an upgrade of OSX... for the copy that came with the Mac you never bought. You stole it.

You're a damn liar. I'm holding the Leopard box that I walked into an Apple Store and paid full retail price for. Looking at the label, it says "MAC OS X V10.5 RETAIL". The DVD inside says "Mac OS X Leopard Install DVD". WTF part of that sounds like "upgrade" to you?

Re:Who wants to update?? (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957384)

They have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can or can't install their OS on.

Yes, you go ahead and install OSX on your Game Boy. Don't let them boss you around, you go-girl.

Re:Who wants to update?? (0, Troll)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957408)

Just as well, as long as you accept the fact that you have no say as to what goes into their system updates.

What obligation are they to you to support your processor?

Jeez, you sound like of those PPC freaks.

Re:Who wants to update?? (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957550)

You're right. If I used it, I would have no say as to what went into their updates. Would you 'update' your car's tires to support fewer makes/models of tire?

Re:Who wants to update?? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957654)

You can't. That would be illegal under the Moss-Magnuson Act.

Re:Who wants to update?? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957698)

Not supporting is one thing. Intentionally disabling is another.

Jeez, you sound like of those PPC freaks.

Yes! God damn those PPC freaks for hoping their computer would be supported with software for more than 3 years!

Re:Who wants to update?? (2, Insightful)

GF678 (1453005) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957434)

They have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can or can't install their OS on.

Morally, they don't.

Legally, they DO (and has been proven in court).

Break the agreement at your peril.

Re:Who wants to update?? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957620)

please link me to the court judment upholding the EULA please

Re:Who wants to update?? (1, Offtopic)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957558)

Why shouldn't I be able to specify what happens with the software I write? Why shouldn't I be able to specify "you must run this on my hardware" as a condition of sale?

You have no right to ignore my rights as the software creator. You were free to not buy my software.

Really. I'd like to see a good reason. All I've ever seen is "I bought it, I can do what I want". Basically "I want". That always ignores the other half, Apple's rights. Why shouldn't Apple have the ability to specify conditions of sale. You're free to accept or decline, it's a contract. Apple isn't a monopoly on the computer market, it's perfectly possible to use a computer without having to buy any Apple hardware/software.

Re:Who wants to update?? (1, Insightful)

Capt_Morgan (579387) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957708)

It's a contract of adhesion.... do you have the right to tell me what size monitor I can use with your software? How about what days of the week I can use it? Get over yourself

Re:Who wants to update?? (2, Funny)

mini me (132455) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957562)

Apple does not sell OS X without accompanying hardware. You can grab an OS X upgrade disc for a nominal fee, but it is just that, an upgrade version.

If you want Apple to play fair, you must also play far. "Full version" copies of OS X start at around $599. Not a bad price when you think about it. It is only a couple of hundred dollars more than Windows 7 Ultimate (Full version) and it comes with a free Mac Mini!

Re:Who wants to update?? (0, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957596)

They most certainly DO have the right. You have no right to tell them what they can and can't do with their own stuff.

You have the right to NOT BUY IT. They have the right to refuse you service. You can't legally buy OS X for something other than a Mac. It doesn't have to get to the EULA, its clearly stated on the outside of the box. It doesn't matter how ignorant you are. They don't even do the typical thing which is to put an EULA in the software that you can't read until you've opened the box and started the install process.

You don't get to tell them how to sell their product. They don't get to force you to buy it. You don't like their terms, tough shit. Stop your whining and pony up for a Mac or shut the fuck up. Run something you agree with.

Someone buying a copy of OS X for their PC is not an Apple customer as far as Apple is concerned, just like if you go to the grocery store and buy a gallon of milk, and steal a loaf of bread, they still have their rights. Buying one thing doesn't let you steal something else, regardless of what you think in your twisted little mind.

hey try to with EULAs, but it wouldn't hold up in court if they tried to sue over it.

Really? Then why is there a court case involving that very thing? Software licenses DO hold up on court, GPL has proven that. Get over it.

If Apples' license isn't valid, neither is GPL, and I can take any GPL app and distribute binaries with proprietary code without any source.

You don't get to pick and choose when copyright is valid. Its either valid for everyone or it isn't. You don't get special rules.

