TheAppleBlog

Comments (100)

• 

  Catmanrog on October 1st, 2009 at 10:52 am

  Not only NO but HELL NO !

  Reply
  • 

    Robert on October 1st, 2009 at 4:57 pm

    +1
• 

  Josh on October 1st, 2009 at 11:06 am

  I think Apple should say, “Looks- if you really want to run our software on your crappy hardware, go ahead. We give you no support, though. You can’t coming whining into an Apple store with tales of how your machine is bricked through a software upgrade. And no selling it to make profit either.”

  Honestly, I think that most people who are interested in OS X are not interested in putting together a machine that is somewhat clunky- it’s geeks and people interested in netbooks that this hacking appeals to. I for one want to build a Hackintosh just so I can say that I have done it.

  Reply
• 

  Hagen Kaye on October 1st, 2009 at 11:07 am

  You can get cheaper Macs – refurbs, or used ones on ebay, craigslist, kijiji, etc. A few years ago I picked up a 1 year old used Mac for half the price of new with 2 years of Apple care left. Just have to be a smart shopper.

  Reply
  • 

    james blecko on October 1st, 2009 at 5:55 pm

    I bought a used g5 for $1400 from a reputable apple reseller and it is an absolute nightmare. A gigantic piece of crap! Everything is breaking. First the graphics card went (it was a nightmare replacing that) and no the machine just shuts down for no reason. Could be the power supply or the mother board. Either way it will cost me more than I want to pay to fix it. I only bought it as a back up machine. I have a friend who made a hackintosh and it works just fine. The same as the other macs we have and i have used macs since 1991.
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 2nd, 2009 at 11:31 am

    James,

    That is a tough break! This is another reason why hackintoshes are so appealing. I don’t know what you spent but I am sure it was a pretty penny since you bought from a reputable dealer. I am sure they sold you on the fact that it was a Mac. Did they forget to mention that it had the discontinued Power PC Chip inside or did you already know that?
• 

  Adam Jackson on October 1st, 2009 at 11:36 am

  Hmm. Well, I’m just a n00b but here’s my take:

  1. I’d like to sit down with the author and have him show me what he does on this netbook. There’s such a thing as objective commentary where you write in a way to prove your point. It’s against journalism practices but doesn’t stop seasoned reporters from doing it. Ah, the freedom of op-ed. Anyway, I’d like to see how he and his daughter use these computers. I doubt that he has a rich experience on a Dell Mini 9. I know because I bought a mini 9 and a 10 before finally just getting a MacBook Air. They’re not “junk” but throwing Mac OS 10 on any Hackintosh is only to save money NOTHING ELSE. You don’t get any more freedom or flexibility and the only reason to have a hackintosh is dollar signs. If there was a $799 Apple computer and a $799 beige box and both are running Mac OS, no one would buy the beige box.

  2. You can purchase a perfectly capable 2Ghz 17″ G5 iMac on eBay for around $500-$750 dollars. It’s going to be nearly as fast as that 2.4Ghz Pentium the girl is running.

  3. You can buy a 1.8Ghz MacBook CoreDuo and it’ll be just as fast as that Dell Mini 9. and will cost the same price and it’ll be able to run Snow Leopard, no hax or no fooling around with drivers.

  4. Licensing the Mac OS won’t be the death of Apple computers but it will offer choice and that’s not what Apple is about. Choice is not what they do at Apple, Inc and they’ve flourished because of it. Furthermore, the sale of Apple computers drives Apple in so many ways. the high profit margins are passed down to the customer every day. Cheap software like iWork, free software like iLife, Mobile Me is a steal at $99 a year and not to mention all of the updates, upgrades, Apple store service and never having to speak to someone who’s native language isn’t english. Apple makes crap loads of money on the sale of Macs and a large percentage of that money helps Apple invest millions in R&D to create awesome products like the iPhone. I’d rather pay the premium and enjoy the benefits of what Apple is delivering to the tech world than put OS X on a Toshiba Satellite.

  5. Finally, I’ve used PCs and own a few of them. I do tech support and server installs and I’m a geek on both sides of the fence. I’m happy with Apple’s hardware. It is a premium. Sony used to compete pretty closely but that’s a thing of the past now. Apple has the best hardware in the industry. If anything, I’d buy an Apple computer just to put windows on it (and I have). My point is, we’re not getting duped here. Yes there’s a high markup and yes Apple kinda whispered that they would be able to charge less for Macs after moving to Intel and that never happened but now that Dell is entering into the “fashion computer” market with Adamo and their new latitude series, it’s clear that Apple isn’t that expensive. Dell’s offerings aren’t even shiny and are costing more than Apple’s laptops. So sure you can buy a notebook for $399 from Dell but their “premium” machines start at $1899 and go upwards of 3K with customizations. Apple isn’t raping us here, they’re giving us what we paid for and I respect that.

  Reply
  • 

    Mark Crump on October 1st, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    For me, the appeal of the Dell Mini running OS X is this:

    * The form factor: I go to school two nights a week and haul my 13″ MBPro in to take notes. it’d be nice to have a laptop the size of a hardcover

    * Licensing: I have two copies of Leopard and Snow Leopard. While it’s against the EULA, I’m not pirating the OS from a license standpoint. Also, I *believe* the licenses for iWork and Office are “in use on one computer a time” so I feel I’m on the moral road there. Were I to keep it WIndows, I’d need to purchase Windows versions of that software.

    In the end, I decided against it because my MBP gives me almost 6 hours of battery life and the keyboard is a dream to work on.
  • 

    Tom Lawson on October 2nd, 2009 at 5:50 am

    Adam: What a wonderful post which simply says it all. In my estimation, Macinhacker’s feel that STEALING from a company, from individuals, who worked hard to bring Mac’s to life and have worked for over 20 years to continue to envision/create & build the world’s most elegant and useful computers, etc., is OK.
    For me, I’m tired of thieves and their arrogance. I’d much rather pay Apple because quality is long remembered after price is forgotten. We have three computers. A MacMini, a Macbook (aluminum) and a Dell. Two of the three are used daily. The last one has not been used in 18 months. You already know which one.
    Again, thanks. Elegant and valuable post you did.
  • 

    Matt Rix on October 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 am

    A Macbook Air is THIN but not SMALL. It’s too big to be a netbook. There is nothing in the Mac lineup that’s as small as a netbook, so of course people are gonna want them. Anyone who says netbooks are useless doesn’t have to commute on a train or bus to work/school. My Acer Aspire One is the only laptop I have that’s actually usable on a train. I tried using a Macbook Air for a couple weeks to do the same thing, and it was just too BIG.

    Also, to “Tom Lawson”, it’s not STEALING when you’ve bought the OS.
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 2nd, 2009 at 11:33 am

    Tom Lawson ,

    “The last one has not been used in 18 months. You already know which one.”

    You should turn it into a Hackintosh and breath new life into it.
• 

  Adam on October 1st, 2009 at 11:40 am

  No they shouldn’t. OS X works so well because it works with the hardware, Its designed to work with it.

  With Windows you’ll find that due to a thousand hardware manufacturers, it’ll never have the same stability/performance across similar specced systems.

  Should they license it? No, they don’t need to. It’s a simple answer!

  Reply
• 

  Michael on October 1st, 2009 at 11:47 am

  Apple doesn’t have a problem with the Hackintosh community, just those who wish to profit from their R&D and investments. They just don’t make a nice installer for someone to put OSX on their Dell/Lenovo/HP/etc. They don’t offer support if you have it on a Hackintosh already. I think this is all perfectly normal and acceptable. If you want to play with OSX on your non-Apple-branded hardware, no problem, just don’t expect Apple to give support if you have some problem.
  If I install the SONY PS3 OS onto a XBox360, I don’t think SONY would help me if my controllers didn’t function properly. Ya think? Or even Microsoft? Nope.
  As far as the comment..”And its an exaggeration to insist that all sub-$500 computers are necessarily “junk.” Legions of satisfied netbook users contend otherwise.” is erroneous. The “legions” of netbook owners are an increasingly frustrated bunch of users. Many people have purchased these netbooks, thinking they could do everything a “normal” computer could do just at a lower pricepoint have found quite the opposite. Choppy video to unplayable video, one-trick ponies and sluggishness whenever they try to do anything beyond check their e-mail is pretty common. They even advertise these netbooks as “one application at a time”. Now, yes different people have different experiences (There will most likely be someone who will disagree) but they have Atom processors, shared video and an architecture designed for longevity of use, not power of ANY sort…I mean ANY. So these “legions” pruchase because they are cute and cheap, but many users become frustrated when they hit the wall very early on in their computing experience. Hey, I like netbooks…a lot…but you have to know what they are designed for and unfortunately most people purchasing them do not, so the “legions” is a misrepresentation of the validity of these computers.

