I doubt that either Longhorn or Leopard will allow you to hack into the OS's or new appz for that matter. I believe that with hardware DRM the days of piracy will soon be over. I can't imagine a developer NOT utilizing DRM once its available. Ergo end of piracy as we know of it today. I certainly expect old (nee ancient) software to work on these new DRM'ed systems/OS's, but any new software will only run after being given the OK from the DRM logic.
How MIGHT they do this (extremely speculative)?
The standard start is CPU serialization (an old method used on *NIX workstations) combined with some proven state-of-the-art encryption (Can you say quantum mechanics? You can get this technology TODAY). This is followed by the fact that the hardware DRM will execute 1-2 orders of magnitude faster then any software hack (thus your hack can never answer the DRM question fast enough, also the DRM algorithms will be sufficiently complex that you can't throw 100 CPU's at the problem (because the algorithm is woefully inefficient to parallization/vectorization algorithms)). You can also use several other tricks such as inherent (although slight) differences in each CPU's latency coupled with a random number generator (algorithm) implemented in hardware. Or another standard way is communication with an outside source (via the internet, via POTS, cell phone, wire, wireless, or satellite phone) before allowing the software to run.
I'll just a get copy of these algorithms, you say? Do you have the formula for Coke, KFC, or gold from Fort Knox? Didn't think so. But who knows, maybe your better at B&E than I am? It won't be easy like the DVD encryption algorithm (If I remember correctly, this was a matter of public record since that Nordic guy obtained a copy from the appropriate court document, geez even I can do that in 10 seconds with a copying machine).
Geez, how can I use my legally bought/licensed software on my desktop and my laptop? You won?t, just read any standard EULA, one concurrent seat. Period (unless you buy multiple licenses (CPU SN specific keys), perhaps at some nominal cost).
I'll just reverse engineer the CPU itself, you say? What if the methods (mechanical/chemical/electrical) you employ destroy the very thing you are trying to observe under your electron microscope/digital capture device? Steal a 300mm wafer (or bare CPU or photograph) from the factory? Good luck (see reference to Fort Knox above). Get your best buds at Intel to leak the algorithm? Geez, I don?t know, but since the algorithm is in HARDWARE (see above), you will have to go to the PRC (where I doubt very much that they will have the same state-of-the-art CPU capabilities that Intel has), rent a $6 billion fab and ROLL YOUR OWN (Oops, but what SN?s do I use, I don?t have access to Intel?s database of legit SN?s, now do I?).
Somehow, I just can't see that methods that have worked in the past will work going forward. The only real reason some of these strategies haven't been employed in the mainstream desktop arena today has been for the sake of backward compatibility. For example, if I recall correctly Longhorn has very specific hardware requirements (which I believe include hardware DRM)? Thus, no more new warez/appz/crackz/etc..
Now let?s talk about DARPAnet2, shall we (I can speculate on that too)?
I've always liked the idea of switching to a Mac, but never actually done it due to several compatibility issues, lack of gaming, and other stuff. But it would be ideal if I could dual-boot Windows and OS X on one machine, whether it be a Mac or a Windows machine. I would probably prefer to just put it on my built PC (for cost reasons), but if that isn't possible, (and assuming Windows runs perfectly) I would definitely make my next computer a Mac.
I think if Apple plays it smart, they'll make sure Windows runs perfectly (and easy to set up) because there are a ton of people just like me. They know their money comes from hardware and they need to give consumers as many reasons as possible to switch over. And I would assume Microsoft wouldn't care either because they would still sell the same number of copies of Windows anyway.
I think if Apple plays it smart, they'll make sure Windows runs perfectly (and easy to set up) because there are a ton of people just like me. They know their money comes from hardware and they need to give consumers as many reasons as possible to switch over. And I would assume Microsoft wouldn't care either because they would still sell the same number of copies of Windows anyway.
