That's not what it says on the package, outside or inside. You *can* install it as an upgrade on a system currently running Leopard (or Tiger, for that matter, since the earliest MacBooks and MacBook Pros predate Leopard). Leopard being installed is not a prerequisite, explicit or implied.
The statement "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]" is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Statements on Apple's online store, or in their brick and mortar siblings, don't change what's printed on/in the retail package itself.
Nor do they make any difference to the fact that you can very well install SL on a Mac with a completely-scrubbed hard drive. The which would be a bit of a problem for a pure upgrade.
Suppose it were clearly labeled as an 'upgrade for Apple branded computers only' on all retail boxes going forward, and just as an extra measure, on the disk itself, so that it's obviously licensed as an upgrade. Would people stop legitimizing installing OS X on non-Apple software, or would they simply use another argument? My bet's on the latter: anyone competent enough to make a hackintosh knows the retail OS X disks are supposed to be upgrades, and not standalone licenses. They just simply don't care and do what they want.
No, I don't think it's a non sequitur at all. You clearly understand that it is an upgrade product, yet engage in a quibble about whether it says it here or there and what does it really mean.
Yes, you can install it on a clean hard drive, because it's sold with the understanding that you have already purchased a Mac so have a right to install the upgrade and because Apple chooses not to make it's user's lives more complicated than necessary.
You know you're in the wrong, ethically and legally, so please don't pretend to innocence.
You may be right, but quite honestly, if you already own a Mac, I don't think its a big deal whether or not you install it on a netbook. For most of these installations, you have to start with a working copy of OS X just to setup the installer disk. I own a Dell Mini 10v and have successfully hackintoshed it. While it seems I may have to do a bit more work to keep it up to date, I like to think of it as a fun project to experiment with. I already own one mac, and plan on upgrading to a new Macbook Pro and Mac Mini Server within the coming months, not to mention owning Final Cut Express and other Apple software. Trust me, they get my business.
Stealing is stealing, there's no argument around that. But frankly, using OS X on a netbook is more about bending the rules than committing a serious crime.
Well, since I don't travel a lot, don't have a long commute and don't have any kids, I haven't had any need for ripping DVDs. I've been buying Blu-rays in favor of their DVD counterparts and many come with digital copies, but I haven't watched or used any of them yet. All that said, I guess one could rationalize ripping a DVD under "fair use" if it would still be for private personal use but that's a grey area. The one thing I will say is that Hollywood is insane if they think people will buy multiple copies of the same title simply to be able to use it on a home media server or equivalent. And, given what they're doing with many Blu-ray titles, I don't think they expect you to. If every movie came with a digital copy, then I think there would be a lot less call for ripping your own DVDs.
According to Fair Use, it is legal to possess a copy of your media for personal use. However, it is illegal to break the encryption of the DVD to obtain such a copy.
Under the DMCA exemptions, it is legal to unlock your mobile phone to make it carrier independent. However, it is illegal to jailbreak an iPhone - the process required to unlock it.
To me, it would follow that Fair Use would allow one to use OS X in any non-infringing way, like ripping a DVD or unlocking an iPhone. However, to do so, one would have to break Apple's EULA.
The purpose of Fair Use is to protect end-users from overreaching copyright zealots, not to catch people in the technicality of "illegally" breaking a DVD encryption, or "illegally" jailbreaking an iPhone, or "illegally" breaking Apple's EULA.
In fact, according to US copyright law, 17 USC 117, copies made as an essential step in running a piece of software on a computer system, are specifically mentioned as not being violations. Which is to say, if you have legal possession of a copy of a piece of software, where a 'copy' can be interpreted as a physical embodiment such as a CD or DVD, then installing that software, even without the copyright holder's consent, does not constitute copyright infringement, if such installation is an essential step in running the software.
If legal possession of the a physical embodiment is all that it takes to be allowed to do whatever you want with the software then presumably that means it's ok to install an upgrade even if you never bought the full version, to buy some software and install it on your machine then give away the disks to someone who can legally install and use it on their machine, or buy a cheap academic version of some software and ignore the condition that says it can only be used for non-commercial purposes? If not, why not, by your reasoning?
