Apple rumored to disable Atom support with Mac OS X 10.6.2

[AppleInsider]

Mac OS X 10.6.2, the forthcoming update for Apple's Snow Leopard operating system, is reported to disable support for the Intel Atom processor, preventing unauthorized PC netbooks from running the operating system.

Users at OS X Daily claim that Mac OS X 10.6.2 prevents Snow Leopard from running on systems with Atom processors. No official Apple products use the low-cost, low-power chip from Intel. For now, users on unauthorized Atom machines are recommended to stay with Mac OS X 10.6.1.

"You can't help but suspect this move is Apple's attempt at shutting down the growing and popular Hackintosh Netbook community, since Apple has no product line that runs the Atom itself," the report said. "Mac OS X runs absolutely flawlessly on much of the PC Netbook hardware, once it's configured you wouldn"t know you’re not on a Mac. Maybe it’s in effort to kill the Atom Hackintoh Netbooks in anticipation of the rumored Tablet? Or maybe it’s something totally unrelated?"

The news is another example of Apple fending off systems with unauthorized installs of Mac OS X. Florida-based clone Mac maker Psystar has been engaged in a lawsuit with Apple for some time, as the Cupertino, Calif., company has alleged that Psystar's selling of systems with Mac OS X is in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Starting in October, Psystar began selling a $50 software hack to allow users to install Snow Leopard on some Intel-powered unauthorized PCs. The Rebel EFI software provided support for Intel Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, i7 or Xeon Nehalem processors.

In the non-commercial world of "Hackintosh" systems, some users were able to install Snow Leopard on inexpensive netbook computers, like the Dell Mini 10v. Launched in 2008, the Intel Atom processor is intended for sub-notebooks and ultra-mobile PCs.

Last year, one high-ranking Intel executive publicly vouched for the Atom processor to be used on Apple's long-rumored tablet device. The 10-inch touchscreen device, expected to arrive in the first quarter of 2010, is believed to originally be intended to run on the Atom processor upon conception. But after the $278 million buyout of fabless chip designer P.A. Semi, it is believed that Apple began to design its own ARM-based processors and abandoned the Atom.

Mac OS X 10.6.2, the forthcoming update for Snow Leopard, will update nearly 150 components of the operating system. The latest beta, released last week, addressed issues with the Dock, ColorSync, QuartzCore and graphic driver components.

[Mazda 3s]

Just shows you that people want cheap OS X machines

If I'm not mistaken, the Dell Mini 9/10 works PERFECTLY as an OS X machine and can be had for under $300. Can't argue with that

[kotatsu]

I see Netbooks everywhere. Apple are missing a trick by not selling an official OSX Atom based netbook.

[afishertx]

I guess i'll have to stay at 10.6.1 on my Dell Mini 9!

[ltcommander.data]

Not supporting non-Mac OS X installs is one thing and I support going after third parties trying to make money off selling OS X like Psystar, but actively targeting the hackintosh community doesn't seem a good choice. Tinkerers can often be the best supporter of a platform, especially through word of mouth, and the fact that OS X can run so flawlessly on netbooks can only be positive publicity. Whereas, actively thwarting the hackintosh community, who aren't really making money doing it, really only makes negative press. Given that Apple's target market is those looking for ease of use (ie. not tinkerers) and OS X market share is continuing to grow, it's doubtful that the hackintosh community is making a huge dent on Apple's bottom line.

[monstrosity]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

For now, users on unauthorized Atom machines are recommended to stay with Mac OS X 10.6.1.

I dont think Appleinsider should be encouraging thieves.

[Gwydion]

Originally Posted by monstrosity

I dont think Appleinsider should be encouraging thieves.

Thieves?

[solsun]

Originally Posted by kotatsu

I see Netbooks everywhere. Apple are missing a trick by not selling an official OSX Atom based netbook.

That depends, would you rather sell 3 million highly profitable $1000+ computers per quarter and make a lot of money. OR would you prefer to sell 9 million dirt cheap $300 netbooks and make nothing?

[OnePotato]

Originally Posted by ltcommander.data

Not supporting non-Mac OS X installs is one thing and I support going after third parties trying to make money off selling OS X like Psystar, but actively targeting the hackintosh community doesn't seem a good choice. Tinkerers can often be the best supporter of a platform, especially through word of mouth, and the fact that OS X can run so flawlessly on netbooks can only be positive publicity. Whereas, actively thwarting the hackintosh community, who aren't really making money doing it, really only makes negative press. Given that Apple's target market is those looking for ease of use (ie. not tinkerers) and OS X market share is continuing to grow, it's doubtful that the hackintosh community is making a huge dent on Apple's bottom line.

