Submitted by Anyone who hangs around on websites with information about installing Mac OS X on non-Apple labelled computers has probably already encountered this report, but it’s newsworthy anyway. The upcoming release of Mac OS X 10.6.2 will remove support for the Intel Atom line of processors from Mac OS X.
This is of no concern to people who install Mac OS X on Apple-labelled computers, but for those of us who decide to exercise our rights as consumers by installing Mac OS X on non-Apple labelled computers should surely take notice: this practice is quite popular among netbook owners, such as the Dell Mini machines.
Reports of developer builds of Mac OS X 10.6.2 killing Atom support have been around for a while, but it’s now pretty much confirmed. It turns out Apple has been meddling with the information related to processors, and one result of that is that machines with Atom processors are unable to boot Mac OS X.
This leaves Atom users with the following two options, an easy one and a hard one. The easy option is to simply stick with 10.6.1 for now; maybe a future update will reintroduce Atom support. Another, more involved option is to upgrade to 10.6.2, but use an older kernel, or maybe even a custom kernel with Atom support.
All this really doesn’t surprise me. The Atom 330, the dual core desktop variant of the Atom line, was not properly supported from Mac OS X 10.5.7 and up; you had to turn off HyperThreading in the BIOS to even get Mac OS X to boot at all.
Of course, Apple has no obligation whatsoever to look out for Atom users, as the company does not ship this type of processor in any of its machines. If you run Mac OS X on a non-Apple labelled computer, then you know what the risks are. Just as much as you have the right to use the software in any way you deem fit, Apple has the right to alter its software in any way it deems fit.
In any case, if you run Mac OS X Snow Leopard on an Atom – you’ve been warned.
“but for those of us who decide to exercise our rights as consumers by installing Mac OS X on non-Apple labelled computers should surely take notice: this practice is quite popular among netbook owners, such as the Dell Mini machines.”
Don’t you mean, “those of us that choose to agree to contracts and then go against that contract within the span of one hour?”
Consider this comment an official thumbs down in the non-provided thumbs-down option for this article.
Edited 2009-11-02 18:28 UTC
Where is the signed contract?
I never said signed… yet the contract was agreed to at the installation process
Edited 2009-11-02 18:44 UTC
Are you related to The Devil, by any chance? He plays that card a lot…
Edited 2009-11-02 18:48 UTC
Actually, if you’ve been following along lately, that’s known as a post-sale restriction. You can’t take somebody’s money, and then, as they are using the product, impose some wierd restiction that they did not agree to _in writing_ at the time of the sale. That’s really the whole point.
Right now, I could buy a copy of OSX, come home to my nice computer, and in the process of installing it, find out that they arbitrarily decided to forbid me from installing it on certain of my computers.
I believe that to be illegal, and I think the courts will soon agree. Certainly, in many countries it is definitely illegal to impose a post-sale restriction. I don’t think it has been settled yet in the U.S., but it seems tremendously obvious that it is wrong. Nevertheless, the U.S. is famous for allowing some strange things, especially if campaign comtributions are involved. Especially in West Texas!
“Right now, I could buy a copy of OSX, come home to my nice computer, and in the process of installing it, find out that they arbitrarily decided to forbid me from installing it on certain of my computers.”
they most certainly can. You don’t have a right to software that will always work with the hardware it used to work with.
That is so dishonest, it must have hurt to write it. Nobody is saying that the software has to work with my computer. If it doesn’t, I’m out of luck. The question is – can they forbid me from even trying it. Even in an “Emperor Steve has such beautiful clothes” world, you must admit is somewhat strange to forbid people from using Apple software on machines the user owns. Very strange.
By the way, I do not have an Apple, I do not have OSX, and I am not trying to run it on my machines. I just find it wierd in a “free” society that people could support such a tyrannical concept.
You are free to disagree and don’t buy their products, there is where liberty lies.
Fortunately in America, I am also free to note illegal behavior and point it out. I will say this one last time – you can’t have a post-sale restriction. I believe Apple is doing this. I believe they will be caught and forced to stop doing it. Afterwards, the world will keep on spinning, nothing bad will happen to Apple or the faithful. But at least an illegal behavior will be stopped.
By the way, if for some strange reason Microsoft had the same foolish after-sale restriction on Windows, and informed me in the Eula AFTER I had purchased it, that I couldn’t install in on Apple-labelled hardware, I would note that as illegal also. Fortunately they don’t, thus Apple users install Windows on their Appple hardware using Boot Camp.
It may seem trivial (especially since I don’t run OSX or plan to any time soon), but if we allow companies to do sneaky stuff, you never know what they will do next.
The first mistake you make is thinking that OS X is sold. It’s not, it’s rented. Second, it’s not regarded as a product, but as a service (the service of making your computer work and providing updates and so on). These two distinctions change the situation quite a bit.
Since you brought it up, the latest Windows versions are in the same situation and have been for years now (since XP if I recall correctly).
But it wouldn’t be illegal. And as a matter of fact Microsoft imposes quite a few restrictions on copies of Windows. You can only install a copy on one computer and in the case of OEM copies you can’t move them to another computer even if you uninstall from the original computer. And they don’t let you transfer the ownership right from one person to another.
The Windows terms are more restrictive than the Apple terms for OS X actually. With OS X you can transfer ownership and you can transfer OS X from computer to computer as long as you uninstall and pass the DVD along.
