MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

A kind of Moustrap for Micro$oup .. ha ha !

Nice take MDN!

MW game - as in this is only a game for Apple.

why do you think Apple has waited more than a week before pulling videos....they wanted ppl and MOST of all the PRESS to noticed it has been running ...now the world knows....and will want OSX...once press begins talking and asking questions about it...they react and pull the videos...provoking more press release about it....making more ( FREE) publicity...the release of OSX for Mactel will not even run on Pentium hardware... ( remember that Intel will annonuce new chips soon )

Apple's "crackdown" is purely for legal reasons. If Apple does not show consistent opposition to unsupported copying, taking legal action at a later date may be much more difficult.

Besides, those people that put OS X in their Dell are the same ones that would try to cram a Porsche engine into a Ford Focus thinking that it will result in a car of the same performance and handling of the Porsche. In reality, it will result in a mutant that is much worse than the Ford.

But, I am sure the Apple folks are quietly grinning at the free media attention this is receiving.

Harrell is way smarter than Dvorak any day, it is worth reading his original post on the matter

http://www.shapeofdays.com/2005/06/mac_os_x_on_int.html

The people that are cracking/hacking the osx are not interested in the mac os - they are interested in the process of seeing if they can do it - whatever it is they want to accomplish.

Just like the guy that climbs Mount Everest is only interested in climbing it because its there; he´s not interested in the geology or flora and fauna on the mountain...

Once its done the hackers will move on or evolve to the next step....to find how they can put viruses in it....
I am sure there is a race to have the first virus for the first intel Mac...can it be done? That is their challenge.

The problem with the Dvorak Prophesy is that anyone with the skill to hack OS X (x86) to run on on generic PC hardware has probably already tried the PPC version on Apple's own hardware.

The hack isn't a good way to get the everyday PC-using masses to think about trying OS X. Maybe it will be easier in the future, but right now it's a little over the heads of an average user.

However, I don't think Apple is surprised it happened, yet they're not worried that it would hurt their own hardware sales. Sending the cease and desist notices is simply standard legal procedure.

This is a fantastic Apple publicity opportunity. Notice how all the message boards are filled with the story. While Apples lawyers are $600/hour that's nothing compared to print and TV media and advertising cost. It's a very clever scheme to get OS-10 in front of a lot of PC-owners' eyes. When Apple wants to close the door on unlicensed PCs they can and will. Meanwhile, lets get all those hackers, novices and basement PC hotrodders mess'n with the next big thing. And honey, you ain't seen nothing yet!

I really don't understand the "try before you buy" reasoning. The only people that can do this with the developer's release are the ones technically proficient enough to figure it out. The average Joe isn't ever going to try this fo fear of screwing up his PC. Windows people seem to live on the edge of having their PCs getting knocked out of commission through viruses or bad software or the OS getting messed up. I just don't see how or why they would take a chance on this Mac OS X Intel developer release. And when Apple finally releases the retail OSX Intel version it undoubtedly will not be the same as the developer release, it will be even more difficult to install.

Remember, Apple has always said it's a hardware company. It will have no problem allowing other operating systems to run on their hardware, this adds value to their computers and can justify a higher price, but I don't see them devaluing their themselves by allowing their computers greatest asset - it's operating system - to be run on another company's computer. That would put competitors on an equal footing with Apple and I just don't see Steve Jobs doing that he would have to completely change his business model and make Apple a software company ala Microsoft. And that would literally have to be the slyest move in the history of business and I don't know if he could pull it off.

Funny, my cousin called me the other night (he's a Windows user that's on the fence), specifically to discuss putting OSX on a Windows PC. His current kit is getting old, so he's planning to replace it in the next 6-8 months; he wanted my opinion on which PC he should look at so he can install OSX on top of Windows.

I told him he's going the wrong way, and if he's going to wait until after the new year to buy a computer, he should just get an Intel Mac and add an XP partition to that. When he asked why I thought that way, I told him that I believe Apple will likely do something with the OS that makes it difficult (if not impossible) to run on non-Apple hardware, but so far there's no indication that M$ will do the same with XP or Vista in regards to Intel Macs. And as Phil said at the WWDC, Apple won't try to stop anyone from doing so...

I hope my advice to him turns out to be correct, and that he buys an Apple the next time around. Once he gets his Intel Mac home and starts using it, he'll forget all that folderol of having a dual boot machine. While I realize that some folks would benefit from having such a rig, he's not one of them!

