Hackintosh

[Lemur]

Let's clear up some legalities:

You are well within your rights buying OS X 10.6 for $30 even if it's not an upgrade. Apple has admitted publicly that the "upgrade" status is just a suggestion (and the fact that the "upgrade" disc contains a full, clean install of 10.6 should have tipped us off from the beginning).

You are also in the clear if you use either hardware (http://www.efi-x.com/) or software (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139912/Review_Psystar_s_Rebel_EFI_Snow_Leopard_on_a_PC) to emulate EFI, the crucial element in allowing OS X to run on Wintel (or WinAMD) hardware.

Likewise, if you choose to build a PC out of compatible parts, there is no issue.

Where you run into potential problems is when you put all of these parts together. Apple's EULA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrink_wrap_contract) for OS X states that you are not allowed to use their software on any non-Apple hardware, but note that this provision is being challenged in court at the moment. So it would be incorrect to state that building a hackintosh is illegal; much more correct to say that it is a potential licensing dispute, and one which Apple has yet to pursue with any individual user. (Their legal team has only been active with Psystar (http://www.psystar.com/), which is attempting to mass-produce Hackintoshes, and which is counter-suing over the only-use-Apple-hardware clause, claiming that it is a blatant example of product tying (http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20080502/1834591016).)

So, with all of this laid out, has anyone at the Org attempted a Hackintosh? I have a friend who built one with good results, although he chose outdated hardware for the project. I'd be curious to see how it went with more current equipment.

Anybody thinking about it?

-edit-

For anyone seeking a more in-depth examination of the legal issues surrounding EFI, EULA, and Hackintoshes, here's a pretty decent rundown (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9933896-37.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20):

The looming Psystar-Apple battle centers on the licensing agreement that Apple requires Leopard users to accept if they want to use the product, in much the same manner as almost every piece of software sold in the world. The most pertinent line is probably this one: "This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."

There's little doubt Psystar is installing Apple software on non-Apple-labeled computers, said Richard Vermut, a lawyer with Rogers Towers in Florida who specializes in software licensing and technology patent matters. "Generally speaking, a software developer has the right to sell software with these shrink-wrap licenses, or end-user agreements, and they are enforceable" unless the terms of the license would harm the consumer or otherwise violate existing laws, he said. [...]

Psystar's best shot--albeit a long one--at keeping its doors open for business would be to argue that Apple is illegally tying the purchase of its operating system to the purchase of its hardware because it has a monopoly on the sale of Mac OS X-based computers, said Jim Burdett, an attorney with Venable in Washington, D.C.

Burdett, a lawyer at Compaq during what he jokingly called the "First Clone Wars," said Psystar would have to convince a judge that the relevant market in this case is limited to just Mac OS X-based computers, not personal computers in general. Obviously, Apple has a very small share of the general personal computer operating system market but a rather large share of the Mac OS X market.

"People want Mac clones for the operating system, not the hardware," Burdett said. Apple will try to argue that its hardware is just as important a factor in making a Mac vs. PC buying decision, but Psystar will try to prove that with the response to the Open Computer, there is significant demand for Apple's operating system on non-Apple hardware.

"It would be an interesting situation to argue from the Sherman Act side, if you had the money," Burdett said. "I don't think it's too insurmountable, it's just a very costly issue to raise."

[Tellos Athenaios]

Grub2: http://grub.enbug.org/XNUSupport.

[Xiahou]

That sounds like a lot of mental gymnastics to try to justify doing something that you are not legally supposed to. You call it a licensing dispute, to me it sounds more like a breach of contract. Even the article you excerpted acknowledges that the legal challenge to the EULA is a long shot. Certanily, being challenged in court is definitely not the same as being legally invalidated.

Speaking personally, I don't really care if people want to run OSX on non-Apple hardware. It doesn't effect my life one way or the other. However, I don't care for people's moral justifications for it. People use all kinds of rationalizations for piracy too- but unless you're willing to be the test case and challenge the EULA in court, don't try to pretend that it's perfectly legal. :2cents:

[Papewaio]

Probably more about quality control then anything else.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If they can call putting a free version of IE on Windows illegal, then I can easily see how this would be illegal product tying*. It seems so to me.

Heck, a hackintosh would be my only choice because I will never pay apple's ridiculous hardware prices. Interesting, though I can't say I heard of it before now though.

CR
*I'm well aware that such rulings occurred in different courts, some in different countries.

[Xiahou]

Probably more about quality control then anything else.My guess would be that it's about forcing people to pay their inflated prices for hardware. :yes:

[naut]

Heck, a hackintosh would be my only choice because I will never pay apple's ridiculous hardware prices.


My guess would be that it's about forcing people to pay their inflated prices for hardware. :yes:

Indeed. It's all about being able to price their machines at excessive levels. A competitor would lose them money, but be good for consumers. But, they wouldn't allow that now would they.

[Papewaio]

My guess would be that it's about forcing people to pay their inflated prices for hardware. :yes:

There is a 20% plus markup for Australian apple products... over US (after exchange rates).

[Banquo's Ghost]

Indeed. It's all about being able to price their machines at excessive levels. A competitor would lose them money, but be good for consumers. But, they wouldn't allow that now would they.

I'm probably going to waste my breath here, but there's been a number of articles that show like for like, Apple products are often quite comparable with similar Windows based machines.

Anyway, it hardly matters if they aren't. There's nothing excessive about the price - the price is what someone is willing to pay. Rather a lot of people like to pay the asked price for an Apple product - and it's not simply that they are somehow stupid or brainwashed.