I’m afraid I don’t see what you have to complain about. As I pointed out, the terms for OS X are more generous than those for Windows. And there’s no issue of post-sale restriction, as far as you, an end user, is concerned. In fact, Apple goes as far as to close their eyes at what is tehnically illegal behaviour from end users, such as installing OS X on more than one computer. They don’t have copy protection like Windows has. They try to trust their users to do the right thing.
I must point out that they do not have a problem with end users installing OS X on non-Macs. Witness the hackintosh communities. Apple didn’t go after them.
They have a beef with Psystar. But Psystar’s situation is quite different from the average end-user’s. They are not one person who tinkers with OS X for their own use, they are a business who is trying to undermine Apple’s hardware sales. It’s ok to mass-produce computers and compete with Apple’s computers. But if you try to use Apple’s operating system to do so, the copyright terms placed by Apple on OS X will stop you.
What, exactly, is involved in providing support for a processor which supports all the x86 instructions that their supported hardware products do? Doesn’t it come down to selectively breaking it?
How come when it comes to what big corporations do, we always hear about what “it” has the “right” to do.
(And exactly what is “it”, anyway? A virtual person? Some bizarre legal entity masquerading as a person? Something else? What rights, exactly, should “it” have?)
But when it comes to what the users do, we hear so much about how we don’t have a right to… whatever.
And when it comes to “rights”… how many of you folks have a department of attorneys on retainer to fight for yours? Because Apple (“it”) sure has one. And is not afraid to use it. Though it does tend to send in its PR department first, as the actual deliverers of the legal threat:
http://www.osnews.com/story/21937/Apple_Tried_to_Silence_Exploding_…
Edited 2009-11-02 21:44 UTC
So I don’t have to worry about those pesky fair use terms that I agreed when I took out my mobile phone and broadband internet accounts online because I didn’t sign anything right? Nice to know.
Oh, and I’m going to take those so-and-so’s to the cleaners because they went and did a credit check on me! When I clicked that button that said they could I didn’t really mean it – I certainly didn’t sign anything!
And of course any amendments they make to the terms are also invalid because the initial terms that I agreed to that allow them to make amendments aren’t valid, and even if they were any changes to things like the fair-use policy would be a post-sale restriction and wouldn’t be valid anyway would they? Again, nice to know.
Thanks for that insight, I now know I can go use as much mobile data as I like and they won’t have a leg to stand on in court when they try to get the cash out of me – I’ll just give them your contact details for reference ok?
In The Netherlands, you actually DO sign mobile contract and broadband contracts. As in, with a signature.
On top of that, the comparison is off, because you are comparing a PRODUCT (OS X) to a SERVICE (connectivity). This distinction is often lost on proponents of the EULA.
I can tell you that in the US, AT&T doesn’t use any sort of click-through regarding their broadband “service”. And if you sign a broadband contract one evening… and then cancel the next morning due to total lack of any working broadband service… they don’t cut you any slack. Their representatives dress up in outfits right out of Dante’s Inferno (Well, they sound like it, on the other end of the line.) and tell you so, in no uncertain terms. “Bwah! Ha! Ha! Ha!”, they say. “Is there anything else I can help you with on this call? It may be recorded for quality assurance, you know. Bwah! Ha! Ha! Ha!”.
And yet Apple acts like they have all our signatures on file, in blood. Go figure…
Is a mobile phone not a product? Or a wireless broadband dongle? What about the SIM card that you have to put in to the phone or dongle to make it work? I can go buy a SIM card for $10 over the counter and never agree to anything, the license agreement is presented when I go to activate it. Sound familiar?
And some countries have progressed beyond making your mark in blood for an agreement to be binding, otherwise those with severe physical impairments would continue to be discriminated against.
Oh, and for the record, I’m NOT a proponent of the EULA. I would love to see them all scraped but not by law because I believe someone who invests their time and resources into developing something has every right to determine it’s use if they so wish. What I am a proponent of is doing what you agreed to do. If you click the AGREE button but you don’t agree, you have no honour. If you don’t agree with it you have the right to click the I DON’T AGREE button and not use the product – there is nothing forcing you to use the product. That is often lost on those who have no concept of Respect, Rights and Responsibility other than how it relates to THEM.
Edited 2009-11-03 01:13 UTC
So, in this thread, we’ve learned that Mac fanboys don’t understand the difference between stealing vs. buying something, or the difference between goods & services. Now we can apparently add another one to the list: the difference between post-sales restrictions for a product and terms of use for a service.
Has someone at Apple accidentally bumped into a switch on their Reality Distortion Field generator? It looks like they’ve had it set on “pure BS” mode for the last few months.
Edited 2009-11-03 17:27 UTC
The point you’re missing is that it’s already been paid for. For a contract (written or click-through) to be binding the terms need to be agreed at the point of the transaction.
With your earlier example of phone service you still have to agree to the contract on-line before they’ll send you your phone. In most countries you can ‘sign’ a contract using click through, it’s still legally binding.
However you can’t impose terms after sale, unless there was a contract at the point of sale explicitly stating that specific terms might change (like interest rates on a credit card for instance).
Apple are within their rights to impose usage terms on their products, but only if it’s in a contract at the point of sale, not after sale.
Wow, what a completely useless analogy.
Those aren’t post-sales restrictions, for one. And second, mobile phone carriers sell you services. An operating system, such as OS X, is a good, NOT a service. If you can’t understand a distinction that basic, you should probably just stay out of these discussions altogether.