Some of you seem to think it is difficult to install OSX86 10.4.1, or that it somehow doesn't run well.
Fact: with the latest "pre-patched" DVD images, it's trivially easy. Anyone with a P4 and a spare hard drive (optional!) could do it, if they can read and type one command. And virtually everything runs, including Rosetta, iTunes, Logic Express, GarageBand and Photoshop. And it's fast.

Dvorak is a False Prophet, although I believe a well meaning one.

Apple isn't going to be any more lenient on these websites showing hacked OSX than they were on the Mac sites that leaked 'insider info' about upcoming products. They will pursue them with all the legal means at their disposal, and will largely succeed in shutting them up, which in turn will mean that OSX 'In the Wild' will be more myth than threat.

However, it will be a potent myth for one reason - it will justify Apple using every hardware DRM trick Intel provides to lock down every PC they sell with an Intel CPU in it (eventually, all of them). They will do so in the name of keeping their OS tied to their own Apple-made machines, but clearly there is another, much more lucrative benefit. Intel DRM = access to video media, from the likes of Paramount, Fox, Time Warner, etc ... Access to video media = new Apple-made, hardware/software video paradigm, along the same lines of what was achieved with iTMS & iPod. New video paradigm (if all goes according to plan) = big money for Apple AND - possibly - the only viable way for them to sideskirt the market inertial that keeps Windows the primary OS of the world.

This may seem like a stretch, but think about it - an excuse to impose an otherwise unpopular technological DRM solution is the only thing of consequence that a hacked x86 OSX provides Apple. Those pointing out the unlikelihood that this activity gives only the most hardcore gearheads among The Public a 'taste' of OSX are absolutely right, and thus the rational that it somehow will impact the broader consumer market falls flat on it's face. Apple certainly would not be betting big - if at all - on such an unlikely eventuality coming to pass.

Just as, when one disspationately looks at all available roadmaps as well as actual products on the ground, better CPUs aren't a logical reason for Apple going to x86 (and especially Intel's x86), neither is 'exposing' the public to OSX through some shady back channels and then having the company halfheartedly clamp down on them, when one considers the Apple Stores do the exposing much more efficiently, and more profitably (thankyouverymuch).

Hardware DRM, of the kind Intel provides and the media companies favor - this is Jobs' endgame. Better get used to it.

most Mac users aren't technically proficient (note: I didn't say all) ...that's why many here don't get it.

There are a lot more highly proficient and medium proficient windows users (they have to be... they're forced to learn or be overrun by virii)

THe install isn't THAT difficult. Anyone can follow instructions... and many have old hard drives they can wipe.

There's a reason free samples are given in stores.

Scottm4321... What apple says and "DOES" are two different things. Times are changing and home hardware (especially computer hardware) is becoming (has become) a commodity. IBM got out of the business, Apple made XServes. Apple, like it or not, caters to the HOME user, most of all.

1. Yes, it's easy to read and type in one command, but I don't see the average windows user doing it. Can you picture a housewife or some guy who just bought a $599 computer at Walmart taking a chance on screwing up his brand new system? And these are the people Apple needs to "convert" to really gain market share, the everyday common home user - and these are the people that would appreciate Macs the most if they could be convinced to switch.

2. As for Microsoft, I think they'd love to have XP natively running on Mac. They're a software company, the more copies they sell, the more money they make and the more control they have of the market. Interesting Note: Remember when M$ bought Virtual PC? Apple didn't really seem to care did they? I never heard word one out of them about it. No complaints, no "Oh my God! Microsoft owns VPC, we're all doomed!". That's because M$ wants their products on the platform

Apple new exactly where they were going with their platform and that VPC would be obsolete in a year or else they would have bought it. Now you watch M$ will kill it within 2 years and it won't matter one bit.

<most Mac users aren't technically proficient (note: I didn't say all) ...that's why many here don't get it.

There are a lot more highly proficient and medium proficient windows users (they have to be... they're forced to learn or be overrun by virii)>
--> I Agree


<THe install isn't THAT difficult. Anyone can follow instructions... and many have old hard drives they can wipe.>
-->See My Previous Post

There's a reason free samples are given in stores.

