What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
95 Comments
- threepio, on 10/12/2007, -11/+53Given the alternative: Draconian authentication schemes wherein I *always* end up calling India to get a new bloody product key - I'd rather have this. It's seamless on my Apple hardware - and frankly, if you didn't buy the OS I don't give a ***** about your inability to run it.
- sishgupta, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36Wow, you didnt even have to RTFA to answer your question. All you had to do was read the digg headline and details
- colincornaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"What if they would make it run flawlessly on pc?
And then if it is really that great, people would use it..."
Apple is a hardware company. They want to sell Apple hardware. - JayD16, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18This is the main reason why Apple is seen as more stable...
Badmouth Widows all you want but I have to give them credit for the simple fact it works at all. 95% of the worlds hardware and thus the need to support 95% of the worlds hardware falls onto windows.
I'm not supporting windows but give credit where credit is due. - skellener, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20> OSX is a means to sell overpriced (but well designed) hardware
We've been through this a million times. Macs are extremely competitive these days so stop the old FUD already. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -15/+28I understand the whys - but to say "Keep it up Apple"!? If you aren't a shareholder you are a fanboy of the highest order.
- andrewlmurray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13@kalmi
No, they're not making it run slower - or at least not much. The decryption happens when the encrypted binaries are loaded into memory, which for the Dock and Finder is once, at system startup. We're talking about milleseconds, once. - eatrains, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12direct link: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2050875,00.asp
- rickcarson, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14"Apple doesn't like people upgrading their computers"
Yeah. Upgrading that Mac Pro is gonna be a real hard thing to do... - betterth, on 10/26/2007, -4/+14The true irony is this:
If they distributed or sold a trial version of OSX with simple installation or whatever for the x86 platform (well, the pc market, since Mac's are technically x86 now), than they could turn so many more customers onto Mac than they'd know what to do with.
It's stupid how many people would want to switch if they could try OSX for free and in the comfort of their own home. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15And, on the plus side, it's absolutely ineffective. r2d2.kext, a simple kernel extension that decrypts binary data on-the-fly. Even if they patch that, there are no doubt plenty of other ways to get through hardware-based encryption. Soon, it'll be locked hardware profiles (meaning no more upgrades), closed-source, removal of the kext system, activation or some other ***** measure to eradicate what's going to happen in the end anyway.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10The thing is, people who aren't Mac users don't understand why people would want one.
On one side of the room you have the people who think that the most attractive aspect of the Mac Platform is the hardware, and that people generally endure the software in order to reap the benefits of the hardware. These people generally think that Apple's transition to Intel means that they will eventually drop OS X altogether and license Windows from MS.
On the other side of the room you have people who think that Apple hardware is simply that tax you have to pay in order to use the great software. That's been the historical attitude towards Apple. These people think that Apple's transition to Intel means they will get out of the hardware business and just sell OS X on generic PCs.
My opinion (as a relatively new Mac user) is that there is growing need for a computer as an appliance and I think the Mac has grown naturally into that role -- that was the vision in '84. I think Apple will therefore continue to pursue that direction for the Mac, addressing "digital lifestyle" needs, and I think Apple will continue to leave the traditional computer market to the traditional PC makers, because I still want to be able to build my own gaming machines, after all. - DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Oh, how can I stop the crocodile tears.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@Kalmi - See here for 2005 results from Apple:
http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q405data_sum.pdf
It is clear the hardware makes the money - repruhsent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Notice how the article was about encrypted binaries placed in OS X? This has nothing to do with Linux.
- misterjangles, on 10/26/2007, -3/+10It's not really ironic at all. Apple wants you to buy their hardware. They don't want you buying cheap, generic hardware and then running their OS on it. If you were a computer geek in the 80s then you probably remember that Apple did for a period of time license their OS to a few PC makers that sold generic machines. It apparently didn't work for them and they stopped doing it.
- Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11This is just to slow down the inevitable release of OS X on generic PC's.
Why? Well, Apple Hardware IS one reason. WIth Apple's market share growing for the moment, there is really no reason to let the rest of the commmunity in on the fun.