One can buy a Ferrari, or a Fiat. Basically, the two makes do the same job and in many cases, share components. One might sneer at anyone who might buy the Ferrari for being a fool, but enough people are willing to pay the premium to make it a successful business. Image may well be a big part of it, but if people want products that boost their self-image, why shouldn't this be a vaild reason to exploit the market? (Often of course, image comes associated with a real quality product too). Similarly with Apple, whose profits have risen quite well (along with my shares, which have more than doubled over the last six months - full disclosure :beam:)

Apple has competitors, lots and lots of them and they practically put the company out of business. They re-invented themselves, and are now doing pretty well in a very competitive market. Just as Ferrari are not keen to have an engine badged with the Prancing Horse gracing a Korean import, Apple don't seem to be keen on any old piece of cobbled together junk using their OS. Guess whose reputation gets knocked about if OSX doesn't work well on a cheapie Hackintosh? Windows gets a terrible rep often because it has to work with a million different combinations of hardware - but it isn't the Chinese sweatshops who suffer, but Microsoft's image as a competent software company.

Apple is a hardware company. OSX is the engine of their work and works best with the engineered items they design. This is often a reason why people like to buy Apple - an integrated approach. If you want to fix stuff every day, there are plenty of choices available.

No one is forcing anyone to buy their stuff and if what they produce wasn't appreciated by consumers expressing their loyalty through choice, they'd go bust.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Ehrm, ever *compared* the price of say, an ‘Apple harddrive’ versus a SATA harddrive?

Basically, as soon as it has ‘Apple’ branded on it you do pay an inflated price for what that kit is actually worth.

[Beskar]

Yes, and a hackintosh would actually be less stable than Windows, due to driver issues and otherthings.

As for virus's and other things, it is just a case that basically no one writes them for Mac's, since 90% of people on the internet use Windows, so they would they want to programme a mac virus?

[caravel]

Heck, a hackintosh would be my only choice because I will never pay apple's ridiculous hardware prices. Interesting, though I can't say I heard of it before now though.


My guess would be that it's about forcing people to pay their inflated prices for hardware. :yes:

Indeed. It's all about being able to price their machines at excessive levels. A competitor would lose them money, but be good for consumers. But, they wouldn't allow that now would they.

Basically, as soon as it has ‘Apple’ branded on it you do pay an inflated price for what that kit is actually worth.
This sums it up for me. It's simple, really:

If MAC OS was made legally available to install on x86/x64 systems, not many would actually go out and buy it. People buy MACs because they are MACs in the hardware and the software sense. Their marketing and aesthetics are what sucks people in.

IMHO they are simply overpriced for what they are and what they can actually do.

Yes, and a hackintosh would actually be less stable than Windows, due to driver issues and otherthings.
Very true because the OS is designed around a fairly static platform, unlike Windows/Linux that have to work on platforms made up of thousands of different hardware combinations (and in the case of Linux, often completely different architecture).


As for virus's and other things, it is just a case that basically no one writes them for Mac's, since 90% of people on the internet use Windows, so they would they want to programme a mac virus?
This is partially true. OSX is based on BSD code so I would say that there are some inherit benefits there also, as far as security is concerned.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Just as Ferrari are not keen to have an engine badged with the Prancing Horse gracing a Korean import,

Does Ferrari sell engines to the general public? Have they ever sued to stop an engine from taken from one of their chassis and put into another? I don't think the comparison is valid.


No one is forcing anyone to buy their stuff and if what they produce wasn't appreciated by consumers expressing their loyalty through choice, they'd go bust.

The fact is, Apple is selling their OS by itself. They are then saying you can't install that on whatever hardware you please, which seems to me could likely be ruled as illegal product tying; forcing you to buy their expensive hardware.

Either way, the court result will be interesting.

CR

[Lemur]

Let's be honest here; nobody has a perfect way to fund OS development. Microsoft has subsidized the OS through Office sales for decades. Apple pays for it with hardware. Linux is the only alternative model, and there are all sorts of challenges because of it. (Geeks tend to gravitate toward things that are sexy to geeks, so a lot of UI work in Linux goes undone, underdone or overdone.)

I don't resent Miscrosoft for subsidizing Windows, and I don't resent Apple for subsidizing OS X. However, Apple's method may, in fact, be product tying.

But then I'm one of those heretics who thinks that Apple should have gotten out of the hardware business a decade ago.

[Beskar]

But then I'm one of those heretics who thinks that Apple should have gotten out of the hardware business a decade ago.

I disagree, I think they should split the business.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Let's be honest here; nobody has a perfect way to fund OS development. Microsoft has subsidized the OS through Office sales for decades.

Not really though. The two products are often bundled, but this is somewhat misleading in the sense that it is typically an OEM that sells you the bundle. But Microsoft certainly tries to make its OS be a money machine of its own.

[Fragony]

http://www.apple.com/nl/macbook/design.html

Want. Need. Will.

[Lemur]

Isn't this the exact same Macbook they canceled six months ago for the low-end Macbook Pro? As in, the exact model I'm typing on as I sip my coffee right now?

Confusion on the low end. Yes, a relatively cheap unibody Macbook is a good thing. That's why both Froggie and I got one. Makes me wonder why they did away with it, even temporarily.

Apple makes great laptops. They should do that, and let the rest of us build our own desktops. Sheesh, they haven't had a desktop that has tempted me in ... a very long time. I think the last Mac desktop I owned was made by Power Computing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Computing_Corporation). Loved me some clones.

[Fragony]

I really liked my macbook but I sat on it, it's gone. I hate metalltiic so the thin and pro are not an option. I want this one.

[Lemur]

For anyone interested, Groklaw is covering the Psystar v. Apple case (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091024213209193) in mind-numbing detail.