What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
93 Comments
- jrocklin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"Personally I don't understand why Apple doesn't openly sell the new OSX86 for PCs as well as their Mac platform...and also allow Windows to be installed onto their systems. I wouldn't mind buying the new Apple laptops, but I need to run my Windows software too, I can't just be constrained to OSX."
I don't consider myself a mac fanboy by any stretch but I think this would be detrimental to the idea of what Apple tries to sell with Mac. If they open their software up for everyone to run on any hardware I think we would see them go the same direction that Microsoft did. Too many variants of the hardware requires very generic, and lowest-common-denominator drivers in most cases. If you buy a new mac laptop, you don't have to get rid of the windows/linux/[OS of choice] system you are using now.
Apple tries to sell an experience of sorts - when you buy a mac they want you to know that it works, and it works well. Does this happen 100% of the time, no, but it does a whole lot more than windows and linux (and I run linux on all but one of my machines - my mac). Opening it up too much will not allow them to sell the whole mac experience, so from a marketing, and technical standpoint, I can see very easily why they don't want to open it up.
Dugg because I think reverse engineering is cool :) - LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Anyone here who thinks they know how to run Apple better than Apple can is off base.
I keep reading about how Apple should start selling their OS, and how it will make them boatloads of money... Here's why you're wrong.
Anyone who proposes that Apple start selling their OS is working under the assumption that the Microsoft business model is king. Microsoft makes their money from basically selling two products: Microsoft Office and Microsoft Windows. They're profitable because those two products have the market cornered in each of their respective segments.
The problem is that that approach is completely contrary to Apple's current business model. Apple sells the entire package, computer, OS, and software all in one... while they make a non-insignificant amount of their revenue from software sales, they depend on their high margin hardware sales.
Switching over to a software-only business model could potentially kill the company.
Now, i'm predicting that someone will say " well why doesn't Apple keep selling their own Mac hardware but allow for 'clones' and for 3rd parties to buy the OS? Isn't that best of both worlds?" My response? Check out Apple history... Back in the mid 90s, Apple launched a licensing program for the Mac OS, and allowed companies like Motorola, UMAX, and others to sell non-Apple branded macs. Apple continued to sell their own hardware at the same time, trying to get the "best of both worlds."
The result? ALL of the clone makers undercut Apple's own Mac hardware. The money lost from lost sales of Apple Mac hardware was WAY bigger than the money coming in from licensing the OS. Apple nearly went bankrupt in the 90s because of cloning.
One other tech company has tried this... licensing their OS while still trying to sell their own hardware... and the story is almost exactly the same. Palm, back when they were at their peak, started licensing their Palm OS to 3rd parties. It was only downhill from there. Competitors on the same platform stifled Palm's growth.
There is simply no business model that can work. Period. Many have tried and failed, and Apple is making a pretty penny right now doing their own thing.
Apple isn't Microsoft, and they don't want to be Microsoft. Another reason why Apple selling their OS to generic PCs will never happen is because Apple's OS is designed for a very specific set of hardware. Selling to generic PCs will mean that many devices will not have drivers, and the experience will be sucky at times.... unless Apple spends A LOT more resources to make their OS more like Windows with it's all inclusive driver support.... that also opens up the possibility of more error proneness with crappy hardware.
I want to say that I can understand the appeal of hacking Mac OS X for the enthusiast... but don't pretend like you think you can run Apple better than Apple can. And don't pretend like you're performing some kind of noble task by doing this to "force" apple to change their ways... Most of you who are installing Mac OS X on your PCs are simply downloading it from the internet... pirating it, and would have a very low chance of buying the OS if it were sold retail, i am more than willing to bet.
If you're going to pirate OS X right now, who's to say you're not going to pirate OS X if it were sold retail?
You're not some noble warrior fighting against a draconian Apple. You're just a geek. - smeager, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5While I'll applaud the work of Maxxuss, people fail to realize that this does not affect the security of the OS just that the measures attempted by Apple to lock their OS to their hardware was not strong enough (most likely there will be an update to that with 10.4.5). One thing people have to understand is that when somebody buys a Mac they buy it (knowing that they are going to buy it at a premium) for the experience of owning a great system, with top quality software.
Apple opening up their OS to the rest of the PC market would be their downfall. It would fall into the same boat that Windows has, having to support 400 different types of hardware with good, bad and terrible driver support (don't say that windows doesn't have that problem. I've had to fix way to many system because of funky driver support for hardware). Apple creates an OS that runs seamlessly with its hard, designed specifically for it.
