Hackintosh Question (No, not what you're expecting)

Okay, I know talking about "Hackintoshes" in here is generally frowned upon, however, I have been thinking a bit about the whole "Apple hardware only" thing and I feel I have a legitimate question. We know that one of the main reasons Apple only licenses OSX to work on "Apple Labeled" hardware is a question of support........ Apple builds a few distinct system types and it's easy to support known hardware........ This is really similar to the console world......... However, OSX is also a UNIX distro; and alot of enthusiasts love tinkering with different flavors of UNIX............. So unlike the console world, there is a definite interest in running OSX on other hardware............. Apple knows this, and it's been proven time and again that it can be done.

Another reason Apple hesitates to sell OSX seperate is they're afraid it will hurt hardware sales. I believe this is only true IF they were to offer the same support on non-Apple hardware that they do on Apple hardware. Otherwise, the typical Mac user (as opposed to a [H] Mac user) is most likely to buy an off-the-shelf Mac anyways. Finally, they're afraid that possible instablilities on non-Apple hardware could make them look bad, much as frequent bluescreens tied to drivers tends to make MS look bad with Windows.

I think I have the perfect answer to make everyone happy. Apple should release a special edition of OSX with a name something like "OSX Unsupported Edition" or "OSX Enthusiast Edition" (i'm thinking "Unsupported" is a better name, right off the bat it tells you it's unsupported)............. It should have a few special terms in the license agreement sort of like:

-- Apple holds no liability if this product does not work on your hardware
-- There is no expectation of support, Hardware or Software, with this product
-- This software is not to be installed, sold, or supported for profit (to keep companies like Psystar from profiting)
-- Complaints about the performance of this software, be it in print, online, recorded, etc. constitutes libel on the part of the complaintant and legal action may result
-- Software updates and hardware drivers for this product are not provided by Apple, they are provided by a community of fellow users. Apple holds no responsibility or liability as to the performance of said updates and drivers.

that way Apple would get out of support, other companies couldn't profit, and people couldn't badmouth OSX or Apple........... then Apple could sell it for $79 or so; and the people willing to invest the time into getting it working, and the time to keep it updated would be happy.............. And people who rely on a Mac and Apple support would keep buying Macs............. Profit for everyone.........

It's not a bad idea but I really think Apple should just keep doing what thier doing. They are selling more systems then they ever have and the cash is rolling in.

I swear Vista was the best thing to ever happen to Apple

coolie_d said:

-- Complaints about the performance of this software, be it in print, online, recorded, etc. constitutes libel on the part of the complaintant and legal action may result

Click to expand...

LOL@that

Apple will not give up their current business model; it works for them. They know they can't support all hardware with in-house programmers and so the only way to avoid the driver issues Microsoft has with 3rd parties is to maintain very limited hardware options.

I think a lot of people, particularly those in the middle ground of tech knowledge, want a Mac that is on the same power level as the iMac, but in a tower with a little room for expansion (2 burners, more hd's etc). I personaly know a lot of people flat out just don't buy a Mac because of a lack of options between the mac mini and the Pro tower for headless systems, and just as many don't like the ridiculous mac guy ads. I honestly wish MS would parody the ads so the blatantly old/misinformation would stop (ie most of the bullshit is dealing with the driver issues around Vista's launch, which is the fault of bad+lazy programmers at 3rd party companies and for the vast majority of people hasn't been a problem for a year now).

That said, I know a lot of people that have purchased Macs after trying a Hackintosh, and given the unusual silence from Apple on the matter I'd say they are seeing the benefits of letting people get hooked.

I shouldn't admit it, but i've played with a Hackintosh in the past........ See, what I want isn't a ready-to-run Mac......... there's no fun in that as far as I am concerned.......... I LIKE installing kexts, I LIKE figuring out the occasional kernel panic............ I want to tinker with OSX, I want the machine to be a pain to get running the first time........... and have my efforts rewarded with a nice Leopard system.............. I had more fun tinkering with OSX86 than any other OS i've tinkered with (Linux included); and once it WAS working, it was more rewarding to use............. I don't care about Apple's support, I don't WANT Apple's support............... I just want them to sell me a reasonably cheap license for Leopard that is at least 100% legal................ It can be just as unsupported as OSX86 is right now............ I don't see how it wouldn't fit in with their business model, as to the average home user it wouldn't influence their purchasing decision at all............. It'd just be a way for the tinkerer to get ahold of another UNIX distribution basically............. As i've repeatedly said, I want 100% UNSUPPORTED............ Apple's concern of 3rd party support and all that jazz is a moot point with the license terms i've envisioned............. As it is now, I guess technically that's all the Apple license agreement is saying anyways; after all if one installs OSX on anything but a Mac, the agreement is broken and Apple doesn't have to support squat........... Hell, if Woz were still with Apple, I betcha it would be possible; Woz is a tinkerer at heart............ From what I gather, he actually thinks Hackintoshes are cool...............

