OSx86 Cracked Again 707
The Cardboard God writes "The OSx86 Project is reporting that the intrepid hacker 'Maxxuss' has once again eluded Apple's security methods and cracked the latest release of Mac OS X for Intel, or 'OSx86', to run on standard x86 PCs. It seems Apple just can't win this eternal struggle with the hackers, as 10.4.4 included beefed up security designed to prevent similar hacking methods used on beta releases of the operating system. Is this a blessing for Apple, or simply a nuisance?"
Nuisance. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you replace enough files... (Score:5, Insightful)
The patch replaces the following files:
- AppleSMBIOS
- ATSServer
- diskimages-helper
- Dock
- Finder
- loginwindow
- mach_kernel
- mds
- SystemUIServer
- translate
- translated
So, as long as you have no shame and don't mind running Mac OS X in a state that is completely unsupported, with a different kernel (!), modified in unknown ways, and in a state that won't be able to be updated with any OS or security updates from Apple (until they themselves are cracked), perpetually repeating this scenario ad nauseum, and also have no problems either:
- pirating Mac OS X, which is the current only way of obtaining Mac OS X (Intel), and
- seem to think that a commercial manufacturer's wishes for its products amount to nothing (e.g., via the EULA, perhaps claiming EULAs aren't enforceable in your jurisdiction)
...then I'm sure you'll be able to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware indefinitely.
Is this actually surprising?
Someday, Apple - you know, the entity that has invested billions of dollars, all told, and countless thousands upon thousands of manhours in the development of Mac OS X and its associated products - may choose to partner with specific x86 vendors and specific hardware products to allow Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware at some point in the future. But for now, I love the editorial slant of x86project.org:
What this means is that Apple's best attempts to secure their OS have, ultimately, failed. For its best efforts, the company is unable to lock OS X to their hardware. Without doubt, this will have profound impacts on the company's future as running OSx86 on a PC becomes less a hacker's trick and more mainstream. When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that's certainly the future we're looking at.
This also opens a host of new questions for Apple, OS X, and the PC users who love it. Will this mark the beginning of Apple's legal endeavors to keep OS X locked down? Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?
Time will tell. Things keep getting more exciting. Stay Tuned.
"When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD"? I'm sorry, but even if you claim they're just "telling it like it is", that attitude has absolutely no respect for the hard work of others. Forget copyright. Forget the DMCA. What about just pure ethics? I suppose if one is a relativist, they might ask, "Ethics? By whose standards?"
And again: if you change enough of Mac OS X, of course you'll be able to get it to work on non-Apple hardware. It will take some reverse engineering and time, but it will always happen. This doesn't mean TPM is any less "secure" for its purposes. Ironically, it actually validates TPM: trusted computing is designed to make a platform just that: trusted, and operating in a predictable state. This hack job on Mac OS X (Intel) is anything but.
I'm glad people are so smug in their beliefs that it's okay to have an utter lack of regard for the work product of others to produce an excellent product, one whose creation is predicated on the business model that company has chosen: namely, to sell HARDWARE along with their operating system. Apple has every right to choose that as the mechanism for selling its product. Even if Mac OS X (Intel) is sold standalone (as it may be in the form of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard).
Apple Appliances? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe in a few years it won't matter if OS X runs on commodity boxes, as Apple won't really be competing with them as their main business. Apple/TiVo anyone?
Curse (Score:5, Insightful)
But if the process is easy, Joe Sixpack will look at Apple like they do Microsoft: "it keeps crashing"
I doubt Apple has any drivers written for even the more common hardware out there. Chipsets, NICs, video cards, sound cards, etc. Sure, you might be able to get it running in a beige box, but too many will be outside of OSX's driver realm.
Of course, this will lead to normal users saying "Gollleee, now I can run OH ESS EKKS on my Walmart laptop by downloading it from the torrent thingeee." The next thing you know, they're cursing Apple's name as being a bunch of programmer hacks.
It almost seems....... (Score:4, Insightful)
But that's likely my tinfoil conspiracy hat talking.
Who's less worse? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why bother? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple should just declare that they will not provide any support and anyone installing it is doing it on his/her own risk...