<Scottm4321... What apple says and "DOES" are two different things. Times are changing and home hardware (especially computer hardware) is becoming (has become) a commodity. IBM got out of the business, Apple made XServes. Apple, like it or not, caters to the HOME user, most of all>
-->I couldn't agree more, it makes good business sense to keep everyone guessing. Home users are a huge market, Apple has finally realized this with their move to Intel (which I agree with, it levels the playing field in a lot of ways the average Joe will understand). It's a market that is most open to them especially with iPod so popular (Halo effect works hopefully).

Why, installin' Mac X on a PC is easy as pie. Last Sunday, after the pancake social down at Main Street Baptist Church, the men went fishin' and we womenfolk went over to Zelma Lee's place where her husband Red has a mess of them PCs. We started some pies in the oven — cherry and apple — and while they was bakin' we just popped one of them there shiny disks into the computer and went to town. Wasn't long, we was up and runnin', gettin' our RSS feeds, and writin' JavaScripts like it was nothin' at all.

------------
Fffft. Really. You poeple are insane.

Odyssey: DRM is NOT the reason for the Intel switch. This has been debunked over and over. The Mac install base will continue to be majority PPC for at least five years. Any DRM solution which requires an Intel-based Mac will fail miserably for that reason alone.

Oh, and Griswald: I don't know what sites you're reading, but the ones I've read describe the installation process as far from trivial, involving (of all things) a Linux boot CD!

Shareholders are waiting for public outing of NDA violators. Why would a professional developer (ADC), who spent $1000 US dollars to rent a machine for a year, risk humiliation and financial ruin? Their corporate sponsor/employer and future software sales are placed in severe jeopardy. Macintosh advocates, why, why, why?

MACINTOSH now, MACINTOSH tomorrow and MACINTOSH forever!

LordRobin says: "DRM is NOT the reason for the Intel switch. This has been debunked over and over. The Mac install base will continue to be majority PPC for at least five years. Any DRM solution which requires an Intel-based Mac will fail miserably for that reason alone."

It's hardly been discussed, let alone debunked. On Ars it's gotten some attention, but the end of the conversation always results in "It'll be hacked so it don't matter anyway" (for tech-heads, that's always the beginning AND ending of any story). Well, if that's what you mean by 'debunking', then I guess you're right. But for the part of the world that depends on the rigors of logic and debate, to debunk an idea is to actually come up with a reason why it can't possibly be true. To discredit an opinion is to produce incontravertible proof that the opinion is invalid. By both of those pretty standard definitions, the proposition that Apple moved to Intel x86 for 'performance' reasons - whether that be measured in 'units per watt' (or whatever they're calling it) or simple outright computational speed - has been more widely debunked than anything.

As for how widely this topic as even been debated, I can honestly say that I've been the among the very few who have even brought it up here at MDN, and probably the only person who's actually given a coherent and consistent theory as to why Intel's DRM technologies, and how they relate to Apple wishing to make and sell video devices and services in the same vien as their present audio offerings, are - despite your protests - the likely main motivator behind the Macintel switch.

I've already acknowledged in many other posts that it isn't the only reason Intel could do the job for Apple, just as they have for 90% of the rest of the computing world. And for every new Intel technological announcement (most of which are simply retreads of what they've already announced), those other reasons will seem to take on increased importance, especially among the MacFanBoyz&Grrls;. But in the end, Intel is not doing anything on the technological front that could not be, and/or is not being, accomplished by any other CPU manufacturer and designer - not low power, not high clockspeeds, not even embedding CPUs in handheld devices.

The only thing Intel is committed to bringing forth, that most other CPU manufacturers aren't, is hardware DRM. And, because the media providers require such measures before they'll ante up their products on any sort of large scale, hardware DRM is the only thing Apple absolutely needs from Intel, in order to get their hoped for iVideo World off the ground.

Benton wrote:
<qoute>Why would a professional developer (ADC), who spent $1000 US dollars to rent a machine for a year, risk humiliation and financial ruin? Their corporate sponsor/employer and future software sales are placed in severe jeopardy. Macintosh advocates, why, why, why?</quote>

Apple's screening of ADC applications is very lax. Some of these "developers" are just individuals who want an early look at the latest and greatest. A few of this type got hammered with the Tiger leaks, but Apple hasn't tightened up and there must still be a number whose only reason to sign the ADC NDA is to be first. What good is being first if no one knows?

It could be that if you get it out now, you can find out how it will be hacked & then fix the problem early. Also goes for viruses, so when it's offically released, you've got less problems.

Yeah, because clearly, we weren't clever enough to pull off a hardware DRM scheme.