Don't like Apple, DON'T USE THEIR SOFTWARE. Its that freaking simple. People like you are so freaking disconnected from logic and reality its not funny. Stop whining like a little bitch and face reality, if you want them to share with you, you have to respect their rules. Running OS X is not a right.

Don't like it? Change the law, until then, shut the fuck up, we're tired of the broken record.

Re:Who wants to update?? (4, Informative)

madsenj37 (612413) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957604)

Licensing aside, they never supported the Atom. As far as I know, they never planned or pledged to support it. Although you may be a customer, you were not an intended one if you installed OS X on an Atom. Apple does not sell anything with an Atom.

Re:Who wants to update?? (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957644)

They have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can or can't install their OS on. They try to with EULAs, but it wouldn't hold up in court if they tried to sue over it.

Exactly.

Just like the authors of GPL software have NO RIGHT to tell me I am not allowed to distributed modified binaries with out source code!

Oh wait...

Re:Who wants to update?? (1)

solevita (967690) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957662)

They have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can or can't install their OS on.

I'm not an Apple user / customer, and can't see myself becoming one anytime soon, maybe that's why I fail to see why you're getting so excited by this? If you don't like what Apple do, don't but their products or use their OS; plenty of other people do like what the company does and pay for the experience. There's no need to stop using your indoor voice in what should be a fairly straight forward decision making process.

Re:Who wants to update?? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957122)

It's like Microsoft and Apple are trying to compete and see who can belittle and harass their customers the most.

Customers? We're talking about people who aren't buying macs. Try to keep up, will you?

Re:Who wants to update?? (2, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957340)

And we're also talking about a single blogger being repeated ad-bloggium. Nothing like creating a windstorm in a vacuum.

Re:Who wants to update?? (1)

pseudonomous (1389971) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957360)

If you buy a copy of OS X from Apple, you are an Apple customer, even if you don't have a mac. If you pirate a copy of Windows, then even though you are a Windows user, you aren't a Microsoft customer. (unless you also buy other stuff from them)

Re:Who wants to update?? (2, Informative)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957500)

If you buy a copy of OS X from Apple, you are an Apple customer, even if you don't have a mac. If you pirate a copy of Windows, then even though you are a Windows user, you aren't a Microsoft customer. (unless you also buy other stuff from them)

If you buy a copy of OS X and install it on non-Apple hardware, you are a customer who has broken his license agreement. Remember software is licensed, not outright purchased, and you have no legal standing at all outside of the terms of the license.

Whether or not that makes Apple the bad guy is up for pointless debate, which I'm sure we'll get a lot of.

Re:Who wants to update?? (2, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957174)

Microsoft's customers are OEMs and retailers, not us. We're consumers. Apple is more of a self-contained ecosystem, having their own stores and selling their entire vertically integrated product stack directly to end users. In Microsoft's case, their actions make slightly more sense, however most Apple customers seem more than willing to just bend over and take it with regards to some of the b.s. that the company seems to want to perpetrate.

Now, I must admit that I'm pretty jealous over the fact that OS X is the only Unix I can think of that can run Photoshop natively alongside the likes of Matlab and everything else I can get on a BSD or GNU platform, and their hardware does have the shiny factor, but quite frankly, I can't really see the value added in running OS X on my EeePC and so really have no willingness to jump through the hoops to try and get it running, with out without the added steps to try and prevent me from doing so. It just doesn't really seem worth it to me.

Re:Who wants to update?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957688)

my ex girlfriend worked for apple and told me that an agreement with microsoft was in effect to keep the mac os off the "buy a disk install on your hardware" circuit since microsoft knows os would be adopted in droves.

Good, go ahead and do that (-1, Flamebait)

PenisLands (930247) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957128)

I wouldn't use OS X if you paid me to.

Re:Good, go ahead and do that (0, Offtopic)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957146)

Good go away and shut up!

Apple's target market isn't going hackintosh... (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957142)

Apple's target market aren't going to put up with the kinds of shenanigans it takes to get a hackintosh running, whether or not they pull this kind of stuff.

Upcoming Apple netbook (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957156)

So basically Apple is saying "wait a few months, and we're releasing a netbook" ?

Re:Upcoming Apple netbook (1)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957182)

Yeah, I wondered about that, too. They might be trying to preemptively throttle competition. But based on past performance, I'm thinking that this is probably just routine dickery.

