Apple Embeds Message to OS X Hackers 575
zentechno writes "Apple has confirmed it embedded a message in the form of a poem to those who would hack its version of OS X on Intel hardware." From the article: "The embedded poem reads: 'Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/his existing OS was so blind/he'd do better to pirate/an OS that ran great/but found his hardware declined./Please don't steal Mac OS!/Really, that's way uncool./(C) Apple Computer, Inc.'Apple also put in a separate hidden message, 'Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext,' in another spot for would-be hackers."
Sense of humor... (Score:2, Insightful)
huh (Score:2, Insightful)
Given the fact that there are sites dedicated to porting OSX, the "Would be" is a matter of opinion.
Don't be (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, you come here for the discussion, go to digg.com for the speed.
It's funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pirate? (Score:4, Insightful)
And, Apple, you are free to innovate by releasing updates that make any progress on this front obsolete. It'll be a fun race that way.
Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lame (Score:5, Insightful)
Where do you get this sense of self-entitlement? Apple spent their money creating Mac OS X. They get to decide how they want to sell it. If you don't like how they sell it, you don't have to buy it. You're not morally, much less legally, entitled to do what you want with their hard work, just because you can.
Apple isn't denying that people are capable of breaking their copy-protection. They're asking that people don't, out of respect for their right as producer of the software to sell it under their terms.
I don't understand this attitude, where people think that they are fucking entitled to pirate music, movies, software, or whatever. They actually get offended when you tell them that it's immoral!
I mean, I can understand the attitude of "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but I don't care." I don't agree with it, but I understand it. But I don't understand the people who truly don't see what's immoral about, for example, running Mac OS X in a way that Apple expressly asks you not to.
Re:Lame (Score:3, Insightful)
They wrote OS X. They get to decide how to sell it. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it.
It is immoral to say "I don't like the conditions they're selling it under, so I'm going to violate them." How can you not respect the fact that they, as authors of the software, have the right to sell it under the terms they prefer?
Let's say you write a book. You spend ten years of your life writing it, living off your savings. At the end of the ten years, you're almost broke, but your book is done, and it's a masterpiece. You go to a publisher, and say "I will sell you the rights to my book, if you give me 50% of the profits it makes." They agree.
The book goes on to make several millions of dollars in profits for the company, and they give you jack shit. When you complain, they say "Giving you 50% of the profits is NOT acceptable."
It's not exactly the same, but the situation is similar. Apple, as author of Mac OS X, can set the conditions under which it is sold. Even if you can come up with some legal loophole that lets you violate those conditions, doing so is still morally wrong. No one is forcing you to buy OS X. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it.
Why should the OS vendor get to make hardware choices for you? Because that's how they want to do business. If you don't like it, don't buy from them.
Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has two hurdles to overcome before they can successfully sell OS X for generic Intel hardware:
1) Convince manufacturers to write drivers for OS X. If 3/4 of he hardware out there RIGHT NOW lack OS X drivers for PPC, why would they magically have OS X drivers for Intel? So that means OS X won't be able to access your scanner, your TV tuner, your sound card, your mpeg accelerated video card, etc.
2) Create a reference platform of supported devices, after they convince manufacturers to provide drivers in step 1.
Without step 1, number 2 ends up being, more or less, an iMac or MacBook Pro. Which is more or less what they have right now, except that they haven't yet released OS X for Intel.
Re:Lame (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:5, Insightful)
And Sun experienced this the same way. The x86 hardware they sell is undercutting their profits on their own architectures. That's ok only if they make more money this way.
Re:Lame (Score:5, Insightful)
If you won't give me your credit card info, I'll just take it from you instead! In case you don't get it, you are the publisher of your credit card info, and since you refuse to publish that info, I'll just bootleg it instead.
Re:Lame (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is approaching this with a lot of common sense, respect for legitimate users, and humour.
you're acting like a childish prick because everything doesn't go your way. wah! Han shot first! wah! I can't afford a Mac! wah! stealing makes me a hero! wah!
grow up and get a life.
They don't have the moral right to dictate HOW (Score:5, Insightful)
> way that Apple expressly asks you not to.