I have both Windows PC and Mac and while I like to build systems myself I also like know that when I turn my Mac on I won't get that mysterious error (common in windows) saying that a device driver has failed, when it was working perfectly fine before. - randf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2not too long ago there was a "hack" to put video on some 10 year old PC. most hacks are interesting science projects, but too much trouble for most people who want to use not babysit their machine--whatever the color of the box.
this is another semi-interesting and boring hack that has no real application, except to get hack-fan-boys to drool on each other...and nay-sayers predicting the death of apple yet again.
no digg b/c of the pompousness of the self proclaimed guru...pat yourself on the back, then move on. - tfaz1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"wow, apple are quite the security experts, aren't they ?"
Yeah, I'm sure Apple *hates* that people are installing Mac OS X on computers that would normally run Windows. Man, they really dropped the ball on these "security" measures. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Well, as long as OSx86 version runs slower (SSE2/3 stuff) or crashier (variety of hardware they dont support) then the real OSX, Apple might succeed."
Are you kidding me? No it won't. People will try to install OSX on their unsupported hardware, and when it fails/crashes/runs slow/etc... they'll go "damn POS apple software doesn't work right" and tell everyone on MySpace how bad it sucks. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"When all it requires is the downloading of a DVD, that’s certainly the future we’re looking at."
And then at that point who would bother buying Apple hardware and then Apple ceases to exist due to lack of fund-age. Nice going ding-dongs. - sblinn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pirates will be pirates. Hell, maybe somebody who pirates a hacked OS X onto their PC will like the OS enough to go out and buy a Mac, or write some nice software that everyone can use. We've been saying for years and years that piracy of Windows is one of the reasons it became and remains so popular.
The problem here for Apple is that there isn't much incentive (other than ethics and morals) to pay anything for a copy of Mac OS X that you plan to install on your PC, because there will be zero support waiting for you, no matter that you have your receipt in hand. Apple can't (or won't?) get into the business of supporting the myriad and bizarre world of PC hardware miscellany, so that part of the equation isn't likely to change.
Personally I don't care about it running on a non-Mac or not, if you buy the software, do what you want with it, install it on a toaster if you can! But the key is buying the software or not. I'm not one of those loonies that equates copyright infringement with actual theft, but I don't pirate Windows, and I don't plan on pirating OS X, either. - rtilford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i will still buy apple hardware what ever happens.
- Raldikuk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Personally I don't understand why Apple doesn't openly sell the new OSX86 for PCs as well as their Mac platform...and also allow Windows to be installed onto their systems. I wouldn't mind buying the new Apple laptops, but I need to run my Windows software too, I can't just be constrained to OSX.
- mochaman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The question then becomes how popular the adoption of OS X on the wintel boxes. Is this a geeks play or will it be adopted by critical mass. If the latter is the case I can see that Apple may resort to legal options, but if this amounts to just a small number, then Apple may choose to look the other way.
However if iTunes is any indication of previous action by Apple in regards to its IP protection, this will be come a cat and mouse game. Ultimately it may not stop the Ginnie from getting out the bottle, but it will probably their attempt to protect their intellectual assets as they are supposed to.
From the financial point of view this possess an interesting quandary for Apple. although OS X represents maybe 10-15% of revenues alone, Apple still in the business of selling experience users will be getting an unsupported OS on their machines will they become new customers for Apple. - StatusQuoRules, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Its already old... lol 10.4.5 is out now
- zetsurin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think this is great to see. It means a lot more OSX installs with the hackers, which will in turn lead to more people coding under OSX.
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Apple should realize that this is an unwinnable battle. They're never going to lock out people who want to run OSX on PCs. There is always going to be somebody willing to crack such things.
What they should instead be doing is not actively trying to block it, but simply leaving it as an "unsupported" action. Let enthusiasts do their thing. They will buy copies of OSX that Apple wouldn't normally have sold anyhow. Instead, Apple is wasting resources maintaining DRM locks that are just going to be cracked anyhow.
They don't need to support this, they just shouldn't be bothering to try to stop it. They can't. - stoops, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Well, as long as OSx86 version runs slower (SSE2/3 stuff) or crashier (variety of hardware they dont support) then the real OSX, Apple might succeed. If not, then their screwed cause anyone will build a cheap pc, pirate OSX and run everything cheap/free and Apple will lose money.