Apple will not make it any easier and Microsoft will have to include the Apple drivers in the OS. It's possible that it could work but I wouldn't want to run windows and Mac OS X on my Mac. Apple will not support windows and will not encourage users to install it.
But if the potatoes have bad bruises, go off quickly, don't taste good and are difficult to peel they would look for a new supplier when they run out. This is the current switcher market.
True but instead of that odd switcher who wants a new potatoe and my product why not go after everyone that has a potatoe that can still use my product. Its the numbers of the mass market. OSX is paid for. why not sell a Pc version, or a lite Pc version? Attack Windows now, not after they have longhorn. OSX is a all in one solution for a lot of folks, Windows isnt. Apple was stupid years ago for not licensing their Software years ago and are stupid now for not selling their OS to anyone and everyone....Not doing that because they want to sell a few Chineese made Macs is illogical. Yes i Know they have money in the bank.\
I think that 2-6 is realistic here. If you look at other markets (where "compatibility" is less problemenatic admittedly) you see anywhere from 2-6 "major" (and really only about 3) players:
My examples are probably in need of some tweaks, but you get the point.
But, then, we may be getting a bit ahead of ourselves here.
Okay, but it has to be more than 2. With MS we have found that the short term positive about having only one basic OS - only one code of DNA - is that things can be simpler and implemented more quickly. Just like in Nature though, simplicity creates instability. Unlike cola's that don't get viruses, both living organisms and computers need a diverse DNA to handle both "climate changes" and "viral attacks" to survive as systems in the LONG term.
All of the examples you gave are unstable, short-term situations that eventually create disease and senescence. Also drinking Coke doesn't somehow prevent you from drinking Sprite.
Apple does not compete against Linux for future IT sales. Apple and Linux compete against Microsoft for future IT sales.
Let's be clear. Linux and BSD based OS X will cooperate much better for the Fortune 100 and 500. They still have to compete against SUN, HP and IBM. This doesn't even include the Federal Markets.
The big question will be if Apple is really serious about helping taking out Microsoft and its Enterprise solutions, and be satisfied with a solid marketshare, but not a leading marketshare.
Microsoft knows Linux is eating heavily into its Enterprise Server Revenues.
Linux isn't going to be a big player in the gaming console arena.
Apple isn't going to be a big player in the gaming console arena.
The content creation and enterprise software development arenas is where Apple wants to grow. Content creation includes more than Artists. It includes all forms of media content, from the News to Hollywood.
Either way Intel has to step up and support both Apple and Linux or see AMD embrace them with future open arms.
I agree, mostly. I think that Apple has slowly been working enterprise at a low level and created good products and a good buzz and with Intel inside maybe IT dept. see one more mental block fade away. I really wonder what the server road map with Intel looks like on Jobs' desk.
This is a perfect example how an undiverse ecosystem has been proven to be inherently risky and unstable. Occasionally some company will dominate for a while but it can't last. With the current threats of crime and terrorism, the web and enterprise systems must be heterogenious. The simple free market can't simply be allowed dictate monopolistic systems or the system will be under threat. Even Linux or Apple shouldn't support it all.
True but instead of that odd switcher who wants a new potatoe and my product why not go after everyone that has a potatoe that can still use my product. Its the numbers of the mass market. OSX is paid for. why not sell a Pc version, or a lite Pc version? Attack Windows now, not after they have longhorn. OSX is a all in one solution for a lot of folks, Windows isnt. Apple was stupid years ago for not licensing their Software years ago and are stupid now for not selling their OS to anyone and everyone....Not doing that because they want to sell a few Chineese made Macs is illogical. Yes i Know they have money in the bank.\
Well that's been the issue for so long. Do you just jump in and fight it out head to head with M$? Until now, the answer was an easy "NO!" But you are correct that with Tiger now and Longhorn a long way away, this would be the best time to do so.
I hated it when Jobs cancelled the clones. It made Sony and Motorolla both kind of pissed off and that is too bad, though I know the survival of Apple required it at the time. Apple needs to sell you the solution and it HAS had brief times where its hardware and OS could kick Wintel butt. Unfortunately those times only lasted a few months and usually the hardware side would fade.