  Reply
  • 

    AnotherAdam on October 1st, 2009 at 3:58 pm

    True to a point. I am a MacHead, and I am a Netbook user. My Dell Mini 10v is hackintosh-able, but I’ve not done that b/c it works terrifically as is.

    There are many, MANY, MANY very happy netbook users. Those who are not happy only have themselves to blame for not doing their research before purchase. EOS
• 

  Brian on October 1st, 2009 at 11:49 am

  They should do what they do now. No effort to support it, no worry or objections to anyone that wants to do it.

  Apple is very easy going to deal with, not at all like MSFT who are constantly treating you like a criminal.

  Apple hardware is the best bargain in the computer industry, assuming you are not on food stamps/public assistance. The Dell Adamo is a joke, nearly as funny as the Win7 launch party video.

  Reply
• 

  JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 11:50 am

  Charles,

  Great article, and you make some great points. I too am a lifelong Mac Head. I started with Mac on the very FIRST Mac ever created. It was my neighbors, but I got to use it. :) Then my father bought one of the first Apple Laptops that came out. I too remember when the clones hit the market. I do agree with you about them almost sinking Apple. Anyway here are my thoughts.

  I have a Hackintosh I built and am using for the last 2 years. I am currently running Snow Leopard.

  I don’t think Apple will license a version to run on PC. Like you said, that would probably hurt or worst yet, kill off them building there own Mac Hardware.

  OS X86 community just keeps growing and growing. They have already done the hardest part in that they have created a boot-loader that bridges the gap of installing Mac on a PC.

  Now, I believe this is a catch twenty-two for Apple. If they go back to making their own chip’s or switching to some unknown chip maker they will have the same problem as before, they will always be one to two steps behind Intel and the PC market, as was a huge deciding factor in switching over to intel in the first place in my opinion.

  They can’t shut the OS X86 community down, if they shut down one website, another would come up in it’s place. It is like file sharing, they have not been able to shut that down.

  Last, the ethics of running OS X on a PC, Called “Hackintosh”. Well, I justify it this way even though by their rules, I am breaking the license agreement. Since they built OS X on the open source community, and they took something that was given to the world for free, modified it and then re-packaged it with a new GUI, how can they determine what it is used for? I would say they can if, they didn’t build it on the backs of the open source community. They did not create nor invent the UNIX which is at the Core of Apple. If they had invent ALL the technologies that make OS X work then it would probably be something like “Apple’s OS 9″, and way behind where they are today. To say they have benefited hugely from the same people that have been instrumental in getting the “Hackintosh” working (Some of the same programmers that are involved in Open Source) would be an UNDERSTAMENT!

  These are just my thoughts, if you want to comment feel free.

  Reply
  • 

    Tom Lawson on October 2nd, 2009 at 6:08 am

    Totally disagree with “Well, I justify it this way even though by their rules, I am breaking the license agreement. Since they built OS X on the open source community, and they took something that was given to the world for free, modified it and then re-packaged it with a new GUI, how can they determine what it is used for?”. This is the logic of a thief. Sure XEROX and (I think) Stanford Univ. labs were the first ones to develop the GUI for Apple and they modified it but if we use your logic, anything can be stolen, based on ‘there’s nothing new under the sun’. The difference between honorable people and dishonorable ones are ‘boundaries’. Honorable ones respect other ‘boundaries’, while knaves don’t. Just because someone ‘can’ do something, does not mean it is morally (another word knaves hate) correct. Apple spent millions of dollars in developing their products and since you and others of your ilk don’t care about their work, and their RIGHT to it, you feel ‘well, they didn’t invent it, so I can do whatever the hell I want with it). Sure, Apple didn’t invent it, but they sure did refine it, over a long period of time. Your statement “they did not create nor invent the UNIX which is at the Core of Apple. If they had (to) invent ALL the technologies that make OS X work then it would probably be something like “Apple’s OS 9″, and way behind where they are today’ is simply a lame excuse for your rationalization to use your arrogance in justifying NO BOUNDARIES.
    Look, just because you ‘can’ doesn’t mean you ’should’. Our culture is falling apart because of the logic of what’s ‘your’s is mine’ because you didn’t…(fill in the blanks). I say, your arguments are puerile, immoral, unethical and dishonest. Caterpillar didn’t invent the diesel engine, the continuous track, or steel, but that doesn’t mean it is moral, legal or ethical to steal their intellectual property rights that went into creating a world class bulldozer (etc.) and setting up shop next door with the stolen ideas and drive them out of business, which your logic is arguing for.
    In closing, I admit that when I was younger, I stole stuff. As a psychologist, I found out that it hurt my soul to do so. Stealing anything hurts you. Using your conscience, if you have one, will tell you if you are, or not.
    You asked, I replied.
  • 

    Khürt Williams on October 2nd, 2009 at 7:05 am

    Do you understand the BSD license? Let me educate you: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

    The BSD license basically says, “you may use this code freely, modify it, distribute it freely or even profit from it”.

    Your basic argument that Apple owes the open source community does not hold water. As you say, ” they built OS X … and they .. modified it and then re-packaged it with a new GUI”. So, they I see it they added value that was not originally present.

    In that light, how does Apple’s use of the BSD license provide for your moral ambiguity?
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 2nd, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    “Tom Lawson”

    Thanks for your insight.

    I agree that Apple should be able to sell OS X, I have never said they should not profit from there investment of time and energy.

    I have conceded the point in other posts that according to “Apple’s rules” that they say you are not allowed to use their, “Software” on anything other than official Apple hardware.

    Here is where I differ and what I was trying to convey.

    Is it fair that they can take something that was given to the world freely to use, distribute and modify. Edit it, re-package it, then turn around and to the SAME people (they are part of the world) that buy their new product; Oh yea, by the way, just cause it was given to the world to use, modify and edit, we at Apple tell you that you no longer have that right to do that because, we have claimed it as our own??

    Therefore, fall in line!

    On a personal note, it is interesting to me how so many people throw the word “morality” around as some sort of weapon to invoke a response from people that they feel are in the wrong or on opposite sides of the argument. I guess it works because it has moved me to respond to this word.

    I just wish before people used that word that they examined themselves. Then, if they determined they have measured up,( I tell you a secret, no one measures up in this life) they put a disclaimer stating, “I have examined myself and I am a certified moron, I mean moral person. I am approved to correct based on my morality (all the questionable stuff I do when no one see’s me, well that’s my secret) and what I have determined to be right in my eyes. I will correct you.
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 2nd, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Khürt Williams

    “Your basic argument that Apple owes the open source community does not hold water.”

    That was not the point of my argument. My argument was how can they take something that was freely given and freely allowed to be modified and then tell everyone that since they have added there own GUI to it, that you no longer can do anything with it other than what we say you can?
• 

  Gazoobee on October 1st, 2009 at 11:56 am

  I agree with Adam Jackson above in regards the “spin” on this article. I have seen OS-X run on lots of non-Apple hardware and while it’s a lot of fun, it’s not a “rich” or otherwise good experience on the whole.

  The only way to get OS-X to run as fast or as be as usable as it is on an Apple branded computer is to build a very special machine all of your own, and that tends to cost almost as much money (and time), as buying the Mac does in the first place.

  Also, the main thrust of this article seems to be the ethical point, but that’s just presented at the end as a sort of “what do you think?” question. How does it make sense to write an article saying “well, x is illegal, but what do you think?” and not provide any background or context other than the fact that the authors daughter does it.

  Anyone who has done any research into hackintoshes should know that while the EULA is certainly opposed to this, Apple the computer company has a history of turning a blind eye to the practice (amoung hobyists), and certain Apple employees have helped or even been a part of the hackintosh community from time to time.

  To leave out that detail, or to not even know it, is kind of lame IMO and skews the whole article. To bring up ethics without distinguishing between the hobbyist hackers and groups like Psystar (or to not even mention Psystar in the context of the article), seems purposely confusing as well.

  Finally, to talk about the “ethics of the hackintosh community” at all, without giving us any background on this community (it’s been in existence for many years), or any background on Apple’s reaction to it, can only lead to uninformed responses. You are asking us a complex ethical question, but not giving anyone the background they need to decide one way or the other.

  Reply
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    I will give you some history, OS X comes from and has benefited from the Open Source Community (Some of the same type if not actual people that are responsible for the “Hackintosh”).

    “Apple the computer company has a history of turning a blind eye to the practice (amoung hobyists)”

    Question, what would you have Apple do? Are they to slap the hands of the community that helps them add new technologies to OS X?