Obviously you have problems comprehending big person english so I’ll spell this one out for you. You and Thom both suggested that there is no contract if you haven’t signed a piece of paper, so I was pointing out that according to your view on the world there is no valid contract in place for my mobile phone because I completed the entire transaction on the ‘net, therefore I needn’t worry about the Fair Use policy that is part of the terms. But I see where you’re going with this. You’re saying that because it is a service different rules apply. I see how that works :S
And to your second “point”, other than the fact that you’re mindlessly regurgitating something Thom said – which is a load of crud anyway – your point is? I pay for a product, I pay for a service. I receive something in return for my money in both cases. One is tangible, one isn’t. Irrelevant. But to play your silly game the contract for a mobile phone account or wireless broadband account is attached to the SIM, a “GOOD” in your terms. If I lease a building I pay for a service but get the use of a “good” – where does that one fall in your world? If I buy software that is in your terms a “good” and it includes two years of free updates that are downloadable is that classed as a “good” or a service in your world?
Product or service is irrelevant, it is the exchange of currency for something in return. Trying to portray them as something different is nothing more than a puerile attempt to justify a flawed standpoint.
When you made your purchase online you likely also checked some box saying you agreed to the terms of service/purchase. By verifying your purchasing method (credit card, Paypal, whatever it was), that transaction became your signature (or the signature of whoever’s name was on the credit card, for instance).
Even if you do interpret the form of payment as a signature, which is questionable, it’s still a click-through agreement. It’s no more or less valid, but it wasn’t agreed to by a hand-written signature. You checked the box, you pressed continue. You’ve agreed. Just about every online shopping site has terms of service, your online bank, purchasing airline tickets, you name it. Those agreements are no less valid for being click-through, and that’s the point that a lot of people are missing. Whether eulas, or specific clauses in them, are valid is one thing and deserves to be questioned. HOwever, as long as eulas and the clauses within them are valid, click-through acceptance of that eula constitutes agreement. As for post-sale restrictions, they’re everywhere if often hidden in contracts. AT&T, for example, is able to raise rates without violating the agreement you’ve originally signed, and yet that would be a modification of the terms post-sale.
Sure it is more valid. Try to explain to your credit card company that you don’t think you should be forced to pay for that purchase because you didn’t actually “sign” a purchase slip when you made your transaction online.
Criticizing my literacy skills and then failing to capitalize a proper noun (“English”)… Well done, genius. The words “pot,” “kettle,” and “black” come to mind.
And the point I made in response (which you were clearly unable to grasp) is that IT. DOESN’T. MATTER. For two reasons:
1) The provider of the service can discontinue your service at any time for any reason they like, with the exception of clearly-illegal reasons like religious or racial discrimination. They can cancel the service because they don’t like the way you spell your last name, or any other random whim, and you would have no recourse whatsoever. Regardless of whether or not you have a proper, formal contract with them.
2) Services are not products. Spend a half second thinking about it and you should realize the obvious implications: terms of use for a service are not the same as post-sales restrictions in an EULA. Here, let me repeat that with some added emphasis, just so you have no excuse for missing the point this time: TERMS OF USE FOR A SERVICE ARE NOT THE SAME AS POST-SALES RESTRICTIONS IN AN EULA!!!
Um… Fair Use is an aspect of COPYRIGHT LAW, while everything you wrote up to that point is only relevant to CONTRACT LAW. They’re not actually the same thing just because they both start with the letter “C,” you know.
Are you genuinely unable to grasp such basic, obvious facts? Or are you just being deliberately-obtuse?
Then its not a contract its a ‘End User License Agreement’.
See the links below:
http://www.osnews.com/story/22233/The_Difference_Between_EULAs_and_…
http://www.osnews.com/story/21010/Can_Your_Cat_Agree_to_an_EULA_
Luckily comments do have a thumbs down button.
Ya, because I can mod you down.
Unfortunately, the admins go out of their way to keep the anti apple rhetoric comments modded up.
I don’t know about admins, but the Apple-related articles are all about moderation system abuse.
One of my favorite movies is “Conspiracy Movie”, with Mel Gibson. I’m pretty sure he used an Apple Lisa.
Yes, yes, everyone’s out to get you – you poor, poor martyr for the holy Apple cause.
I was really listening to that song when I read your comment.
If the incompetent competition thinks that the way to level the innovation and IP playing fields is to try and pry Apple and it’s the Mac OS apart and force it to license or otherwise, let them all take advantage of it, they are all in for a rude awakening.
Incompetence and lack of innovating technological prowess is their hallmark, and wanting access to Apple’s platforms and access to it’s IP is proof of this incompetence.
Apple never “supported” the Atom processor — the Atom was a happy recipient of compatibility with Intel’s other chips. Also, we all know Intel has been lobbying Apple to adopt the Atom on some of it’s future product offerings. Perhaps this is simply confirmation that Apple has closed the door on the Atom in favor of other chip designs?
I can’t believe some people have the temerity to bitch because a product won’t work in a manner for which it was never intended. Remember, the only legal way to get a copy of Snow Leopard without buying a new machine is to purchase an upgrade copy for $29. How many of those Hackintoshes are running legal copies of Leopard (or Snow Leopard, even) to begin with. Methinks not many at all.