Apple can still compete on price and performance and hit both hard and give you (with all yer meally potatoes) a reason to switch, but I think Jobs felt that the only way to do so long term is to be with Intel.
So with Intel in 5 years, Apple may be able to double its market share in consumers AND make both s/w and h/w money and still be the coolest computer on the planet. (Dell, even if it comes up with its "Lexus" models will still be running XP.) And Apple thinks it will be better off with 7% of the whole widget market than 20% of the Wintel world just as a software bundle.
At least for now.
To sell Tiger to all Intel boxes now would just force M$ to start giving it away. It would hurt its profits and stock price, but a nearly free XP will still be enough to keep OSX from making many inroads and at the end of the day, what would Apple get?
Well that's been the issue for so long. Do you just jump in and fight it out head to head with M$? Until now, the answer was an easy "NO!" But you are correct that with Tiger now and Longhorn a long way away, this would be the best time to do so.
I hated it when Jobs cancelled the clones. It made Sony and Motorolla both kind of pissed off and that is too bad, though I know the survival of Apple required it at the time. Apple needs to sell you the solution and it HAS had brief times where its hardware and OS could kick Wintel butt. Unfortunately those times only lasted a few months and usually the hardware side would fade.
Apple can still compete on price and performance and hit both hard and give you (with all yer meally potatoes) a reason to switch, but I think Jobs felt that the only way to do so long term is to be with Intel.
So with Intel in 5 years, Apple may be able to double its market share in consumers AND make both s/w and h/w money and still be the coolest computer on the planet. (Dell, even if it comes up with its "Lexus" models will still be running XP.) And Apple thinks it will be better off with 7% of the whole widget market than 20% of the Wintel world just as a software bundle.
At least for now.
To sell Tiger to all Intel boxes now would just force M$ to start giving it away. It would hurt its profits and stock price, but a nearly free XP will still be enough to keep OSX from making many inroads and at the end of the day, what would Apple get?
Interesting argument but are we really sure Microsoft would give away Windows? I dont think they would , they are still seelling xbox for a loss arent they? All Apple needs to kick their arse is a Appleworks7/office thingy. Apple is the Software king in my Book but they want to sell those Chineese Made Macs. My old quicksilver made in California........those were the days though it still had a slow PPC 733. Apples Strength is its Software. what have they been waiting for? Jesus's return???
Interesting argument but are we really sure Microsoft would give away Windows? I dont think they would , they are still seelling xbox for a loss arent they? All Apple needs to kick their arse is a Appleworks7/office thingy. Apple is the Software king in my Book but they want to sell those Chineese Made Macs. My old quicksilver made in California........those were the days though it still had a slow PPC 733. Apples Strength is its Software. what have they been waiting for? Jesus's return???
I'm sorry you seem to have such an issue with the Chinese, but you may need to get over it.
The market place is hard to quantify.
Apple sells about 3% of the market, but its installed base is closer to 5% and it has recently been shown to account for over 10% of 3rd party software sales. Interesting!?!? Even with "free" iApps, Mac owners buy more software than PC owners, especially per capita.
The unwashed masses still buy cheap boxes, play some games, have free and unsecure Hotmail accounts, get Diet Pepsi by the barrel at Wal-Marts and download illegal music. How much of that market does Apple need or want. Jobs would say "None, thanks."
He does know that servers are a market worth going for and he knows media is a market worth going for and in that market he doesn't need to sell software to Dell.
I would love to peer into an alternate universe, though, in which Apple sold OSX to Dell. Just see what Microsoft would do, but I don't know yet that I want to live in that universe.
I think the OS is great. I don't care for mac hardware. I can build a killer high end PC for pretty cheap. If i'm forced to use an Intel/Mac computer cost will be alot higher.
I have no problem paying for OSX. And I would if they released it for the x86.