If they were to build netbook, why cut Atom? (1)

rwade (131726) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957372)

So basically Apple is saying "wait a few months, and we're releasing a netbook" ?

I too can really only explain it that way. At this point Apple is not in the market for netbooks, save, perhaps, for the iPod touches that serve as nearly full-featured netbooks in their own right (IMHO!). Given that, these makers of generally high-end computers have nothing to gain by failing to serve the Atom PC market. If they were in this market, such a move would be in their interest...

But tell me this -- if Apple were to build a netbook, why would they eliminate Atom capability since that processor could serve as the basis for a ultra small, low-power mac?

Re:If they were to build netbook, why cut Atom? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957718)

If they are going to develop a Netbook (and that's a pretty damn big if in my opinion, since margins on Netbooks aren't what Apple usually goes for) they may look to use chipsets developed by P.A. Semi (Apple purchased them in 2008) rather than Intel.

Buying The License... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957158)

Does that include the $500 for the logo?

Re:Buying The License... (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957218)

According to this [zdnet.com] Article, the latest version of OSX would cost $545 American dollars based on the cost of upgrading from Jaguar to Leopard (adding the additional 29 bucks for Snow Leopard).

A fully-featured standalone OSX release should be around $300 to be competitive. That would kill Win Se7en.

Re:Buying The License... (1)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957402)

Claims like this have been answered many times over. Just because Snow Leopard and Jaguar share the OS X prefix, it doesn't mean they are the same OS in the sense that XP SP1 and XP SP3 are the same OS. We're not just talking about the number of advancements or features introduced in between, rather, computers that shipped with Jaguar cannot run Snow Leopard and vice versa. They run on entirely different architectures (PPC vs x86). So no, there isn't this single release of "OS X" that costs $500+++.

Re:Buying The License... (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957502)

Intel Macs can't run 10.2 or 10.3. Powermacs can't run 10.6, and a 10.2 era powermac would probably struggle with 10.5

Re:Buying The License... (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957238)

No genius, it's ~$129 for the full OS including the complete tool chain used to create software on the system. Windows 7 can't touch it for price and bang for the buck!

Re:Buying The License... (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957414)

Except you also have to pay an additional $1100 to use it without breaking their EULA.

Re:Buying The License... (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957646)

Uh yeah, same with Win 7! Gotta buy at least a minimum PC at about $600 bucks the same price as a Mac Mini genius!

Re:Buying The License... (1)

kill-1 (36256) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957538)

Why? You can get Windows 7 Professional for $139 and Visual Studio Express for free.

I don't see why they would license it (2, Insightful)

matty619 (630957) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957192)

Apple makes their bread and butter selling an image in an environment of artificial scarcity. A large percentage of Mac users do so just because Windows has become so pedestrian. Apple knows this....and capitalizes on it. As soon as you can get OS X on a $300 notebook, you've lost a percentage of the apple crowd who buy Mac just for exclusivity of it all.

Re:I don't see why they would license it (4, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957704)

No one buys a Mac because its exclusive. Its not, they don't produce too few for market demand any more than Nintendo does.

The idea that people buy Apple software because its 'rare' is just silly, if that were the reason their market existed, then people wouldn't be trying to run OSX on generic hardware.

People LIKE OS X when they use it on a Mac. Having ran OS X on a PC, I stopped, why? Its not worth the effort. I have a job, I make money, I can just buy a Mac and have things work if I want to. Windows supports my Dell, OS X does not, its fine if you want to hack it up because you enjoy doing that, thats not what you're claiming.

Unfortunately, as I've said, what you are claiming is false. You can walk into BestBuy and buy pretty much any Mac you want, no scarcity. You can buy from multiple stores and multiple websites, including Apples own.

There may be some Apple arrogance with the 'haha you run Windows', that is true, but of course pretty much anyone you are referencing falls into that category. They aren't running it because they've got a trendy mac, they're running it because they prefer it over Windows.

Get a dose of reality and a cluepon please.

Re:I don't see why they would license it (2, Informative)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957716)

You know, you're kind of right. I type this on a Atom 330 (4Gig RAM). The machine sucks. I bought it to play around with, but instead it replaced my P-IV 2.6GHz Hyperthreaded machine with 2Gig RAM. The replacement was accidental. I bought the Atom to play around with, when the P-IV blew its caps after six years of faithful service. Having nothing other, I reconverted my "plaything" (Atom 330) to my desktop.