"Upgrade" appears nowhere on the package. I have installed it on two Macs here as an upgrade from 10.5, and on two others on freshly-formatted drives (after backing them up with Time Machine).
Apple have sold upgrade disks in the past. This is not one of them.
Whether a manufacturer finds its more convenient to deliver an upgrade as an incremental set of changes or as a full copy of all the files you need is neither here nor there, it's just a boring implementation detail.
It clearly says you can only install Mac OS X on Apple branded hardware. All Apple branded hardware (not counting peripherals!) come with Mac OS X pre-installed. By any definition therefore, it's an upgrade - you're only allowed to install it on systems for which you already have a Mac OS X license. (It doesn't matter if you wiped the disk first and are doing a clean install, the key thing is that you already have a license to use Mac OS X because it came with the hardware.)
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?
what makes you think people hacking a dell mini 9 are not going to buy a mac ? I have 3 macs, 2 imacs and a macbook pro.
The dell mini 9 is samall and is great to have on my kitchen table for reading email and the news while I have coffee and share toast with my doggies. It doe not take much space and is also ideal for looking something up while doing the crosswords.
And I happen to prefer running Mac OS on it. I only wished Apple would have one. It would be a great addition and more useful to me than a tablet..
Again, Copyright covers the actual work of authorship and not what you do with it personally.
Agreed, if you buy a copyrighted product you can do whatever you want with it. You can turn the Mac OS X installation DVDs into Christmas tree decorations. You can use them as frisbees. You can put them into your home entertainment system and watch it say "Not a valid disc" on screen. You just can't COPY it, ie. install it onto your computer's hard disk, unless you have a license that says you can.
The atom is an abomination. Apple is doing everyone a favour be disabling great software to run on crapware cpus...
Oh come now, they're not that bad. Sure, I wouldn't try something like edit video on a netbook, but for what it does, its actually a neat little processor. Runs Snow Leopard just fine, Windows 7 is great, and with the exception of HD video (which begs the question why anyone would watch HD on a 1024x600 screen), it plays my media perfectly.
Hey, you get what you pay for. I'm not expecting stellar performance with a computer that can typically cost less than $300. Frankly, I'm actually surprised that this processor can do what it does, given all the horror stories behind it.
In that case they should disable it from running on the Macbook Air.
The MBA has a Penryn SFF ULV C2D with 6MB L2 and 1066MHz bus. That is as good as it gets with such a small chip. Atom can?t even come close to that performance.
I know the Internet tar & feather brigade is out in full force over this but has anyone considered Apple is planning to use a feature the Atom does not support? To the best of my knowledge the most likely candidate for that would be Vanderpool / Intel VT. All Intel Macs support it including the 32Bit CD models. The Atom does not. Even if Apple isn't directly using Vanderpool they may have some reason for the kernel to do some checking on it. Perhaps related to third party applications such as VMWare which do make use of Vanderpool -- an application which has been troublesome for some people using 64Bit kernels. Sounds plausible to me that Apple may have patched their code and simply didn't handle the condition that a CPU might be 64Bit AND lack Vanderpool. The Atom is the only modern Intel CPU that would fall into that category. It's entirely possible it was intentional but I tend to doubt it. Apple had 4 years to engineer some DRM to fight Hackintosh users. They know a simple CPU detection scheme isn't going to stop anyone.
(The only Intel CPU based product Apple sells that does not support Vanderpool is the Apple TV (Pentium M CPU) however it still runs 10.4.x )
The community doesn't even matter, apart from its continued (and unfettered) existence making Apple look hypocritical when going after Psystar.
Not surprising that at some point Apple would in principle send out a clear message to the hackintosh community as well. Apple is not going after them legally, but simply making it a bit harder for them on a particular unsupported platform.
Hardly "unfettered" as Apple has issues take down notices on how to do this on major sites. There is only so much Apple (or any company) can do to limit installation of their OS on non-Apple hardware. I think they are focusing on Psystar because they want a legal decision backing there future actions.