So... if you only want PART of a product, ethics don't matter? You're happy to steal that part?
I consider the OS the product. The rest of the Intel/Mac is just a PC with a simple restriction built into the OS preventing me from running it on other PC's.
If microsoft did that everyone would through a fit, but if apple does it it's ok. Not sure why.
If they release OSX with no restriction and I can run it on my PC I will buy it and be very happy to.
Apple will not make it any easier and Microsoft will have to include the Apple drivers in the OS. It's possible that it could work but I wouldn't want to run windows and Mac OS X on my Mac. Apple will not support windows and will not encourage users to install it.
True but instead of that odd switcher who wants a new potatoe and my product why not go after everyone that has a potatoe that can still use my product. Its the numbers of the mass market. OSX is paid for. why not sell a Pc version, or a lite Pc version? Attack Windows now, not after they have longhorn. OSX is a all in one solution for a lot of folks, Windows isnt. Apple was stupid years ago for not licensing their Software years ago and are stupid now for not selling their OS to anyone and everyone....Not doing that because they want to sell a few Chineese made Macs is illogical. Yes i Know they have money in the bank.\
Apple won't do this because there'd be no reason to buy a new potatoe, er, umm, I mean new hardware. You'd then be able to run OS X on a crappy clone. Goodbye hardware profit. Lest you forget Apple's heritage: They were born from a hardware company, so they'll never stop making Apple Hardware.
If microsoft did that everyone would through a fit, but if apple does it it's ok. Not sure why.
I don't know if I'd go through a fit for anything MS does with windows but the point is... two wrongs don't make a right.
Getting angry at MS is fine. Starting a campaign against them is fine. Boycotting them is fine. But I would NOT steal their software.
If I needed Word and they only sold Office together, I would not pirate Word just because I consider Word "a product" that isn't for sale.
But you apparently find it ethical to pirate OS X, just because you want to. Because don't like how Apple sells it only with Macs.
It is Apple's right to decide if--and when and how--they support other computer makers. It's between their shareholders, their programmers, and their marketers.
I don't think apple will ever let OS X run any any one else's computer one of there selling points on there website is quote "Only with a Mac do you find absolutely flawless integration of hardware and software. " Steve jobs said he was thinking ahead by making a intel version of OS X for the last 5 years. Wouldn't he be thinking lets not open all these stores if where going to sell the rights to dell to sell much cheaper then we are? and plus they are spending to much money opening new apple stores all over the world. just to give dell the right to make box's 300 dollars cheaper. yes some one may hack OS X and get it running on a windows pc. but not every one will be able to do that so it will not impact anything. I don't think Steve jobs is all about making money or he would not pay him self 1 dollar a year. And would have sold OS X to other company's years ago
If I can dualboot into windows when I want to play Halflife and boot back to MAC for 99% of my work. Guess what, I will be a 100% Apple customer even if there is a premium. Right now the Mac Mini is my only Mac and I really like what I get with OSX but I still use my windows PC due to games etc..
Hack? It's called VirtualPC. Microsoft owns and makes it. I predict VirtualPC for Mac Intel will ship the same day as the first Intel based Mac, no hackery involved.
Microsoft sells OS and app software. VPC allows them to sell a Windows licence, the VPC license, and whatever MS written Windows software users (legally) run. From that angle, this is a big win for MS, as they won't need(?) to jump through as many hoops to provide Wintel PC emulation on the Mac. They better just hope Windows under VPC doesn't turn out to be faster than Windows running on a native PC.
- Jasen.
VirtualPC?. You are funny!!!. No, he is right, give it a few days and a real hack will emerge, not some emulator.
I think a_greer is saying give it 6 weeks and you will be able to run OS X on your crappy dell or homebuilt PC.
I disagree. I think there will be a custom mobo with custom chipset(s). An emulator? perhaps but remember the apple legal dogs? I am sure that they have the lawsuit written already and are just waiting to fill in the blank where the name goes.