    Question, how could Apple do anything other then what they are doing now? If they tired to brick the hackintosh on a update how would they make sure none of the quote “real macs” get affected? Not to mention the PR nightmare that would be?
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 12:12 pm

    Oh yea, forgot this one:

    “it’s not a “rich” or otherwise good experience on the whole.”

    I don’t know which “Hackintosh’s” you have had a chance to use, but mine is really, really stable.
• 

  Ashutosh Singh on October 1st, 2009 at 11:59 am

  No I don’t think that apple should license Mac-OS, the simple reason is Macs great computer not just only because of the OS it’s also because of the hardware on which the MacOS is running, and I also think that this not ethical.

  Reply
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    “I also think that this not ethical.”

    According to the autobiography of “Apple”.

    Was it ethical when Apple took the “Mouse Technology” from “Xerox”?

    Was it ethical when “Bill Gates” stole the GUI from Mac, created the PC behind Steve Jobs back and beat them to the market with the PC?

    I think you are confusing ethics with money?
• 

  cwinegarden on October 1st, 2009 at 12:13 pm

  They used to license it. In the mid-90s my dad worked at a company called Power Computing that made other computers that ran the Mac OS. Apple was almost dead at the time. If Steve Jobs hadn’t returned to the company and reeled in those licenses Apple wouldn’t be where it is today as a company. The world probably never would have seen the iPod or the iPhone. So I think it’s obviously been better for the company that they don’t license it.

  Reply
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 12:18 pm

    cwinegarden,

    You are spot on with your assessment!
• 

  Paul on October 1st, 2009 at 12:28 pm

  “Installing OS X on a non-Apple computer is a direct violation of Apple’s End User Licensing Agreement.”

  Actually, the EULA used to say non Apple-labeled computers and now it says non Apple-branded. If you buy the retail SL DVD, it comes with Apple branding stickers. So if you put those on your Hackintosh it’s unclear whether you’re technically in violation. Also, installed OS X is a lot easier now than it used to be. Not glitch-free depending on your motherboard, but much less painful than prior.

  On the licensing side, the problem for Apple would be dealing with the resulting incompatibilities and the impact on margins for their proprietary hardware. The current status quo works for them and the hackintosh community.

  Reply
• 

  Scott on October 1st, 2009 at 12:42 pm

  Anyone who advocates Apple licensing the OS doesn’t remember their history. Doing so almost killed the company when they did so before.

  Reply
• 

  Howie Isaacks on October 1st, 2009 at 1:10 pm

  A better question to ask is: “should Apple cut its own throat?”. No. They should not license Mac OS X. Part of what Makes the Mac so great is that the hardware and software are designed to go together. From a support standpoint, customers can deal with only one vendor instead of being bounced around between the OEM, the OS software vendor, etc. The people who want Apple to license Mac OS X are cheap bastards who are more interested in getting what they want at the cheapest price possible without any concern whatsoever what this would do to the quality of the product.

  Reply
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    What is interesting to me, as of writing this article, why does it matter if Apple licenses OS X to run on a PC? There are now so many easy ways to put retail OS X on a PC that this questions is mute.

    “Part of what Makes the Mac so great is that the hardware and software are designed to go together.”

    I agree with you on this one!

    “cheapest price possible without any concern whatsoever what this would do to the quality of the product.”

    For me it is not cheap(okay, who are we kidding, everybody it cheap when they think they can get something for nothing), I just don’t have 3K to spend on a Mac Pro. Especially when I can get pretty much the same set-up in the Hackintosh world for around $800 which I can afford. Yea, from time to time there are a few tweaks here and there, but it is worth it.

    Yea, Apple coffers loose a little bit of money in the grand scheme of things from those that choose to build a hackintosh but what is that percentage, I would say pretty small, do you know the numbers?
• 

  BeSweeet on October 1st, 2009 at 1:34 pm

  Apple should license Mac OS X, but they never will. Apple is one of a kind, I guess.

  I’m a pro hackintosher, but I recently “retired” from the scene, and bought a 2.66GHz uMBP. OS X ran very well on my previous laptop, but there were a few random problems that were just getting annoying. Plus I wanted something faster. The uMBP did cost $1500 more than the laptop did…

  Reply
• 

  Bill B. on October 1st, 2009 at 1:41 pm

  I lived through the cloning days at Apple and even purchased a Motorola clone. At the time I thought it was a good move for Apple but I was very wrong. The steep decline in market share and predictions of doom for Apple was not conducive to the purchase of an Apple or a clone computer. The timing was all wrong. Todays Apple is a very different company that has even dropped “computer” from it’s name. Computers are fast becoming less important to Apple. The iPhone business will soon eclipse everything else Apple does. That said, the real money is in the operating system. The gross margin on a good operating system, or even Windows, is incredible. The incremental cost of producing an additional copy of the operating system is nil. This is how many of the richest billionaires in the world work for the same company, Microsoft. They print money!

  Apple could sell an “OSX Basic” version of OSX without free software such as iLife. Of course this would not come with the support available at the Apple stores since the computer manufacturer would be required do this support. Apple has been very happy offering high end computers to those that want the best and can afford it. They have said many times that they are not interested in low end commodity computers but many people are interested. Apple has a small share of the total market, but it is the most lucrative share, like Mercedes. Intelligent folks understand that nicer things always cost more, and there will always be users who will buy the better, more expensive product. Have you ever seen a $12,000 new Mercedes offered by that German company? Don’t hold your breath.

  So, Apple could make a huge pile of cash selling (licensing) a basic version of OSX for those that like to buy the cheapest product without considering the total experience. If there is a big need for that, Apple should fill it. This move could the beginning of the end of the Microsoft domination of the OS world. Michael Dell has said he would love to put OSX on his computers.

  I have been a stockholder (part owner) of Apple for 11 years and a proud cult member. ;-)
  Bill

  Reply
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    Man would that be a breath of fresh air, no more Microsoft OS ruling the PC market?
  • 

    Ben Jones on October 1st, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    Have you seen the price of Snow Leopard? It’s $29 dollars. Where’s the margin on that? Even with their typical $129, they aren’t making ten of millions of dollars on the OS. Also, I believe (along with Apple) that Apple is a hardware based company. Their margin is in the hardware. If everyone had a hackintosh, Apple would have no money. They could raise the OS to the un-Godly prices that MS has, but then they wouldn’t be Apple. Also, Apple will never have a ‘basic’ Mac OS. It creates a skew, and Apple hates skews. In fact, one of the I’m a Mac ads even notes the one version of Mac OS that comes with everything you need as one of the strong points.
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 11:16 pm

    “If everyone had a hackintosh, Apple would have no money.”

    2008 Quarterly Projections.

    “The Company posted revenues of $9.6 billion and net quarterly profit of $1.58 billion”

    Yea, they are going broke with only the computer revenue stream.
  • 

    Ben Jones on October 1st, 2009 at 11:21 pm

    The 9.6 billion dollars are coming from hardware sales. As I said, if EVERYONE had a hackintosh, Apple would have no money. Apple and I have no problem with a few enthusiasts getting them as long as it doesn’t significantly detract from Apple’s bottom line, hardware sales.
  • 

    Ben Jones on October 1st, 2009 at 11:35 pm

    Oops. I have a better way to state my last post:

    I’m not saying that Apple is going broke WITH hardware sales, I’m saying that Apple would be going broke WITHOUT hardware sales. I’m pretty sure that there is a prior example.
• 

  MattF on October 1st, 2009 at 2:12 pm

  I don’t think Apple is too bothered by Hackintoshes. People often miss the basic fact that the switch to Intel processors is only part of the story– in fact, Apple switched to putting OS X on windows-compatible hardware. Hackintoshes are an unavoidable consequence.

  I think that there’s a bright line that Apple is watching– they won’t bother to try to shut down the possibility of running OS X on non-Apple hardware, but I think they’d get upset if anyone tried to virtualize OS X on a Windows OS. As long as OS X is the host OS (and as long as it’s non-commercial), I don’t believe that Apple minds all that much.

  Reply
• 

  RalphC on October 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pm

  Just because you want something doesn’t mean you have a right to have it. If you don’t like the rules with which the Mac OS comes – don’t buy it. However, if you do buy it and opened the package, you agree to those rules.
  It is not just a matter of whether it is ethical to instal OS X on anything other than Apple-made hardware, it is a breach of contract. People who do this clearly demonstrate a lack of moral integrity. They buy something on false pretenses, with no intention of complying with the promise they make when they open the package.
  Apple has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in their OS and have the right to sell it in any manner they chose, within the law. You may not like the rules, you may disagree with Apple’s business model, as many of you clearly do, but no-one is forcing you to buy OS X.
  Yes, Apple could come up with a business model that would allow you to install OS X on something other than an Apple computer. But why would or should they? Apple is primarily a *hardware* company – that’s where they make their money. Why on earth would they want to make your experience of using another manufacturer’s hardware more enjoyable or productive by letting you use their software, subsidized as it is by Apple hardware sales, on anything but Apple hardware?