So basically what you're saying is that it won't make a big dent in Apple's profits if they tick off people who are not buying Apple hardware and just want to run Mac OS X on the cheapest hardware they can find.

[Quadra 610]

Apple's numbers dont suggest the "hackintosh community" has any bearing whatsoever on Mac sales. They're inconsequential from a market perspective. And they have no voice because they're corcumventing Apple's rules. And when it comes to the Psystar case, it miht not reflect too ell on Apple that Apple is actively pursusing Psystar while taking no measures of their own to at least make a show of putting in place mechanisms that prevent unauthorized use elsewhere. Apple's not going to actively go after hackintosh users legally, but there's no reason thehy shouldn't make it more difficult for others to circumvent Apple's measures.

Again, if it won't reflect in the numbers, it won't really matter. All of this assumes the update actually breaks compatibility or otherwise disable's support. So far it's unsubstantiated.

Hackintosh hobbyists have always operated outside of Apple's rules and have been unsupported and unendorsed by Apple, save for acting as guinea pigs by testing new and different hardware, perhaps. They're aware of the risks. Now they might actually materialize. Apple is within their rights.

Whatever happens, the bulk of Apple's market will baerly notice. Hackintoshes are an enthusiast phenomenon confined to small corners of the internet. It's unauthorized tinkering. Unfortunately, there aren't enough hackintosh users to make a market impact one way or another, but there certainly are enough to make Apple seem hypocritical when it comes to enforcing its own policies.

This is just a rumour for now, anyway, But it's no big deal. Hackintosh users will find a way around this, should it materialize. They've been doing exactly that up until now.

Some of them, however, might actually have to get a Mac like the rest of us.

As for the netbook market, Apple missed nothing. They completely crushed the notion of missing anything about it. Apple bypassed the entire netbook market and no one even cared. What did consumers do? Hand them more record quarters. In a recession.

So much for netbooks.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by solsun

That depends, would you rather sell 3 million highly profitable $1000+ computers per quarter and make a lot of money. OR would you prefer to sell 9 million dirt cheap $300 netbooks and make nothing?

I don't know if anyone is expecting Apple to sell one for $300. It seems they can make one for $500 and wipe out that market. I do get the demand, it's not an ideal machine, but really, nothing is. There is a gulf between the 3.5" and 13" screens, I can picture a lot of uses that can be comfortably served somewhere roughly halfway between.

[Gwydion]

Originally Posted by OnePotato

and just want to run Mac OS X on the cheapest hardware they can find.

Cheapest hardware or better suited hardware to do the job.

[ivan.rnn01]

This means tablet OS is ready. It's rather Mac OS, not iPhone OS. And Tablet is not Atom-based device.

[Gwydion]

Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01

This means tablet OS is ready. It's rather Mac OS, not iPhone OS. And Tablet is not Atom-based device.

This is a big logic jump

[mdfetof]

What I want to know is whether 10.6.2 will stop my Apple Mail from frequently crashing when I add an attachment to a message. It never happened before Snow Leopard

[aiolos]

Originally Posted by solsun

That depends, would you rather sell 3 million highly profitable $1000+ computers per quarter and make a lot of money. OR would you prefer to sell 9 million dirt cheap $300 netbooks and make nothing?

While I don't disagree that netbooks do not make manufacturers a lot of money, they do have the advantage of getting a wider range of consumers than Apple already has. Even if Apple came out with a dirt cheap netbook that didn't make them that much money, they would still be attracting a host of new users that have never made the switch because they thought Macs were too expensive. It's a great strategy to get people hooked into the world of OS X, [fanboy]because once you go Mac, you don't go back[/fanboy], so they can lock in future customers.

[Mazda 3s]

Originally Posted by OnePotato

So basically what you're saying is that it won't make a big dent in Apple's profits if they tick off people who are not buying Apple hardware and just want to run Mac OS X on the cheapest hardware they can find.

I don't follow your logic. These people weren't going to buy a Mac anyway because they are priced too high. So if anything, Apple is still making out OK if these people are using a retail copy of Leopard or Snow Leopard that they purchased to do a Hackintosh mod.

So would Apple rather:

1) Not get ANY money whatsoever from those looking for OS X on a budget?
2) Get a bit of extra money from those that buy OS X and install it themselves on a netbook?
3) Do it the Apple way, piss off a small subset of the tinkerer base, and not get any money whatsoever from it?

[coolfactor]

Originally Posted by Gwydion

Thieves?

Yes. The cost of developing and maintaining OS X is covered by the sale of hardware. Apple was overly generous to sell Snow Leopard at such a bargain price.

