20090329
Is Apple losing control of OS X?
Hopefully within the next week I’ll have a new Netbook in my possession. This device is compatible with the hardware requirements of Apple’s OS X. I purchased the 5-pack license for Leopard for my two iMacs and still have 3 unused licenses so I am considering installing OS X and dual booting the netbook. In doing some advanced research on the process of installing OS X on non-Apple hardware, it has become obvious that this is a trivial process. I wonder what implications this has for Apple and the way they enforce their licensing for the OS.
The Netbook I selected is the MSI Wind (U100-432US) 10″ system. I’ll be adding 1GB of memory and upgrading the HD to a 320GB 7200 RPM Western Digital Scorpion 2.5″ SATA HD. My goal is to have a tiny computer to run my observatory – freeing my other notebook to run the camera and deal with the high data rate processes. I do not need OS X to run the observatory, but I would also like to have a small netbook for other reasons. I only run windows when I am required to and prefer OS X for “normal” computing, hence the desire for dual boot.
Does Apple’s financial future require that they artificially tie OS X to their Hardware? If so, are they doomed?
Edna said,
March 29, 2009 @ 0228
And now that you are breaking the EULA, please don’t expect any kind of support from Apple should you need it. Also, thanks to you and others who think you are doing nothing wrong, Apple will no doubt soon have to resort to the draconian registration practices for their OS software that Microsoft now uses. Just mucking it up for everyone else so you can have it your way. I wish you bad luck, and I hope Apple soon devises some hooks, so your attempt at having the gravy without cooking the goose will fail.
JMZ said,
March 29, 2009 @ 0256
And so I watch the Apple vs Pystar trial with interest. My real point here is that the cat is long out of the bag. Apple HW and their OS X SW are no longer a tight bundle. Bootcamp allows me to run windows on their hardware and a host of other tools allows me to run their superior SW on non-apple HW. Seems fair enough to me, but I will abide by the rulings of the court if and when they rule on the Apple vs Pystar case before them. You see I am not adverse to spending money on Apple HW or SW – it is just that they do not (yet) make what I really want.
The real issue here is about the fate of Apple and whether other countries (China and most of SE Asia) will ever respect copyrights and intellectual property rights. This is where the growth is. This is where the trade (im)balance comes into play. This is where the future will be determined. Given sufficient patience, failure for me is not even in the cards. I can always refuse to upgrade any further (e.g. to SnowLeopard). Since I currently have neither the hardware nor the software – I may not bother to build a Hackintosh. The point of all of this is simply that I certainly could if I wanted to. And so the question remains – Has Apple lost control of OS X?
greg stasko said,
March 29, 2009 @ 0325
I find it interesting that you buy a 5 five pack of OS X, yet choose to use one of the licenses on a netbook.
On one hand, it’s great that you’ve bought a multipack to cover the netbook. However, it’s still a license violation. You and others may not like the restrictions Apple has in place re tying their operating system to their hardware, but disliking them doesn’t invalidate them.
Is it much different from copying the songs from a music CD to a filesharing service, allowing even one other person to copy the contents? You may disagree with the label’s position on filesharing, but it is the current law.
I’m really playing devil’s advocate, more so than standing up for Apple’s terms and conditions. However, they are entitled to them, as unpopular as they may me.
I happen to work for a software company, so perhaps I’m a bit sensitive to the subject. Be that as it may…
greg
AdamC said,
March 29, 2009 @ 0547
Does it matter?
Since it is fair to you so go ahead. Why worry what is the right thing as long as it is right in your view.
John said,
March 29, 2009 @ 0633
For the time being I’ll give Apple the benefit of the doubt and think that they are OK with what is going on. They have a lot of smart people and a lot of money to invest if they wish in locking down OS X to run only on Apple hardware. It may always be possible to eventually crack their security, but they could make it complex and tedious enough that few people would bother.
John Davis said,
March 29, 2009 @ 0937
I agree with Edna, I’m afraid. You are basically ripping Apple off.
Apple can afford to offer their software at low prices because they make a profit on their hardware. If you run Apple software on non-Apple hardware, you are denying them this profit and thereby forcing them to run at a loss.