- joshpape, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ xshaisu
I dont think that that is strictly true. Microsoft has made billions selling just software and if apple could get in on that space I think there would be more money in it for them. - darkten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hi.
Perhaps this will help clear up the seemingly baffling mystery of why apple doesn't just sell retail os x at this time.
Apple has a corporate DNA that simple doesn't gel with this. They do not believe they can offer the best computing experience this way. Its really that simple.
No conspiracy...nothing like that. As a company, they have a core culture that is very resistant to "lowest common denominator" thinking...you know, the concept of "if we make feature X 'worse' then it will span across 'Y' machines."
Look at Vista Aero Glass et al for an example of what I mean. To Apple, the concept of ripping out a whole layer of the OS like that is anathema.
And there are *little* things on Apple hardware that Mac Users expect that aren't possible on commodity hardware. Firewire Target disk mode, autosensing audio ports (this is a subtle thing that is really cool), fully autosensing Ethernet ports (no need for a crossover cable), ambient light sensors etc.
To an average "PC Guy" these things are gratuitous...even "stupid" but there is something very "unMac like" in not having these things around. Hell people are up in arms because the Macbook Pro doesn't have Firewire 800.
"Who uses Firewire 800?!" you ask? Apple's customers do.
There is more to a "Mac" than just a "pretty case" but I think a lot of this is lost on a market where "industrial design" means "case mod".
And I'm not trying to be insulting, tho I'm sure its coming across that way...
I guess the best way to put it is that Apple and their core customers have a perception of value that isn't based entirely on "cost" or "price"...but on "overall feature set and level of integration." - stoops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm still buying a macbook pro ;)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is a reason you all are posting on digg.com and not running a multi-billion dollar company.
- MaxDrax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Of all the computer users out there, what percentage do you think will care about this?
Of that percentage, how many will actually take the steps necessary to install OS X on a general-use X86 machine?
My point is this won't change the computing landscape much, if any.
I'd like someone to explain to me how in the world OS X could survive without being tied to Apple hardware. It would go the way of OS/2, BeOS, and the original Nextstep, which is to say it would become a dead OS barely kept alive by nerds living in basements. Meanwhile, Linux would continue on as a sorry Windows clone devoid of practical software and driver support. - DannoHung, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If Apple were a bunch of really nice guys, what they'd do is not put any hardware locks on OSX for x86 but just never advertise it as working on non-Mactel hardware.
That way, they get revenues from people that are willing to buy and go unsupported in addition to continuing to sell hardware to people that are serious about getting away from Windows. - innate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ultimately Apple will succeed in stopping this. Probably not by a legal battle, but by enhancing their security mechanisms. Don’t think it will happen? Look at JHymn, which no longer works thanks to the updates in iTunes 6. They haven’t been able to work around it yet.
- FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Its Back up!
- inactive, on 11/04/2008, -0/+0"Its already old... lol 10.4.5 is out now "
Yes, only the PPC version though if I'm not mistaken, and the point is that the new MacTels ship with 10.4.4, so they're supposedly using tougher hardware security to lock the OS to their hardware. Obviously that's failed.
I got interested in this project after running OSX natively became a reality. You can actually get OSX running on full speed giving the right setup, and while I don't plan on having a OSx86 installation running on my PC permanently, it has made me realise that getting a Mac would be perfect for my mum and dad who can find themselves losts with Windows because it offers a lot more complexity (God forbid I showed them how to use Linux).
OSX has its purpose, not for everybody, but for some. Running OSx86 10.4.3 in almost full-speed showed me that. - efree58, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0kudos to Maxxuss. I bet apple had some pretty good security but you can't stop someone if there really determined. I hope this shows apple how much of a demand for an open platform OSX there is. If not I'll probably get one of the soon to come Intel ibooks.
- TDShadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I don't understand why Nokia won't sell their OS to load on any cellular phone I want. Boo to them for tying the hardware to the software. A RAZR running Nokia OS would rule!
- aspirinetu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0aaaahhh finally! not-boring apple news!
- ToadX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0At least they tried. +digg.
- Retrograde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Their site is down at the moment - digg + slashdot + engadget and a few others will do that to you! :-)
- edward123, on 10/27/2007, -0/+0where do you download it
- TheSpike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Apple should realize that this is an unwinnable battle. They're never going to lock out people who want to run OSX on PCs. There is always going to be somebody willing to crack such things."