Why not?. so what if the mac will require a custom chipset?. The mac operating system will have to detect that custom chipset, it will be possible to isolate the code that has to detect the chipset, it would be possible to remove the code or alter it not to need to detect the chipset. This is just one approach, i am sure the hackers will think of many.
Comments
I doubt that either Longhorn or Leopard will allow you to hack into the OS's or new appz for that matter. I believe that with hardware DRM the days of piracy will soon be over. I can't imagine a developer NOT utilizing DRM once its available. Ergo end of piracy as we know of it today. I certainly expect old (nee ancient) software to work on these new DRM'ed systems/OS's, but any new software will only run after being given the OK from the DRM logic.
How MIGHT they do this (extremely speculative)?
The standard start is CPU serialization (an old method used on *NIX workstations) combined with some proven state-of-the-art encryption (Can you say quantum mechanics? You can get this technology TODAY). This is followed by the fact that the hardware DRM will execute 1-2 orders of magnitude faster then any software hack (thus your hack can never answer the DRM question fast enough, also the DRM algorithms will be sufficiently complex that you can't throw 100 CPU's at the problem (because the algorithm is woefully inefficient to parallization/vectorization algorithms)). You can also use several other tricks such as inherent (although slight) differences in each CPU's latency coupled with a random number generator (algorithm) implemented in hardware. Or another standard way is communication with an outside source (via the internet, via POTS, cell phone, wire, wireless, or satellite phone) before allowing the software to run.
I'll just a get copy of these algorithms, you say? Do you have the formula for Coke, KFC, or gold from Fort Knox? Didn't think so. But who knows, maybe your better at B&E than I am? It won't be easy like the DVD encryption algorithm (If I remember correctly, this was a matter of public record since that Nordic guy obtained a copy from the appropriate court document, geez even I can do that in 10 seconds with a copying machine).
Geez, how can I use my legally bought/licensed software on my desktop and my laptop? You won?t, just read any standard EULA, one concurrent seat. Period (unless you buy multiple licenses (CPU SN specific keys), perhaps at some nominal cost).
I'll just reverse engineer the CPU itself, you say? What if the methods (mechanical/chemical/electrical) you employ destroy the very thing you are trying to observe under your electron microscope/digital capture device? Steal a 300mm wafer (or bare CPU or photograph) from the factory? Good luck (see reference to Fort Knox above). Get your best buds at Intel to leak the algorithm? Geez, I don?t know, but since the algorithm is in HARDWARE (see above), you will have to go to the PRC (where I doubt very much that they will have the same state-of-the-art CPU capabilities that Intel has), rent a $6 billion fab and ROLL YOUR OWN (Oops, but what SN?s do I use, I don?t have access to Intel?s database of legit SN?s, now do I?).
Somehow, I just can't see that methods that have worked in the past will work going forward. The only real reason some of these strategies haven't been employed in the mainstream desktop arena today has been for the sake of backward compatibility. For example, if I recall correctly Longhorn has very specific hardware requirements (which I believe include hardware DRM)? Thus, no more new warez/appz/crackz/etc..
Now let?s talk about DARPAnet2, shall we (I can speculate on that too)?
I think if Apple plays it smart, they'll make sure Windows runs perfectly (and easy to set up) because there are a ton of people just like me. They know their money comes from hardware and they need to give consumers as many reasons as possible to switch over. And I would assume Microsoft wouldn't care either because they would still sell the same number of copies of Windows anyway.
Originally posted by albrad84
I think if Apple plays it smart, they'll make sure Windows runs perfectly (and easy to set up) because there are a ton of people just like me. They know their money comes from hardware and they need to give consumers as many reasons as possible to switch over. And I would assume Microsoft wouldn't care either because they would still sell the same number of copies of Windows anyway.