If many people do this, Apple will be forced to use some kind of DRM or put their software prices up massively. Apple is basically a hardware company that makes excellent software.
There is a Chinese proverb, “Don’t break someone’s rice bowl.” This is what you are doing.
Just because you it is physically possible to install Apple software on non-Apple hardware doesn’t make it OK to do so.
You are taking advantage of Apple’s trust.
John Davis
Bob Nies said,
March 29, 2009 @ 0956
Doesn’t matter…. the future is with mobile OS X and all the portable designs we will be using going forward….. The PA Semi deal will take care of that situation for Apple, and that same solution probably being integrated into the next revisions of computer hardware too.
JMZ said,
March 29, 2009 @ 1323
I appreciate all of your comments and points of view on this, as well as the civil tone in which they are offered.
So, what are Apple’s options? The courts will determine what is Right and Wrong when they decide whether the current terms in the EULA are legal. If they are found to be legal – Apple wins with no further effort. I’m fine with that. If Apple loses, they have a few options.
They could try to negotiate licensing with the new OEMs.
They could also offer OS X for sale on non-Apple hardware directly to the public.
They could more tightly bind the OS to their hardware.
They could ignore all of this and continue to compete by producing a superior hardware product line.
Only the second option represents a solution to the problem which has led me down this road. Apple does not offer the product that I’m interested in – a 10″ NetBook.
John Walter said,
March 29, 2009 @ 1535
I agree with Greg Stasko who said, “I find it interesting that you buy a 5 five pack of OS X, yet choose to use one of the licenses on a netbook..” If you are going to steal from Apple to satisfy your worship of OS X on a netbook, there is no reason why you shouldn’t buy a one-user copy of OS X and then install it on as many computers as you want. In all cases, it is still ripping off from Apple. I am glad I don’t know you.
Jeremy Zawodny said,
March 29, 2009 @ 1629
I got a Samsung NC10 a few month back and love it. I’m interested in hearing what you think of the Wind. It was my #2 choice.
Jim G. said,
March 29, 2009 @ 1725
Artificially tie OS X to Apple hardware?
If you ask me, as a programmer, there is more effort and code written to make OS X work well and – more importantly – be supported on non-Apple hardware.
If Apple chooses to not waste resources doing this, that is there choice.
If you want to extend this argument, why are Sony and XBox games only allowed to run on their respective hardware, when they use the same processor? Artificial tie? Hardly. Optimizing code is the more likely answer.
Steve A said,
March 29, 2009 @ 2040
Edna said: “And now that you are breaking the EULA, please don’t expect any kind of support from Apple should you need it. ” LOL. People who install Mac OS X on other hardware aren’t the type to ever call Apple for software support. I’ve been using macs since 1985 and I have yet to call Apple for OS support.
greg stasko said,
March 29, 2009 @ 2228
I wonder if this whole phenomenon gets out of hand (Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware), Apple will end up resorting to some sort of dreadful copy protection or network activation, similar to what happens on WIndows?
That would be a very unfortunate side effect to all of this.
Snafu said,
March 29, 2009 @ 2338
“…f you are going to steal from Apple…”
If anything, JMZ could be misusing Apple’s software, not stealing it. Also, EULAs aren’t the most enforceable of rules, and Apple could be accused of bundling (after all, a Mac can run Windows, and OS X can be run on a PC).
Myself, I intend to go “MacBook Mini” as soon as the Ion platform gets released and pricing and capabilities of all netbook ranges get clarified.
Neil Anderson said,
March 29, 2009 @ 2358
In a certain small sense Apple has lost control. At this point it’s not a concern for them unless you’re a company selling computers with their operating system on it.
Tom Benson said,
March 30, 2009 @ 0635
I don’t think you have anything to worry about personally. If you own an extra license (most people don’t) and are tech savvy enough to install this on a non Apple machine for your own personal use, then good for you. It’s when you decide to provide this as a professional (ie paid) service that you are going to get into trouble.
Yes you are breaking the EULA, but there being no financial gain in the process mean that Apple Legal has no leg to stand on if they decided to take you on.