Another reason is the deal Apple signed with Microsoft whay back in 1997 for $150 Million. While all the detail of the deal have never been made public, many speculate that part of the deal was support for Apple until 2007 with a non-compete clause from Apple, that also expired in 2007.
This is why M$ promised to support OfficeMac until... yup, 2007.
I speculate that at some point in 2007, after Microsoft has compleatly pissed off their user base with Windows ME2.0, Code named Vista, and any contract have run their course it would be a great time to unleash a fully developed OS X.
It also allows time for the hardware market to settle a little. All the Mac's are running on fairly generic hardware anyway. Instead of blowing a fortune developing drivers for their OS, let the next generation of hardware make all legacy stuff go the way of the C=64.
There is no doubt Apple will eventually cash in on non-Mac market, but not until they can do so without M$ sueing for breach of contract, and when all the hard driver work has been done. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12"Soon, it'll be locked hardware profiles (meaning no more upgrades), closed-source, removal of the kext system, activation or some other ***** measure to eradicate what's going to happen in the end anyway."
Doubt it. Apple doesn't like people upgrading their computers, but stopping them is a violation of consumer rights, and at this point it really wouldn't matter if they did close the OS's source (as hardly anyone is using it for anything constructive, even OpenDarwin closed down citing the fact that there are so few people interesting in compiling their own Mac OS X kernel it's hardly worth keeping the project going).
Lastly, the Kext system (literally "Kernel EXTension system") needs to be there to allow for driver support (including the entire BSD layer); doing away with this system is impossible under the current kernel construct. More likely, this is as far as Apple will take it, as they can simply start sending people to jail for circumventing the encryption system (DMCA, go America) instead of having to sue nameless defendants.
Not that I agree that they should have to do any of the above, but that's what they're doing. Truly I just wish people would buy a damned Mac if they want to run OS X. - digga, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@JayD16
MS don't write most of the drivers -- so let's give credit where credit's due: the hardware manufacturers, not MS. - Avalontor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@inkswap "Expensive != overpriced."
Would you say the same if the discussion was about the PS3? - sporktek, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10Apple has to protect OS X and keep it running on machines that they design only. Why? Because, if OS X were released for installation on generic hardware it would run poorly. It would be difficult to come up with hardware that the OS supports completely and perfectly and in the end you'd have a bunch of homebuilt/dell/HP/etc machines out there running OS X verry crappily. What does that do to Apple's image?
As long as they control the hardware, they can make the software run as smoothly as possible on it. Once they give up that control, they'll end up being just like Microsoft, frantically trying to support any and all PCs out there and unable to do it adequately enough to avoid looking like they produce bug-filled software. - mossrockss, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@betterth
That's a bad analogy, the Ford analogy. Apple makes a hardware and software package. They don't sell software. They sell an experience. You *can't* compare the Microsoft model of business to Apple's of perfect hardware and software integration. Letting any old PC run OS X would result in a WORSE product, at least at first, because it wouldn't have Apple's tight integration and control over hardware and software. - fronkman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i just don't get it. why do people care so much. apple doesn't owe anyone anything, if they don't want their software to work on you beige box PC, they don't have to. it is THEIR product after all. why are you so special that they have to make MAJOR BUSINESS decisions for teenage mcwhineyass who can't afford more than a $300 PC on his or her burger king salary.
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9Have you heard of a Hardware Compatibility List? Apple doesn't need to support a wide range of hardware; they only need to specify what they DO support. Want to run it on something else? Sorry, you're out of luck.
I'm tired of hearing this excuse. It would not be out of the average PC buyer's capability to buy an "OS X-ready" PC, or build their own with parts listed in the HCL. There is nothing special about Apple hardware beyond a cute case; everything else that Apple uses is completely standard and available on the open market.
Apple just doesn't want them to, and you're buying their line of BS completely. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"If they distributed or sold a trial version of OSX with simple installation or whatever for the x86 platform (well, the pc market, since Mac's are technically x86 now), than they could turn so many more customers onto Mac than they'd know what to do with. It's stupid how many people would want to switch if they could try OSX for free and in the comfort of their own home."
