Wouldnt it be illegal to lock OS X to Macs?

[MuffDuff]

Hi,

i am following the OS x86 cracking since the release of the DTK.

One thing i am wondering about is: Wouldnt it be illegal under the antitrust commission to lock a x86 binary to a specific hardware? I mean any other x86 CPU is capable of calculating the instructions. And if i buy an intel MacOS X (when its finally available) why dont they let me execute it on any x86 hardware? I mean i am paying for that software. If i want their hardware with iSight and stuff i will get a mac. But i could get happy with a standard PC too!

The point i am talking about is: They sell nothing than a set of algorithms. If i had a 3ghz brain, i could do all that boolean calculation manually w/o any hardware.

Of course this could have been discussed for the PPC architecture aswell, as there are other PPC manufacturers.

Isn't this like the Windows and Windows Media Player affair? Are there any juristic people among us who know some details about the legal stituation?

Cant we just force them to sell an beige box version?

[scousi]

Hi,

i am following the OS x86 cracking since the release of the DTK.

One thing i am wondering about is: Wouldnt it be illegal under the antitrust commission to lock a x86 binary to a specific hardware? I mean any other x86 CPU is capable of calculating the instructions. And if i buy an intel MacOS X (when its finally available) why dont they let me execute it on any x86 hardware? I mean i am paying for that software. If i want their hardware with iSight and stuff i will get a mac. But i could get happy with a standard PC too!

The point i am talking about is: They sell nothing than a set of algorithms. If i had a 3ghz brain, i could do all that boolean calculation manually w/o any hardware.

Of course this could have been discussed for the PPC architecture aswell, as there are other PPC manufacturers.

Isn't this like the Windows and Windows Media Player affair? Are there any juristic people among us who know some details about the legal stituation?

Cant we just force them to sell an beige box version?

 

If they had a dominant market - maybe. Apple can chose to sell it's OS as it wishes. They want to contro l100% of the experience. It's one of the reasons why MacOS is more stable - it doesn't have to deal with millions of hardware permutations.

 

Also there is no public outcry to make them open up.

I personally think that Apple is making a mistake by not making their MACS Windows compatible. It seems to be the Number 1 wish from the public.

 

I think Apple will come out with their own Apple packaged Windows virtualization product eventually that installs easily. It's the only reason I can see why the MAC can't boot Windows easily. They want to make money in the future with a shelf product that does.

[Metrogirl]

I've never actually read anything that states the Apple objective in locking OSX to Apple hardware. I doubt if they'd say (or admit) that it's to protect their hardware revenue. I'd guess they will say it's to provide the most consistent and reliable platform which is of course what has made Apple the company it is today. You buy a complete product from them and once you've chosen the features you want they don't believe that whatever is under the hood should concern you. Ergo I can't see that they are doing anything illegal - certainly not intentionally - and they don't exactly qualify as a monopoly vendor.

 

Think of a car analogy -

 

"Your Ford engine doesn't work well in my Chrysler!"

"Oh, we never expected anyone to try that ... of course it doesn't work well, it's not designed to. Why didn't you just buy a Ford?"

 

Ford effectively lock their engines to their cars with all sorts of Ford-specific components. You can make adapters and so on but you're on your own. No-one has ventured to say Ford are doing anything illegal by using a 3/8" double-splined widget to interface with the gearbox (for example).

 

"Well, I hacked the engine management computer to work with the Chrysler powertrain blah blah"

"That's our proprietary code! You license that from us, you don't own it! We're sending the Feds round!"

 

Of course Ford won't be calling the Feds, and I doubt if Apple will do so either if a few folks fiddle with OSX on vanilla hardware for personal use. But both Ford and Apple would take a dim view if everyone started doing it. Actually some car manufacturers have tried to screw companies selling performance chips for their EMCs, but generally they just warn the user that they are doing something dangerous/voiding their warranties and stuff like that.

[cyrana]

Just a couple of quick notes. Their EULA does only allow it to be installed on Apple hardware.

 

No anti-trust problems, as those sort of issues only apply once you are a [convicted]monopoly.

 

Metrogirl has some good points.

Edited January 20, 2006 by cyrana

[sHARD>>]

The funny thing is thanks to Apple's massive legacy report, they really *do* have to support all sorts of extremely different hardware. The real advantage is they wrote the specs and manuals for all of those machines and thus know more about how they work than Microsoft know's about an OEM.

[Callysto]

I was always under the impression that you purchase a software licence so you don't really own OS X or anything else software wise that you get unless you create that piece of software yourself

[jdm2005]

The EULA clause tying MacOS to Apple hardware is invalid. Have a look at DMCA §117:

 

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

 

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner

[A Nonny Moose]

The short answer: no

 

The long answer: as a PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY, Apple can restrict the release of its product however it wishes, so long as it doesn't break a law in doing so.

[Captain Ahab]

Whether the EULA is invalid or not, Apple have tied the OS to the hardware with encryption and the TPM. And whether that is a valid move is irrelevant, the fact is that it is illegal for the end user to try to defeat those mechanisms in most countries in the western world today. Don't worry too much. As someone said in another post "first they've got to catch you".

[ozzie123]

The short answer: no

 

The long answer: as a PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY, Apple can restrict the release of its product however it wishes, so long as it doesn't break a law in doing so.