Apple will not make it any easier and Microsoft will have to include the Apple drivers in the OS. It's possible that it could work but I wouldn't want to run windows and Mac OS X on my Mac. Apple will not support windows and will not encourage users to install it.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
But if the potatoes have bad bruises, go off quickly, don't taste good and are difficult to peel they would look for a new supplier when they run out. This is the current switcher market.
True but instead of that odd switcher who wants a new potatoe and my product why not go after everyone that has a potatoe that can still use my product. Its the numbers of the mass market. OSX is paid for. why not sell a Pc version, or a lite Pc version? Attack Windows now, not after they have longhorn. OSX is a all in one solution for a lot of folks, Windows isnt. Apple was stupid years ago for not licensing their Software years ago and are stupid now for not selling their OS to anyone and everyone....Not doing that because they want to sell a few Chineese made Macs is illogical. Yes i Know they have money in the bank.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think that 2-6 is realistic here. If you look at other markets (where "compatibility" is less problemenatic admittedly) you see anywhere from 2-6 "major" (and really only about 3) players:
Soft Drinks: Coke & Pepsi
Cars: GM, Ford, Toyota, Daimler-Chrysler, Nissan, Honda
TV: ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox
Newspapers in any big city...2...3 max.
Computers: HP, Dell, Lenevo(IBM), Sony
Airlines: United, American, Delta
Why not OSes?
My examples are probably in need of some tweaks, but you get the point.
But, then, we may be getting a bit ahead of ourselves here.
Okay, but it has to be more than 2. With MS we have found that the short term positive about having only one basic OS - only one code of DNA - is that things can be simpler and implemented more quickly. Just like in Nature though, simplicity creates instability. Unlike cola's that don't get viruses, both living organisms and computers need a diverse DNA to handle both "climate changes" and "viral attacks" to survive as systems in the LONG term.
All of the examples you gave are unstable, short-term situations that eventually create disease and senescence. Also drinking Coke doesn't somehow prevent you from drinking Sprite.
Analogies sometimes don't work so good.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
Apple does not compete against Linux for future IT sales. Apple and Linux compete against Microsoft for future IT sales.
Let's be clear. Linux and BSD based OS X will cooperate much better for the Fortune 100 and 500. They still have to compete against SUN, HP and IBM. This doesn't even include the Federal Markets.
The big question will be if Apple is really serious about helping taking out Microsoft and its Enterprise solutions, and be satisfied with a solid marketshare, but not a leading marketshare.
Microsoft knows Linux is eating heavily into its Enterprise Server Revenues.
Linux isn't going to be a big player in the gaming console arena.
Apple isn't going to be a big player in the gaming console arena.
The content creation and enterprise software development arenas is where Apple wants to grow. Content creation includes more than Artists. It includes all forms of media content, from the News to Hollywood.
Either way Intel has to step up and support both Apple and Linux or see AMD embrace them with future open arms.
I agree, mostly. I think that Apple has slowly been working enterprise at a low level and created good products and a good buzz and with Intel inside maybe IT dept. see one more mental block fade away. I really wonder what the server road map with Intel looks like on Jobs' desk.
This is a perfect example how an undiverse ecosystem has been proven to be inherently risky and unstable. Occasionally some company will dominate for a while but it can't last. With the current threats of crime and terrorism, the web and enterprise systems must be heterogenious. The simple free market can't simply be allowed dictate monopolistic systems or the system will be under threat. Even Linux or Apple shouldn't support it all.
Originally posted by Aurora
True but instead of that odd switcher who wants a new potatoe and my product why not go after everyone that has a potatoe that can still use my product. Its the numbers of the mass market. OSX is paid for. why not sell a Pc version, or a lite Pc version? Attack Windows now, not after they have longhorn. OSX is a all in one solution for a lot of folks, Windows isnt. Apple was stupid years ago for not licensing their Software years ago and are stupid now for not selling their OS to anyone and everyone....Not doing that because they want to sell a few Chineese made Macs is illogical. Yes i Know they have money in the bank.