An officially unsupported OS will always be crippled compared to the supported one,
It'll crash, it won't have proper driver support and it won't be updated nearly as fast.
Users would eventually figure that using OSX on regular, unsupported PCs is too much trouble and would thus cease from doing so.
Not a big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
The won't release it easily (Score:5, Insightful)
"Will it persuade Steve Jobs that releasing his OS is an insanely great idea?"
I don't think so, Apple wants to produce a quality product, and can control the hardware and the OS, so it's fairly easy to make it a very stable product.
If they would want to release a version that runs on all (intel) x86 PC's they won't be able to have as much stability and quality control at all, and might give end users a bad feeling about this producs just as lots of people are annoyed with those driver issues that plague the Windows world (in terms of stability)...
Of course Apple can't win (Score:5, Insightful)
They're new to x86. Hackers have been here for *decades*.
Welcome to the mainstream, Apple.
Exposure (Score:3, Insightful)
I see this kind of like the DRM in iTunes. It's almost trivial to bypass, but good enough to keep an honest person honest. Building a bulletproof DRM is rather futile because people determined to do it will hammer it down eventually. I think Apple may have a similar philosophy here--good enough to keep honest people honest, or at least those who just want to use it, not build it (listen to music or use the computer).
so we have a release version of OSx86 cracked (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it's (Score:5, Insightful)
Cracked OSX environments can float around. They'll make almost no impact on sales, as they will be completley unsupported and a royal PITA to keep patched. Meanwhile, it will mean a lot of hackers out there who would otherwise not touch an Apple computer a close, personal look at what they are missing out on. If a tiny fraction of those people like what they see, more Macs get sold.
Meanwhile, Apple only needs to apply just enough security that non-hardcore hackers will consider OSx86 to be not worth the hassle, especially when the Intel-based Macs (so far) offer fairly similar ! for the $ to the other major brands.
Re:Curse (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter how easy - short of retail packaging, Joe Sixpack, by definition, ain't going to be installing it in the first place.
The secret is safe!
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm on board that just "downloading a DVD" is unethical, but if I BUY an official copy of OS/X, then who the hell is Steve Jobs to tell me what I can or can't do with it?
This is one of the main reasons I dislike Apple as a company: the arrogance. Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't play on an iPod (e.g., suing Real). Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy. Frankly, screw Steve!
Apple could be so much more successful if they would stop being such a-hole control freaks and just sell their products and embrace people wanting to use THE SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT THEY FREAKING OWN the way the want to.
Re:Actually, it's (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait till it's selling to release the crack! (Score:3, Insightful)
generic hardware != unstable (Score:3, Insightful)
I reject the argument that being able to run MacOS on any generic x86 box will hurt Apple in terms of stability or image. Sure, you might be running a slick looking OS on a beige box, but that doesn't mean that it won't be any less stable than official Apple hardware. (That is, unless Apple intentionally cripples their OS...)
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Apple may never release a standalone copy of Mac OS X (Intel) that you can actually buy without purchasing a machine. With Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard), this may occur, but it is not yet guaranteed. In this scenario, I don't think there is any excusable way in any jurisdiction to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, since you *must* pirate Mac OS X to do so.
1a. To extend on the above, some people might justify their action by buying a copy of Mac OS X (PowerPC), and reasoning that they've "paid" for Mac OS X, and that therefore it's then okay to pirate Mac OS X (Intel) and use it as they wish. However, that's not an acceptable argument since it's not the same product.
2. Even if a standalone version of Mac OS X (Intel) (or a universal release of Mac OS X) is released at some point, I don't think you can get completely in the clear with your argument. Sure, it's just bits on a plastic disc. You should be able to install it on your Mac, run over it with your car, do nothing with it, juggle it, wipe your ass with it, or even hack it and install it on your PC. Right? Sure, I'm with you. I understand the argument you're making. But, like it or not, this hurts Apple. *You* might not think it hurts Apple, but the only people in the position to *decide* that it hurts Apple - i.e., Apple - have decided that it *does* hurt Apple. Whether it's because of business model or arbitrary decision, that's their decision to make. And if there is law in certain countries/jurisdictions that allows companies to make that kind of determination, I do not see how operating within the bounds of law to protect oneself from injury - whether you are a person or a corporation - is inappropriate.