Because I don't recognize their moral authority to tell me HOW to use their product. Their Copyright only gives them the right to control making copies. Yea I'd violate the letter of that if an iso appeared that would boot on my hardware simply because of curiosity. I wouldn't adopt it for daily use and certainly wouldn't use it at work without buying a copy. (Although until the first upgrade hits retail I'd probably have to buy the PPC copy and call it close enough.)
And I don't recognize any right for them to say their copyrighted work can ONLY be accessed on their brand of player. That is the same sort of bullshit arguments the MPAA and the DVD-CCA use to tell me I can't play DVDs I own on a DVD drive equipped PC I own because they refuse to bless a player for my preferred platform. By your logic I should just forego DVD on Linux or be a good lemming and install Windows. Wrong, I didn't 'license' my season sets of South Park, I BOUGHT copies and I'll read them wherever I damned well please and if I want to skip the trice damned commercials for Drawn Together and the Daily Show I will. And if I ever decided to install OS X I'd BUY a copy of it and do whatever I damned well wanted to with it as well and Steve could just go perform an improbable act of self procreation if he didn't like it. It is just a fscking product people, you don't have to join Steve'e cult and lose all sense of right and wrong.
Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just one problem, though. To use a playground analogy, Apple is the kid on the playground who owns his ball and refuses to let you use his ball outside of a few games that Apple likes to play on the playground. Apple will let you loan (or license) his ball to play four square, but won't let you use the ball to attach to a tether to play tetherball. Sure, you can tie the ball to the tetherball, but Apple will get mad and call up the yard supervisors and have you sitting in detention, thanks to a law called the PTMPA (Playground Toys' Millenium Protection Act), created by the TMAA (Toy Manufacturers' Association of America). The PTMPA disallows balls made specifically for four square to be used for tetherball, basketballs to be used for bowling, and other combinations, and is punishable by a hefty fine.
In other words, Apple owns OS X, and has created rules about how you can use it. Because it uses DRM, you cannot legally install it under your brand-spanking new vanilla x86 machine, even if you ran out and purchased bought two MacBook Pros and owned tons of Apple stock, thanks to the DMCA. Yeah, I would love to purchase OS X for x86 and install it natively on my PC, but that isn't going to legally happen anytime soon. I don't feel like breaking laws to simply use an operating system; I would much rather use GNU-licensed or BSD-licensed software and not have to worry about the legality of running it on whatever hardware I feel fit to install it on. I also believe that installing OS X on a vanilla PC should constitute as fair use, but the DMCA overrides fair use. The best way to get legal OS X for x86 on a vanilla PC is to either write up your Congresscritter and ask him/her to pass a bill repealing the DMCA (or, better yet, since elections for Congresscritters are this November, vote for candidates who will repeal it), or talk to Apple and show them the $$$ in selling copies of OS X for x86 to an open market.
It's sad what we have to deal with today thanks to our growing loss of fair use rights, but we have to deal with it for now until the political landscape changes in the realm of copyrights and fair use. In the meanwhile, we'll be either saving up for a Mac or working on making *nix easier to use and almost comparable to OS X. I wonder what Apple is more afraid of; selling copies of OS X and them losing money because people aren't buying their machines, or having to compete with a Linux or BSD distribution that just as good or better than OS X?
Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple can't sell their OS for generic x86 systems.
The shortfall from the inevitable collapse of their hardware sales would drive the company into bankruptcy. Suddenly, no more Macs, no more OS X, and no...it wouldn't be open sourced in that case, so forget about that dream.
Everybody loses.
Re:huh (Score:5, Insightful)
as a lot of Mac people have said...... if this is what makes Apple adopt MS-like security measures for the OS i will be unhappy. for those that don't use OS X, you have NEVER had to put in a serial number or do any authorization to install it. compared to some of the chaos MS users have had, i am thankful that Apple never had to worry about this so far. i buy every OS X release, but it's really nice not to have to deal with that. since i won't be trying to install Apple software of non-apple os i can be grumpy and say it would suck if they ruin it for us because they have to prove their extreme hacking skills.
Re:Lame (Score:3, Insightful)
some of us like having machines that run really well to use as tools to do work and not spend our days working on them.
Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:4, Insightful)
This makes no sense at all. The main reason people want a hacked OS is because they are cheap bastards. By definition they aren't interested in spending money. Trying to sell them something that they are already stealing is not an effective tactic.