The machine is sub-par.... slow and I have dumpster diven machines that are better than it. The Atom is not worth its money. It might be because I run Linux (Ubuntu 9.10, by now), but if people really think Atom powered laptops are enough, they are mistaken. I have an original Asus EEE 701, and it fares better than the crap I type on now.

Netbooks (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957194)

Is the 13" MacbookPro or Macbook really that much different than the Eee in terms of portability? Yes, it's more expensive, but we're talking about Apple and they're always a little more expensive because it's a higher quality product. The 13" MBP is very thin and light, it's not sub-12 inches but it travels well in bags or backpacks, if you want a highly portable computer that runs OS X, Apple already makes one.

I think it would be a stupid idea for Apple to license their OS to other hardware makers. Once they give up total control of the experience it's going to make things less pleasant for the end user, and there goes Apple's reputation for reliability and the integration of hardware and software which distinguishes them from other companies.

Re:Netbooks (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957286)

I've never heard of a case where a company has removed functionality from pay-software, that isn't considered a dick move. What's to keep them from saying, "Well, we don't really think our x line of laptops is good enough for this OS anymore, ya'know? We're just going to block those too. But you can buy 10.6.5.x codenamed Retro for another $200."

Re:Netbooks (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957404)

Well its not really functionality. Apple makes NOTHING that use that processor. It was perhaps the intent to eventually release it, but they decided to change tactics especially after they BOUGHT a chip manufacturer. Apple makes hardware, not software. They have a few programs that are cross-platform but most of the stuff they make are made for THEIR hardware. Its that simple.

Re:Netbooks (1)

TerminaMorte (729622) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957288)

Higher quality product? Same internals as any PC with a shiny case. That's some high quality shit right there.

Re:Netbooks (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957308)

I don't see how Apple can justify an $1,100 (USD) price difference. This isn't a little more expensive, this is double the price.

Mac:
Processor: 2.93 GHz Intel 2 Core Duo
Memory: 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
640GB Serial ATA Drive
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 256MB
Apple Mighty Mouse

TOTAL PRICE: $3,000 (AUD)

LINK: http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html [apple.com]

PC
$90 - Tower, fan and power supply
$60 - DVD Burner
$170 - 2.93 GHz Intel 2 Core Duo
$95 - 640GB SATA HDD 3.5"; 7200 rpm
$30 - Keyboard and Mouse
$140 - 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 Non-ECC CL9 DIMM (Kit of 2)
$450 - 24" LCD Monitor
$150 - Speakers and Sound card (estimate)
$190 - Graphics Card: Gigabyte GF9800GT, 1GB, Model:N98TOC-1GI #18192
$400 - Windows 7 Ultimate

TOTAL PRICE: $1775 (AUD)

SOURCE: Beecom - http://beecom.com.au/home.php [beecom.com.au]

Re:Netbooks (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957476)

You're kidding, right? First, you left out the logic board in your PC. That's going to boot really well. Second, the iMac is an all-in-one computer, not a tower. You can't compare Apples and oranges, so to speak. That's like saying the Mini is expensive because you can build a full-size tower for a hundred bucks less. Yeah, maybe, but in the end, you have a full-size tower with loud fans, no DVI, no DisplayPort, no FireWire, no built-in Wi-Fi, etc.

Re:Netbooks (0, Troll)

thisisaccount2 (1647273) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957578)

The point. You missed it.

Re:Netbooks (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957504)

How much do you get per hour for assembly and testing and warranty for 1 year?

The RDF is strong with this one (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957582)

A LITTLE more expensive? Seriously man, what are you on? Base price is $1200. A 10" EEE PC (with XP not Linux) is only $320. The Mac is damn near four times the price! That is not a little more expensive, that is a whole different category of cost.

The appeal of netbooks isn't just the portability, though that is certainly part of it. The 7" ones in particular can fit in extremely small bags which is useful in some cases (some of our researchers use them to control devices in the field). A big part of the appeal is price. If you don't need much computer, if word processing and web surfing is pretty much all you do, you can have a computer for just a couple hundred bucks.

The MBP is not at all the same market at its price. You are in to the mid range, or upper mid range of normal laptops at this point. That's fine if that's what you need/want, but it is not at all a netbook competitor.