To ratchet this argument down to being a little more practical, I'd submit that Mac OS X's pricepoint is predicated on the assumption that it's associated with Apple hardware, and that there will be continuing purchases of Apple hardware by satisfied customers running Mac OS X on Apple hardware, ostensibly becausse the quality, attention to detail, and software/hardware integration is so pleasant, and myriad other reasons. Apple loses this control when Mac OS X is not run on Apple hardware. Now, you might say, "tough shit." And in some locales in the world, the government might also agree with you. Great. Congratulations. But that still doesn't change the fundamental truth to what I've just said.
I see it as just a semblance of respect for the work of others.
Re:Actually, it's (Score:3, Insightful)
You make it sound like Malware writers had no access to Macs over the past 20 years. Behold my lack of worry.
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm on board that just "downloading a DVD" is unethical, but if I BUY an official copy of OS/X, then who the hell is Steve Jobs to tell me what I can or can't do with it?
I agree with you in principal, but OS X for x86 is only available with the purchase of an imac right now (as far as I know) and while it is possible that you might want to take that one license and install it on a different machine while wiping the imac, don't think it is likely. I'm all in favor of hacking the OS and researching, but I'm more than a little leery that this will lead to just another way to get crappy warez versions of OS X hacked up to work on generic boxes without paying for a license. Right now it is just that, a concern. I don't see anything that has been inappropriate yet.
This is one of the main reasons I dislike Apple as a company: the arrogance. Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't play on an iPod (e.g., suing Real). Steve wants to tell me what I can and can't do with software I buy. Frankly, screw Steve!
And here is where you lost me. When did Apple sue Real? As far as I know there has only been one lawsuit and it was Real suing Apple. What Apple did do was change the DRM authentication on the iPods to stop Real's hack from working, but seeing as Real was using Apple's servers to do the authentication I don't think anyone can really fault them for that. It was a very legitimate security and support concern. Hell, I wouldn't let my competitor's use my servers to authenticate their DRM either.
Apple could be so much more successful if they would stop being such a-hole control freaks and just sell their products and embrace people wanting to use THE SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT THEY FREAKING OWN the way the want to.
Apple is very successful now and not because they operate using a simplistic view of the market. They are in a market dominated by a monopoly and they can only compete by maintaining a complete vertical chain on their own. Apple sells computers because they can't survive selling software and because they make more money that way. They use software as a differentiator, but they are not an OS company, they are a hardware company. Selling OS X for intel would be huge financial loss. The OS market, like it or not, is basically the pre-installed OS market. MS has that market locked down. Apple can only sell pre-installs on their own hardware. The secondary market of installs after the fact is a small one for the tech savvy. A lot of Apple's customers would be included, but not a significant share of the market. Operating in such a commodity business Apple would have to grab nearly 40% of the market just to break even with the hardware sales losses they would endure. It is just not very likely. I'd like OS X for generic hardware as much as the next guy, but not at the cost of Apple going out of business and it no longer being available in the future. Sorry but a lot of people have looked at this business case including Apple and it just doesn't make sense for them.
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly. You could buy an intel mac, and run linux on it, while running OSX on your white-box.
Own a PS2? Xbox or Gamecube? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple could be so much more successful if they would stop being such a-hole control freaks and just sell their products and embrace people wanting to use THE SOFTWARE AND HARDWARE THAT THEY FREAKING OWN the way the want to.
Do you own a PS2? Nintendo DS? Or any console for that matter?
If so welcome to the world of not necessarily being able to use your software/hardware in a way you'd like.
OSX is tied to Mac hardware. Consoles are locked down from running arbitrary software. Why? Because in both cases one doesn't make enough money without the thing it's tied to.
A console doesn't have the margins to be viable independently. In a Windows world OSX probably couldn't compete as an OS alone and generate enough money.