Edited 2009-11-02 18:52 UTC
Where in the article is the bitching? Did you not read the last paragraph?
Not that I expect anything different from the MDN-reader that you are, but still.
people just don’t like your ‘reporting’ Thom, you’re incredibly biased with how you feel the world should revolve around your student lifestyle.
you even admitted buying the $29 snow leopard ‘upgrade’ for your dad’s machine and then making an illegal copy of it for your machine that didn’t even have a valid Leopard license.
This isn’t even news to begin with anyways, Apple isn’t dropping support for something it never support, it just so happened to work previously. OSX never showed CPUIDs for ATOM or the number of others (Core 2 Quad, etc, etc).
The spin here is Apple has investigated how Atom was working and then blocked when there is no proof of that. Further optimization and upgrades to the kernel likely caused it to stop booting or being supported, but nobody has looked into this yet because you are biased (as well as many other sites out there).
Edited 2009-11-02 19:02 UTC
What are you talking about??
I bought a copy of Snow Leopard for my dad, but before giving it to him, I tried to get that copy to work on my Atom machine. It did work, but I removed it and installed windows XP. That copy of Snow Leopard is now running properly on my dad’s iMac – it was a gift for him.
Please don’t accuse me of illegal behaviour, sonny. The only lawbreaking I do is speeding and public intoxication. In that order.
Second, it’s not an upgrade copy. I tore the entire box apart, and NOWHERE does it say it is an upgrade – heck, it doesn’t even state Leopard is required. The lovely girl at the Apple retailer didn’t say anything either.
Edited 2009-11-02 19:06 UTC
you talked about
<<those of us>> yourself inclusiv,
doesn’t it mean that I have a Hackentosh?
maybe I just got it wrong!
I think so too. A lot of instructions on how to get Mac OS X on your PC start with:
Actually this is pretty sensible, because otherwise you have to jump through hoops to patch the Mac OS X install DVD.
I don’t find it wrong to do so, if it’s just curiosity driving you. Half your hardware won’t work anyway.
Hmmm, really. Not my experience. Jumping thruogh hoops, is not what I had to do.
Not sure to whom is referred who lacks “innovating technological prowess.”
Please list the technology that Apple has innovated.
You really want to go there, because the list will be at least 2 pages long. Innovation doesn’t always mean first to get there sometimes its first to make it good. Steam Boat Willy wasn’t the first to implement sound, just the first to make good use of the technique.
Sure. It’s not like we’ve been through this a zillion times before. Love to see that list!
Really?
Are we already qualifying definitions to suit our arguments?
I always thought that an innovator was the first to come-up with an idea — the inventor — not the one who “popularizes” the idea.
In addition, what exactly is meant by the phrase “… the first to make it good?”
A perfectly apt analogy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innovate?db=luna
Specifically:
1. to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.
And it will consist almost entirely of things that would be invalidated by a mountain of prior art, if Apple were dumb enough to try patenting them.
In other words they’re not innovations, they’re just variations on other people’s innovations and Apple deserves no credit for the innovations themselves (the mouse, the GUI, the portable MP3 player, etc etc etc). If software patents had existed in Douglas Engelbart’s day, then he could probably sue for every single penny of income that Apple has ever made.
The most pathetic claim of an Apple innovation was probably when they claimed that the dual G4 PowerMacs were the first multi-processor desktops in existence – despite the fact that SMP had been available even in the PC world for at least a decade. Not to mention the presence of SMP on nearly every other major CPU architecture, and even from Mac cloners like Power Computing.
But the best part was the circular, self-contradictory reasoning that made up the stock response from Apple apologists: they claimed that earlier x86 SMP machines weren’t actually PCs, but workstations because they contained multiple processors… Sadly, this was before the word “facepalm” was coined.
…that plans to either move the Mac mini to Atom or build an Apple netbook have been shelved indefinently. I would be very surprised if Apple hadn’t been secretly looking at ways to either lower costs of their existing low-end machine or build a new even lower-end system back when the economy was at its worst and has simply shelved those plans now that things are starting to look up economically.
You’re probably correct, but I still question whether low end (think netbook) units were ever seriously considered within Apple. Macbooks remain their most popular item, and they’d be insane to undercut those.
Edited 2009-11-02 19:47 UTC
Well there goes all rumors of Apple ever taking out a netbook. Not that I ever thought they were but this is hard proof. Besides Apple seems to be into the ARM for their low profile, low powered chips. Intel can’t compete with ARM currently in that department. Personally, I still don’t see the appeal of Netbooks. Then again I don’t see the appeal of an Apple tablet. I didn’t see the appeal of an Apple made phone, but I was obviously proven wrong since I’m already on my second one.
If Apple decides to market a Netbook, they’ll do what they’ve done in the past. They’ll make a point release of MacOS X that supports the new hardware and include it in the box.
Not a problem.
i dont even see why it has to be an Atom to be a netbook or why it has to be any existing Atom already on the market.
Support for PPC chips and the old 68k line from motorola… Damn you apple, damn you to hell!
TOO RIGHT! Apple should be banished to infinite torture for ever making Apple PC’s! And, instead of saying “oops, we made a mistake!” and doing what’s necessary to make Intel Macs “NON-PC”, they blindly keep fighting the growing tide of PC users who want MacOS X, by swatting each fly that comes along.