It's also stupid to imagine that Apple could handle that kind of growth overnight. Apple would be _FLOODED_ with calls for tech support saying "Why isn't my current hardware profile working?", people locking themselves out of their own systems just to learn there's nothing Apple can do about it (since BSD is like a vault to those without permissions), and people not understanding that installing OS X obliterates their old file system. On top of that, people would want to _keep_ running OS X on their own systems; "Why can't I just buy the Operating System?", which is exactly what Apple _DOESN'T_ want; Apple is a Computer Manufacturer, from the first screw, to the last click; every single aspect of the system is touched by Apple. They don't want you buying the OS just to say "oooh shiny", they want you to buy the whole computer, and that's how they maintain their profit margins.
I'd love to live in the fantasy world too where Apple could actually support competing one-to-one against Microsoft, but Apple has no direct competitors (except Creative, but that's a different market segment), and its two indirect competitors are completely focused in two different directions (one is a computer manufacturer, Dell, the other an operating system manufacturer, Microsoft). As such, they can only afford to take on one task at a time, and right now, that task is growing the userbase of Macs, and that means selling more Macs. That means getting you into their Apple stores, getting your hands on a Mac, and feeling what the difference between your beige (or in many cases today, Black) box computer and an Apple computer is. The OS just whets your taste buds, it's the Hardware that's the feast, and the way that they work together is what keeps you coming back for more. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+23Cause Apple make most of their money from hardware. OSX is a means to sell overpriced (but well designed) hardware just like iTunes is a means to sell overpriced (but well designed) MP3 players.
Practically it is understandable, they are a public company after all, but for anyone who believes in technological progress, such a move should be frowned upon - albeit mildly. - fatnutz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Scarlot, you are pretty much the biggest ***** moron I've ever encountered on here, and this thread is full of class A-*****...get a ***** life.
- maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Haha, apple is losing $0 on the x86 project. Apple sells single copies of OSX for purchase, however they do not support it on non apple hardware, so there is no reason to "buy" OSX unless you own a Mac, or intend on running in a virtual environment. So the only people who are stealing it are people apple wouldn't profit on OSX from anyway in the first place.
- gsnedders, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4… and the DMCA doesn't have any legal jurisdiction in anywhere apart from the US.
- vvaduva, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8It's funny how it's ok for Apple to do this but when some jackass earlier this week proposed that "knowledge should be free and public" everyone was for that. Digg hypocrisy at its best!
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Wow...what kind of ***** are you smoking?"
Right, Apple's been all cuddly and loving with those nice easy access screws used on the bottom of Mac Minis and iPods, those Torx screws used for the sides of MacBooks and iBooks are just there because Apple couldn't find any Phillips anywhere, etc. etc.
I didn't say "Apple wants to make their computers impossible to upgrade", especially not their Pro systems, where people will purchase one computer ever four years instead of one every 6 months, but they'd much rather you just buy a new computer than give you instructions on how to take out your old processor and drop in a new one, if it's even possible with your model.
But hey, feel free to disagree with me. I just remember how difficult it was installing my new hard disk in my iBook (taking the think all the way apart and putting it all the way back together took almost three hours and a specialized toolset, quite a bit more difficult than the 10 minute, 8 Phillips screws later replacement my Lifebook's hard disk was). - warragul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The $150 million investment in non-voting Apple shares was part of the settlement of outstanding patent litigation between Apple and Microsoft. The shares have long been sold by MS (at a tidy profit, too). All very public, even if *some* people don't yet know about it.
- maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Uh, *cough*, the same ***** PC parts that go in the Dell go in a Mac too. In fact, probably come from the same manufacturing plant, like a sony battery, or did you miss the 6 million batteries the 2 companies shared in recall?
You literally must be deepthroating apple's ***** so deep for so long you've lost track of reality.
A computer is a computer, an OS is an OS, can apple limit the install base of its software, it has every right to do so. But if apple truly believes that its operating system is the future, then it needs to make it accessable, and you can't have a catch where you need their hardware to install their software, when all the hardware is the same.