http://arstechnica.com/journals/app...tar-openpro-i-like-the-price-so-i-may-get-one

he basically says you have the RIGHT to run OSX on non-Apple hardware, but because of the EULA; Apple has the RIGHT to break your install.......... (which software update WILL do to a hackintosh)- I think the part where Woz says he might get a Psystar is funny as hell........... After meeting him at the Americal Museum of Natural History in NYC and chatting with him for awhile, I could basically see him sitting there building one...........

Edit: Mods, I hope my post doesn't cross the line, if it does please delete the offending parts.....

Woz is the true creator of Apple (not the Mac, unfortunately, he barely had anything to do with that aspect of development). Jobs... frontman, mouth, spinster extraordinaire... not much else I've noted over the past 30 years since he's been in the limelight.

Apple can not and will not ever "license" OSX in any way, shape, or form as a truly standalone product. It's simply impossible to do in ways I can't even begin to explain, the biggest one being sheer support capability.

From the creation of Apple it's always been relatively easy to get support for the product because the product is of such a narrow profile that most anyone could do it. The original Apple "knowledge base" was so small the handful of employees working there in the early days of serious production could answer a phone call and provide all the help necessary.

One machine, one processor, one OS, one platform - and that is still how they literally operate today, with some minor alterations. Yes, you can actually get a different hard drive capacity now, yes you can actually get a different video card too, but... aside from those options, and changing the amount of RAM, there's one simple aspect that will always hurt Apple's chances at any serious form of market domination or even much more than their current ~6% market share:

Macs still don't have the nearly infinite variety of hardware options that the PC universe has, even in spite of the fact that Macs truly are "Personal Computers" as the meaning of P-C has always been meant to be used, hence the title "IBM PC." The original then morphed into "PC Compatible" meaning you could go out and buy any given piece of computer hardware and as long as it was "IBM PC-Compatible" you were effectively guaranteed it would work when you got it back home and installed it.

Apple simply lacks the time, the resources, and surely the patience to sit still long enough to be able to support that nearly infinite variety of hardware configurations any average Joe (not me, I assure you) can throw together with a few hundred bucks and a trip to Fry's or some other component retailer, or even on an OEM box from Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.

Even Psystar at this point.

I've been part of the OSx86 Project since it started; I released the first generic installer DVD that actually worked on most any "generic PC" back in August of 2005, and I'm still part of it now and again. I've got emails from Apple Legal telling me to "cut it out, or else" that I keep printed out and framed for showing off sometimes. In all of this, I have to look back and say I was and am still involved to some degree because it was something to do, still is. I personally can't stand OSX any further than I can throw it, for myself. The Wife does love Leopard though...

I think of it like this: when people ask "Why not just get a real Mac?" (and I've owned real Macs the past few years, got rid of each of 'em for being defective) my reply is usually "Why should I?" or words to that effect. I won't be climbing Mt. Everest anytime soon, and when people ask those successful survivors that actually did it, the response is usually something like "Because I can..." or "Because it's there..."

I feel that way about OSx86 in some respects. Hey, we all do what we like to do... I happen to like to go against the grain, as the saying goes. I do it because I can, and I really don't need any other reasons.

Would I buy OSX if Apple did go absolutely insane and put out a true standalone version? Nah... there's no fun in that. But I do own a legit copy of Leopard, still shrinkwrapped in the box in a bag in the closet with the Apple Store receipt attached to it. As for the EULA... bleh, it's just a promise of sorts between myself and Apple saying I won't install it on anything that's not Apple-labeled, and I haven't since I don't run it.

But the Wife's machine has a nice big Apple sticker on it I kept after returning her 20" iMac. That's Apple-labeled, right?