All they have to do is make their boards with a few chips that AREN’T in regular PC’s (for unique identification or function), or code each machine’s version of MacOS X specifically to the unique hardware specs of that system. Something that CAN’T be “cracked” or “broken”.
There are ways Apple could make their life a LOT easier, but will they ever do it? NOOOOOOO.
Apple has simplified their product manufacturing so much, they’ve massively complicated their business! Mankind is full of idiots!
“Mankind is full of idiots”!
Very true. VERY true.
Edited 2009-11-03 01:19 UTC
Like selling of the company and moving to Bermuda to catch some rays? PC would approve.
I think Apple likes being in the PC business and doesn’t mind being faced with these challenges, even if it makes their life less easy.
How is it massively complicated? All Apple has to do is change a minor thing and it will break all Hackintoshes. Just look at what’s going on with the Palm Pre. Sure, the hackers will find ways to make it work, but it will just mean they are always playing catch up. Warnings advising against updating will be announced, creating enough hassle to stop any realistic clone makers become successful. Any non-geeks out there will just give up trying to be cheapskates and just buy the real thing… if they care that much about the software at all, that is.
Windows7 and Windows Vista on a 286, anyone?
Seems reasonable to remove the potential to run OS X on netbooks if they are planning to release a tablet next year. More likely that device, if it appears, will be running on ARM or something designed by PA Semi – another reason they dont need Atom support.
If it all pans out, we’ll look back next year and say, yeah that was an obvious move.
Surely the Atom is fully X86 compatible?
There are ways to tell, of course:
If processor is Atom then…
Microsoft killed DR DOS using similar techniques. My Compaq notebook’s bios refuses to boot the OS if it sees the Intel mini-pci wifi card I bought to replace the horrid HP-labeled Broadcom one.
It’s business as usual for entities which maintain a pack of attorneys on perpetual retainer.
You mean the AARD code? That old chestnut?
You don’t really believe that an error message in a beta of Windows 3.1 killed of DR-DOS. Digital Research were perfectly capable of doing that on their own.
You know what?, as a consumer, I’d really like to run OSX on my toaster but damn evil apple will not allow me to because they removed the funcionality even before when out to the market.
Maybe the lesson of the story is that I should give it the porpose for it was born, not to run on a toaster.
Edited 2009-11-02 20:24 UTC
It’s obvious that Apple only sees two options for “dealing with” hackintoshes:
1) Try to find a judge gullible enough to uphold their fantasies about EULAs being the same as proper, pre-sales contracts. Or…
2) The “sour grapes” approach, aka intentionally crippling the operating system by removing support for devices.
And I’ll bet we’ll see many more examples of option number 2 now that Psystar has actually fought back, rather than rolling over and submitting at the first sign of a C&D (as Apple clearly hoped & expected they would).
That’s the one area where I do agree with Maclots – if Psystar wins, there’s NO way Apple would be reasonable enough to drop their hardware/software lock-in tactics. Instead, they’ll just further cripple OS X by adding even more artificial “incompatibilities.”
Not really surprising, it’s the typical reaction of a control freak. Think about it: they’re putting active effort into making their OS *not* work – says a lot about Apple’s priorities.
And this is wrong why? Apple should and is obligated (to their share holders) to protect to their property any way they can. If that means locking OSX so tight it won’t run on anything that hasn’t passed through Job’s ass, so be it. I don’t see a problem with that. I would do the same if I didn’t want my product running on a competitors machine as it affects my bottom line. Apple is a business not a charity, they are not obligated to give away what they paid for in the first place just because a few geeks think its their god given right.
Of course, there is the “what goes around comes around”. As Apple squeezes its customers more and more on these trivial issues (Palm Pre, Non-Apple hardware), at some point the customers might start looking elsewhere. Humans seems to have some kind of attraction for freedom, even when it means abandoning all the “extra coolness” they are currently receiving.
People are sheep, yes, but only to a certain extent. They don’t want to feel like sheep.
And yet “people” have been using Windows for more than a decade, an OS from a company who walked on corpses to achieve the monopoly they enjoy today. It got so far that there are people out there who think “Windows = PC” . Baa.
I agree. I enjoy my OpenBSD laptop. I just feel the need to stick up for the sheep once in a while. They are nice folks!
I don’t see Microsoft telling me what hardware I can and can’t run it on. I don’t see them telling me what intel compatible processors I can use. A funny thing about Windows, it’s much freer for me to use than MacOS X.
You can give you copy of OS X to someone else if you uninstall it from the Mac it was on and you pass the DVD along. You can’t do that with Windows in the OEM variant, not legally.
And Windows is limited to x86, just like OS X is limited to certain processors.
And let’s figure in the fact that Windows comes with copy protection (all that Genuine Advantage and activation stuff), whereas OS X does not.
How is Windows more free to use?
They dont tell me that I can’t run it on any particular OEM hardware, I can just buy a copy of Windows and run it on my hardware…and I’m free to run it on a mac, a dell, hp, sony, even my whitebox computer that I built.
That’s freer than anything Apple allows you to do with OSX. A copy of Windows can be activated a certain number of times on different hardware, so I can give my copy to someone else and erase my installation.
You can give your copy of OS X to someone else if you uninstall it from the Mac it was on and you pass the DVD along. You can’t do that with Windows in the OEM variant, not legally.
And Windows is limited to x86, just like OS X is limited to certain processors.
And let’s figure in the fact that Windows comes with copy protection (all that Genuine Advantage and activation and Microsoft keeping an eye on you), whereas OS X does not.