You can say that the they should sell them at a price point where they are viable... but I'd suggest such a price point likely doesn't exist!
An Xbox 360 sells for around $400 - at a loss! If MS charged say $600 instead, how many less machines would actually sell? Would there be enough penetration it make it worth while for the software developers time to develop for it?
How much would OSX cost to be profitable on its own? How reliable would it be running on unknown combinations of commodity hardware?
Now I agree that it should be legal for you to modify your hardware/software locks to run as you see fit. That will dissuade enough people that the market remains viable. I don't think, however, that you should bitch that the locks are there to begin with!
Blockwars [blockwars.com]: free, multiplayer game.
Deja vu all over again! (Score:2, Insightful)
Then in the 80's, there were Apple II computers, and various clones! Apple added checks to try to prevent their OS from running on the clones, and people hacked either the software or their machines to get around it.
In a sense, an x86 PC is a "cheap clone" of the proprietary Apple hardware.
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:2, Insightful)
Granted, machines made by Apple are now very close in architecture to machines made by other PC manufacturers, one key exception being use of EFI rather than BIOS, but that does not increase the obligation on Apple to write software that is guaranteed to work on machines that it does not make.
Apple is writing an OS that runs on it's hardware set. If it were to sell a box with software to install on generic PCs, it would open up a huge support load due to the enormous number of combinations of possible components. Perhaps Apple will chose to do this down the road once the transition to Intel-based machines has been completed. Right now, however, Apple has a lot on its plate just to make sure OS X runs well on Intel machines with known sets of components. Drivers are still not available for many printers, scanners, and so forth, for example.
You seem to assume that Apple would chase you down for buying a legal copy of OS X and hacking it to run on your machine. I doubt that Apple could do much to stop you from doing this or would they even try. Note that Apple does not even require licensing keys on its OS and consumer-level software. They are not as much of control freaks as you seem to think. It's just that Apple survives by making hardware. Allowing licensing of the OS nearly drove the company into bankruptcy in the 1990s. Before they go out and sell an install kit for generic PCs out there, they have to be very sure of the economics of it, including the certainty of added support costs and the possibility of lower hardware sales.
I believe that once Apple is in a position where they can profit from licensing the OS to a PC manufacturer like Dell, they will do it, and they will do it carefully. That time has not come yet.
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you really think that people will be doing that? Not to mention that the license also doesn't allow that. I'm only assuming you are giving some credence to the license here since you seem to be subscribing to the one-to-one idea in terms of operating systems on hardware.
But if you own it and think you can do whatever you want with it, why should you even follow the one-to-one principle? You should be able to do whatever you want to do with it, and install it on as many machines as you want, right?
If not, why not? Why buy multiple copies for multiple machines? It's only the "license" that is preventing you from doing otherwise...
I don't see the problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why Apple is missing the boat here. I'm waving my $150 at you Steve Jobs come and get it. If you would just sell it to people you'd have the number one os in the world. (and #1 in my heart)
Just think of being able to ACTUALY choose your OS. Linux/Mac/Windows on the same hardware - Why not?
Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't? Why would OS X have security measures then? Steve Jobs himself has spoken out against such "theft."
It's money in their pocket either way.
How is it money in their pocket when someone pirates a cracked DVD of OS X? Apple isn't getting a cent. It's just more freeloaders who don't want to pay for stuff and think that's a valid reason to pirate everything under the sun.
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the music piracy world, it's "the RIAA made us do it!" In the PC game world, it's "the greedy publishers made us do it!" Always something to blame for your getting free shit except yourself.
Re:I don't see the problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't understand why Apple is missing the boat here. I'm waving my $150 at you Steve Jobs come and get it.
I'll explain it. You and the several thousand others like you would cost more money for the free support and other missed opportunity cost than you would give. Basically, Apple offering OS X fort other hardware will cost them hardware sales since many people will buy other hardware now that they can run OS X on it. It will increase support costs in trying to deal with all that hardware. And Apple makes very little money selling OS X. They make their money selling hardware and in order to make the same amount of money they would have to capture 30-40% of the OS market. Since they are locked out of the pre-install market by MS's OEM pricing and since the non-preinstall market is about 5% of the market right now the chances of them even making the same amount of money as they do now are basically zero. I'd buy it too, but it just doesn't make sense for them to sell it.