This has always been one of Apple's big problems. Not everyone wants expensive shit. They have somewhat diversified their desktop line, though a consumer tower is notably absent, as it always has been, but their portable line is as pricey as ever. You start upper mid range and go up from there. There's nothing for people who want a minimal system for minimal cost.

Re:Netbooks (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957594)

it's a higher quality product

If by higher quality you mean the same quality, sold to artsy elitists, with a custom OS that basically invented the "bloated and slow" genre...the I guess you are right.

And don't make me get my anecdotes out to counter your anecdotes.

Re:Netbooks (1)

pseudonomous (1389971) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957696)

Yes, it is that different; it's the difference between having something that isn't that bad to carry around if you know you'll need it, and something that you just take with on the off chance you'll want to use it. The Macbook Air is almost as portable a netbook (and prettier, w/ a better processor & display, but less peripheral ports, and no integrated wired networking) and about five times as expensive as basic model Mini 10v, Wind, or Apire One.

Hackintosh as a Production Environment (1)

cpicon92 (1157705) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957198)

Does anybody actually use these "hackintosh" netbooks on a daily basis? I always assumed they were things people put together for fun. I understand that a number of people like Mac OS, but it seems to me that the OS would lose all of its appeal by not being linked to the hardware. If you have the technical prowess to install OS X on a netbook why are you using OS X on your netbook? Why not linux? (that wasn't meant as a flamebait question) Most people who use OS X instead of linux cite stability and support as their reasons. Wouldn't a hackintosh have neither of these?

Re:Hackintosh as a Production Environment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957342)

Because Linux is as user friendly as Unix and as stable as windows 95.

No. (4, Insightful)

Ty (15982) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957206)

Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share. I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.

Additionally, as long as Jobs is at the helm, this will never happen. He's made it very clear that Apple doesn't sell hardware or software, but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two.

Re:No. (4, Insightful)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957294)

Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share. I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.

So, in other words, Apple wasn't charging enough for MacOS licenses, and they guessed wrong about how willing customers would be to keep buying Apple branded hardware.

Why does this doom future OS licensing? Why can't they just charge enough for the OS X license so that they'll stay profitable if it turns out people only want the software?

Re:No. (2, Interesting)

Ty (15982) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957356)

What happened in the 90's would imply that the potential market for currently non-Apple users who want to run MacOS on non-Apple hardware is smaller than the pool of current Apple users who would switch to other hardware if provided an easy route. That means loss of market share in their own market.

I'd wager to say that it's probably not much different now.

But will it run on a Psystar? (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957212)

10.6.2 would have been the perfect opportunity for Apple to muck around with its DRM-- though getting cocky might look bad in front of the judge.

This is totally surprising! (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957236)

It's not like Apple uses every update to disable Hackintosh functionality, and the osx86 crack team finds the hole and fixes it.

This will only surprise those that upgraded without doing any research or those that upgrade without reading this first.

I'm back to Win 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957250)

I've learnt an important thing about Apple over the past few years: they want to be worse than MS, but don't have the market share to do so. As they've increased in popularity over the past few years, they've done more restrictive things that MS would ever dream of. I'm fed up, and having installed Win 7 RTM a few weeks ago, I'm moving back to Windows for my main workstation. The servers will stay Linux, having moved a few years ago from FreeBSD.

With Windows 7, there is really no reason to choose Apple over Microsoft except for the fashion statement.

Re:I'm back to Win 7 (0, Flamebait)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957358)

With Windows 7, there is really no reason to choose Apple over Microsoft except for the fashion statement.
Well except that Win 7 still has the virus protection to buy and the spyware protection to buy and the ... ad nauseum.

Re:I'm back to Win 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957586)

Wrong. You can get free virus/spyware protection from Microsoft now. Not only that there are quite a few free virus/spyware protection software packages around. Stop spreading FUD.

Mac OS X for generic machines. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957254)

If Apple offered an OS X license for non-Apple hardware, and priced it at whatever their margin is for a mid-range Mac, they'd be able to break into a lot of businesses where the customers don't get to pick their hardware. A lot of companies have company-wide purchasing contracts with Dell or HP, and the typical user doesn't have the authority to buy anything different. A lot of those same people though, could spend $500 for a software package on their own authority.