  RalphC

  Reply
• 

  Joe Anonymous on October 1st, 2009 at 2:43 pm

  There’s no ethical question at all. Apple sells the OS as an upgrade only for Apple hardware. The EULA says that and even the Apple Store web site says that. Clearly, Apple’s intent is that it is to be installed on Apple hardware – and their price reflects that.

  When you buy something, you are reaching an agreement with the seller (even though the terms are not always spelled out). In this case, Apple is selling you an upgrade for Apple hardware (which they’ve made money on previously). They have NOT given you permission to install it on hardware that you bought elsewhere, nor is there any indication that this is their intent (otherwise, the EULA would permit it).

  The fact that Apple hasn’t prosecuted any end users is a red herring – completely irrelevant. There’s a financial issue involved. Do they want to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars (and endless bad press, of course) going after an end user – when they MIGHT be able to collect a couple of thousand dollars – max (the price of a real Mac)? Obviously, not. The decision not to prosecute is not some ‘we really think it’s OK so go ahead and do it” (or, once again, the EULA would allow it).

  I’m getting so sick of these people who are too cheap to buy Macs, but think they’re somehow entitled to Macs, so they steal the OS.

  Reply
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    “I’m getting so sick of these people who are too cheap to buy Macs”

    It is funny when people become pious.
  • 

    Brett on October 1st, 2009 at 3:38 pm

    When dealing with Intellectual Property there is always going to be an ethical question due to the public policy behind the formation of Intellectual Property rights both in the US and Internationally. The problem is developing a delicate balance between society’s optimal use of resources and the optimal impetus for individual creativity.
  • 

    Khürt Williams on October 2nd, 2009 at 7:20 am

    Imagine if people went around breaking into Lexus and Acura dealerships because they think they charge too much for what is essentially a Toyota and a Honda with a different logo?
• 

  JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 2:46 pm

  RalphC,

  I felt that was aimed at me since I am responding to people’s threads and take the opposite side of your argument.

  First, Leopard and Snow Leopard on my Hackintosh are retail copies that I purchased from Apple and would not advocate pirating OS X.

  Second, you are right, from the stand point of them making the rules, that their operating system can only be used on their hardware is there right to say that. The question then becomes how do they enforce the rules for us less, “moral integrity people” unlike yourself I am sure, you don’t bend or break any rules in life. What gives us the right to do this, I guess according to Apple’s rules we can’t.

  People, including myself can justify anything, Apple has not been able to close Psystar down yet, how are they going to close down the “less than moral” people in the hackintosh community? Will you some how pointing a finger cause people to have a change of heart, I doubt it?

  If you think that making a statement like, people that do this, “lack of moral integrity” is something out of the ordinary in people, you are not living in the same world that I am living in. I did get a good smile from your observation.

  Reply
  • 

    RalphC on October 1st, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    No you don’t have “… retail copies that I purchased from Apple…”. What you purchased were licenses to instal the software on Apple hardware and then use it on that hardware, *provided* you followed the conditions set out on the agreement. So, in fact, because you have deliberately breached the conditions of the agreement, you actually are using software that you have no right to use – sounds a lot like piracy to me. The fact that you paid Apple some money does not change the legal situation one whit.

    You say ” The question then becomes how do they enforce the rules for us less, “moral integrity people”…”. I beg to differ. A contract is breached, a law broken, a rule disobeyed regardless of whether the authorities can enforce it or not. That’s like saying it’s ethical to steal as long as I don’t get caught. Maybe that is how you think, for it is how you are behaving. You know Apple won’t bother coming after you, so you can get away with what you do. Still doesn’t make it right or ethical.

    *My* ethics, or lack of, don’t change the facts.

    RalphC
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    “*My* ethics, or lack of, don’t change the facts.”

    You are correct, does not change any of the facts, just something to think about.

    Also, I purchased Leopard when it came out and I also purchased Snow Leopard, just FYI.

    I conceded the point that it goes against Apple’s rules. I have no argument against that however, to say that people that do this have “No Moral Integrity” is a huge leap. I would say, ask yourself that question, do you bend or break the rules if you feel something should be different? Have you ever done that? If you answer yes, then does that mean you have “No Moral Integrity”? Just curious?
  • 

    Khürt Williams on October 2nd, 2009 at 7:26 am

    I have 3 Intel Macs at home (and one G4 Mac mini). I could have purchased one copy of Snow Leopard and installed it on all three Macs. Apple would be none the wiser and I would have saved $20. But, that would be a violation of the terms of sale. So … I purchased the Snow Leopard family pack (as I did for Leopard) even though 2 of the licenses are unusable.
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 2nd, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    Khürt Williams,

    Question, does sunshine follow you around on a rainy day?
• 

  Joe Anonymous on October 1st, 2009 at 3:25 pm

  Nice rationalization.

  First, you did not purchase Mac OS X for the purpose you are using it for. A purchase involves a mutually agreed transaction. Apple agreed to one set of terms and you chose another. That’s the same as getting a loaner car from your car dealer while your car is in the shop and instead driving around the country for 3 months. Did they give you permission to do that because they gave you the keys? Of course not.

  It most certainly IS theft. Apple offers you a license to use their OS if you agree to their terms and pay the price on the box. You paid the price on the box, but do not plan to follow through with the other part of the deal. You are paying for an upgrade license (under the EULA terms which state it can only be installed onto an Apple computer) but then using it as a full license. As an example, the upgrade license for Windows is less than half the cost of a full license. If the ratio were the same for Macs, you’re paying half (AT BEST) of what Apple would charge for a full license -even if they wished to do so. You’re stealing their intellectual property because you’re taking it without an agreement from them as to your use of it.

  Further, it’s not about enforcement. The fact that they have chosen not to go after end users doesn’t mean that it’s right. Nor does it mean that they condone it. If they really condone it, why didn’t they put that in the EULA?

  It’s also not a matter of expecting you to change your mind. I realize that some people (a group you and my ex-wife apparently fit into) think that their desires are all that matter. As long as you want something, it’s OK to take it. Sad, very sad.

  Reply
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    “(a group you and my ex-wife apparently fit into)”

    Now that was funny, nice jab.

    Truth, there is no black and white in life, just shades of gray.

    Apple can say all they want, don’t do that with our operating system but until there are consequences for people’s actions people will not follow the rules if they feel there is a better and cheaper way of something.

    It really lies in Apple’s court. They can choose one of two ways to deal with this, and it appears that they have chosen the second.

    1. They can start to try and make examples out of people and go after them. This would leave them with other big problems.

    or,

    2. They can just accept, that it is what is! As to date this is what they have chosen to do, and if you ask me it is the wiser of the two choices.

    As far as your wife, it sound like she got tired of the rules and decided to enforce the EULA law on you and move on. :)
• 

  Snafu on October 1st, 2009 at 4:55 pm

  As long as Apple has such incredible holes in its hardware spectrum, this is going to keep happening. People want middlerange decently priced towers and tiny laptop Macs, too.

  Reply
• 

  Master Chief on October 1st, 2009 at 5:10 pm

  Having a hackintosh for me is like working on the old MG in the shed. The one with very little millage on the teller, but hundreds of long hours fun working on it. In short is it a hobby for many (young) people. It’s not about stealing software, because we don’t condone stealing. And many of us do happen to own real Apple hardware, Macs, but these just work. What’s the fun of a working car? To me nothing. And that’s why I also have a hackintosh. Just for the kicks of it.

  @Joe Anonymous: Speaking about Ethics… so she dumped you, and now you want to get back at here. Right. Next!

  Reply
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    “@Joe Anonymous: Speaking about Ethics… so she dumped you, and now you want to get back at here. Right. Next!”

    LOL
• 

  David on October 1st, 2009 at 5:14 pm

  I don’t believe Apple has any intention, now or ever, to supply the wide variety of hardware necessary to satisfy everyone. So the question for Apple is what to do about those people who aren’t satisfied by Apple’s lineup. If they were to increase the number of models available they would pull in some new business, but there would be higher costs associated with that leading to reduced profitability. Some customers aren’t worth having because they’re more trouble than they’re worth and because making machines to satisfy them impacts sales of more profitable models.

  Early on Apple simply closed their eyes and pretended nobody was making hackintoshes. That wasn’t a bad decision because it meant people were using OS X instead of something else which increases the presence of the OS, yields some high margin software sales and indirectly leads to hardware purchases from friends and family of the hackintoshers. It was a true win-win situation even if it wasn’t strictly “legal”.