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've arbitrarily decided that your post hurts me. Do I get to have a gaggle of fanboys bitch at you now?
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:4, Insightful)
Broadly, because we live in a society based on the rule of law and respect for the property and work of others - including intangibles like "intellectual" property and work.
Software doesn't just want to be free, one must go to extraordinary lengths to make it un-free. If Apple want to put some ridiculous EULA in their shrink-wrapped software, fine. Expect me to laugh at it while I do whatever the hell I please with my purchase in the privacy of my own home.
Ok, humor me, here: so, you should be able to install it on as many machines as you wish, too? Say, 10? 100? If not, why not?
You don't "own" Mac OS X. Apple is granting you a license to use it under a legal framework in various jurisdictions, including one that is at least marginally clearly defined in the US. What you "own" is a ~5" circle-shaped piece of plastic and a cardboard box. If you have no respect for the license, fine; but then, why buy it at all? Why not just pirate it in the first place?
Hackers are irrelevant, OS X on a PC a novelty (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm well aware that Intel-based Macs are shipping, thank you.
But anyway, yes, you do have to "pirate" it. As far as Apple is concerned, installing it on non-Apple hardware, installing it on more than one machine, or obtaining it without purchasing it are all equally violative of the license. Therefore, if it's "pirating" it to download it from BitTorrent, it's just the same when you decide to install it on your PC, or even another Mac, just as it's "pirating" it when you buy one copy of OS X for PowerPC and install it on 5 Power Macs at home. If you personally think downloading it is "wrong", but taking the copy that came with your Intel-based Mac and also installing it on your PC is "okay", that's only because of your own arbitrary moral sense, not anything based on logic. Because if that's okay, it's just as okay to download it and install it on as many machines as you wish.
Wouldn't work (Score:4, Insightful)
What Apple suspects -- and what I believe -- is that OS X on commodity boxes would probably just cannibalize existing Apple sales, convert them to [whitebox NewEgg PC + pirated bittorrent copy of MacOS] "sales," and drive the company quickly out of business. And once Apple is gone, that would be the end of the line for MacOS. Microsoft would really have won.
I think it's also important to look back to 10 years or so ago, and remember that it was the same sort of 'commodity hardware' thinking that led to the CHRP and Mac Clone era. In retrospect, that came close to killing Apple -- and not surprisingly, when it became clear that other manufacturers' hardware running MacOS wasn't converting legions of Wintel users to Mac, but instead just drawing existing Apple customers to someplace else, Apple killed the clones. That's the historical lesson that I assume is forefront in the minds of everyone in Apple's management, and I doubt that they're going to repeat the mistake.
Apple's "magic smoke," it's jene se qua, that keeps customers coming back and paying that "Mac Tax," is based on a lot more than just the MacOS (which at the end of the day is really a pretty interface and HAL on top of BSD). It's utterly dependent on maintaining a tight control over the hardware and the software. It's not sustainable without that control, and that's why I think it'll be a cold day in hell before you see Apple willingly sell a retail version of MacOS for boxes that aren't theirs.
Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, there is an undercurrent of folks who won't pay for anything, or will run it "just 'cause they can," but at the end of the day those people want to use it without hassle, they'll make a hardware switch. If they don't, it's revenue that Apple wouldn't have booked anyway.
Think about it. You can get free music from wherever you want. So why is iTunes such a success? It's because people will pay for perceived value: convenience, safety, support, whatever.
That's why I switched from technology to marketing!
Re:anti-competitive bundling (OS-PC) (Score:4, Insightful)
It is about control (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a good thing for Apple (Score:2, Insightful)
This won't impact Apple's bottom line negatively because those same geeks wouldn't have used OSX if they needed to pay for it. But if it's free to them and they start writing apps for it, OSX only becomes more and more viable for the paying customer as these geeks spend some quality time with the OS.