And mr scarllotti, you should pat the man on the back for wanting to run OSX on "the tan box", because he must believe as you do, that OSX is worth-while, yet you feel it necessary to strip him of this just because he doesn't like the look and feel of the plastic case that holds it.
So here's a final news flash for you scarllotti, you can install OSX on VMware or even VirtualPC GASP!!! on any machine, and guess what, it functions well enough that you couldn't tell the difference....fear the dreaded tan boxer because he can run OSX without apple's "same hardware as everyone else". - soopafly, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6"Apple doesn't like people upgrading their computers"
Wow...what kind of ***** are you smoking? - MacSuxWindozSux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If they made computers out of LEGO it would be as easy as snapping a few blocks together...
Then again, hold it too tightly and the whole computer could break apart in front of you!
(Commenting from left field) - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3He's got a point folks, other than Winamp, WMP, and RealPlayer, iTunes is the only other really popular player out there for Windows.
And if we go with sheer numbers, iTunes is actually the least popular of the 4.
Download.com gives us numbers as such
RP10 ~28million downloads
WMP(all versions) ~20million downloads
Winamp 5.31 ~8million downloads
iTunes 7.0.2 ~4million downloads
That's not chump change, bottom of the list, but still huge. Now we have no demographic about how they are used, (audio video updates or reinstalls) and downloads from other sources, but assuming all things the same, winamp and iTunes beat out both RP and WMP, with Winamp showing a tiny lead. Why?
Notice the versioning, RP10 has been out for years, WMP is accounted for all editions, yet Winamp and iTunes have millions of downloads for single versions (update versions). So look at the two winners comparatively, everything iTunes can do Winamp can do as well(i think that's been nullsoft's goal).
If apple makes good products available cross platform, on the order of functionality usefulness like winamp, they do really well. Something must be said about that, people want a computer that is powerful, they dont' want to be attached to something though. So give them the hardware and the software they want, this could be a real endevour if only the hardware manufacturers would right OSX drivers right? - rickcarson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8@betterth:
"trivialize the practice of Apple doing more than Microsoft ever has to prevent their software from doing anything but be run on their hardware."
/sarcasm
because the XBox is such a free and open system, right?
/unsarcasm
Other than that, the only hardware I can think of offhand that Microsoft makes are mice and keyboards.
Actually, they make pretty good hardware. Shame the software side of things lets them down...
------
I also want to expand on what inkswap said:
"Expensive != overpriced."
I agree with this. Apple don't sell the _cheapest_ computers out there. But they don't sell the most expensive computers out there.
And the computers they do sell are _cheaper_ than their non Apple equivalents.
For a name brand manufacturer, in the market segments they compete in, they blow away all the other name brand manufacturers with extreme prejudice where there is something comparable. Which basically means Laptops and the Mac Pro. These are not bargain bin products, and the Mac Pro beats Dells comparable offerings, while arguably providing something more in the range of the Alienware offerings, eg heaps of graphics grunt (expandable to 4 video cards!) in a case that is some kind of modern art.
As for the Mac mini and iMac range, there are no direct competitors.
The whinging about how Macs are overpriced is like complaining that motor bikes are overpriced because you can buy a push bike cheaper. - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Uh, the Mac Pro motherboard is manufactured by FoxConn. All intel does is provide the north and southbridge. Intel didn't remove the chip, FoxConn did per Apple's specs.
The TPM is also only advantageous to BitLockerDrive encryption, Apple has no part of OSX that uses it. Thus apple is taking away that advantage from Microsoft on Vista who relies on the TPM for drive encryption. - OpCzar, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Hasn't Apple learnt anything from itunes for Windows? Allowing any platform to use your software will Incite purchases, not hinder them!
- foxsynergy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Seems you've got nothing to say, but you *definitely* have fags on the brain. Blocked for sheer bigotry and *****.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Unfortunately (or fortunately), people will always figure out how to bypass these things. Good move on their part, though I'd like to see a trial/feature-limited version for PCs and included with iPods.