Y'know, good question............ Why does the OSX EULA say "Apple-labeled" and not "Apple-branded"? Possible loophole for those of us with old ipod stickers, or even a label maker for that matter? Hell, if I print a label that says "Apple" and stick it on my machine, I am sure I could argue in court that my machine is in fact "Apple labeled", quite literally........ *LOL*

coolie_d said:

Y'know, good question............ Why does the OSX EULA say "Apple-labeled" and not "Apple-branded"? Possible loophole for those of us with old ipod stickers, or even a label maker for that matter? Hell, if I print a label that says "Apple" and stick it on my machine, I am sure I could argue in court that my machine is in fact "Apple labeled", quite literally........ *LOL*

Click to expand...

Apple-labeled clearly implies being labeled by Apple. I thought it was pretty easy to comprehend that.

I'm going assume that Apple's definition of "Apple-labeled" would be that the hardware or device in question has the "official" Apple manufacturing identification label with the product or model number, date of manufacture, serial number of said hardware or device, possibly the copyright information, etc. If that's the case then they might have grounds to stand on and a simple Apple-logo sticker like so many people have wouldn't hold up to scrutiny.

Personally, I don't care, myself. I consider "breaking" an EULA about as legally binding to most consumers as driving 26 in a 25 MPH zone: sure it's wrong because you're breaking a "rule," but is it really illegal just because I choose not to play by someone else's "rules" with something I actually paid hard currency for and now possess as my own property? Intellectual property is the screwiest thing to come along in the legal system worldwide in history, I'd say.

You won't catch me saying stuff like "Because of the things I do it actually makes money for Apple because people are now more interested in OSX..." That's the lamest rationalization of all, but I will say I do know for a fact that thousands of Macs have been sold specifically because of me personally and the things I've done over the past few years.

If that's wrong, well... someone needs to rewrite the rules.

I like how people think that by simply putting "we don't support it" on paper, that it makes some kind of legal sense.

They'd never do this simply because it means other manufactures could come in a undercut them with cheaper hardware, think Dell, HP ect...

Also the entire issue of keeping a uniformed and consistent appearance of the product line is something important to Apple.

Apple basically already does what the OP wanted, just without the GUI. Darwin is free (and always will be as long as Apple continues using a BSD foundation for their OS). It doesn't have a GUI, but you're free to choose any other GUI you want (KDE and Gnome both work on it, amongst others).

http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/

I have a hack tower running non stop, never had any issues aside from Diablo II and some video converter apps crashing which isn't an OSX problem. It's just as stable as my MBP and faster than any iMac for half the price with expansion capability.

SerpentSix said:

It's not a bad idea but I really think Apple should just keep doing what thier doing. They are selling more systems then they ever have and the cash is rolling in.

I swear Vista was the best thing to ever happen to Apple

Click to expand...

QFT

In my mind Vista killed Microsoft big time. I know alot of people now that are either moving to linux, apple, or downgrading back to xp that used Vista before.

I think you end up creating a product that creates more confusion among nubs, and who's target audience has a bit of a reputation for "software duplication".

Thats not to say it isnt a cool idea, and as much as I'd like to see it, it definitely would work against Apple s long term roadmap.

....but is it really illegal just because I choose not to play by someone else's "rules"

Click to expand...

Um, yes..... especially when it is a law like speeding..

I think the real questions, is anyone going to stop you?

Okay, i'm home from work and thought i'd hop in here and offer my 2 cents to my thread......... Most of you seem to be missing my point........ You're saying it would be a nightmare to support, and cause them to be undercut by other OEMs due to cheaper hardware.......... but my main point was:

My vision is of a SPECIAL OSX LICENSE that offers ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT......... You just get the bare CD, and Apple's blessings to go have fun....... Another point I made is it would be a VIOLATION OF LICENSE FOR ANY OEM TO USE IT.............. I'm talking about a version no different than the OSX you can buy right now, with no special provisions made to run on normal PC hardware......... Just a change of wording in the EULA........... A special "For Hobbyists Only" version, so to speak.............