Well that's been the issue for so long. Do you just jump in and fight it out head to head with M$? Until now, the answer was an easy "NO!" But you are correct that with Tiger now and Longhorn a long way away, this would be the best time to do so.
I hated it when Jobs cancelled the clones. It made Sony and Motorolla both kind of pissed off and that is too bad, though I know the survival of Apple required it at the time. Apple needs to sell you the solution and it HAS had brief times where its hardware and OS could kick Wintel butt. Unfortunately those times only lasted a few months and usually the hardware side would fade.
Apple can still compete on price and performance and hit both hard and give you (with all yer meally potatoes) a reason to switch, but I think Jobs felt that the only way to do so long term is to be with Intel.
So with Intel in 5 years, Apple may be able to double its market share in consumers AND make both s/w and h/w money and still be the coolest computer on the planet. (Dell, even if it comes up with its "Lexus" models will still be running XP.) And Apple thinks it will be better off with 7% of the whole widget market than 20% of the Wintel world just as a software bundle.
At least for now.
To sell Tiger to all Intel boxes now would just force M$ to start giving it away. It would hurt its profits and stock price, but a nearly free XP will still be enough to keep OSX from making many inroads and at the end of the day, what would Apple get?
Originally posted by MacGregor
Well that's been the issue for so long. Do you just jump in and fight it out head to head with M$? Until now, the answer was an easy "NO!" But you are correct that with Tiger now and Longhorn a long way away, this would be the best time to do so.
I hated it when Jobs cancelled the clones. It made Sony and Motorolla both kind of pissed off and that is too bad, though I know the survival of Apple required it at the time. Apple needs to sell you the solution and it HAS had brief times where its hardware and OS could kick Wintel butt. Unfortunately those times only lasted a few months and usually the hardware side would fade.
Apple can still compete on price and performance and hit both hard and give you (with all yer meally potatoes) a reason to switch, but I think Jobs felt that the only way to do so long term is to be with Intel.
So with Intel in 5 years, Apple may be able to double its market share in consumers AND make both s/w and h/w money and still be the coolest computer on the planet. (Dell, even if it comes up with its "Lexus" models will still be running XP.) And Apple thinks it will be better off with 7% of the whole widget market than 20% of the Wintel world just as a software bundle.
At least for now.
To sell Tiger to all Intel boxes now would just force M$ to start giving it away. It would hurt its profits and stock price, but a nearly free XP will still be enough to keep OSX from making many inroads and at the end of the day, what would Apple get?
Interesting argument but are we really sure Microsoft would give away Windows? I dont think they would , they are still seelling xbox for a loss arent they? All Apple needs to kick their arse is a Appleworks7/office thingy. Apple is the Software king in my Book but they want to sell those Chineese Made Macs.
Originally posted by Aurora
Interesting argument but are we really sure Microsoft would give away Windows? I dont think they would , they are still seelling xbox for a loss arent they? All Apple needs to kick their arse is a Appleworks7/office thingy. Apple is the Software king in my Book but they want to sell those Chineese Made Macs.
I'm sorry you seem to have such an issue with the Chinese, but you may need to get over it.
The market place is hard to quantify.
Apple sells about 3% of the market, but its installed base is closer to 5% and it has recently been shown to account for over 10% of 3rd party software sales. Interesting!?!? Even with "free" iApps, Mac owners buy more software than PC owners, especially per capita.
The unwashed masses still buy cheap boxes, play some games, have free and unsecure Hotmail accounts, get Diet Pepsi by the barrel at Wal-Marts and download illegal music. How much of that market does Apple need or want. Jobs would say "None, thanks."
He does know that servers are a market worth going for and he knows media is a market worth going for and in that market he doesn't need to sell software to Dell.
I would love to peer into an alternate universe, though, in which Apple sold OSX to Dell. Just see what Microsoft would do, but I don't know yet that I want to live in that universe.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Why do you want to do this?