That Psystar behaves like a cross between a loose cannon and loose screw makes it being the least likely being a Pyrrhic victory for Apple.
I know the Internet tar & feather brigade is out in full force over this but has anyone considered Apple is planning to use a feature the Atom does not support? To the best of my knowledge the most likely candidate for that would be Vanderpool / Intel VT. All Intel Macs support it including the 32Bit CD models. The Atom does not. Even if Apple isn't directly using Vanderpool they may have some reason for the kernel to do some checking on it. Perhaps related to third party applications such as VMWare which do make use of Vanderpool -- an application which has been troublesome for some people using 64Bit kernels. Sounds plausible to me that Apple may have patched their code and simply didn't handle the condition that a CPU might be 64Bit AND lack Vanderpool. The Atom is the only modern Intel CPU that would fall into that category. It's entirely possible it was intentional but I tend to doubt it. Apple had 4 years to engineer some DRM to fight Hackintosh users. They know a simple CPU detection scheme isn't going to stop anyone.
(The only Intel CPU based product Apple sells that does not support Vanderpool is the Apple TV (Pentium M CPU) however it still runs 10.4.x )
You keep confusing what Copyright covers vs. what the EULA dictates - they are two distinct documents each providing a different set of rights.
Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use and that copyright does not extend to methods of operation. Thus violating the EULAs clause that it can only be operated on Apple hardware is not a violation that can be sought under Copyright law. However, the EULA violation can be sought under civil contract law - but Apple is less likely to succeed there given the personal use rights granted by Copyright law.
Not if as Apple claimed in it Psystar back on November 27, 2008 that is uses DMCA protect methods to enforce it EULA. Even worse the Blizzard vs. MDY (Glider) case gives Apple the precedent to slam Psystar into the ground--which I hope they do in the style of Godzilla vs Bambi with Psystar in the role of Bambi.
Not if as Apple claimed in it Psystar back on November 27, 2008 that is uses DMCA protect methods to enforce it EULA. Even worse the Blizzard vs. MDY (Glider) case gives Apple the precedent to slam Psystar into the ground--which I hope they do in the style of Godzilla vs Bambi with Psystar in the role of Bambi.
All this concern about the fine print of the license addresses the what -- 200? -- Hackintosh users today. I say, "fine print" because I, for one, licensed the five-user version of the upgrade; I may have licensed the right to install on five machines that I own. Just saying; IANAL and am not interested in legalistic interpretations.
Rather, Apple, <b>by this report</b> by the way, a clear step down from "news," is mooting the question for everybody else. We may question the wisdom of Apple's preventing people from installing the OS on some non-Apple machines, but TS: apparently, they're going to do it, and 10.6.1 is the end of the line for OSX on the Dell Mini 9's etc. Nobody yet, anyway, is challenging Apple's right to design the OS the way that it sees fit.
Some people are still happy with OS 9. Every now and then, I fire up my once-beloved Mac 2400c, a 4.4 lb, 10" screen ultra-portable WAAAY ahead of its time, that I hacked a 603PPC chip into. So 10.6.1 could function well enough for the economic lifetime of an Acorn netbook. But how many people will really work that way?
Just like Google and Craigslist have put the final nails into many newspapers' coffins while inventing some wonderful new services, Apple is moving on. A moment of silence to recognize the cleverness of the Hackintoshers, please!
OK, folks, nothing to see here any more. Time to move along.
I see Netbooks everywhere. Apple are missing a trick by not selling an official OSX Atom based netbook.
I doubt 90% of the people reading this think this statement has any sense. Netbooks are bottom of the barrel, "profitable if lucky", reactive plays that may gain the players a little market share, but not much share value. Look at their entire product line and you'll see even the loss leaders have decent returns (with the exception maybe of iTunes content, which is probably a true loss leader.
There not missing anything but a waste of resources. I hope that all the rumors pan out and we do see a category breaker that raises the bar and once and for all silences you guys who think Apple "needs" a netbook. Even without the iTablet if it exists, they don't need a netbook--at least not until they do it their own way, with added value, top quality materials and build with something new brought to the table.