  Then Psystar and others got into the game. They turned hacking into a business and Apple would no longer afford to ignore the phenomenon. While I can understand people wanting to profit from the hackintosh, commercialization has ruined what had been a quiet truce in which both sides were getting something of value.

  I know putting OS X on a PC is against the EULA, but Apple has for many years demonstrated with their actions that they do not want me as a customer unless I’m willing to make significant sacrifices to fit into one of their little customer categories. In the past there was no option except to conform or purchase a used Mac and thus accept lower performance and the risk of hardware failure. Now I have a choice. I can get a machine with the expansion capabilities of a Mac Pro and the performance of a used Mac Pro for the price of a well equipped Mac mini. That’s incredibly appealing because I don’t need any official support from Apple.

  The only reason I’m not running a hackintosh today is because members of my family do not wish to be in a questionable legal position and I love and respect them.

  Reply
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    *** On a side note ***

    Would it not be cool if the people at Fedora and Ubuntu made their Operating Systems so that they could install and run Mac Applications right out of the box?

    Since at the guts they are Apple’s Cousins.
  • 

    Master Chief on October 1st, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    About this: “I know putting OS X on a PC is against the EULA”.

    The Snow Leopard Retail pack I bought for my hack didn’t even include a EULA, simply because it is void to refer to something inside a box – at least where I life – this to protect us consumers.
• 

  RalphC on October 1st, 2009 at 6:14 pm

  JoeJoetheidiotpet – If you are going to quote me you should at least quote me accurately. I said “…a lack of moral integrity…” not “…no moral integrity..” as you wrote. I stand by what I said. I don’t see how what I do, or don’t do, that is morally questionable affects whether it is unethical to use Apple’s software for a purpose for which it was not sold. If you could prove me to be morally bankrupt, it might make you feel better, but it would not change the ethics of software theft one bit.

  You also seem to think that this has something to do with whether Apple can police breaches of the agreement. You say “It really lies in Apple’s court.” No, it doesn’t. It lies in each of our own courts to abide by what we agree to. If you don’t like the agreement, don’t buy the software. It is simply unethical to deliberately break to terms of the agreement under which you purchased a license to use the OS just because it suits your convenience or pocket book. If the police don’t have the manpower to catch speeding drivers, it doesn’t become legal or ethical to speed.

  I agree, some people will do what suits them, regardless of the law or what they agreed to do. That doesn’t make it ethical, and that was the original question.

  RalphC

  Reply
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 7:39 pm

    RalphC,

    I have conceded the point that it goes against Apple’s rules for people to install OS X on a PC.

    You have to be willing to play by their rules for it to work though.

    Ethical, that is like some magic word that somehow deep down in people they will adhere to this magic word. Having said that, life is full of Unicorns and Rainbows and at the end of these rainbows are pots of gold. :)

    People, and I would say probably 99.9% are going to do what they think is right or benefits them in their eyes. If you doubt this, watch any of the reality shows and you will see what I am talking about when all the people are fighting for just one prize.

    If you are the 1% that lives life without compromising your ethics in any form, then I take my hat off to you, you are probably a better man then me!
• 

  gregor on October 1st, 2009 at 6:17 pm

  I’ve occasionally been tempted by a hackintosh, because I’d like a really light notebook to carry around. I don’t see any ethical issues– the reason i might want a hackintosh is because i already have a mac.

  But I don’t think its worth doing right now. I ran linux for years on a thinkpad 240, I had to spend quite a lot of time mucking about to get things right, and some things never worked. I don’t want getting the OS to run properly to be my hobby– there’s other things I’d rather be doing.

  In terms of cost, sure macs are more expensive, but my new mbp will cost less than 2$ a day over its life. I spend hours a day using it, and I very rarely swear at it. Worth it, imho.

  Reply
• 

  TexasYellowDog on October 1st, 2009 at 7:20 pm

  A EULA which attempts to restrict the use of a legally purchased product is invalid under the “First Sale” doctrine. Apple cannot convert a purchased product into a licensed product by through a EULA. Installing a copy of OS X on PC does not violate the DMCA. The process of installing OS X involves copying your DVD image to a USB thumb drive using disk utility, making the thumb drive bootable, then restoring the image to hard disk using disk utility. Some Apple files are replaced on the hard disk with you own, then you boot normally to OS X. No breaking or avoiding encryption, no breaking the DCMA.

  I used one of my five Family Pack licenses to install OS X on my 2.5lbs mini 9, and I am very happy with the result. However you may never find a motherboard which has all drivers for all the devices on the motherboard. The trackpad isn’t fully supported, so I use a bluetooth mouse.

  Reply
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    I agree, what gives Apple the right to tell you what you can and can’t do with the software you buy (Pay them money for the product)? As the consumer you are not selling the product after you buy, nor are you altering the operating system. You could turn around and sell the OS X Operating System as if it was retail since nothing was changed on it.

    All you are doing is installing a third piece of software, a bootloader and some kext files apart from the retail install to make OS X work on your PC.
  • 

    Brett on October 1st, 2009 at 8:33 pm

    First Sale doctrine isn’t the issue. The issue with OS X is you are agreeing to a set of terms and thus creating a contract between you and Apple. Along the same lines of Gateway’s infamous user agreement where purchasers agreed to arbitration in France. Courts have continued to uphold the concept that software manufactuers can put terms and conditions not only on the box but inside the box, as a consumer it is your right if you do not agree to these terms to simply return the item to the manufacturer for a full refund. But if you do use the software then you are bound by the terms in and on the box.
  • 

    Joe Anonymous on October 2nd, 2009 at 5:47 am

    “A EULA which attempts to restrict the use of a legally purchased product is invalid under the “First Sale” doctrine.”

    That’s what happens when junior high school dropouts try to interpret the law.

    First sale doctrine does not apply – since you’re not buying the OS. You’re licensing it, so it is a copyright/licensing issue, not a sale issue.

    The courts have consistently upheld the rights of software companies to license software under their terms. For example, the courts have consistently upheld Microsoft’s right to sell OEM licenses only with hardware or upgrade versions only to be used on computers with previous versions of the OS. There is absolutely no question about the fact that a software license is valid.

    When you ‘buy’ Mac OS X in a store, you are buying the box and media and licensing the OS. You are free to do whatever you want with the media since you own that. You can use it as a coaster or Frisbee, if you wish. You can even sell the physical media. However, the license to use the software does not transfer with it. If the license gives you the right to transfer it, then you can transfer your rights ONLY under the conditions specified.

    In some countries (particularly in Europe), there remains some question as to whether a license is enforceable if you have to open the box to see it, but Apple’s software licenses are available on the Internet, anyway, so that argument may not hold water (there is no relevant court decision yet). Apple could resolve that problem by simply putting “upgrade” on the box or putting “Computer manufactured by Apple Computer” in the Requirements section on the box.
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 2nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    “That’s what happens when junior high school dropouts try to interpret the law.”

    Dude, that was too funny, I laughed pretty hard, thanks, I needed that.
• 

  Jerome on October 1st, 2009 at 8:15 pm

  Well put Adam Jackson – my thoughts exactly. What a Mac user pays up front may on first sight seem a lot, and what non-Mac users often don’t ‘get’ is the value adding beyond the initial purchase what Mac users buy into (iLife, SL for $29, excellent hardware/software integration that’s a light year beyond the WIndows ecosystem, the pride and care that Mac software developers put into their applications etc). That’s what I willingly pay for. And long may that live on…

  Reply
• 

  Kev on October 1st, 2009 at 8:28 pm

  The Windows ecosystem is characterized by ‘cheapskates’ – people who want something but are not willing to pay a dime for it. (That’s the whole premise of the Laptop hunter ads is it not?) This has a significant bearing of manufacturers who make hardware for that system. The slim margins they earn make it difficult for them to really innovate and develop something that will make you say ‘wow’. Fortunately that’s not the case with Apple. I don’t begrudge Apple for earning fantastic revenues when they deliver such great products in return. For this reason I believe it will be detrimental for Apple to allow their OS to be sold independently of their hardware – that’s not good for Apple, and believe me, it will not benefit the consumer in the long term either.

  Reply
• 

  heywood on October 1st, 2009 at 8:53 pm

  No. I hope Apple keeps Mac OS and its hardware tightly knitted and in-house.
  .
  I also like that Macs are sold at a premium price point. I think that causes the Mac community to be a lot more committed and to expect Macs to work flawlessly, which puts a healthy pressure on Apple, and just makes for a much more vibrant community.
  .
  I agree with Kev. It isn’t PCs that are cheap, it’s people who use them who are cheap. I respect that though. Many of my friends are cheap bastards, not poor, just cheap. Like, hey dude, what do you want in life? “I’m not sure, but I’ll go for the cheapest one”. So I don’t mind my friends hackintoshing, just as I don’t mind buying them a beer every now and then either.