How is Windows more free to use?
Edited 2009-11-06 22:57 UTC
Maybe IBM and Intel should have taken the same approach. Sure, you would probably still be stuck with anemic, underpowered G4s – but hey, they would just be “protecting their competitive advantage,” as another Apple apologist put it.
Oh don’t worry, that’s coming. They just haven’t figured out the logistics yet.
Why not just completely drag the computer industry 30 years backwards while you’re at it? Remember how awesome it was when we had computers that ran only a single application (word processors), and each vendor’s hardware was incompatible with the software written for every other computer?
Screw standards and open hardware platforms!
Why are so many Maclots incapable of comprehending that it’s not actually stealing when you PAY for the product (as Psystar has done)? When you have to twist the truth that much, it just stinks of desperation.
If I am paid for my labor, that does not give them the right to do whatever they want with me.
If I buy time/storage in a cloud/cluster, they have the right to impose conditions on my use of their facility, even if I have PAID money.
Taking more than is agreed may not be stealing in the strictest sense, but is crossing the line.
SERVICES AND PRODUCTS ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Sweet Jesus, how many times does the obvious need to be pointed out before Maclots give up on that disingenuous BS?
Which would be a valid point, except that Apple happily sold copies of their OS to Psystar without requiring them to agree to any special terms before or at the time of sale. So if there’s fault here, it’s Apple’s for failing to license their software properly. A fault which they’ve compounded by attempting to use EULAs and post-sales restrictions for bait-and-switch purposes.
It’s just another example of Apple believing they deserve special treatment, and getting it in the minds of their faithful apologists. They want the protections (read: ability to impose restrictions) afforded by a legitimate pre-sales contract, but they’re too lazy or cheap expend the effort to do it properly. So instead, Apple tries to use their EULA enforce post-sales restrictions.
Software is a service: acquiring a CD of software is not the same as acquiring usage rights to that software. And attacking me personally does not prove your point.
I do not own any apple products and do not approve of their business practices. Defending their right to license their property how they want does not make me a mac zealot.
If apple does not want to license OS X to the competition, the should they not be forced to.
This is a double-edged sword: if apple cannot enforce their right to license how they want, should open source licensing be also be unenforceable.
Software is a service: acquiring a CD of software is not the same as acquiring usage rights to that software.
Actually, software is a product. It was just recently reported here that there’s a case in the US where a person was selling forward the software he had bought and court said it was indeed legal as the software was a product, not a service.
It’s the same here in Finland too; several years ago already a similar case went to the court and the judge clearly ruled that software sold as a product is a product, not a service. If they wanted it to be a service they’d have to market and sell it as a service.
This is a double-edged sword: if apple cannot enforce their right to license how they want, should open source licensing be also be unenforceable.
Apples and oranges. You apparently don’t understand the difference so I’ll explain: open-source licenses are all based on the copyright law. They grant you permission to use and distribute copyright work; a permission you would not have without the license.
Commercial EULAs however try to imply that copyright law also allows you to dictate how, where and when your work can be used. The problem is that that is not part of the copyright law. Copyright law only handles about making copies of and distribution of copyright work, not how one can use it after one has legally obtained it.
References? Licenses are transferable, but you still are bound by the conditions of the license.
Different to a free software license how? Have you looked at the GPL? You are not arguing on principle: the right for a company to license as they want.
The EULA does not appear magically only after the software is bought. Neither does the GPL. Even then if you have second thoughts you can refund your money.
References
There’s atleast this one: http://www.osnews.com/story/22270/Judge_Sides_with_Vernor_Slams_Aut…
Licenses are transferable, but you still are bound by the conditions of the license.
In this case (and the Finnish one) the license forbids selling the software forth.
Different to a free software license how? Have you looked at the GPL? You are not arguing on principle: the right for a company to license as they want.
As I already tried to explain, GPL does not tell you how you can use the work you’ve obtained. It only limits how you can distribute it forward. And as said, distribution of copyrighted works does fall under the copyright law.
But EULA tries to limit the ways you can _use_ the work, not how you can distribute it. And copyright law does not govern such.
That is the difference and it is a big difference.
The court did not dispute that use of software copies can be licensed while the copies themselves are sold.
The license tried to overreach by placing conditions on the media. This doesn’t change the basic nature of the agreement.
It has to, it is a license, that’s its purpose!
GPL S2. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
It has to, it is a license, that’s its purpose!
Actually, its purpose is to tell how you can DISTRIBUTE the copyrighted work, not how you can use it. Two very different concepts.
Did you read my comment? Section 2 of the GPL? Have you read the GPL? Have you looked up the definition of ‘license’ in a dictionary?
An argument cannot be made BY CAPS-LOCK ALONE 🙂
Did you read my comment? Section 2 of the GPL?
I suppose they’ve just included that there “just in case”. They don’t have the right to deny you from using their works if you’ve obtained their work the legal way. It applies to both F/OSS software and closed software.
Which is basically just an affirmation/confirmation of rights that the user would already have under copyright law. The rest of the GPL is almost entirely focused on DISTRIBUTION terms, not USAGE terms (unlike an EULA).
All rights are reserved under the Berne convention, with exceptions for fair use etc. No such ‘unlimited permission’ is ever granted by default, which is why it is explicitly mentioned.
So the licenses emphasize different things. I don’t dispute this.