The MBA has a Penryn SFF ULV C2D with 6MB L2 and 1066MHz bus. That is as good as it gets with such a small chip. Atom can?t even come close to that performance.
It not alot of performance considering the lowest model is six times the price of a netbook.
Comments
Non sequitur much?
That's not what it says on the package, outside or inside. You *can* install it as an upgrade on a system currently running Leopard (or Tiger, for that matter, since the earliest MacBooks and MacBook Pros predate Leopard). Leopard being installed is not a prerequisite, explicit or implied.
The statement "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard [...]" is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Statements on Apple's online store, or in their brick and mortar siblings, don't change what's printed on/in the retail package itself.
Nor do they make any difference to the fact that you can very well install SL on a Mac with a completely-scrubbed hard drive. The which would be a bit of a problem for a pure upgrade.
Suppose it were clearly labeled as an 'upgrade for Apple branded computers only' on all retail boxes going forward, and just as an extra measure, on the disk itself, so that it's obviously licensed as an upgrade. Would people stop legitimizing installing OS X on non-Apple software, or would they simply use another argument? My bet's on the latter: anyone competent enough to make a hackintosh knows the retail OS X disks are supposed to be upgrades, and not standalone licenses. They just simply don't care and do what they want.
No, I don't think it's a non sequitur at all. You clearly understand that it is an upgrade product, yet engage in a quibble about whether it says it here or there and what does it really mean.
Yes, you can install it on a clean hard drive, because it's sold with the understanding that you have already purchased a Mac so have a right to install the upgrade and because Apple chooses not to make it's user's lives more complicated than necessary.
You know you're in the wrong, ethically and legally, so please don't pretend to innocence.
You may be right, but quite honestly, if you already own a Mac, I don't think its a big deal whether or not you install it on a netbook. For most of these installations, you have to start with a working copy of OS X just to setup the installer disk. I own a Dell Mini 10v and have successfully hackintoshed it. While it seems I may have to do a bit more work to keep it up to date, I like to think of it as a fun project to experiment with. I already own one mac, and plan on upgrading to a new Macbook Pro and Mac Mini Server within the coming months, not to mention owning Final Cut Express and other Apple software. Trust me, they get my business.
Stealing is stealing, there's no argument around that. But frankly, using OS X on a netbook is more about bending the rules than committing a serious crime.
Well, since I don't travel a lot, don't have a long commute and don't have any kids, I haven't had any need for ripping DVDs. I've been buying Blu-rays in favor of their DVD counterparts and many come with digital copies, but I haven't watched or used any of them yet. All that said, I guess one could rationalize ripping a DVD under "fair use" if it would still be for private personal use but that's a grey area. The one thing I will say is that Hollywood is insane if they think people will buy multiple copies of the same title simply to be able to use it on a home media server or equivalent. And, given what they're doing with many Blu-ray titles, I don't think they expect you to. If every movie came with a digital copy, then I think there would be a lot less call for ripping your own DVDs.
According to Fair Use, it is legal to possess a copy of your media for personal use. However, it is illegal to break the encryption of the DVD to obtain such a copy.
Under the DMCA exemptions, it is legal to unlock your mobile phone to make it carrier independent. However, it is illegal to jailbreak an iPhone - the process required to unlock it.
To me, it would follow that Fair Use would allow one to use OS X in any non-infringing way, like ripping a DVD or unlocking an iPhone. However, to do so, one would have to break Apple's EULA.
The purpose of Fair Use is to protect end-users from overreaching copyright zealots, not to catch people in the technicality of "illegally" breaking a DVD encryption, or "illegally" jailbreaking an iPhone, or "illegally" breaking Apple's EULA.
In fact, according to US copyright law, 17 USC 117, copies made as an essential step in running a piece of software on a computer system, are specifically mentioned as not being violations. Which is to say, if you have legal possession of a copy of a piece of software, where a 'copy' can be interpreted as a physical embodiment such as a CD or DVD, then installing that software, even without the copyright holder's consent, does not constitute copyright infringement, if such installation is an essential step in running the software.