LordRobin:

As for your last point, that the Mac install base will be majority PPC for years, and thus any DRM solution requiring an Intel-based Mac will fail, I would agree with you if the assumption that Apple will continue to make future versions of OSX fully compatible with PPC. However, I don't believe tha assumption to be true.

First, it flies in the face of past actions by Apple. This is a company all too willing to cut the strings when they see a good enough reason to do so. Usually this simply relates to profit, but sometimes they just do it to appease their media suppliers. One example of the latter; past versions of iTunes - such as the one that allowed unlimited file sharing over the web - won't work with newer versions of the MacOS, or even with the iTMS. Apple did that on purpose so the major media companies wouldn't get their panties in a knot over the possibility of illegal file sharing. For an example of the former; buying Tiger when it first came out did not grant me access to the newest iLife software - apparently I have to pay extra for that. Yet if I want to keep up with the newest features of iPhoto & iMovie, that's the imposed choice I'm given.

I would say that this is stuff you will find most corporations willing to do, so this is no special knock on Apple. However, it is no hard feat for me to imagine that once Macintels are online, Apple will start 'decontenting' the PPC versions of OSX (for as long as they actually sell such a thing) in order to get people to upgrade their hardware ASAP. They might still sell a PPC version of the OS, and the software of course, that does MOST of the things the Macintel versions can. But in order to get ALL the good stuff - to be able to be part of the iPodVideo (or whatever they'll call it) phenomena - you're S.O.L with out an x86 machine ... which will obviously have DRM.

In this sense, Apple probably believes they will be able to satisfy both constituencies - corporate demands for DRM hardware on the really juicy video-centric devices (and the OS/software they run), and those still running PPC ("Sorry guys ... here you go with the stripped down stuff, but the future is Now if you want the rest"). Personally, I think they will run into more problems than they suspect, number one being that soon enough the word will get out that PPC machines aren't ready for that kind of 'forced obsolesence'. Nevertheless, I'm sure this is the strategy Apple has in mind.

Like I posted on another occasion, Apple could be using it to let the hackers find most of the holes allowing OS X to be run on generic x86 hardware. Why pay somebody to do it when you can get it for free?

*The "Harrell Dvorak Prophesy" is sort of like Shoemaker Levy. Not as icy, but highly prone to violent collision with software's current vaporous gas giant, Microsoft. Harrell gets top billing because he called his sighting in first.

I nearly blew coffee over my monitor when I read that... Luckily, I quickly turned to the left and blew coffee on my sleeping cat... who is now in the other room, seriously pissed off at me, licking myself clean (and apparently not too fond of the taste of coffee, either!)... thanks a lot MDN. Now my pussy is mad at me! hehehe

Apple printed custom serialized DVD-ROMs for the OS X intel version and didn't tell anyone (yet). They'll be able to track down the developer who did this in no time

odyssey67: Please remove that tinfoil hat, it doesn't work, they can still read your mind

Virtual-Twin,
Thanks for the additional insight. Make the perps pay!

VirtualTwin:

You don't want to be inside my mind pal, trust me - it's an ugly scene.

Seriously though, I've been shopping this theory around for awhile, on a few different sites, and while I get the conspiracy theory cracks, I also get quite a few people who realize that it's the only explanation - thus far - that best fits available facts. NOT the publicity releases mind you, but what is documented knowledge regarding performance issues, roadmaps, supply capacity, timelines, blah blah ... you get the picture.

What comes next are the "so whats"; as in, 'The Deal is done and we all must just get over it'. My thing is that 'getting over it' in this context (in many contexts, really) is sort of like denial - that anything bad has happened, or could happen further as a result - and I just don't deal in that. Decisions have consequences, and it's never too late to make amends for a bad one.

Admitedly, it doesn't happen often - especially not in the high powered world of corporations or politics - but that doesn't mean that thinking people have to just sit back with the rest of the crowd and simply watch the train wreck. And if a miracle of reconsideration is possible, it certainly won't happen in an environment where we all tell the Emperor his new clothes look great, when in fact he's buck nekkid.

I also realize I could be completely wrong about my take on this. I'm just waiting for someone to actually provide an alternative explanation, that does more than regurgitate the Macintel Announcement's talking points. When I see it, believe me, I will throw myself on everyone's mercy and ask for forgiveness.

Until then, pass the tin foil ... I think I feel another signal coming in.