Re:Lame (Score:5, Insightful)
Question: do you think the same applies to MS Office? They wrote it, they get to decide whether you run it under Wine or not. If you don't like the conditions, don't buy it? Or to Windows. They charge OEMs for all computers sold regardless of whether they have Windows installed. You are an OEM. They get to decide how to sell it...
Fact is, companies cannot set any conditions they like, because there is in most Western jurisdictions both competition law restraints, and consumer protection restraints.
This is not an argument about whether they should sell OS X or not, its just an argument about whether they have the legal right to impose these kinds of restrictions on use, post sale. Don't believe so.
Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's quite simple. The PC market is much more price conscious than the Mac side of things. No one is going to pay the "Apple Tax" for hardware when they can build a PC for a few hundred bucks, or pay a small premium for someone to do it for them. Apple would still gain sales from style-concious consumers, but the overwhelming number of OS X users would drop the Mac in a heartbeat and go with something cheaper.
We know this because it happened once before already. Read up on your Apple history with regard to the mid-90s. That little episode was enough to bring the company to its knees.
Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:5, Insightful)
Often Mac advocates want to have it both ways, say that Macs are no more expensive AND say that selling the OS separately would destroy the hardware business and with it the company. I think the reality is, they are more expensive, particularly at the high end, but not so much more expensive that there would be mass flight or substitution. Apple buyers are prepared to pay a premium to get something certified by Apple to work well.
In fact, I don't think there is much evidence for a great suppressed demand for OSX on non-Apple labelled hardware. Its something people have always assumed was out there - and back in the days of Classic and Win 3.1, there probably was such a demand, but now, probably not. Obviously there would be incremental sales, as for unbundled Windows, and they would be useful because they would have 100% margin, but they wouldn't affect the main business.
All in all, its very hard to understand the strategy, other than that its some kind of cultural obsession in Cupertino.
I see your point but (Score:3, Insightful)
its not the same situation. The soviets could not have bought vaxen if they had wanted to. It certainly would have been cheaper for them to do so, but the technology was embargoed.
I remember a story that the apollo crew who linked up with a soyuz in the early 70's were surprised to find a mechanical sequencer (a cylinder with pins attached) running the show on the soviet side.
Re:late again (Score:1, Insightful)
I think on
Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not, but the question is, why would this destroy the hardware business instead of just enlarging the market? Why would the same Apple customers who now are buying premium hardware not simply carry on doing so? And more people who are now not Apple customers would in future buy other, non-premium hardware.
I am still not seeing it has any chance of destroying the hardware business. Unless the Mac hardware is really terrible in terms of price/performance/value, of course.
Re:Pirate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is nonsense, even if clickwrap licenses are nonsense the courts have decided to allow.
I already own a copy of the software before I ever see the license. If Apple wants me to license their software, rather than buy a copy, they can present me with the terms of the license before I pay and make agreement to the license a condition of the transaction. Since the implicit contract of purchase is complete before I see the license, Apple should not be able to add post-facto conditions, any more than I can put post-facto conditions on their use of the money I give them. The transaction, and the opportunity to place conditions on it, is over when payment has been rendered and the goods have entered my posession.
Re:They don't have the moral right to dictate HOW (Score:5, Insightful)
"What's your opinion on academic or personal-use licenses, then?
I can buy a copy of IntelliJ IDEA for academic use for $99, or a license for personal use for $199. They charge (I think) $599 for the commercial license. All have equal functionality. So, you think it's moral for me to buy the personal license for $199, and then use it to create commercial software? After all, what right do they have to tell me what to do with the software I've purchased? I should be able to do whatever I want with it, regardless of what the terms of the sale were."
Re:Lame (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, as my current computer is running a multi-button Logitech using Apple's drivers. And in fact, they even sell a multi-button mouse. (Mighty Mouse [apple.com]) Though you are right, there should be a school...
Re:Hackers to Apple, sell your fricking OS! (Score:2, Insightful)
If Apple could make money by selling its OS to use on generic hardware, I'm sure they would. But the last experiment in cloning was a terrible failure and showed everyone that there is, at least for the present, no future for Apple in allowing their OS to run on other hardware. Even with the money that iPod is raking in, it would probably damage the company significantly if such a practice became widespread, and that might mean no more OS X, which would be a terrible shame.
As far as I know, that's the reality of the situation.
