“It could be nothing, of course. Or Apple could be about to strike out in a radically different direction than the one that has guided the rest of the computer industry towards cheaper, less capable versions of the notebook computers,” Caulfield writes.
“Making it more difficult to get an Atom-powered machine running OS X might be a sign Apple is preparing to introduce its own mobile processors, built around the technology it acquired from P.A. Semi in 2008,” Caulfield writes. “A powerful, power-sipping processor could be ideal for the long-rumored Apple tablet computer.”
Full article here.
Could be but(t) then again maybe not. Trolling for hits MDN?
Err.. for the same reason that Apple is vigorously pursuing Pystar, maybe? You know, Apple being a HARDWARE company, making most of their profits from HARDWARE, and maybe not wanting people buying HARDWARE from other companies, only to run Apple’s OS on it. Like, duh.
Why doesn’t Apple’s Mac OS X 10.6.2 work on Atom processors?
They’re not Macs.
All of a sudden Caufield is interested in the future of Apple?
Why, when he’s always viewed them as an impediment to progress.
The tech blogging community has reached a point where the validity of content is not even a top 5 consideration when publishing. It’s a 5 – 10 word title designed to pull in the maximum number of eyeballs followed up by 200 words of absolute nonsense.
Makes sense. If Pystar rises the question of Apple allowing the netbooks to work with hardware that Apple does use. Well, could hurt there case. Seems reasonable.
That must have been an eye opening event for some. Noooooooo, my HACKINTOSH will not boot! Hope they backed up there data before.
Well if they aren’t planning to use them why support them. If they plan to introduce their own device (oh really there’s a shock)using their own processor then that would double the reason to cut out competition. You can certainly argue an alternative translation but this would be the most likely. If there are going to be services available that others will find difficult to compete with then it would be sensible to make those unique services difficult to exploit in the way that for example Palm have been doing with itunes.
@ngc
I disagree, there’s a difference btwn a personal hobby and psystar’s for-profit approach.
I think Psystar sells net/crapbooks running OS X.
Their, there, they’re. Come on you Mac users – get it right. Or is that write?
Let’s give enough doubts around to discourage all these fancy hackers!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” /> Fear’s has often been a pretty good psychological tool anyway…
G4Dualie, I think you misunderstood the point being made. If Apple allows OSX to run on hardware it does not build, how can it argue – <u>in court</u> – that this is not a valid use of the software? Apple is trying to tell the court that the end-user agreement prohibits the use of the software on equipment not made by Apple – even if it is essentially identical. Their appearance of veracity could be hurt if Pystar can show that the OS runs on hardware that is quite different from that made by Apple.
There’s no specific Hobby/For-Profit differentiation here.
Did anyone yet think about the 10.6 EULA?
Read it sometime.
I agree with Think.
If these Jokers want to run Mac OS and software, buy a Mac.
If not, well tough luck buster.
No offense to Buster.
“Why doesn’t Apple’s Mac OS X 10.6.2 work on Atom processors ?”
Why should it ???
Reading waaaay too much into this. Apple doesn’t care whether 10.6.2 works on Atom processors or not.
10.6.2 runs very snappy on my iMac.
I believe it’s much more than a “small community of hobbyists”. That is why Apple is trying to shut this Atom party down. People are running OS X on netbooks simply because Apple does not offer the same product. A lot of people want a 2.5 lb netbook running OS X for $300-400. The MacBook Air starts at $1499. The iPhone is $199 with a two year contract but is not a netbook. Maybe the iTablet will fill this void but what is it going to cost and will it be something netbook user will want to purchase instead? Will it need a wireless provider contract or be optional if it includes WiFi.
Why?? Who gives a damn why??
Atom processors have nothing to with Macs and Apple wants nothing to do with them anyway.
Apple pursuing Psystar in court while doing nothing about individuals who do the same thing on a smaller scale is hypocrisy. If Apple won’t pursue them in court then at least they can put a few more safeguards in place and act in the spirit of their own policies.
End of story.
@DL
G4Dualie, I think you misunderstood the point being made.
I disagree with you both, now. That’s why I said what I said. Let me put this in context for you both.
For those of you new to Apple, let me point out that Apple is not DRM-centric with their software and never has been, with one exception, their Pro apps, and that’s a recent change in policy born of a need to protect themselves from the corporate communists.
Admittedly, there may have been a time, in the late Eighties or Nineties when Apple required you to serialize your Apple software installs, but Steve Jobs countermanded that policy when he returned.
Steve and Woz were pirates and truly believed that if you could circumvent the system by any means you did so, but never for evil, only good.
There were no keys or jump-through-hoop-steps to install Apple software, except for those apps that have the potential to make the owner/pirate money.
In some respects, I believe it has been Apple’s policy to “allow or at least look the other way” where pirating Apple software is concerned. The Jolly Roger flew over the Apple campus to send a clear message that the pirate spirit will prevail.
Of course, that policy has been a bit more restrictive for apps like FCP, Shake, Logic, etc., but not for Mac OS X, why is that? Because I believe Apple accepts the fact that people are going to circumvent the system despite efforts to thwart thievery and Apple is not going to pursue individual piracy in course of everyday business.
Apple isn’t interested in Joe Sixpack if he decides to install an illegally obtained copy of iLife or Mac OS X on their Macs, but they will pursue with gusto, anyone who thinks they can leech off Apple’s IP for their own personal and financial gain.
That’s just how I see it. I could be wrong though.
@spyinthesky
If there are going to be services available that others will find difficult to compete with then it would be sensible to make those unique services difficult to exploit in the way that for example Palm have been doing with itunes.
Thanks, that resonates with me.
Would love to see Macs powered by ARM myself!
I totally fail to see the reason for any comment on this question.
Apple doesn’t support the Atom processor because they don’t use it in any of their products. End of story.
No one ever asked why Ford doesn’t support the Chrysler V8 in the Mustang. I’d love it if Apple supported the Digital Alpha chips in Snow Leopard, but they don’t use them either.
From what I heard on one of Leo LaPorte’s podcasts, the Atom processor still works with OSX. It was a bug in a developer release that didn’t work and the support for the Atom was quickly fixed.
@G4Dualie
For what it’s worth, I agree with your interpretation of the Apple corporate philosophy under Jobs. It is one of the many reasons that I prefer Macs over Windows PCs. Whether we deserve it or not, Apple “trusts” most Mac users to behave ethically. Microsoft doesn’t, but it’s DRM techniques appear to be widely undermined, so the end effect is the same. Those who want to cheat will cheat.