And CEPeep, I am well aware of the Darwin kernel being open source, however in my second post where I mention the working OSX install as being "rewarding", it's the actual feel of the GUI that is my biggest reward........... I am used to Windows, and the OSX GUI seems to be so much more responsive, actually, OSX as a whole seems much more responsive, and seems to multitask better........ But in the end, I love that GUI.............. In the end, I suppose Apple's EULA basically accomplishes the same thing as I am envisioning without having to sell a seperate SKU......... Since that's what you end up with anyways, a 100% stock Leopard DVD that you purchase and then make PC compatible on your own............ do that and your support is bye-bye, and it wouldn't be a good idea to pull a Psystar and try selling the machines you build................

coolie_d said:

Okay, i'm home from work and thought i'd hop in here and offer my 2 cents to my thread......... Most of you seem to be missing my point........ You're saying it would be a nightmare to support, and cause them to be undercut by other OEMs due to cheaper hardware.......... but my main point was:

My vision is of a SPECIAL OSX LICENSE that offers ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORT......... You just get the bare CD, and Apple's blessings to go have fun....... Another point I made is it would be a VIOLATION OF LICENSE FOR ANY OEM TO USE IT.............. I'm talking about a version no different than the OSX you can buy right now, with no special provisions made to run on normal PC hardware......... Just a change of wording in the EULA........... A special "For Hobbyists Only" version, so to speak.............

And CEPeep, I am well aware of the Darwin kernel being open source, however in my second post where I mention the working OSX install as being "rewarding", it's the actual feel of the GUI that is my biggest reward........... I am used to Windows, and the OSX GUI seems to be so much more responsive, actually, OSX as a whole seems much more responsive, and seems to multitask better........ But in the end, I love that GUI.............. In the end, I suppose Apple's EULA basically accomplishes the same thing as I am envisioning without having to sell a seperate SKU......... Since that's what you end up with anyways, a 100% stock Leopard DVD that you purchase and then make PC compatible on your own............ do that and your support is bye-bye, and it wouldn't be a good idea to pull a Psystar and try selling the machines you build................

Click to expand...

no wording in a license can stop an OEM from selling a perfectly working machine along with OS X, it just wouldn't be preinstalled. An OEM such as dell could put together a machine cheaper than apple's, configured with the right hardware to work just fine with OS X, and they just have to sell shrinkwrapped full copies of OS X along side them, for the customer to install themselves. No violation of any license.

The other problem is, there would be almost 0 significant market for it.

We ENTHUSIASTS, which are the only ones interested in this, make up a largely insignificant portion of the ENTIRE PC market. Now further divide that into the portion of enthusiasts who are interested in running OS X. Already you have almost no market for an unsupported version of OS X. Apple isn't going to spend money creating and marketing a product to a slim margin of customers. And yes, this would cost them money.

also.........is your period key.....................um................................broken?

:edit: does anyone else see a space between the r and o in broken? I try to edit it out, but it's not there when editing.

Yeah I do, it's weird. Maybe your space is broken?

-- Apple holds no liability if this product does not work on your hardware
-- There is no expectation of support, Hardware or Software, with this product
-- This software is not to be installed, sold, or supported for profit (to keep companies like Psystar from profiting)
-- Complaints about the performance of this software, be it in print, online, recorded, etc. constitutes libel on the part of the complaintant and legal action may result
-- Software updates and hardware drivers for this product are not provided by Apple, they are provided by a community of fellow users. Apple holds no responsibility or liability as to the performance of said updates and drivers.

Click to expand...

Uh... this is the current situation.

4b5eN+EE said:

also.........is your period key.....................um................................broken?

Click to expand...

nope, I just tend to seperate thoughts with periods, that's all.......... first we have grammar and spelling nazis on [H], now we have period nazis?

illgiveumorality said:

Uh... this is the current situation.

Click to expand...

please note the last paragraph of my previous post:

"In the end, I suppose Apple's EULA basically accomplishes the same thing as I am envisioning..."

that was sort of my ending conclusion.................

I don't think EULAs have ever stood up in a court of law. Autodesk's claim that you're not allowed to sell your license because of what the EULA says was thrown out. I do not think it is considered a legally binding contract just "clicking "Accept" during the installation procedure, especially as no software I know of allows you to read the EULA before purchase.

Allow me to chime in a bit on this thread. (And make my moderator presence known so we know this thread is OK so far)

One of the things I see argued a lot in these threads is that by Apple selling OS X separately, it would undercut their hardware business. I don't really see this as happening, overall.