- dzarkw, on 10/12/2007, -12/+14@vaguelyrandom
"Cause Apple make most of their money from hardware. OSX is a means to sell overpriced (but well designed) hardware just like iTunes is a means to sell overpriced (but well designed) MP3 players."
iPods are overpriced? Tell me one mp3 player that's better and cheaper than an iPod. - Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's such an old trick it's hard to believe anyone's trying it. Encrypted binaries have to be decrypted in order to be useful. At that point they are completely vulnerable.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Speak of ignorance again little one, it is the chumps such as yourself who steal software that causes the price to go up and up every year."
Speaking as a software developer, as opposed to an offensive spittle-flecked blowhard, I can tell you right now - any publisher or software developer who tells you you need to pay more for software because people copied it, is a ***** liar.
:) - sporktek, on 10/26/2007, -1/+3@mancat: Yes, they can publish an HCL, that'll do about as much good as two squirts of piss in a drought. How many people do you know that look at the system requirements on the side of a software box and make sure that everything they have is up to the job? How about another well-known OS that has extensively documented HCL - Linux. Still, there are TONS of people who try to shoehorn the latest stable of Ubuntu onto a 486 with an ISA video card and 16MB of ram.
Fact is, HCL or no, people will install it because, hey, they're used to Windows. You install Windows on a PC and 99% of the time "it just works". Massive libraries of drivers are included on the disc, and nearly everything that accounts for out of box user experience is detected and installed. Video, sound, network/modem, etc. Sure, maybe your webcam requires a driver to work, or your TV tuner, or your keyboard needs software so all the buttons work, but most everything works. Now, take that same person and give them a copy of OSX and let them install it on their vanilla box. If your guy is somebody who'll pop the disc in and open the HCL first and check all his hardware first before attempting it, you've got yourself a true geek and somebody who'll probably try to make their machine conform. If he's like nearly everybody else, his first step is gonna be to double click on the installer and an hour later they're sitting there, staring at a garbled display, or fiddling with their sound settings, or unable to connect to the internet and thinking about how bad Apple and Mac OS X sucks because XYZ doesn't work like it's supposed to.
Other posters have touched on this, it's not all MS, I mean, yeah, they do deserve some credit for bringing everything together, but the hardware manufacturers do a generally good job supporting the latest version of Windows and providing their drivers. SO, until Apple starts getting the hardware manufacturers into the loop, and unifying as broad of a driver library as Microsoft has, and including that on the disc, don't look for Apple to make it easy to get OS X onto your homebuilt box or your Dell.
In my opinion this is as much about preserving the image of the Mac OS X that 'just works' as it is about selling hardware. Steve Jobs is very image consious and he realizes that if he can prevent Mac OS X from running on any machine that it will run crappily on, he can do the most for the image of that OS and keep the publc thinking that his product is somehow 'designed better'. OS X is great, but it's not anything particulary special and people would learn that if they had as much access to it as PC users have to Windows. - tadunne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So all of you would switch to Mac OSX if Apple released a version that worked on Generic PC's? This is probably the only way Apple can get mega marketshare?
but why would they want to do that? Theres not really much money to be made in that market. Dell don't make much money (maybe even a mall loss) in the general PC market, they probably make more money out of their high end machines where they can charge the higher margins.
In fact Micosoft probably don't make a great deal out of that market, they probably get more money from Enterprise sales. - mbiesz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Hello? Welcome to 2005, people. This has been known for a long time, and there have been work-arounds for just as long.
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@maninblac1
Brilliant! You've just made the best argument I've ever heard against the idea that osx86 can 'pirated'.
/basks in the glory of plausible deniability - maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@sport
Apple does have a huge driver library, however when you install OSX you'll notice it comes from a discrete family of devices, cameras, printers, scanners etc. Not many video or sound drivers, almost all periphial devices.
As for windows works out of the box, uh sometimes, if you happen to have hardware that MS's generic driver works for you're in luck. but i know that XP SP2 didn't detect ethernet or wireless on a laptop i installed it on. Kinda came as a surprise when i wanted to update the machine. - knodi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3boo, boo
-
Show 51 - 95 of 95 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is