I think the OS is great. I don't care for mac hardware. I can build a killer high end PC for pretty cheap. If i'm forced to use an Intel/Mac computer cost will be alot higher.
I have no problem paying for OSX. And I would if they released it for the x86.
Originally posted by nagromme
So... if you only want PART of a product, ethics don't matter? You're happy to steal that part?
I consider the OS the product. The rest of the Intel/Mac is just a PC with a simple restriction built into the OS preventing me from running it on other PC's.
If microsoft did that everyone would through a fit, but if apple does it it's ok. Not sure why.
If they release OSX with no restriction and I can run it on my PC I will buy it and be very happy to.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Apple will not make it any easier and Microsoft will have to include the Apple drivers in the OS. It's possible that it could work but I wouldn't want to run windows and Mac OS X on my Mac. Apple will not support windows and will not encourage users to install it.
IT'S BEEN CONFIRMED
The Intel Mac developer kits boot XP.
Originally posted by Aurora
True but instead of that odd switcher who wants a new potatoe and my product why not go after everyone that has a potatoe that can still use my product. Its the numbers of the mass market. OSX is paid for. why not sell a Pc version, or a lite Pc version? Attack Windows now, not after they have longhorn. OSX is a all in one solution for a lot of folks, Windows isnt. Apple was stupid years ago for not licensing their Software years ago and are stupid now for not selling their OS to anyone and everyone....Not doing that because they want to sell a few Chineese made Macs is illogical. Yes i Know they have money in the bank.
Apple won't do this because there'd be no reason to buy a new potatoe, er, umm, I mean new hardware. You'd then be able to run OS X on a crappy clone. Goodbye hardware profit. Lest you forget Apple's heritage: They were born from a hardware company, so they'll never stop making Apple Hardware.
Originally posted by Placebo
IT'S BEEN CONFIRMED
The Intel Mac developer kits boot XP.
Link please? So far, all I've seen is some one-off comment on another message board by someone I don't recognize.
Originally posted by archer75
If microsoft did that everyone would through a fit, but if apple does it it's ok. Not sure why.
I don't know if I'd go through a fit for anything MS does with windows
Getting angry at MS is fine. Starting a campaign against them is fine. Boycotting them is fine. But I would NOT steal their software.
If I needed Word and they only sold Office together, I would not pirate Word just because I consider Word "a product" that isn't for sale.
But you apparently find it ethical to pirate OS X, just because you want to. Because don't like how Apple sells it only with Macs.
It is Apple's right to decide if--and when and how--they support other computer makers. It's between their shareholders, their programmers, and their marketers.
Tell Apple what you want, here:
http://apple.com/feedback
But if they don't do what you want, it doesn't give anyone the right to pirate their work.
Originally posted by jasenj1
Hack? It's called VirtualPC. Microsoft owns and makes it. I predict VirtualPC for Mac Intel will ship the same day as the first Intel based Mac, no hackery involved.
Microsoft sells OS and app software. VPC allows them to sell a Windows licence, the VPC license, and whatever MS written Windows software users (legally) run. From that angle, this is a big win for MS, as they won't need(?) to jump through as many hoops to provide Wintel PC emulation on the Mac. They better just hope Windows under VPC doesn't turn out to be faster than Windows running on a native PC.
- Jasen.
VirtualPC?. You are funny!!!. No, he is right, give it a few days and a real hack will emerge, not some emulator.
Originally posted by TednDi
Um,
I think a_greer is saying give it 6 weeks and you will be able to run OS X on your crappy dell or homebuilt PC.
I disagree. I think there will be a custom mobo with custom chipset(s). An emulator? perhaps but remember the apple legal dogs? I am sure that they have the lawsuit written already and are just waiting to fill in the blank where the name goes.
Why not?. so what if the mac will require a custom chipset?. The mac operating system will have to detect that custom chipset, it will be possible to isolate the code that has to detect the chipset, it would be possible to remove the code or alter it not to need to detect the chipset. This is just one approach, i am sure the hackers will think of many.