The principle is if software publishers have the right to license their software on their terms. It does not matter if the license is GPL or some EULA, the principle is the same.
No, the right to use the software is already implied by the fact that it was distributed/made available to you in the first place. So that term does nothing but explicitly state a right that was already implicitly granted.
Not only is the emphasis difference, the individual types of terms are completely different too. The only similarity is that they’re both licenses, which is like equating a human being with a trout because they’re both chordates.
Aside from that, there’s the fact that the GPL grants rights that would not normally be present under copyright, but which the copyright holder has a legally well-established right to grant. On the other hand, the post-sales restrictions in Apple’s EULA attempt to remove rights that end users would normally have under copyright law, and those restrictions go far above and beyond the protections afforded to Apple as the copyright holder.
No, it has nothing to do with whether or not software licenses are valid. The relevant question is whether or not a copyright holder has the rights to use an EULA to impose post-sales arbitrary, post sales restrictions.
Except for the small fact that basic principle is precisely where the license differ from each other.
Okay, since you made the claim: post a link to the official page page on Apple’s website where I can view the OS X EULA prior to purchase.
Waiting…
The difference is the GPL doesn’t *restrict use*, it grants a copyright exception provided you meet its conditions.
If I sell you a CD with a piece of GPL software you can do what you like with it without being in any way affected by the GPL, *unless* you’re making copies, at which point the GPL comes into affect.
The key thing here is that the GPL grants you an *additional* right you don’t have by default (the right to make copies, provided you meet the GPL conditions). An EULA restricts your existing rights.
So when receiving a piece of GPL software you are not bound by the GPL at all. You are however bound by copyright law as you would be with any other piece of software. The GPL offers you a conditional exemption to that copyright law, *if you decide you want to take up that exemption*. Otherwise you can ignore the GPL completely and carry on under normal copyright law.
Wow, let’s count the ways you’re mentally challenged:
Assuming that Apple intentionally disabled Atom support, check.
I’ve done some looking around and so far it all boils down to some random guy going by the nick “stellarolla” and the description “I like to say things and eat stuff”, saying Apple “killed” Atom support in 10.6.2. There’s no word on who this guy is, whether it’s more than just a rumor or any evidence for the lack of Atom support or whether it was their explicit intention to do so or a side-effect of another update.
BTW, here’s looking at you, Thom. Way to do reporting, buddy. We’re down to rumors and links to random blogs now, eh? Great going, OSNews.
Not understanding the first thing about EULAs, contract or copyright law, check.
If you have ANY legal training, by all means, make me eat my words.
Twisted logic supporting Pystar yet not seeing how what they’re doing might go wrong, check.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Apple actually will disable Atom on purpose; what the hell do you think the outcome of Psystar’s blatant disregard for the law will be? Here’s how the real world works: there’s gonna be a lawsuit, and Psystar will lose.
Furthermore, Apple might just feel that they’ve been too nice to their users. The honor system instead of copy protection? Letting them install OS X on anything they wanted? What were we thinking? Let’s lock this baby down. Oh, thank you Psystar! You really opened our eyes!
Being a complete moron, check.
Seriously. You really expected a random company to go to another, say “I think I’m gonna steal your business from you”, and the 2nd company should just roll over and let them. “Reasonable”. Seriously?
Being out of touch with reality, check.
Apple has no copy protection in OS X, they don’t pursue hackintosh projects, they made the record labels take DRM out of all the music on the iTunes Store, they’re not a monopoly, not trying to limit choice of consumers, not trying to sell their stuff as cheap as possible just to make people buy it. But they do dare to go against a company who is trying to illegally steal their business from them. Yes, typical control freak.
Not understanding the first thing about EULAs, contract or copyright law, check.
If you have ANY legal training, by all means, make me eat my words.
To take some part in the discussion I have to say that you didn’t say anything intelligent about EULAs, contracts or copyright laws yourself either.
First of all, pre-sale contracts can restrict the use of software sold in any way or form the seller wishes, but that contract is signed by all parties before the sales takes place. It is a binding agreement and all parties may examine the agreement before agreeing to it.
EULA however is a very different beast. I can’t say how it works in the US or similar countries, but atleast in most European countries EULA can only restrict or grant rights as long as they themselves fit withing the copyright law. Copyright law does _not_ allow you to restrict f.ex. on which kind of a table you are allowed to eat your food. Equally, it can’t restrict on what kind of a computer you are allowed to run the software on. Any such restrictions specified in the EULA which do not fall under the copyright law itself are invalid and can’t be enforced legally. And yes, this has already been tested several times in courts.
As such, atleast here it is perfectly legal to run OSX on anything you wish and you own.
Unwarranted self-importance and confirmation bias, check.
Boy, this is fun!
And we should take your word instead, because some random guy named “wirespot” posting comments on a news site is just so much more credible.
That’s okay, I won’t hold it against you.
Actually, your “response” was nothing more than empty bombast. Sorry, but the burden is still on you have to offer a counter-argument of some actual substance before.
Or, to phrase that in a way that you’re more likely to understand: “Dodging the point, check.”
And what particular law have they been found guilty of breaking? Oh that’s right, the trial hasn’t even started yet, let alone concluded.
Unfounded claim, check.
I hear there are medications which can effectively manage those sorts of delusions.
Really now, no need to be so hard on yourself.