In any case, I thought that a large part of the point of Free Software (and correct me if I am wrong) is that it is voluntary. If you aren't violating the GPL in doing so, you aren't forced to use the GPL for your software if you don't want to. Apple wants to use OS X as an incentive to buy its computers as its primary business model, and Apple has every legal, and from what I can see, moral, right to do this. The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that, while both have the right to copyright their software, Microsoft is using its monopoly position to attack the very possibility of a GPL alternative, while Apple isn't.
I guess Apple is in a difficult position. I doubt that they care that a few hobbyists are trying to get OS X to run on different hardware just for the fun of doing it, but if they allow it to happen my understanding is that they will open themselves up to having to allow other people with less idealistic aspirations to do it. I imagine that if you do this in your shed and succeed and don't make a huge noise about it, they won't care at all.
Just my ten cents..
Endlessly expanding the definition of "stealing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They don't have the moral right to dictate HOW (Score:3, Insightful)
I call bullshit and don't tell me that I'm not a moral person. People often shock and disgust me by how selfish and downright malicious so many of them are - even "decent" people seem uncaring and compassionless at best to me. Frankly, I'm the sort of person other peeople take advantage of. So am I worried that some rich company is going to get their feelings hurt if I use their OS on the hardware of my choice? 'Course not. If I pay for it I am entitled to use it on my hardware. They are just trying to force you to buy their over-priced plastic too. Sorry, but although I do care about many things (and people, despite themselves) catering to corporate geed is something I care absolutely nothing about.
Y'know, Microsft makes some hardware too. What if they made it so their hardware peripherals (keyboards, joysticks, mice, etc.) were the only hardware peripherals that work with Windows Vista? Why, then that would be an anti-trust issue. Another example of them trying to enlarge their monopoly! But... it's okay if Apple is even worse, right?
Re:Cute, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/images/russ
And as far as I remember, Soviet Union was never much interested in VAXen.
Mac OS X crippled (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple takes FreeBSD which runs on just about any platform including Intel and put into Darwin/MacOSX then Apple cripples OS to run on DRM Intel board, and embed messages to be found by people who decripple the OS to run on any Intel board.
Now who's calling who uncool ? Decrippling is totally cool in my book while Crippling is not regardless of legality.
Apple! I'm calling you out. 3PM after school, by sandbox!
Re:Mac OS X crippled (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, no. Darwin is a freakish hybrid of Mach, FreeBSD 5, and Apple's own work. The device driver interfaces are not compatible.
That said, the "poem" sounds pretty childish.
RIAA/MPAA party line. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope. Main people they want a hacked OS is because the un-hacked OS does not run on their machines and for the moment they are not interested in new hardware, thank you, just in new software. People who say "no, I don't want the Super Size combo" and "yes, I know two apple pies is just fifty cents more than one, but I will only eat one, thank you". Is that so hard to understand? And, yes, _when_ said people try out the OS and they see "hmm. this is neat, bet it would be faster/prettier on Apple's hardware", what do you think will be the next hardware they'll shop for? Build it, and they will come.
You know what? The proof that this argument is bogus resides in Apple itself and its iTMS. People went in flocks to buy regularly what they couldn't have with CDs (loose tracks) and they could have irregularly (MP3s via P2P).
And besides, "stealing" does not fit on your phrase above. It's impossible to steal software/movies/music. "Stealing" means "subtracting something from others"; when you (irregularly) copy software/movies/music, you may (OR MAY NOT) be "copyright infringing", but you are never "stealing".
Re:Fair use and pirating (Score:1, Insightful)
But the message is to those who would be so bold as to attempt running Mac OS X on non-Apple-sanctioned hardware. Making that bold attempt is not piracy. It is, quite simply, fair use.
Who am I? Mac user since 1984. I won't be running my OS on Windows boxes except as proof of concept (that's one of those things you have to see to believe). And that'll have to wait until I own an Intel Mac, sometime later this year.
please stop the whining (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, Apple has the copyright on the whole thing, and BSD doesn't disallow what they are doing, but it's not like OS X is some hugely innovative piece of software that was entirely created by Apple. So, assert your rights in court if you like, but stop the whining--it's inappropriate.
Re:-1 off topic response to your sig (Score:2, Insightful)
And if you don't like my sig... well... I don't really care. Write your own, pout, put me on your blocked list. Who gives a fuck?