Guy said,
March 30, 2009 @ 1418
I find the use of the term “stealing from Apple” interesting when he has a 5-user license. He’s installing one of those licenses on non-Apple hardware. Assuming Joe is smart enough to know he will never get support for any non-Apple hardware that OS X is installed on, how exactly is it stealing? He bought the 5-user pack because he has two Macs and it’s cheaper to buy it than to buy two seperate licenses. At least he’s not just buying the single license and installing it on multiple machines (which WOULD be stealing).
As far as non-Apple Macs go, Apple is going after Psystar because they are infringing on Apple patents by including OS X in the machines they sell. So far they haven’t gone after EFI-X (which in most ways is a superior solution) because while they sell an OS X compatible computer (if the EFI-X USB chip is also purchased), they don’t sell it WITH OS X.
Joe has bought and is in need of a netbook. Apple (so far anyway) does not sell anything in this line. The MacBook Air, while quite a neat little machine, is more than 3x the price and at least 2x in size. NOT the same thing. As long as he doesn’t expect Apple to support him, whaere’s the harm in putting OS X on whatever he likes as long as he doesn’t exceed the number of licenses he has AND doesn’t attempt to resell it as a Mac?
Because I want more storage (and the ability to add to that storage internally), I’m giving serious consideration to an EFI-X computer once Snow Leopard is released. I hate having multiple USB2 and FireWire enclosures all over my desk. I’m just waiting to see what happens to all the hackintoshes and current EFI-X Macs first. A tower Mac with better performance, more storage options, and better graphics than iMacs for a much lower price. Yes, it will have a legally purchased version on it as well and no I don’t expect Apple to support me.
For the record I’ve been a Mac user since 1987 (System 6.04 on a Mac Plus) and would pay more for an Apple Mac if it could be figured the way I need it to (storage).
nik heger said,
March 30, 2009 @ 1535
It seems like nobody wants to answer, so I’ll do it: No, Apple is not doomed. Apple can, at their own digression, any time they want, add a zillion little hardships to running OS X on non-supported hardware.
I don’t think they can really enforce their EULA, whatever others may think, in my mind, if you buy something then you can do whatever you want with it. That’s the answer that a good justice system will find. We’ll see how it plays out in the real world but that’s what I would bet on.
It doesn’t matter though. Remember how Microsoft brought down DR-DOS and everyone else who got in their way? By technical means, by making the other people’s stuff break. Apple can do that too. For example, every update to OS X could break all hackintoshes. Don’t think they could do that? Yes, they could. If that wasn’t enough, they could make their apps only work on the real thing – strange problems would occur on the hackintoshes only. And… ooops, no support for that. There is a million ways…
So no Apple is not doomed, they are just sitting back in the knowledge that while they can’t win by making OS X un-hackable, they can make it so that any normal and sane person would much rather buy the real thing. As it is, they probably figure every hackintosh user is a potential future customer and as such they are going to try to not piss them off. They’d want to gradually nudge these people into buying a real Mac.
anthonie said,
October 19, 2009 @ 1911
You people sticking up for apple are a bunch of do-gooder babies! I can’t believe the crap I’m reading! So apple doesn’t get to charge the few people willing to jump the hurdles too much damn money for so-so hardware, boo hoo. Maybe for the people who are making 60k a year spending 1500 dollars on a computer that is half of what I could build for the money seems reasonable, but to us ”poor” people, it’s a load of crap. Windows sucks. It is raped and pillaged by viruses. OSX on the other hand pretty much is immune in comparison. Hmmm…so I should drop 3000 dollars on an apple computer that I want because apple has a big problem with me running their software on my 1500 dollar computer that is better…yeah that makes sense to my wallet. OR I can run windows, and be frustrated and pissed off pretty much the whole time. I think I’ll do the hackintosh method.
JMZ said,
November 2, 2009 @ 2112
I just read that Apple may be rolling out a defense against Hackintosh users running Snow Leopard on their Atom-based netbooks. The rumor has it that 10.6.2 will “disable” itself on Atom-based systems. I guess I’m glad that I never bothered to install OS X on my netbook.