You might want to try educating yourself on what the word “steal” actually means. By the Apple (and Apple fanboy) definition, anyone who resells software is “stealing,” same with anyone selling used software.
What Apple is doing is NO different from a game company trying to use EULAs to prohibit sales of used copies of their games, or a music distributor trying to prohibit used CDs, or a movie studio trying to block used DVD sales, etc etc etc. And if Apple wins their case with Psystar, you can bet on those things happening; Apple will have generously handed them a set of ready-made arguments.
I just don’t get this whole argument. Apple intends OS X to run on their hardware, period. That is not a weakness, it is one of the strengths of the platform. Apple knows exactly what hardware they’re writing for, and because of that everything works. Apple never intended you to install OS X on your $400 Dell, they
want you to buy a Mac. duh.
Intel owners: man up and buy a Mac if you want to run OS X, or content yourself with the crappy desktop experiences the X.org or Windows worlds provide.
Why are we crying about a CPU that OS X never supported in the first place?
_Thank you_. Nothing in an EULA, or the law, states that Apple _have_ to support any hardware at all, just because you _could_ install it on it.
It works on the hardware they decide, and people getting uppity about what it doesn’t support has nothing to do with rights, and is in no way a direct and ‘evil’ move by Apple. The fact it worked on Atom before was not how it was sold. That is your own personal choice to run it on Atom and there is no support. If it stops working, again, on your own head be it since you’re installing it on something that is not listed on the box as being compatible in the first place.
At no point in this game did Apple ever acknowledge Atom support or lack there of.
Does the Apple license require all pieces of hardware to be apple built… or can you get away with buying an apple monitor or keyboard or something…
It requires the machine to be Apple labeled, and that is why, in order that both your base unit and your monitor can meet this requirement, Apple considerately supplies you with two labels with every copy of OSX.
If you are considering installing your copy of OSX on some computer which at the moment is not correctly labeled for that, we do urge you to make sure that the sticker goes on before the quality goes in. That is essential to maintaining your relationship with Apple in a happy state.
Darwin is open source, adding support back may not be that hard.
Didn’t they do this for AMD chips?
Who says the support is gone from Darwin?
In fact, who says (and has actual proof) that the support is gone from OS X? So far all I’ve seen is a n unsubstantiated rumor.
[quote]Of course, Apple has no obligation whatsoever to look out for Atom users[/quote]
Or any other user that isn’t on their hardware, and good on them.
It’s their OS they can do whatever they like with it, just like Microsoft can do whatever they like with their OS.
Exact same reason why they can do anything they want with iTunes, it’s their program and it’s not their job to handle support for devices like Blackberry.
Some of us still didn’t get it yet. Apple never wanted OSX to be “OS for x86 hardware”, instead of “OS for Apple Mac hardware”. I mean, I can’t even install Leo or SnowLeo on my fairly new AMD machines without a lot of hacking, which returns a massive butthurt in any way I can’t use this with all the native Mac experience. What is the point then?
Some of us waited incredible anxiously for Apple to “release” Mac OS X for all the x86-universe. But hey, Apple is clear to crystal about it – people still buying Macs! Otherwise I see Be Inc. scenario with many crappy drivers and etc, etc, etc. This one not ended up very well.
Someone hacks the atom detection code out of OS/X
I think this is much more a non story than the missing story on OS news about how psystar makes 5 copies of their OS during a single install (that includes copies in memory, etc), what that means, and implications about OS’s and “copies” in general.
At least I block all the crap advertising that OSNews wants to put onto my machine (just protecting my rights, Thom), so no paying him for it…
I don’t get how it’s news,though. All hardware requires some sort of drivers… if they don’t support the motherboard or hardware specifics of Atom, do yourself a favor & install Linux.
Support Linux + ARM processors.
Thom, here’s an open call to you. If you truly believe in your “rights”, then support and run the free software alternative. What do you really have against Linux, anyway?
Dear Apple,
just roll your own CPU and be done with it. That’s what you really want, after all.
What would they call it? The Apple Core 2 CPU?
yeah the apple core 2 duo….upgrade now to 2,5Ghz for just 600$
c’mon…applefanboy will pay alot but i cant imaging they pay for just the nice apple cpu adding alot the already price hardware. especially this would kill EU sales.
Why should apple even care. it’s not like apple sales less due to hackingtosh. Apple don’t has to support it but leave the community alone…
After all the iphone and appstore is what makes the money.
And about apple making there own cpu’s? not gonna happend because that would mean adding another 500$ to each computer they sell let alone the incompatibly with nvidia / ati gfx cards.
Intel cpu are cheap because of the volume. worldwide apple is a small player on the x86 market.
http://stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-o…
in other news, not only was Atom never supported by Apple in Leopard/Snow Leopard, but it was only not booting in 1 single dev build of 10.6.2 and it’s now working again.
WHO KNEW A DEV BUILD WOULD BE BUGGY ON NON APPLE HARDWARE.
Watch out,Thom invested a lot of time and energy into this story. You can’t disappoint him now.
The sys reqs for Snow Leopard state a Mac computer. No Mac uses Atom. Why do folks feel that they’re entitled to run OS X on any hardware they want? Apple is under no obligation to support any hardware other than their own. Those who run Hackintoshes do so at their own risk. I fail to see what the big deal is here. If Apple wants to lock their software to supported machines, that’s their prerogative. If you want a free OS, then use one.
In any case, the support of Atom has returned.