In the short-term, it would affect the hardware business, for sure. Just the mass-shock of people being able to finally try out OS X without shelling out a few grand would cause a rift in Apple's hardware sales in the short-term.

But in the long run, people would still buy Apple hardware.

For example, let's look at the Windows landscape. there are *tons* of OEMs out there, each selling computers with Windows. Why doesn't everyone who's buying a PC buy the cheapest Dell laptop or desktop?
Sure, some people do. But, people pay a premium for added features, bigger screens, or a different look. They all get the same software... but it's the aesthetics and premium features you want.

If this was the OS X landscape now, would it be any different? (Ignoring market share for scenario's sake).
I *could* buy a cheap $600 laptop and put OS X on it, sure. But maybe I want a decent graphics card, a multitouch trackpad (greatest thing ever and I *HATE* trackpads), a sexy look and good support?
Why do people spend $50k on a Mercedes, when a $10k Kia does the same thing?


Another point of mention is Apple's liability in terms of Hardware control. Sure, they can be absolutely sure that OS X works to it's prime ability on Apple manufactured hardware.
Score 1 for Apple. I see this as a strength.
Any OEM / enthusiast builder would be at the mercy of the low-level hardware manufacturer to have good support for OS X.
Being based on an open kernel / infrastructure, independent manufacturers and developers could write their own drivers to be included with OS X, however Apple would label these as completely unsupported drivers/kexts, and for any issues one has to go to the hardware manufacturer.
(Sort of like the WHQL, but the only things Apple certified would be Apple manufactured items, instead of applying for certification)

This is beneficial to Apple in a few ways:
1) It frees them of having to deal with 3rd party driver issues and support, in the kernel level.
2) It benefits their hardware business by always providing customers with a GUARANTEED WORKING hardware line for their OS.
3) Being a basically Open platform, Apple doesn't have to devote resources to driver development and testing for alternative systems. That would be up to the device manufacturers to supply and support them.

Does it make sense for Apple to do this?
I can't say - from my perspective it seems like it could be at least a viable way of increasing their market share, if not in hardware at least in installed bases.

Would I buy OS X for my PCs were it available?
In a heartbeat. While I enjoy windows, even Vista, I just feel a lot more... in control and productive when I'm working in OS X.


On the point of Apple's EULA I really feel that it wouldn't stand up at all should it be brought to court.
You can't be charged for piracy if you purchased the software... I don't think there are any laws against whatever hacks are necessary to get it to run on non-Apple hardware...
(In fact, couldn't fair-use be used against Apple here? IANAL).

I see most EULAs as a scare tactic at most, but I still do respect the terms of the agreement unless it is something completely outlandish.
(I think MS also had a clause that XP ownership wasn't transferable, a la Autodesk as Morty mentioned.)


This is a good, thought provoking thread everyone.
Keep it on track and let's see where it goes.

Here's one thing some people (including myself) have noted:

At Moscone Center in San Francisco, pictures were "leaked" yesterday of some of the banners. The two primary ones seen show the iPhone and have it listed as "OS X iPhone" while the other banner is where it gets really interesting. For the first time since OS X has been in existence, Apple is showing "OS X Leopard" on the banners and not "Mac OS X" or "MacOS X" anymore as in maybe not specifically tied to Macs (and yes I realize the iPhone isn't a "Mac" but but but...)

A sign of things to come? It's all complete speculation at this point, obviously, but we'll find out come Monday morning just after 9AM what the future holds for Apple and OS X.

I find it funny that they just released 10.5.3 last week and have already seeded 10.5.4 to developers - that was fast man. For an OS that claims to be the most secure and stable one on earth, and it's only been out a hair over 8 months or so, they've had 3 "almost service pack" level releases/updates so far, and now seeding the 4th? I can't figure that one out...

I do recall someone pushing the EULA issue in the past and I responded by saying "If they sell it in a retail store - either Apple's own retail outlets or through resellers - I can do whatever I want with it. If they truly only want Mac owners buying it and installing it, then they're going to have to require proof of ownership of a real Apple Macintosh computer at the purchase of whatever version of OSX they're shoveling out. If they can't go that far, and they won't, then forget it: I buy it, I do what I want with it."

Never had any cause to change that stance...

Arstechnica put out a rumour of OS X 10.6 which is Intel only, dumping pretty much all support for PPC architectures. MacRumors put the banner speculation discribed above together with this speculation and claimed a code name of 'snow leapord'.