If legal possession of the a physical embodiment is all that it takes to be allowed to do whatever you want with the software then presumably that means it's ok to install an upgrade even if you never bought the full version, to buy some software and install it on your machine then give away the disks to someone who can legally install and use it on their machine, or buy a cheap academic version of some software and ignore the condition that says it can only be used for non-commercial purposes? If not, why not, by your reasoning?
"Upgrade" appears nowhere on the package. I have installed it on two Macs here as an upgrade from 10.5, and on two others on freshly-formatted drives (after backing them up with Time Machine).
Apple have sold upgrade disks in the past. This is not one of them.
Whether a manufacturer finds its more convenient to deliver an upgrade as an incremental set of changes or as a full copy of all the files you need is neither here nor there, it's just a boring implementation detail.
It clearly says you can only install Mac OS X on Apple branded hardware. All Apple branded hardware (not counting peripherals!) come with Mac OS X pre-installed. By any definition therefore, it's an upgrade - you're only allowed to install it on systems for which you already have a Mac OS X license. (It doesn't matter if you wiped the disk first and are doing a clean install, the key thing is that you already have a license to use Mac OS X because it came with the hardware.)
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?
what makes you think people hacking a dell mini 9 are not going to buy a mac ? I have 3 macs, 2 imacs and a macbook pro.
The dell mini 9 is samall and is great to have on my kitchen table for reading email and the news while I have coffee and share toast with my doggies. It doe not take much space and is also ideal for looking something up while doing the crosswords.
And I happen to prefer running Mac OS on it. I only wished Apple would have one. It would be a great addition and more useful to me than a tablet..
Again, Copyright covers the actual work of authorship and not what you do with it personally.
Agreed, if you buy a copyrighted product you can do whatever you want with it. You can turn the Mac OS X installation DVDs into Christmas tree decorations. You can use them as frisbees. You can put them into your home entertainment system and watch it say "Not a valid disc" on screen. You just can't COPY it, ie. install it onto your computer's hard disk, unless you have a license that says you can.
The atom is an abomination. Apple is doing everyone a favour be disabling great software to run on crapware cpus...
Oh come now, they're not that bad. Sure, I wouldn't try something like edit video on a netbook, but for what it does, its actually a neat little processor. Runs Snow Leopard just fine, Windows 7 is great, and with the exception of HD video (which begs the question why anyone would watch HD on a 1024x600 screen), it plays my media perfectly.
Hey, you get what you pay for. I'm not expecting stellar performance with a computer that can typically cost less than $300. Frankly, I'm actually surprised that this processor can do what it does, given all the horror stories behind it.
The atom is an abomination. Apple is doing everyone a favour be disabling great software to run on crapware cpus...
In that case they should disable it from running on the Macbook Air.
In that case they should disable it from running on the Macbook Air.
The MBA has a Penryn SFF ULV C2D with 6MB L2 and 1066MHz bus. That is as good as it gets with such a small chip. Atom can?t even come close to that performance.
(The only Intel CPU based product Apple sells that does not support Vanderpool is the Apple TV (Pentium M CPU) however it still runs 10.4.x )
The community doesn't even matter, apart from its continued (and unfettered) existence making Apple look hypocritical when going after Psystar.
Not surprising that at some point Apple would in principle send out a clear message to the hackintosh community as well. Apple is not going after them legally, but simply making it a bit harder for them on a particular unsupported platform.
Hardly "unfettered" as Apple has issues take down notices on how to do this on major sites. There is only so much Apple (or any company) can do to limit installation of their OS on non-Apple hardware. I think they are focusing on Psystar because they want a legal decision backing there future actions.
That Psystar behaves like a cross between a loose cannon and loose screw makes it being the least likely being a Pyrrhic victory for Apple.