[Gwydion]

Originally Posted by coolfactor

Yes. The cost of developing and maintaining OS X is covered by the sale of hardware. Apple was overly generous to sell Snow Leopard at such a bargain price.

So, why Apple sell it in stores?

[coolfactor]

Originally Posted by Gwydion

So, why Apple sell it in stores?

For existing Mac users. The end-user license agreement states this clearly at the very top.

SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR MAC OS X
Single Use, Family Pack and Leopard Upgrade Licenses for use on Apple-branded Systems

In case you didn't get that.... "Apple-branded systems".

http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx106.pdf

[daniel84]

Building a hackintosh requires lots of patience and a fair bit of technical know how. Most people wouldn't even bother trying, so why not let the tinkerers tinker.

I know there are lots of downloadable custom build's of OS X out there but if you actually look at a good hackintosh tutorial, a lot of them use a retail disc to install from. I say as long you paid for that disc and only intend to use it privately, why not?

[rhowarth]

Originally Posted by coolfactor

Yes. The cost of developing and maintaining OS X is covered by the sale of hardware. Apple was overly generous to sell Snow Leopard at such a bargain price.

Exactly. If you want to know what the full retail cost of an operating system is (neither an upgrade nor bundled with a hardware sale) you only need to look at Windows.

Just because there's very little stopping you installing a Snow Leopard upgrade on non-Apple hardware that doesn't mean you aren't still infringing copyright.

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by daniel84

Building a hackintosh requires lots of patience and a fair bit of technical know how. Most people wouldn't even bother trying, so why not let the tinkerers tinker.

It could certainly make Apple look like hypocrites in principle when it comes to the Psystar case.

Hackintosh users are copyright infringers. Apple does not need to go after them legally, but it would make sense for Apple to be seen as attempting to take steps to secure their rights.

[hittrj01]

Originally Posted by Gwydion

So, why Apple sell it in stores?

Does anyone even understand this question, let alone the grammar used to ask it?

[Hudson1]

A couple of points worth mentioning:

1) We don't know what proportion of hackintosh users actually bought OS X for their computers. Let's not automatically assume Apple is giving up a big chunk of OS sales on this one.

2) I've yet to hear a strong argument for how it hurts Apple to thwart hackintosh installations. If it doesn't, in fact, hurt Apple to do this then why wouldn't they try to shut it down or at least curtain the activity?

[hittrj01]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

It could certainly make Apple look like hypocrites in principle when it comes to the Psystar case.

Hackintosh users are copyright infringers. Apple does not need to go after them legally, but it would make sense for Apple to be seen as attempting to take steps to secure their rights.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I agree that Apple should take measure against anyone breaking an EULA, but Hackintoshers aren't trying to make a profit off of anything, they're just doing it as a hobby for the most part. Psystar is trying to make money off of Apple's IP. That is against the law, not just Apple's license agreement.

[lkrupp]

Originally Posted by ltcommander.data

Tinkerers can often be the best supporter of a platform, especially through word of mouth...

I would strongly disagree. Tinkerers, as you call them, are generally regarded as weirdos by their families and neighbors. They usually have ultra-inflated egos, tend to turn off people rather than influence them, and are true bores. The more they tell you how tech savvy they are the more you know they aren't. So whatever they recommend is considered to be too complicated to use by the average Joe. The old Saturday Night Live "Your Company's Computer Guy" skit about sums them up.

So, no, they are not good for any platform let alone Apple.

[rhowarth]

Originally Posted by daniel84

I say as long you paid for that disc and only intend to use it privately, why not?

Because it's an upgrade - not a full retail copy. You're only allowed to use it to upgrade a machine with an existing licensed copy of Mac OS X on it. If you copy it other than in accordance with the license that's illegal and no different from any other breach of copyright.

[wobegon]

So Apple is 'dropping support' for hardware...that they never said they supported in the first place. [Insert hyperbole here]

[daniel84]

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

It could certainly make Apple look like hypocrites in principle when it comes to the Psystar case.

That's true but then again I wasn't trying to defend Psystar.

I've owned a number of different Macs (a PowerMac, a mini, two iMacs and two MacBook Pros) over the years as well as several iPods and an iPhone. I now have a hackintosh too for which I bought the Mac Box Set. Am I really ripping Apple off? I know that strictly speaking, YES I AM. But, I will still buy Apple hardware in future.

If anything I consider my hackintosh experience to be more of an experiment than anything. Mind you, it makes for a very good encoding machine.

[Mazda 3s]

Originally Posted by lkrupp

I would strongly disagree. Tinkerers, as you call them, are generally regarded as weirdos by their families and neighbors. They usually have ultra-inflated egos, tend to turn off people rather than influence them, and are true bores. The more they tell you how tech savvy they are the more you know they aren't. So whatever they recommend is considered to be too complicated to use by the average Joe. The old Saturday Night Live "Your Company's Computer Guy" skit about sums them up.