Why this is relevant? People claim Apple would never divert from their present model. But riddle me this, Bat men...what if the current disdain for Windows Vista has opened a little door for Apple where you can slap OSX on hardware such as Dell, IBM or HP comps? With so many people resisting switching over to Vista, and XP support running out...it opens a door for Apple to slap their name back into a few areas where they have been slipping.

Take for instance, the school I work at. They have for the most part, Dell Optiplex 640's with a Gig Ram minimum. If I have a lab of those converted from XP, I suddenly have an increased, out of the box content creation lab of the cost of a few hundred bucks per machine. Next time around, if all goes well, what I have is the thought in the back of my mind to just put the entire Warranty under one roof and replace the lab with Macs the next time around. Maybe a Microsoft Server environment purchases an XServe to front end manage those 'Hackintoshes' (I've already integrated Macs in our environment...but school budgets swell and recede, and we may be seeing some budgets recede in the next few years.)

For instance, I got a walk in today about a project by the kids (I work in a k-12 Environment) done on Windows Movie Maker in XP. Now I could have helped her maybe, or pointed her to Google, but I'm the network tech and that's her job. However, just to be a dick, I googled after she left and noticed lots of playback issues with Windows Movie Maker. If I can get fully functional upgrades to my Optiplexes, I can possibly squeeze more life out of them and have significantly upgraded their capabilites and ease of use for a few years. For an enthusiast site like this...you can see limited Intel hardware as being a bit of a yawner...but for a school with semi decent hardware such as a C2D with 1-2 Gigs of Ram? I don't believe Vista is worth the headaches at the moment here, even though I like it myself. I just don't see us replacing our servers with 2008 for a few years, and with that...working out kinks with Vista and the policies we have in place at the moment. There's a niche there that might have some value to what the original poster is looking for...

I hope no one minds my bumping my thread back to the top; it sort of died out and I was hoping it would get a bit longer than one page....... But that's not why i'm bumping it; I was reading about a new product coming out:

http://www.efi-x.com

Thoughts? It seems to be an EFI emulator on a thumbdrive, or similar, but the general idea is you can install a retail Leopard DVD on a vanilla PC with this thing.......... The benefits of this thing (if it does indeed work as advertised) go without saying. I'm wondering if it needs to be in the USB port 100% of the time, or if it just is used during the install and copies its contents to the HDD?

EDIT: mildly off topic, but did anyone notice Psystar now makes OpenServers for running OSX server? The also seem to make PBX systems and pretty nice SAN devices......

http://www.psystar.com/inexpensive_iscsi_or_nfs_san_storage.html

I wish I could afford something like this, 14TB of storage would be very handy (i'm always running low on disk space)

pc_efi already does that sort of thing, has been since its inception, that's the whole point. What's happening now is that a lot of people that are relatively "new" to the OSx86 scene (I helped start it so I've seen it from there till present day) are taking the efforts of others over the years and realizing "Hey, we can make a buck with this..." and that was never the intention of the OSx86 Project or Hackintoshs in the first place. The effort was always about "we can do this" and so we did.

The issue with pc_efi is the rather complicated installation procedure, but once in place you end up with the same results. If EFiX has found a way to improve that (considering that pc_efi creator netkas himself is rather impressed with it, it seems successful) then so be it, and more power to 'em.

So whenever some company like Psystar comes about and is profiting from the work of others - and from all accounts no one that's involved with Psystar is anyone that's been part of the OSx86 Project or its offshoots - it's typically a bunch of no skill no talent idiots just stealing the hard work others have put into the development so they can make a quick buck.

Pretty ironic when you think of it: Steve Jobs steals the GUI concept from Xerox PARC which later becomes the Macintosh OS itself (Steve Wozniak never had much involvement in the Mac development, and even earlier all he really designed was the hardware - GUI development was always the purview of Jobs at Apple) and Steve has a hissy that someone takes "his" work and uses it as a basis for another OS: Windows.

Now that's sorta happening again as Psystar (they won't be the only distributor, I assure you, just give it some time) is effectively doing this all over again. Kinda funny to me, really.

I'm not upset at Psystar, no reason to be I suppose.

I'm just surprised it took this long for someone to step up and do it.