And if people get Windows to boot on a Macbook, who knows... We might start seeing geeks running a Linux/XP/OSX Macbook, which would be the ultimate geek laptop due to OSX's ability to terminal into Unix. You'd have the ultimate quad-boot machine available.
Re:Curse (Score:3, Insightful)
While I haven't played with it in a long while, I recall it supporting most of my core hardware, out of the box. Common things like NICs and chipsets should probably be relatively well-supported, though I'd doubt they'd have the latest and greatest graphics cards working in non-Vesa. Other less common devices probably meet the same fate.
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm... is that really so ?
Let me ask, does Linux work on all variety of laptop out there ? Does it support all of the video cards that Windows does ?
Let me answer: No. It does not. Do you know why Windows supports all of those graphics cards and other strange little devices out there that Linux does not?
Again, let me answer : it's because the hardware manufacturers make sure the drivers are written. That's right; it's not as if Microsoft is out there writing device drivers for every video card out there. As to standards, which standard? There are so many to choose from... DirectX ? Sure, Apple should license that from Microsoft... WTF are you talking about? That's not even right, or probably doable, and it's still video card makers who write drivers for Microsoft, or "partner" or otherwise pay Microsoft to support their hardware...
WTF? What standards are you talking about here? How do you think this stuff works?
You are right about one thing, though... the blame is properly placed with the hardware makers... and I'm not so sure Windows works on "all of the hacked-up systems" out there... certainly it doesn't without third-party device drivers. It's those drivers that are at the heart of this issue, and if you think they're all working on some sort of magic, open standards, or that Microsoft writes or funds the creation of all of those drivers... pass the pipe, please...
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't own it? Really? I suppose I don't "own" a book either. Hint: I do. Just because Apple chooses to place certain things in a EULA doesn't make them law.
Now, there's certain things I cannot do with either, such as I can't replicate it for distribution or publicly display it. Those are copyright infringements. But, I can pretty much do anything else with it - make duplicates, tear them up, whatever.
That tearing up one is key, because I can assemble them later to recreate, or create a slight variation of the original. As long as it's for my personal use, I'm 100% legal. This is actually a supporting argument for those with the OSx86 project. Of course, they're probably in violation of some part of the DMCA, but that only applies in the USA.
Going back to the EULAs, judges have found some of the restriction clauses unenforceable, especially those that violate existing law. My personal favorite is the EULA clause I happened to read once that stated something along the lines of "may install only on 1 computer once". No exceptions for backups, mirrored disks that could be broken, whatever. "Once". Of course, all EULAs include the clause "if any part of this EULA is considered unenforcable, the remainder will remain.... blah blah blah" or something to that effect.
Is it any wonder people ignore EULAs when using them personally? The original intent of EULAs was to protect the providing company from litigation, near as I can recall. This is supported by the large number of EULAs that all included a list of suitable uses and things they weren't suited for. (e.g., Sun's Java clause about lack of suitability for life-support systems)
Re:Sig (Score:2, Insightful)
I sure didn't but now that I do that's one less artist that I'll be supporting with my money(or bother downloading his music either because that only gives him a new statistic to whine about "downloading is up but my CD sales are down"). That's my approach to this: support artists/software companies who aren't uptight about filesharing because otherwise it's much like paying traffic fines, each time you do it's equivalent to paying the officer to harass you for something retarded. In that particular instance you face jail time but that costs the government money and makes them that much less capable of repeating it especially if people unite to do this enmass ala civil disobedience but Keenan can't do anything except NOT make money if I refuse to listen to his music, buy his CD's, go to his shows, buy t-shirts, etc. and I don't download his crap either. If that's done enmass, Keenan goes broke and that's one less loser artist to complain about a problem that mostly exists in their mind.
Re:Wouldn't work (Score:1, Insightful)
Close. It's "je ne sais quoi"
Otherwise, great post.
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:2, Insightful)
So you just want that copy of OSX-x86 because it represents free information? You will what, examine the coding and disseminate the ideas which it spawns? Or you will use it to surf the web, listen to music, play games, burn CDs, and various other day-to-day tasks that involve using it as a tool instead of just 'information'?