  Reply
• 

  rand on October 1st, 2009 at 9:09 pm

  @JoeJoetheidiotpet

  Regarding your justification to break the EULA. You are correct in part about the core of the OS, it’s opensource. However you fail when you dismiss the many years of effort that apple has put into the layers of software that run on top of the base OS. We’ll ignore for the moment any core OS software that they have written.

  If you want to justify using OSX on your pc the way you do, you should be running Darwin, freely available, because this is the open source part of the OS that you mention with your

  “Since they built OS X on the open source community, and they took something that was given to the world for free, modified it and then re-packaged it with a new GUI, how can they determine what it is used for?”

  They can’t determine what the core is used for, which is why it’s freely available. They can assert their rights over all of the good stuff that makes OSX OSX. The GUI, the core services, quicktime, ect.
  I mean, I could turn your argument to approving piracy of applications that run on OSX, because, well they are built on top of the OS that is built on top of the open source community. How can developers determine what the app is used for?

  See how that goes?

  Darwin is at http://www.opensource.apple.com/
  Enjoy it. However I’m betting you won’t ever use it.

  Reply
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    rand,

    I take nothing away from all the hard work, hours and hours that Apple has invested building and modifying OS X.

    Here is where I do take issue:

    The Unix Core and many of the Free Technologies that have been created by the Open Source Community have been and will continue to be adopted by Apple as the years continue and OS X grows.

    Where is the Compensation for those programmers or because it is Open Source they do not deserve to get paid for their time even though Apple uses some of there stuff making OS X better and then charging for the operating system?

    My only point was, it seems to me, that it would be wrong to go after anyone in the Hackintosh community, many, not all, but many of these same people that program in the Hackintosh community are the same people who contribute to the open source community.

    I think Apple should be compensated but on the flip side if people want to build there own Hackintosh, then that should be there right too.
  • 

    Joe Anonymous on October 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 am

    “The Unix Core and many of the Free Technologies that have been created by the Open Source Community have been and will continue to be adopted by Apple as the years continue and OS X grows.
    Where is the Compensation for those programmers or because it is Open Source they do not deserve to get paid for their time even though Apple uses some of there stuff making OS X better and then charging for the operating system?”

    Obviously, you don’t have any idea what you’re talking about.

    The Open Source part of OS X remains Open Source. You can download Darwin (the core of Mac OS X) free of charge and install it on your computer. Apple complies completely with Open Source licensing.

    The part of OS X that most users recognize (the UI and add-ons) is not Open Source and never has been.
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 2nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm

    “Joe Anonymous”

    Hey num-nuts. The heart of OS X, the brains (there is a word you should google) and many of the technologies came from open source technologies.

    Yes, Apple built a Shinny User interface to go on top of it making it user friendly. But it is like the car analogy. Apple built the really nice car frame but instead of building their own engine, they dropped in this HUGE ass engine which came from open source community. Then they modified that engine.
• 

  Rip Ragged on October 1st, 2009 at 9:52 pm

  Excellent post. Apple officially frowns on hackintoshes, but I think they turn a blind eye to the individual hackers. Individual hackintosh builds don’t really hurt Apple much. It’s not a sale they’re losing, and it’s hardly worth pursuing individuals á lá the RIAA.

  Is it ethical? Legal? Strictly speaking, no. It’s unlikely that Apple is going to waste any of their time with individuals. They’re more interested in Psystar, which is openly defying the terms of the EULA to test its legitimacy. If Psystar wins it could destroy Apple entirely. That isn’t even a possible outcome of hackintoshes. As the term implies, hackintosh is entirely the domain of nerds and geeks. Nerds and geeks are not Apple’s target demographic. That would be average users with above average incomes. The average user hasn’t the skills or the patience to hack in the OS and tweak it. They do have the money to pay slightly more for a computer that meets their needs.

  Very nice post, and I don’t say nice things about other people’s blogs often.

  Reply
• 

  mech on October 1st, 2009 at 10:09 pm

  It’s rather comical to see all the fanboys preaching like Jehova’s witnesses and abiding by the rules that were arbitrarily set up to produce no relevant consequences. it seems the EULA was designed for a purpose just so there would be something on paper and to prevent Apple sinking and Psystar-type companies benefiting from their great OS.

  It is also funny to see all the sheep blindly agree to the concept that whatever software you buy is “licensed” to you. this is what they did with our music so that you cannot resell your old CDs because the music was licensed to you and you cannot make profit off it. I say bull. Just because they don’t like it, they make up their own rules. Hence, some hackintosh to be rebellious.

  Apple’s EULA is actually a very friendly document that does not threaten you with life imprisonment if broken. All in all, I’m certain that Apple doesn’t mind the hackintosh community. Think about it. Their awesome OS is in the hands of more people, they do not have to deal with broken hardware/software from these people, and often they made some money on those very righteous ones who paid for the OS.

  It is also curious how all the fanboys avoid mentioning all the returned hardware (laptops, iPhones, etc). Apple has to deal with all YOU whiners because when something goes wrong, they have to fix/give new laptop to you, at their own cost. Hackintoshes don’t have that luxury, and you know what, I’m sure the hackintoshers don’t mind that at all.

  On a personal note, I needed a very lightweight laptop that wouldn’t break my back biking year round. Dell mini 9 with OSX was the answer, since Apple thinks it below them to create a small product that would appeal to so many (iPod the answer to netbook? come on! are they serious??? or on some serious drugs? If it were an OPEN product like a normal computer, THEN I’d consider the iPod a miniPC.)

  Reply
  • 

    JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 1st, 2009 at 11:09 pm

    +1
• 

  debohun on October 2nd, 2009 at 2:56 am

  They should make and license a MacOS X Lite, which would be a version of the operating system that run on top of Open BSD, but without support of Apple Services, such as CoreAudio, CoreData, Bonjour, and other Apple innovations. If they hold those added value services back as being items tied to their hardware they would still have a premium market while stealing the clone market from Windows, or, perhaps more importantly in the long run, Linux.

  Reply
• 

  ashwin on October 2nd, 2009 at 3:59 am

  Im a hardcore Mac user for 8 years now..this debate is hot & heating up as ever.. but I just love the feel of a complete MAC experience..
  I have an ‘analogy’ to state my feelings..
  A PC with OSX is like a Hyundai santro / chevy spark ( an equivalent small cheaper car) with a ferrarri engine in it..
  vis a vis : A Mac with Windows is like a sleek ferrari body with a 900cc smallcar hyundai engine in it..
  Just a disproportionate mismatch ..
  Its always good to have a body & soul ( hardware & Software)running well in tandem & tune with each other..
  As of this a Apple mac is just spot on !

  Reply
• 

  KsbjA on October 2nd, 2009 at 4:55 am

  The etchics are same as with illegal filesharing: technically it makes no difference if I can’t afford to buy it and don’t get it or I can’t afford to buy it so I download it. That is no loss for the companies, as they don’t see any money from me in either case. Same with Mac OS. A student who can’t even afford a Mac mini but owns a medium range laptop can install Mac OS X on it without hurting Apple’s wallet. He can even buy the OS (modern Hackntosh installers actually work with the ‘real’ DVD), just stick to his own computer, and that way Apple gets even more money than if the poor student would simply stick to Windows.
  Now should Apple legalize this? No. That would likely kill the Macintosh. But they also shouldn’t really fight this. Let the hackintoshers live in their apartments, dorms, cellars and slums. And let the Macintoshers have their Ferarri with the Ferarri engine. The real Mac experience is in the combination of Apple software and Apple hardware.
  P.S. A fair compromise between custom building a cheaper Hackintosh desktop and buying a more expensive Apple desktop were buying a used older model Intel Mac, taking it apart, upgrading it, and voilá – you have a cheap, custom-built-but-still-Mac computer. Yes, that will void any warranty. ;-)

  Reply
• 

  Joe Anonymous on October 2nd, 2009 at 5:48 am

  “The etchics are same as with illegal filesharing: technically it makes no difference if I can’t afford to buy it and don’t get it or I can’t afford to buy it so I download it. That is no loss for the companies, as they don’t see any money from me in either case. ”

  Well, I wasn’t planning to buy a Ferrari, so Ferrari isn’t losing any money from me if I to take one from the dealer, right?

  Reply
  • 

    KsbjA on October 3rd, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    The dealer loses money if you steal it. Stolen car = lost sale, but downloaded software is no lost sale (providing you don’t have the cash).
• 

  Khürt Williams on October 2nd, 2009 at 6:41 am

  “there are an awful lot of folks out there these days who want a $500 computer”

  Then they should go get one. Best Buy and Dell sell lots of them. They just don’t have an Apple logo.