So, no, they are not good for any platform let alone Apple.

WOW... just WOW! Can you tell me tonight's Lotto numbers as well? Sheesh, I try my best not to pigeonhole or label people, but I guess someone people just can't help themselves.

[daniel84]

Originally Posted by rhowarth

Because it's an upgrade - not a full retail copy. You're only allowed to use it to upgrade a machine with an existing copy of Mac OS X.

Actually I bought the Mac Box Set for exactly that reason.

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by ltcommander.data

NTinkerers can often be the best supporter of a platform,

They *can*, if they recommend people buy Macs instead of running them on unauthorized hardware.

Do you honestly see that happening? Or is it more likely they'll try to get everyone else they know to run OS X on the cheap on the hardware of their choice?

Running OS X on unauthorized hardware is not supporting Apple.

[ivan.rnn01]

Originally Posted by Gwydion

This is a big logic jump

Possibly so. Yet any other explanations seem to explain even less.

[daniel84]

Originally Posted by lkrupp

I would strongly disagree. Tinkerers, as you call them, are generally regarded as weirdos by their families and neighbors.

Talk about blanket statements!!

I'm a weirdo... so be it.

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by daniel84

If anything I consider my hackintosh experience to be more of an experiment than anything. Mind you, it makes for a very good encoding machine.

And this is the right attitude. But there comes a point when Apple can't necessarily be expected to distinguish between "experiments" and other uses. Not that you're asking them to, anyway.

[TBell]

Arguably, Apple has a much weaker case against consumers who buy a legal copy of OSX, and then put it on a Hackintosh. The consumer, however, must be doing it for non-commercial purposes. Psystar's problem is it is actually trying to make a buck off of infringing Apple's copyright.

However, for most users to buy a legal copy of OSX they must buy the $169 copy if they don't already own a Mac. Most Hackintosh people will tell you what they are doing is OK because they paid Apple $29 for the OS. Problem is that Apple specifically states that that is an update version for people switching from Leopard. The $169 version is the full install version. So, if you paid Apple $169 for the OS, you have a much stronger case for what you are doing is reasonable.

Originally Posted by Quadra 610

Hackintosh users are copyright infringers. Apple does not need to go after them legally, but it would make sense for Apple to be seen as attempting to take steps to secure their rights.

[zunx]

Apple should make a small and pocketable full Mac, like the OQO or the Vaio P. 350 g would be awesome. No more than 600 g. Video-out and USB 2 ports for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations from NATIVE files. Thus, an Intel Atom is required instead of the ARM processor.

[Quadra 610]

Originally Posted by TBell

Arguably, Apple has a much weaker case against consumers who buy a legal copy of OSX, and then put it on a Hackintosh. The consumer, however, must be doing it for non-commercial purposes. Psystar's problem is it is actually trying to make a buck off of infringing Apple's copyright.

However, for most users to buy a legal copy of OSX they must buy the $169 copy if they don't already own a Mac. Most Hackintosh people will tell you what they are doing is OK because they paid Apple $29 for the OS. Problem is that Apple specifically states that that is an update version for people switching from Leopard. The $169 version is the full install version. So, if you paid Apple $169 for the OS, you have a much stronger case for what you are doing is reasonable.

Absolutely. Apple isn't going to go after them legally. But making it harder for them to install OS X on unauthorized hardware is a different matter. At the very least, it sends a message. You really can't preach copyright infrongemnt in front of Psystar when you take no steps in principle to address other forms of infringement.

The community will find a way around the issue (I'm assuming, anyway), but it's not Apple's job to make life easier for them.

[cheesy mogul]

Originally Posted by monstrosity

I dont think Appleinsider should be encouraging thieves.

I don't think you can call someone a thief, who takes the effort to figure it out how to run his favorite OS on a computer model category Apple is obviously too lazy to offer!
No matter how thin the MBA is, a 13" screen notebook is NOT a netbook .

Apple thinks they know what people want, but the exploding number of netbook hackintoshs proof them WRONG!
There is only one effective hackintosh prevention: Bring that damn small footprint netbook/tablet people are waiting for, or shut up! If you don't deliver, people will fix that problem for themselves.

You have no idea how many times I've been tempted to buy a netbook and put OSX on the damn thing. With Win 7 looking not too bad at all, my patience and Apple loyalty stands on its last leg.

And this is coming from someone who has never owned a Windows machine before, and even dares to say her 8-core Mac Pro is worth every penny.