If the former, you have my apologies for jumping to conclusions. If the latter, don't hide behind 'ethical information sharing' -- it's still stealing.
Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it (Score:3, Insightful)
Something about this doesn't make sense...
Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree. Companies like Dell could easily be prevented from selling computers with OSx86 pre-installed by the liscencing agreement. In fact, any company could be sued by Apple if it resells the OS in violation of the terms. Besides, if there is a crack out there, it would be trivial for a large computer manufacturer to use it to install it on all of their machines. The protections in the OS would work best at preventing the average computer user (not ueber-geeks, not grandmas) from installing OSx86 on a cheap PC. I think you give Apple too much credit in saying that they don't mind if the overage user installs OSx86 on his PC. After all, they make their money on over-priced hardware, not the software.
OS X EULA versus GPL (Score:3, Insightful)
Both are usage contracts. Both defines specific terms of use, and if you disagree with either, you can opt out by not using the software.
So - is there anyone who is for OS X on generic PC hardware *and* for the GPL?
Is that a contradiction?
While I'm at it - Apple are actively participating in several open source programs, and recently (and unexpectedly) gave a fair bit of hardware away for free to some top contributors. Should Apple be punished through active disregard for their OS X terms of use?
Re:If you replace enough files... (Score:3, Insightful)
For a start, the world does not end at San Diego and Rhode Island. There are those of us who live overseas, and where the law on EULAs is by no means clear.
Firstly, a EULA is - supposed to be - a contract. The licensor agrees to let you use their software so long as you abide by certain rules, i.e. the terms of the EULA. Yet a EULA is a pretty odd contract. Traditionally a contract requires "offer, acceptance, and consideration". Yet there is no consideration involved. The consideration happened when the purchaser entered into a legal agreement with the retailer to buy the product. So, in any normal sense (and at least outside of the US), a EULA is not a contract.
But bear with me a second. Let us assume that a EULA is a legally binding contract. Unfortunately, some people cannot enter into contracts. Children, for example, cannot sign their life away. If a child clicks "I Accept", then it binds them to the terms of the EULA not one bit. (That does not mean a child can run off hundreds of copies of World of Warcraft; that's not breach of contract, that's infringement of copyright.) So a child, or a minor, or anyone not legally able to sign contracts could happily hack away.
Similarly, there are issues - which the federal court fails to deal with - concerning sale rights. If I sell a computer with legally purchased software pre-installed, then the purchaser has not clicked on "I Agree". How can they be bound by the terms of the EULA?
This is a much more complex area than people commonly realise. But one thing remains certain: Apple does not have an absolue monopoly in determining what every legal purchaser of OS X can do with their copy.
Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it (Score:1, Insightful)
Wrong. Imagine that everyone has a duplicator. All new car development would cease because no automobile manufacturer would undertake the engineering effort required to produce new and improved models, since they would only sell a small fraction of the new model since the duplication would begin as soon as the first new model was in the public domain.
Now imaging that automobiles are computer programs and the industry in question is the software industry instead of the automobile industry.
Following your logic, over time, will lead to the inevitable death of the software industry. Nice work.
Your argument is so flawed, that I can't believe it is still consistently raised as a legitimate defense of software piracy.
Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument is so flawed, that I can't believe it is still consistently raised as a legitimate defense of proprietary software.
99% of the market for PC's that run OSX (Score:3, Insightful)
But try to compete with them, and make a PC that runs OSX.
The mechanisms that they have put in place are designed to limit/stop the competition with their hardware. Yes, this is an artificial monopoly.
Monopoly does not need to be a bad word. Copyrights and patents create temporary monopolies, by there nature. But monopolies do need to be recognized and limited. DRM+Anti-circumvention+Anti-reverse-engineering monopolies are the latest thing in creating monopolies. The Apple PC is an example of the later.
In an ideal world, a company with any monopoly should be required to justify it.
Apple needs a OSX harware monopoly because:
1. It promotes art and science because (?).
2. It helps the customer by (?).
3. Because Microsoft has monopolies, so they need them to compete.
4. for more profits.
5. because we want the boxes to be cool/silver/plasticy.
Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it (Score:3, Insightful)
No automobile manufacturer would undertake the marketin..., er, um, I meant to say, undertake the engineering effort required to produce new models?
Maybe this would be a good thing?
Everyone could duplicate their own cars? Why wouldn't this be good for everyone?
Open source cars?
Maybe the existing auto makers would create legislation to prevent copying of their designs. Fine.
I predict that open source car designs would emerge that anyone could download and use. Eventually these would advance beyond just being usable to being right on the coattails of proprietary car designs.
Please don't steal Apple's OS. Or the RIAA's music. If you use it, pay what is being asked for it. (Including open source.) If you don't like the price, pick something else.
Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore, your argument does not apply particularly well in the software world or in the music world. Suppose someone pirates Windows, but he would have run Linux otherwise. That person isn't particularly hurting the Linux community unless he would have contributed. He's also not hurting Microsoft if he wouldn't have bought Windows anyway. Similarly, with music, inferior music generally does not come at lower prices, so pirates of Good Band X certainly wouldn't have bought Less-Good Band Y.
The reason that piracy usually does hurt software (and arguably music) companies is that while the pirates wouldn't have bought all the stuff they pirated, they probably would have bought some of it. Most of the ones that say they wouldn't are lying, plain and simple. Therefore, if the extra press created by more copies of the pirated stuff floating around isn't enough to cancel the lost sales (and it isn't if everyone pirates everything), then the companies lose money.
In this case, it's unclear. If you buy OS X and run it illegally on a Dell laptop or something, Apple doesn't get the margin on the sales of whatever Mac you would have bought, but they do get the margin on OS X, which is nearly the full price you paid. Depending on the margins and on the number of people who would have actually bought the Mac, Apple may be better off here. However, Apple is certainly not making money if you copy OS X and run it illegally, unless you decide that you love it but want better the driver support you'd get with a real Mac.
Re:Yup as long as Dell isn't doing it (Score:3, Insightful)
A certain level of piracy is good for a product. The real "cost" is low as the people doing it wouldn't have bought anything anyway, and if they are coming away with positive impressions of the product its effectively advertising. You could almost write it off as an expense.
Widespread piracy on the otherhand damages the product, as it directly negatively impacts on the companies bottom line. So no one in software development is going to advocate piracy, but well know that a little bit "in the right places" will actually help sales.
A kid who pirates Citrix Metaframe Server for his home will be comfortable recommending it when he's an IT consultant, a web developer with a pirated copy of photoshop on his home PC will never try the Gimp, thus helping protecting Adobe's lock on the legal copy at work. And his 10 year old kid will use that pirated copy of photoshop too when he draws moustaches on the family photos -- perpetuating the brand lock in.
Ditto MS Office
But too much piracy is a 'bad thing'. I'd say that once the piracy extends past the "reasonable fair use" threshold its moved into 'bad' territory.
Oh, and drunk drivers do have a positive effect on making roads safer. We wouldn't have organizations like MADD etc working to promote driver education, dry grads, parent involvement with their teenagers, and whatnot were it not for drunk drivers. Unfortunately, unlike piracy, the cost of even a single drunk driving incident is far too high to say that any benefits are worth it.
That's the difference. The -cost- of limited piracy is negligible. If people couldn't pirate they simply wouldn't use it. So nobody is really harmed by it -- as long as it stays at that scale.
Re:anti-competitive bundling (OS-PC) (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has been making hardware for a long time and that is their primary business, making computer hardware. The fact that they have developed a brilliant OS to run on their hardware is another issue. Naturally this OS is only available on their hardware.
Now, Microsoft has been making software for a long time and this is their primary business. They do make some hardware but not full computers. If they move into that area they wouldn't be able to do anti-competitive things like making their software only run on their hardware.
MS software has previously ran on all PC hardware, to change this would be anti-competitive. MacOS has never before ran on PC hardware.
Re:anti-competitive bundling (OS-PC) (Score:2, Insightful)
Re-read the "mono" part of "monopoly" again. Either one company has a monopoly, or none do. Last time I checked, Apple sales made up less than 10% of the PC market.