I know the Internet tar & feather brigade is out in full force over this but has anyone considered Apple is planning to use a feature the Atom does not support? To the best of my knowledge the most likely candidate for that would be Vanderpool / Intel VT. All Intel Macs support it including the 32Bit CD models. The Atom does not. Even if Apple isn't directly using Vanderpool they may have some reason for the kernel to do some checking on it. Perhaps related to third party applications such as VMWare which do make use of Vanderpool -- an application which has been troublesome for some people using 64Bit kernels. Sounds plausible to me that Apple may have patched their code and simply didn't handle the condition that a CPU might be 64Bit AND lack Vanderpool. The Atom is the only modern Intel CPU that would fall into that category. It's entirely possible it was intentional but I tend to doubt it. Apple had 4 years to engineer some DRM to fight Hackintosh users. They know a simple CPU detection scheme isn't going to stop anyone.
(The only Intel CPU based product Apple sells that does not support Vanderpool is the Apple TV (Pentium M CPU) however it still runs 10.4.x )
Excellent post!
You keep confusing what Copyright covers vs. what the EULA dictates - they are two distinct documents each providing a different set of rights.
Copyright clearly says you can make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use and that copyright does not extend to methods of operation. Thus violating the EULAs clause that it can only be operated on Apple hardware is not a violation that can be sought under Copyright law. However, the EULA violation can be sought under civil contract law - but Apple is less likely to succeed there given the personal use rights granted by Copyright law.
Not if as Apple claimed in it Psystar back on November 27, 2008 that is uses DMCA protect methods to enforce it EULA. Even worse the Blizzard vs. MDY (Glider) case gives Apple the precedent to slam Psystar into the ground--which I hope they do in the style of Godzilla vs Bambi with Psystar in the role of Bambi.
Not if as Apple claimed in it Psystar back on November 27, 2008 that is uses DMCA protect methods to enforce it EULA. Even worse the Blizzard vs. MDY (Glider) case gives Apple the precedent to slam Psystar into the ground--which I hope they do in the style of Godzilla vs Bambi with Psystar in the role of Bambi.
Me too. Free market for the win!
Rather, Apple, <b>by this report</b> by the way, a clear step down from "news," is mooting the question for everybody else. We may question the wisdom of Apple's preventing people from installing the OS on some non-Apple machines, but TS: apparently, they're going to do it, and 10.6.1 is the end of the line for OSX on the Dell Mini 9's etc. Nobody yet, anyway, is challenging Apple's right to design the OS the way that it sees fit.
Some people are still happy with OS 9. Every now and then, I fire up my once-beloved Mac 2400c, a 4.4 lb, 10" screen ultra-portable WAAAY ahead of its time, that I hacked a 603PPC chip into. So 10.6.1 could function well enough for the economic lifetime of an Acorn netbook. But how many people will really work that way?
Just like Google and Craigslist have put the final nails into many newspapers' coffins while inventing some wonderful new services, Apple is moving on. A moment of silence to recognize the cleverness of the Hackintoshers, please!
OK, folks, nothing to see here any more. Time to move along.
I see Netbooks everywhere. Apple are missing a trick by not selling an official OSX Atom based netbook.
I doubt 90% of the people reading this think this statement has any sense. Netbooks are bottom of the barrel, "profitable if lucky", reactive plays that may gain the players a little market share, but not much share value. Look at their entire product line and you'll see even the loss leaders have decent returns (with the exception maybe of iTunes content, which is probably a true loss leader.
There not missing anything but a waste of resources. I hope that all the rumors pan out and we do see a category breaker that raises the bar and once and for all silences you guys who think Apple "needs" a netbook. Even without the iTablet if it exists, they don't need a netbook--at least not until they do it their own way, with added value, top quality materials and build with something new brought to the table.
Get out from under your rock.
The MBA has a Penryn SFF ULV C2D with 6MB L2 and 1066MHz bus. That is as good as it gets with such a small chip. Atom can?t even come close to that performance.
It not alot of performance considering the lowest model is six times the price of a netbook.
I'd love for Apple to switch away from x86, but I don't think that'll happen anytime soon.