That being said, Apple still has to consider Microsoft when deciding whether to do this. If Apple offered Mac OS X on generic hardware, you can bet that MS would pull the plug on all Mac products immediately. Maybe we'll see this happen when iWork is ready to replace MS Office, but not yet.

-jcr

Re:Mac OS X for generic machines. (1)

Too Many Secrets (449095) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957416)

What do you think the subset is of companies that have company wide purchase contracts with HP or dell and yet still allow their users to install an alternate os?

Re:Mac OS X for generic machines. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957520)

I don't have hard data on it, but it doesn't need to be a terribly high percentage to be worth doing.

-jcr

Re:Mac OS X for generic machines. (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957438)

The expense of adding the support personnel to handle the 9 million driver problems that pop up and the stupid little proprietary pieces of kit on the motherboards are not really worth the effort. Hardware and software from one source, I KNOW who to scream at when it doesn't work! If you like the OS so much buy the hardware, if you don't buy the hardware you don't get the OS you want. It's that simple. The myth that it's vastly overpriced just gos to show how lazy the person perpetuating that myth is.

Re:Mac OS X for generic machines. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957574)

The expense of adding the support personnel to handle the 9 million driver problems that pop up and the stupid little proprietary pieces of kit on the motherboards are not really worth the effort.

Well, back in the OpenStep days, NeXT published a shopping list of what hardware they supported. They wouldn't have to promise to support everything the way that MS does. IIRC, they sold OpenStep 4.2 for $800 for a user seat, and $1500 for a developer seat.

-jcr

Re:Mac OS X for generic machines. (1)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957598)

If Apple offered an OS X license for non-Apple hardware, and priced it at whatever their margin is for a mid-range Mac, they'd be able to break into a lot of businesses where the customers don't get to pick their hardware.

It would be pretty hard for Apple to break into another market, if Apple is out of business :}

They have licensed Mac OS before, so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be.

Re:Mac OS X for generic machines. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957648)

They have licensed Mac OS before, so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be.

They licensed it before on terms that weren't profitable to Apple. Who says that's the only way it can be done?

-jcr

Re:Mac OS X for generic machines. (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957700)

They have licensed Mac OS before, so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be.

Right, because its impossible for changes in either the licensing model or the environment in which the licensing model is applied to have any effect on the outcome: if they license MacOS separate from Apple hardware, the results must be exactly the same as the time they did it in the past, no matter what the market situation is like at the time, and no matter how they manage the separate licensing.

Um... (2, Insightful)

TheSpoom (715771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957270)

Apple makes its money from its (vastly overpriced) hardware. To do this, it creates nice, shiny software, and then deadbolts it as much as it can to the hardware, so people will pay the extra price for the hardware in order to get the software.

Selling the software individually would allow their competition to massively undercut them, and would enable customers to (rightly) ask why they should bother to pay extra for Apple's shiny hardware when X Hackintosh does exactly the same thing for much much less.

It's not exactly rocket science here. Apple knows where the money is, and individually licensing the software isn't it.

Raises The Sell OS X Standalone Question. Really? (1)

DannyO152 (544940) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957282)

Because the answer is no. Why increase support and development costs? Why go head to head with Microsoft when, as the world is today, Microsoft will win. Why make it easy for someone to have the "experience" without buying the iron? Why make it easier for Dell, HP, or Lenovo to sell their pcs? Because hackintoshers may have hurt feelings?

That was the last question this news item could possibly raise.

What is the problem (1)

fluch (126140) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957284)

If you want to have Mac OS X, by an iMac or MBP 13". I never understood people who wanted to have Mac OS X on a tiny cheap bad quality laptop. Macs are not so much more expensive if you take into account what kind of hardware you get (and I do not mean just the computing power but the over all quality of the product).

Re:What is the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957576)

Oh, please. Macs are made in the same Chinese plants and from the same components as Dells, Lenovos, HPs, and the like. Apple hasn't used "premium hardware" since the 68K and PPC days. Now they're using the same consumer commodity hardware everyone else is, sexing it up a little, and charging double. Posting AC because the fanboy parade will be in to mod this into the ground in 5, 4, 3 . . .

Re:What is the problem (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957664)

Funny, my Dell notebook has not failed me once since I bought it. Why should I pay inflated prices for (at best) equally reliable hardware from Apple? I do not personally want to run OS X (proprietary), but I know plenty of people who do and who really cannot afford the ridiculous prices Apple is demanding for its hardware. OS X is a decent operating system; why should people be forced to pay for a specially branded computer just so they can run that system?