There are two problems with the proposal.

1) Apple gets absolutely nothing out of the deal. Nothing at all.

2) It goes contrary to every core principle that defines the current [resurgent] Apple product lineup.

I really, really don't expect Apple to do something highly uncharacteristic and against the grain of corporate policy and strategy just to make a few geek non-customers happy.

Apple is a hardware company with a highly, highly integrated product line. This proposal simply doesn't fit into their mission or culture in any way whatsoever.

What do you mean apple gets nothing out of the sale? Software sales result in nearly 100% profit since it's so cheap to press a disc. Since the proposal doesn't require them to support the software, they would definitely get something out of it. The only way it'd be bad for them is if it ends up cannibalizing their hardware sales. If it's marketed "properly" it wouldn't do that.

Apple will not get a lot of software sales out of it. Only a few geeks and hobbyists.

eh, I agree enthusiasts are a small group, but so are the collecting mac users. Even if they got a 10% increase in software sales, that's pure profit for them to gain. There's almost no overhead. Don't underestimate the enthusiasts, many companies are afloat simply because of enthusiasts (granted stores like newegg aren't nearly as large as apple, but I wouldn't call their earnings "nothing")

kumquat said:

Apple will not get a lot of software sales out of it. Only a few geeks and hobbyists.

Click to expand...

It would probably be alot more than a few. There are likely quite a few folks out there who don't run a Hackintosh right now that would start if they knew they had Apple's blessing. And what better demographic than a bunch of geeks and hobbyists to offer a new method of using OSX to? After using it, I know as a geek/hobbyist, i'd be much more likely to recommend an iMac to less computer savvy friends than something like a Dell, if only because it'd be easier to deal with from a spyware standpoint. And because i'd want them to call Apple and not me, there's no way in hell i'd build them a Hackintosh vs. telling them to buy a real Mac.

The revenue from this would be very, very small. So small as to really be insignificant to their bottom line.

And it certainly isn't worth compromising the company's obvious principles of tightly controlled, vertically integrated product lines. It would be totally bizarre and out of left field. Why sacrifice the company's core strategies for a 0.2% increase in revenue??

No, it won't happen. It's a bad idea. Jobs would never, ever, in a million years sell out his company that way.

I don't know, I think it will happen in some form or another eventually, perhaps after Jobs is gone. Like I said, although the enthusiasts of the PC community form a fairly small group, the people in the mac community also form a small group. I don't have the hard numbers to back me up, but I'm fairly certain that there'd be more than a 0.2% increase in profit. I know there are plenty of people, even non-enthusiasts, who would shell out $100+ for a license of OS X if it worked on their normal PC.

TerraPhantm said:

I don't know, I think it will happen in some form or another eventually, perhaps after Jobs is gone. Like I said, although the enthusiasts of the PC community form a fairly small group, the people in the mac community also form a small group. I don't have the hard numbers to back me up, but I'm fairly certain that there'd be more than a 0.2% increase in profit. I know there are plenty of people, even non-enthusiasts, who would shell out $100+ for a license of OS X if it worked on their normal PC.

Click to expand...

except it WOULDN'T work on their normal PC. The whole point of this proposal was to just sell it as is with no support. Only an enthusiast would have the skills to get it working on a pc. The simple fact that normal idiot joe schmoe users would buy it, try to use it, and it would DESTROY Apples reputation of a stable, working OS, because idiot joe schmoes will look right past the "non-supported" clause, think "they sold it to me, they should make it work!".

Now Apple would have wasted money marketing, distributing, etc, this version of the OS (which would HARDLY be 100% profit per sale, due to costs for the mentioned items. I would guess more like 20%). And would have terrible word-of-mouth advertising for their entire company, not just the unsupported OS.

It has the potential to have marginal sales, while destroying Apple's reputation.

Do not, under any circumstances, underestimate the pure IDIOCY of the general public.

This is another manifestation of what I, as a red-blooded, green tea drinking geek, assert to be the hated "Apple Way" of doing things. Regardless of what you, or I, or even most of their educated customers may think, Apple always insists on doing things "The Apple Way". While "The Apple Way" is usually conducive to ease of use for individuals who have NEVER experienced any OTHER ways, it is a pain in the ass for those of us who like to tinker, customize, and do with as we wish.