  Let me put it another way.

  “there are an awful lot of folks out there these days who want a $15,000 car”.

  They can get one from Toyota, Honda or Hyundai. They just don’t have BM W or Lexus logos.

  Reply
• 

  Khürt Williams on October 2nd, 2009 at 6:45 am

  there are an awful lot of folks out there these days who want a [$15,000 car], or indeed in today’s snakebit economy simply can’t afford a higher price of entry, or who really want a [fuel-efficient performance car], which is one of the market categories [BMW/Audi/Lexus] has chosen not to serve, at least yet. And its an exaggeration to insist that all [sub-$15,000 car] are necessarily “junk.” Legions of satisfied [sub compact car owners] contend otherwise.

  Reply
• 

  CF on October 2nd, 2009 at 7:11 am

  I am a lifelong Apple fan and supporter and have purchased legions of Macs over the years. My family currently has 2 MacBooks, 2 MacMinis, and an iMac. I have also convinced many folks to “switch” from PCs to Macs and have personally been responsible for many of their Mac purchases over the years.

  That said, I also use and maintain a “Hackintosh”. I have purchased OSX Snow Leopard family pack legitimately and feel that it is my right to install it on whatever machines I wish.

  If Apple offered a low-end tower, like they used to, I would not need to use a Hackintosh. I would GLADLY buy a $1200 tower from Apple, but cannot afford a $2500 plus MacPro! Over the years, I have purchased a $1299.00 Blue and White G3, a $1299.00 G4, and a $1499.00 dual G4 MDD. . . why can’t I get something in this same range with an Intel processor?

  I need a tower so that I have space for more than one internal hard drive, more RAM slots, additional Graphics Cards slots (and more options), and an upgradable CPU. None of Apple’s current products give me this for less than $2500. . .WAY more than I can reasonably spend!

  Reply
  • 

    Joe Anonymous on October 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 am

    I really need the safety, performance and reliablity of a BMW, but it’s too expensive. That gives me the right to steal one?
  • 

    CF on October 2nd, 2009 at 10:30 am

    I never suggested stealing anything!

    Again, if I purchase a Ferrari part. . . can they prevent me from installing it on my Ford?

    As another example, if I buy a copy of Windows 7. . . should they be able to prevent me from installing it twice on an Apple branded computer- once as a virtual machine and once on a boot camp partition. I think MOST people would consider this ‘fair use’ and within the spirit of the license agreement, even if MS would LOVE you to buy two copies for one computer!
  • 

    mech on October 2nd, 2009 at 10:58 am

    Thanks for bringing up virtualization. Are all of you preachers OK with paying for another OS license when you want to virtualize an OS to test something out (e.g., to check for malware or other goodies before installing on the main rig)?

    If you answer “yes”, then you are hopeless. Sure, in an industry setting, this would be inappropriate, given that the virtualization is done for a purpose of making money for a company. Hence, restrictions on licenses to big companies.

    If a single customer has purchased a piece of music, s/he should be allowed to rip it, put it on any music player in any format s/he feels will give them the best listening experience. Similarly, if s/he feels they need to run the OS in a virtual environment (within another OS), they should not have to purchase another license. This is personal use and not a money making scheme.

    good example, forgot to include it in my discussions.
  • 

    Khürt Williams on October 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    It’s not a matter of whether or not you consider it fair use. It’s a matter of what you agreed to when you bought it. You agreed to one thing and then did another thing instead. You changed the rules of the game after I agreed to play.

    YOU CHEATED!, as my 10 year old son would say.
  • 

    CF on October 2nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    Really? You think it’s somehow ‘cheating’ to rip your own cd’s so that you can play them on your iPod? You think it’s ‘cheating’ to purchase used CDs (the record companies have claimed so, that you buy a ‘license’ and not the actual cd so you can’t re-sell it). . .

    These ‘defenses’ haven’t stood up in court, despite what the ‘license’ claims. You know why?

    Because somebody’s cheating, but it’s not the consumer who legally purchased the product. If publishers were run like record companies/software companies- they would try to SHUT DOWN public libraries!
  • 

    CF on October 2nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm

    BTW, look up record companies’ legal battles against second-hand cd shops. It was only after the courts decided that the ‘Doctrine of First Sale’ still applied (despite what the record companies EULA states about re-selling music, since you don’t technically ‘own’ the music but are just buying a ‘license’).

    This has also been an issue in re-selling used software- not only do most software companies refuse to refund an opened software package, but they also prohibit re-selling the software (even if you delete it from your system and sell it with the license and serial). So if you buy a big program and pay upwards of $1000.00 for it, you may be out of luck if it doesn’t work on your system or doesn’t meet your needs.
  • 

    mech on October 2nd, 2009 at 4:36 pm

    You know what Khurt, if everyone had your mentality, we would be slaves to the corporations a long time ago. It’s thanks to the likes of hackers/rebels/pirates that we have innovation, adaptation, and forcing a change to the norm established by corporations.

    Look at the music industry. It SO doesn’t want to change and keeps trying to introduce more and more draconian policies. They dont want to accept that the MP3 changed the game for them. Are you still willing to go along with their mantra or are you ready to embrace some changes, which may require you to bend a few imposed rules?

    I’ll let you sit on that and decide whether you are happy being a slave or a free thinking individual.
• 

  CF on October 2nd, 2009 at 7:16 am

  “Well, I wasn’t planning to buy a Ferrari, so Ferrari isn’t losing any money from me if I to take one from the dealer, right?”

  If someone BUYS Snow Leopard from Apple, but installs it on their PC. . . THAT is very different than stealing a Ferrari!

  Apple more than makes up for the cost of replication, marketing, etc if you purchase the $179.00 Snow Leopard, iWork, and iLife bundle. . . does Ferrari more than make up their costs of production for said Ferrari??? Of course not.

  A better example would be purchasing a Ferrari engine (at retail price) and putting it in your Volkswagon. Should Ferrari forbid this from happening? Should they ask for proof of Ferrari ownership before they sell you ANY parts?

  Reply
  • 

    Joe Anonymous on October 2nd, 2009 at 7:58 am

    Bad example. What you’re suggesting is a different matter entirely.

    I was responding to the concept of the entitlement attitude being expressed – that if the vendor wouldn’t get money, anyway, it would be OK.

    Your analogy goes to the issue of ownership or licensing. It happens to be irrelevant to that issue since you don’t license a car. A better auto example would be the one I gave earlier – you rent a car from Avis and pay for 2 days of rental with a 500 mile limit and a rule that you may not leave the country, but you drive it 40,000 miles and go all over North and South America with it.

    Or, you buy 100 copies of Microsoft Office Home and Academic edition and use them in your business. Clearly, the courts don’t allow that.

    Those two are licensing examples which support Apple’s position.
  • 

    mech on October 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 am

    No, his example is spot on. You wanted to use the car analogy. Apple NEVER leases you a computer with a limit on how much disk space you can use (that is equivalent to your analogy of leasing a car with a 500 mile limit). On the other hand, they DO sell you an OS.

    The engine (aka the OS, or the driving part of the computer) can be purchased with the idea that the customer does what they want with it (at least most customers would feel this is fair).

    It just so happens that you (Joe Annonyous and many others) are in love with the idea that whatever you pay for (thousands of dollars I might add) is fine being “licensed” to you. You’ve been duped and you revel in it. Others don’t share your corporate ideas to control software/hardware. Most critically thinking individuals will evaluate the situation and make their own decisions. If it feels like the company is being unfair to the customer, the customer can show dissatisfaction with it’s policies. How else do you force a company to change its ways? By being a nice little obedient sheep?
    Good luck with that, my friend.
• 

  mech on October 2nd, 2009 at 9:44 am

  Just want to chime in about the whole comparison of concrete objects to electronic bits of information. Our society is not mature enough to deal with this discrepancy yet. It will take time and some precedents to deal with the issues better.

  “breaking into a Lexus dealership”? come on, how is this even a relevant comparison. Are you not reading what people are doing??? They PAY MONEY TO APPLE FOR THE OS. They don’t break into Apple stores and take hardware (which can NOT be replicated as software) or software.

  Anyway, there will always be people blind to the issues spewing out their points of view.

  To the recovered psychologist: that was cute how you came to see your evil ways of the past. I would argue that you lost something when you “recovered” your morality. You still fail to see the idea that “when I buy something for X amount of dollars, I own it and am free to do with it as I please”. What you have done with your recovery is become another sheep to the corporate market. if you call that gaining morality, then the society has lost in the long run.