I understand that Apple is trying to create an artificial market where it can thrive, but do not confuse that with "sensible." I know that Apple does not give a damn about people who do not want to spend money on the whole "Apple package," but those people do actually exist.

"Apple Labeled" License Compliance (1)

appleguru (1030562) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957290)

Its hardly been tested in court, but it'd seem that my Dell Mini 9 with an apple sticker on the back qualifies as an "Apple Labeled Computer", especially since the apple sticker came from apple and shipped with my macbook pro.

This would satisfy the EULA agreement for OS X versions 10.5 and lower. They changed the wording in the 10.6 agreement to be "Apple Branded," which makes it a bit more difficult for a non-apple machine to qualify. That said, it all comes down to how you define "labeled" and "branded" ;-)

Re:"Apple Labeled" License Compliance (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957454)

I have a branding iron shaped like an apple. Shall we install OSX on a cow?

Re:"Apple Labeled" License Compliance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957652)

After branding, the cow would get smug and would only dispense non-fat foamed chocolate milk.

Re:"Apple Labeled" License Compliance (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957468)

If in fact you are an authorized agent of Apple to claim that you put the sticker there with Apple's corporate permission you would have a case. Otherwise, you lose!

A tale of contrasts. (1)

juuri (7678) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957316)

Apple is a weird company. On the one hand you have many parts of it which work on open concepts, even encourage them and contribute. On the other you have what appears to be an old contingent of assholes who in any attempt to maintain relevant within the growing beast that is Apple (not Apple Computer) do anything they can to wrestle the slightest bit of profit or just be dicks in general.

I am a huge fan of OSX as a client OS and have been a fan ever since NeXT "bought" Apple. The laptops are great gear and some of their ideas for media consumption are still unmatched. However Apple the company is becoming harder to stomach for me personally as they become the big kids on the block, unafraid of quickly fading into irreverence like they were only half a decade ago, throwing their weight around, "just cuz". This is a perfect example as disabling support for the Atom is an *active* change that affords the company absolutely nothing.

Raises a question? (5, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957330)

But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware — priced accordingly of course[...]

No it doesn't! You did. YOU want that, so YOU asked it. It isn't inherit to the facts. An inherent question would be "If Apple isn't support them Atom, then what chip will they use for [speculated product]?"

The statement in the summary is equivalent to:

Today ADM said it will no longer sell soybeans to people with the letter 'R' in their name. That raises the question - shouldn't ADM make soybeans that taste like root beer?

"Apple stops supporting something it never supported". What a story. Is anyone surprised? In fact, since hackintoshes are almost certainly eating into Apple's hardware sales (maybe not by much, but they must), this is an obvious thing to do. Why maintain support for something you don't use and is probably causing you some financial harm.

I remember with Apple stopped shipping drivers VESA Local Bus sound cards and the internet went NUTS. Same when Dell stopped shipping PPC drivers with their Xeon servers.

No, wait, Apple never officially supported those (if they had existed), and Dell didn't tell people they would ship PPC drivers with Xeons, so no one was surprised.

How dare Apple stop supporting unsupported hardware for people who aren't paying Apple for the software they may have simply stolen?

Come on. I know people on /. want to be able to put OS X on any computer... but is this really a surprise? This isn't much of a story, it's just another excuse for the licensing/purchasing/monopoly/first-sale debate we have in every Apple article.

Re:Raises a question? (3, Insightful)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957572)

In fact, since hackintoshes are almost certainly eating into Apple's hardware sales (maybe not by much, but they must), [...]

Not true.

Indeed, that the majority of Hackintoshes seem to be for market segments Apple has no presence, or are explicitly refusing user demand, in, then it's hard to see how anyone could argue they "must" be "eating into Apple's hardware sales".

Apples market (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957348)

Apples market has been Apple hardware and software only for as long as I have known it. Sure, there are software applications and services that got so popular that even Apple caved in on this principle (e.g. their movie player and multimedia applications). There were some licensed manufacturers of Apple hardware as well, but even that did not please Apple.