From the iconic 1 button mouse all these years, to the fact that my iPhone can't be recognized as a Mass Storage Device that I can copy and paste my media to, "The Apple Way" is what I hate most about the company. They make beautiful hardware, and elegant looking software, but if you're not willing to start thinking the way Steve Jobs wants you to think, you're going to butt heads with the OS. Its really unfortunate, because I love the look and form factor of their hardware (the iPhone and Mac Book Pro, especially), but hate working uphill against the software.

I hope this thread isn't too old to bump, if it is, I apologize; but as original poster of the thread I wanted to revive it to mention something interesting. I heard somewhere that the 10.5.4 Leopard update downloaded via Apple Update doesn't break vanilla Hackintosh installs, so long as one is using a Core2 family processor... Seems like they're trying to make it easy for Psystar and the OSX86 project in general. That new efi-x device looks sort of interesting, too, although I understand it starts at 80 euros. Supposedly some sort of hardware-based EFI device, the default version plugs into an internal USB header.

If apple released OSX into the wild they would still sell hardware. I don't know why people think it will be the end of apple hardware sells. They are priced better now than in the past and people love the design.
What will happen is apple will sell a TON of software. They could make far more off of software sales alone. Microsoft does just fine with software only.

People say it's a support nightmare. Well not really. Right now without any support from apple OSX is running on alot of PC's with alot of different hardware. Since it's move to Intel it supports quite a few Intel chipsets. People have been using modified linux drivers for sound and ethernet and it works fine. Imagine what could be done with official support. Just allow 3rd parties to release drivers and it's a done deal. Limit support only to Intel chipsets if they want to make things easier.

I do have a hackintosh. It's fast and stable. It's 100% functional. I can game on it. And most everything was working fresh out of the box with no 3rd party drivers or hacks. It took very little to get it all working.

Archer75, the support nightmare comes from the fact that Apple would have to have a system in place to test and certify each and every piece of hardware certified to work on OSX, and to test and certify each driver that ever came out for that device. It would cost significant manpower and money to build an "Apple Hardware Quality Lab"; and they'd end up having to charge $300 for the OS ala Microsoft. That's why I said they should sell it to us with no support for $89 or so; and then we could just run it the same way other OSX86 users run it, with some type of EFI emulation and a bootloader. And Archer75, I MAY be mistaken, but I don't believe you're supposed to openly admit you run a Hackintosh in this forum. But your comments on stability are definitely true.

coolie_d said:

Archer75, the support nightmare comes from the fact that Apple would have to have a system in place to test and certify each and every piece of hardware certified to work on OSX, and to test and certify each driver that ever came out for that device. It would cost significant manpower and money to build an "Apple Hardware Quality Lab"; and they'd end up having to charge $300 for the OS ala Microsoft. That's why I said they should sell it to us with no support for $89 or so; and then we could just run it the same way other OSX86 users run it, with some type of EFI emulation and a bootloader. And Archer75, I MAY be mistaken, but I don't believe you're supposed to openly admit you run a Hackintosh in this forum. But your comments on stability are definitely true.

Click to expand...

Allow 3rd parties to test and release drivers. If it doesn't work then take it up with them. This leaves apple in the clear. My experiences have been surprisingly positive. Onboard audio and ethernet work with linux drivers, slightly tweaked. But it's functional and stable.
Other peripherals work with manufacturers drivers such as printers, cameras, headsets, keyboards, mice, etc.
And then allow Nvidia and ATI to release OSX drivers on their sites.

Also I don't know if hackintoshes will need EFI emulation for long. There are or soon will be motherboards that support EFI so it might install straight out of the box. And there is a Radeon HD3870 that supports both EFI and Bios on the card. You can move between a PC and Mac with no problem.

Maybe things aren't as easy as I make them out to be, but they certainly aren't as difficult as some of you may think.

as a long time supporter of osx86 (average joe, do i know you?) , i've had plenty of conversations on moof on just these same questions...

another point to think about is just apple releasing motherboards.... just standard ATX boards that come bundled with OSX... use whatever chips, disk drives, power units you want with them...

they could even support this without too much effort (after some reasonable agreements on what types of hardware you can use).... charge us 300 or 400 clams for it....


i'd buy.... especially if they had mATX versions

then again, i'd also buy a quad core mini w/ 4 gigs of ram TODAY if they were selling them...