Perhaps they don't care about that, only preventing someone else from making money directly off of Mac OS X or costing Apple money in support and lost sales. - MikeZila, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Maxxuss is a very, very gifted person.
I bet he'll get more than a few job offers because of his work on this project.
More power to him. - jd576, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Take a look at this review of hacking OSX -- a great analysis of the situation for Apple: macadell.com
Apple is going to be forced eventually to make a general OS X "for everybody" release, if the crack keeps rolling. And then OSX will really have a chance of beating MS at the desktop game. - miker71, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Captain Crunch would be proud!
- toe_head2001, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Best News I've Heard All Day
- sykotic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I just wish someone would patch the install and release it that way. It's really tiresome to have to find the right distro and then patch it everytime. I just want an ISO that I can burn.
Sweet work though, I hope this version could install on my laptop. - Thargok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Pretty much, Apple and Dell are the only ones in this industry making money. They make it by being Wal-Mart. We make it by innovation."
Steve Jobs
That is why Apple shouldn't release their OS for generic boxes. And if you are a student you get a student discount, and if you get a refurbished item it is even a sweeter deal. But the thing is that you get a good experience on both the Hardware and Software.
Hell I got an old top of the line refurbished MacMini last night for my TV, $200 (Marked down for being an old version) Sure that was shopping around, but those deals can be found. - DaveL22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0all of the OSx86 sites are down including the wiki
- dieselpower, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I can just imagine myself, a run-of-the-mill Mac user, trying to install this hack on some old PC. After 10 hours I'd have either: a) a very large paperweight or b.) a Windows computer and a big headache.
Can any of you really envision a world where Mac loyalists are buying cheap Dell laptops and installing cracked versions of OSX to save $200?
Apple has survived on brand loyalty and design...two things this hack will never offer. I still think it is very cool that a single person is clever enough to hack something (in his spare time) that dozens of paid employees tried their best to prevent. - daemonx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I Dont beleive it...
http://www.osx86project.org is down with the digg effect...i guess,it was just a matter of time... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"No, Steve INSISTS that Apple has to be a hardware company. Hey doofus, Microsoft is a software company, yet somehow managed to rake in more cash that Apple could ever DREAM of."
Yes, I think we all know the 'somehow' surely? - spoonman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Maxxuus is quickly rising to the status of legendary hacker.
Wow, it was only a few weeks ago the 10.4.4 dmg was leaked! - Xyphus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I own both a PC and a Mac (iBook), and even though I enjoy the Mac-Experience, I'd really enjoy being able to run OSX on the PC as well... Maybe a dual or tri boot with Windows and/or Linux...
- matcrawf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0dugg because there is nothing so secure that it will never be broken.
plus, hackers are cool - mos6507, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think Apple has been dancing around market realities for too long. Eventually it will be impossible for them to make their hardware-oriented PC business model work. If their hardware is the same as commodity hardware then there is very little advantage besides brand loyalty. They have to either introduce innovative hardware features or cut prices.
- MRNeXTStep01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No I think back to NeXT inc. When they stopped making Hardware and sold, just software the company went broke. They had to sell to Apple to keep from being closed down
I don't think that we would like to see that happen to Apple.
So they should stay just as they are.
I'm sure that Steve Jobs would agree here. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0MAXXUSS you did it again!!!
Lets wait and see how osx will beef up against the new vista (if they ever release it)!
personally i already managed to get osx running on my athlon64...i would have stuck to it if could have gotten my soundcard and my wireless card working...
I agree with most of the posts that osx strength is based on the fact that it doesnt support a gazillion different devices...but that's what makes it more expensive...stability at a price... now as a cheap ass dutch student like me...i feel fine running osx on my athlon pc...***** spending another 1200 euros on a mac..tuition is expensive enough as it is - zetsurin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Good for you. Now get Winblows booting on an Intel Mac and THEN you'll actually be doing something productive."
It's already running Win2k SANDBOXED the way it belongs on my machine using the universal binary version of Q (kberg.ch/q) on my intel iMac. Dual booting is for *****. - trancelgic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Good for you. Now get Winblows booting on an Intel Mac and THEN you'll actually be doing something productive.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"... And then OSX will really have a chance of beating MS at the desktop game."
due to general ignorance and apathy I dont think Apple stand a chance. -
Show 51 - 93 of 93 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is