  Imagine the “utopian” society when all your clothes are leased/licensed to you because Lacoste/Adidas/Nike/etc holds the intellectual property of the design/fabric. Sure you are not allowed to start selling fake Nike t-shirts, but that is not what most of the people are doing anyway. If I buy a shirt but don’t want it, I am free to sell it or give it away (for the time being anyway).

  I believe that all these hackintoshers, the ones that buy the OS, are probably MORE moral than the preachers on this forum. They evaluated the situation, realized that they don’t want to hurt the company that gives them quality, and decided “I’ll do the right thing and buy the OS for personal use”. These are not PsyStar companies making clones. They are using the OS at home, on trains, planes, coffee shops. Apple wins in the end and the customer is happy.

  I’m sure this will not convince any of the pious Apple followers. An analogy is to ask a religious person on the idea of questioning the existence of god. It is impossible because to question is to commit a sin. Hence, there is no breaking that mental barrier, unless it is done from within.

  Reply
• 

  Yellow Birdman on October 2nd, 2009 at 11:07 am

  Sorry, didn’t read through all the comments, so if I’m repeating someone, it’s accidental. My background is really unimportant, but I have extensive experience in the tech industry and have used multiple systems, from Solaris to Mac OS to Windows. Any commercial software, whether word processor or OS, will have a EULA as it is industry standard to consider a commercial software product as something that is licensed, not sold. You purchase a license to use the software according to the terms of the vendor, you don’t actually own the software. This is an important distinction as, from what I can tell, and IANAL, this keeps a rival company from buying the software, reverse engineering it, and saying “Hey, we bought the software, we didn’t license it. We own the compiled code, and like a car, we can tear it down and rebuild it the way we want.”

  Now, what licensing also allows a software vendor to do is to have their software phone home and declare whether or not it’s being used appropriately. Apple, unlike Microsoft, doesn’t do this. You can go out and buy Mac OS X off the shelf, you don’t need to purchase Apple PC hardware to get the OS. It is sold separately, just like iLife, iWork and their other software offerings. The ethical issue that is really at play here is not whether installing Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware is moral or ethical, it’s whether doing so and then reselling said Hackintosh is moral or ethical. When it comes to personal use, regardless of the EULA, one should be free to do with their product, whether toilet paper or licensed software, what they wish so long as it remains “in the home”, if you will. Now, Apple is certainly within their rights to put in preventative measures so that a particular piece of software is tied to Apple hardware. But, until they do, it’s an uphill battle, and the longer they go without fighting the personal use Hackintosh, the harder it will be for them to stop it in the the future.

  Now, in the case of a company such as Psystar, well, not only is what they are doing illegal, but it is also amoral and unethical. Why? Because, they are taking another company’s hard work and profiting from it when they had no hand in the creation of the central piece of their knockoff offering. This endangers the livelihoods of every employee of the original creator, while enriching those who are, well, thieves. By creating a Hackintosh and then commercializing it one is doing the same thing as taking a Frankenstein car, putting the body, interior and emblems of a Ford onto it, and reselling it. It is a lie, regardless of whether or not you paid for the Ford. And, without consent from Ford, it violates their intellectual property rights and degrades their brand by using Ford’s name and products to sell a non-Ford product that may or may not work as well. It also creates confusion in the marketplace, especially for Apple, as when there is a problem the end user will most likely go to Apple, not Psystar. After all, in the end user’s mind it is Apple Mac OS X, not Psystar Mac OS X. Microsoft, as it has always licensed out Windows to hardware manufacturers, avoids this issue as end users are used to buying Dells, or Gateways or Acers. A Mac is an Apple just as much as iPhone or iPod are Apple.

  So, yes, there is a line, but that line is between the in-my-own-home-not-reselling-or-giving-to-anyone-else activity and the commercialization-of-another’s-work-for-your-gain-at-their-expense activities.

  And, no, Apple is under no obligation, legal, moral or ethical, to provide support for anyone who does not use their products according to the EULA and/or prescribed usage.

  Hope this was cogent.

  Reply
• 

  JoeJoetheidiotpet on October 2nd, 2009 at 2:05 pm

  You know what someone should do. They should contact a News Station, have them follow them into the Apple Store with a Video Camera. Walk but the the Apple Genius with a Copy of Snow Leopard. Before paying and while being filmed by the TV station say the following:

  I am buying this copy of Snow Leopard to be used on the Hackintosh that I am building. It would be interesting to see if the sales person would say they will not sell you the copy.

  Reply
  • 

    CF on October 2nd, 2009 at 2:40 pm

    That WOULD be interesting! While they’re at it, purchase a copy of Final Cut Pro or Logic at the same time. . .

    Let’s see if the Apple store will refuse a HUGE software sale to a customer because s/he intends to install it on a ‘hackintosh’!
• 

  Robert on October 4th, 2009 at 1:59 pm

  Well, it’s like that Joe Wilson thing — the health care bill “says” that it’s not supposed to be covering individuals who don’t have complete documentation WRT them being inside the US, but is it enforced?

  If Apple doesn’t enforce it, which they’re obviously not doing as of yet, who cares? It “just works” anyway with a half-dozen or so open source drivers. Block the hackintosh and you block your own machines. Actually, it “just works” better, in some cases.

  They SHOULD embrace it, because it’s “consumer friendly”. I mean, c’mon, man — I just upgraded a 2.0Ghz dual-core Celeron (E1400) to a 2.66Ghz quad-core Core 2 Duo (E9400) for $189. Try doing that with a mini. That’s interest on your payment plan for a $2500+ Mac Pro.

  OS X is UNIX, and UNIX is a certain way — it’s a general purpose OS, and general purpose OS’s are like that. Linux has paved the way — Linux has shown OS X the way. Linux has laid the precedent, now OS X follows and does a better job at it.

  It’s in their best interests to embrace it, and I hope they do. They probably will. Hollywood would love it. It must irk Steve Jobs to no end that Pixar does the vast majority of its rendering and CGI on Linux. He’s like that. OS X is actually better on standard hardware (Apple tries too hard to make it small, sleek, sexy) and the hardware they use is actually weirder than the standard DIY stuff.

  Linux has paved the way. Ubuntu has shown us what needs to happen. OS X is actually capable of taking us there in a way that “just works”. If you can get Linux up and running, you get a better value for your time and effort going the hackintosh route.

  Reply
• 

  Stefan Weir on October 12th, 2009 at 7:32 pm

  Netbooks are like Kias – nobody really wants one. They are purchased because you couldn’t afford a Lexus or Mercedes. If people want to put a Lexus emblem on a Kia it’s really none of my business. As much as I hate to say this though, Apple needs to preserve itself by not allowing one Leopard or SL disk to upgrade 50 computers. If someone wants the Lexus badge for their Dell mini they should at least have to pay $129 and use a key code to activate it so Apple sees some type of ROI.

  Reply
• 

  Mr.Goose on November 9th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

  1. Much of Apple’s OSX was lifted from the hacking community in the form of BSD.
  2. Whilst Apple stuff looks pretty, if you take the back off it then you will observe the same Chinese-sweatshop type electronics you’ll find in devices costing 1/3 the price.
  3. Apple forcing purchasers of its software only to use it on Apple hardware is a bit like a car manufacturer telling you you can only drive your car on the roads that it approves of. This is BONKERS! How the hell can anyone reckon this is acceptable?
  3. I won’t pay more than three hundred quid (about $500.00) for a laptop. Experience has taught me that heavy users wear out laptops in around 12 to 18 months, regardless of how much they cost.
  5. Today’s free OS’s (Ubuntu, Mint, SUSE etc) are so good that frankly for most purposes proprietary OS’s simply don’t justify the additional expenditure anyway.
  6. I really think it’s time the planet stopped pandering to the whims of rich American corporate interests. Apple hardware is a rip off. Microsoft software is a rip off. Hollywood movies are a rip off (and more often than not utter rubbish). Ditto the mainstream music industry. Yet lawmakers around the planet seem determined to protect these vested American interests at the expense of 95% of the world population who aren’t American (not to mention the significant slice the United States own population that is also systematically marginalised and disenfranchised by these American corporate interests). Seems to me that the hacking community is the only group of people with the intellectual energy and moral fibre to stand up to these corporate interests. Therefore I take the view that any group that legitimately dents the profits of these corporate fat cats should be encouraged, supported and celebrated.
  7. Who outside the rich, white, US-led computing community really gives a toss if Apple goes bust anyway?
  8. And finally @ Apple Corp. You may not have noticed but there is a recession on (started as it happens primarily by other corrupt American corporate interests that were allowed to get away with fraud on an epic scale). Therefore, if working people are actually prepared to stump up $129.00 of their hard-earned cash for an OS that you basically ripped off anyway then STOP WHINING! You should be bloody grateful! Don’t push your luck!

  Reply