And after having literally tens to hundreds of issues with Linux on PC hardware one can see why. Currently my Lenovo SL300 laptop does not play nice with the screen settings because somewhere the hardware/firmware does not keep to specs. It's one of those hundreds of PITA's that will you get when you couple "generic" hardware with an unsuspecting OS.

Apple selling OSX to non-Apple hardware? They will go bust if they go that path now. If only because current consumer PC's have been tested for one OS family only.

End-user experience comes first (IMHO) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957374)

IMHO

Apple is not licensing OS/X to third parties because it's not an operating system - it's a component of the Macintosh (and other) product lines. It just happens to be software.

Apple has kept it simple: pay more for our well-designed and integrated product, enjoy it, and we'll support it. That's no different than what Lexus or BMW do, just in a different market.

A less-than-perfect end-user experience is not Apple's goal. Unbundling would lead to loss of control over the quality of the end-user experience. One bad apple *can* spoil a whole bunch.

Imagine a scenario where Apple did license OS/X. Follow that with third-party reviews, then pressure for Apple to fix *those* problems. In no time at all, they're Microsoft (or at least battling the same demons).

(Of course, a hackintosh *could* be considered to be a "gateway drug", but that's another story...)

Who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957382)

Apple is for faggots anyway. Keep sucking that shit out of faggot asses you faggot mac users. i'll laugh when you get aids and die.

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957466)

Why do you hate yourself, little boy? Did your daddy beat the crap out of you when he caught you masturbating to pictures of Steve Ballmer? Do you think you can convince anyone else that you're straight if you accuse others of being homosexual?

When are you people going to get it? (1, Flamebait)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957422)

Apple isn't going to sell you a freaking license for your generic PC.

Stop saying 'When is it going to happen?!@#!$' or 'They should sell it for generic PCs'.

They don't want your business. They want people who are willing to pay, not people who want to shoe horn OSX on to some POS craptop. They don't want to even joke about supporting random generic hardware. And unlike the typical combination of (insert random PC maker) and Microsoft, you actually CAN get support from Apple rather than 'its not our problem, its someone elses'.

Its fine that you don't want to buy a Mac but thats your choice, either buy one and run OS X or don't buy one and stop complaining. A MacBook Air isn't a whole lot different then a large netbook, and it weighs less then some I've seen sold as netbooks.

You have options, you just aren't willing to invest in one. Thats fine, but please stop with the 'OMG GIMME OSX ON GENERIC HARDWARE'.

No this isn't flamebait, regardless of how you feel, I speak for many people who are just tired of the same old chorus line from people unwilling to pay for something they want, but expect to get it anyway.

Re:When are you people going to get it? (1)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957450)

It's also very difficult for a MacBook to be pirated and made available for download on bittorrent. If they didn't make money on the hardware, they wouldn't make money.

          Brett

Re:When are you people going to get it? (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957614)

Right there with you man!

If they want to be hard about it. (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957432)

Why don't they just throw a $0.50 EEPROM on the SMBus, with a string consisting of "APPLE INC" on it, and deny machines that don't have this..?
That's how I'd do it. Not that you can't get around this either, but it would require work... Of course they would have to phase this in on hardware now, and on OS releases in several years.

I guess I don't see the fascination with OSX in the first place though.

you want to pay for software? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29957444)

"The only reason OSX is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms. I could just pay for a license to use it." this is slashdot man, no need to b.s. you wont pay for it anyways software wants to be free. note, this is not sarcastic.

Apple doesn't make anything that runs on Atom (1)

AGSHender (696890) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957540)

At one point in time it was rumored that Apple was working on an Atom-powered device or system, and then they bought PA Semi and decided to make their own low-power microprocessor instead. There is no value for Apple to retain Atom support anymore because it has no future at the moment with any product with an Apple logo on it. Hell, they don't support AMD processors, either. But is is dickery? Yeah, it is, but I don't think it's dickery for sheer purpose of dickery.

Ktext? (1)

loonwings (1519397) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957548)

What the fuck is a ktext?

Re:Ktext? (1)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957692)

What the fuck is a ktext?

It's a typo. They mean kext, a Mac OS X kernel extension.

Wrong Answer Folks - Atom = 32bit CPU (0)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 4 years ago | (#29957618)

and 10.6 is moving towards a full 64bit Architecture. This means the Atom Can't run it because it's a 32bit only CPU. In other words, this is a non-story

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?