 

Have you ever heard of AAPL stock quote? Apple is a PUBLICLY OWNED COMPANY, i guess you make a wrong statement there.

[Dippyskoodlez]

Just a couple of quick notes. Their EULA does only allow it to be installed on Apple hardware.

 

No anti-trust problems, as those sort of issues only apply once you are a [convicted]monopoly.

 

Metrogirl has some good points.

 

 

Its apple labeled hardware...

 

theres an apple logo on my laptop... doesn't taht count?

[Captain Ahab]

Its apple labeled hardware...

 

theres an apple logo on my laptop... doesn't taht count?

 

You mean you put an Apple sticker on it? :pirate2:

 

What's going on with that apple sticker anywhow? When I bought my Powerbook it came with two nice white apple stickers. When I recently bought my daughter's mini it came without any stickers at all. Maybe Apple have realized their vulnerability?

[roomchieftain]

Actually, Apple sells its software for and to be run on "APPLE' manufactured and "supported" machinery. I think they would be hard pressed to write drivers for a gang of {censored} they didn't build. Been there done that. PowerComputing- cost them 450mil to buy that name. Motorola Star Macs etc.... It would be prohibitive(cost & effort) for them to build out the OS for non Apple built machines. If you want he mac OS experience, buy a Mac. Me, personally I want non- emulated windows to run on my machine along with the Mac OS. But the real key is not just the EFI. You REALLY need to look at the connected components also. The OS is looking at D ID's and the EFI.

[Cyman]

I'd agree to say that if Apple will expand and have more market shares, sooner or later it could become an affair for the courts, because of a monoplistic policy. Actually this is what I hope for - because then Apple would ultimately have to open Mac OS X for everyone.

I don't get why they don't sell their OS seperately anyway, because if they would I'm sure that many people would switch to Mac OS. I'm also sure that they would still sell a lot of hardware, even if Mac OS would be open for anybody (look at the iPod). They still could bundle their hardware with Mac OS, still all the design enthusiasts would buy an Apple (again look at the iPod) , although it might be more expensive (and again look at the iPod) - but good design is worth its price (when the product is good, too)!

So, maybe, when Apple continues to grow as they do at the moment, we'll have Mac OS on our PCs or the more they produce and the more they sell, the more the prices of Apple machines will drop and become more affordable (with the same result).

Better not exaggerating being too optimistic about the whole situation, though!

[scousi]

I'd agree to say that if Apple will expand and have more market shares, sooner or later it could become an affair for the courts, because of a monoplistic policy. Actually this is what I hope for - because then Apple would ultimately have to open Mac OS X for everyone.

I don't get why they don't sell their OS seperately anyway, because if they would I'm sure that many people would switch to Mac OS. I'm also sure that they would still sell a lot of hardware, even if Mac OS would be open for anybody (look at the iPod). They still could bundle their hardware with Mac OS, still all the design enthusiasts would buy an Apple (again look at the iPod) , although it might be more expensive (and again look at the iPod) - but good design is worth its price (when the product is good, too)!

So, maybe, when Apple continues to grow as they do at the moment, we'll have Mac OS on our PCs or the more they produce and the more they sell, the more the prices of Apple machines will drop and become more affordable (with the same result).

Better not exaggerating being too optimistic about the whole situation, though!

 

It would be suicide for Apple to release a box version of OX86 for any computer. It would be pirated even more. They could however OEM it to Dell, HP , Lenov etc with all the same TPM stuff.

 

I don't think they can take significant market share by going it alone. I also think they will run the risk of people starting a MacWine project - that is running MacOs Apps on top of windows or Linux.

[bjr1028]

If Vista is any good, it may be suicide not to.

[Captain Ahab]

I think that is a great point. If Vista is good it will give the Apple a headache. If the big names have lagged behind producing universal binaries for Intel OSX Apple may lose market share bigtime. Come on Adobe, where are you? Photoshop is already snappier under XP and there is no way I will buy an intel mac until at least my main power-apps are supported natively. Guess I hope that Apple get throttled in the HW market and are forced to sell generic OSX to survive.

[scousi]

I'm sure Adobe has more resources on making its flagship Apps ported to Vista than OSX 86.

[Metrogirl]

I'm sure Adobe has more resources on making its flagship Apps ported to Vista than OSX 86.

 

This is drifting off topic, but I'm sure you're right. That's one of the things that's always disappointed me about the Mac. So many applications are poor relations when the Mac version comes out. More bugs, sometimes less functionality, often a release or two behind. I have several peripherals which just can't be used with my Mac because there are no drivers. My Cardscan, for example. My Dymo label printer has OSX software but it's useless, half the functions don't work. I wrote to Dymo and they said that they had no plans to update the driver.

[bjr1028]

I think that is a great point. If Vista is good it will give the Apple a headache. If the big names have lagged behind producing universal binaries for Intel OSX Apple may lose market share bigtime. Come on Adobe, where are you? Photoshop is already snappier under XP and there is no way I will buy an intel mac until at least my main power-apps are supported natively. Guess I hope that Apple get throttled in the HW market and are forced to sell generic OSX to survive.

 

What incentive do they have to not take their time? The Mac has only 5% of the market and at best 2-3% of those are using Intel processors. Apple's our way or the highway attitude isn't helping matters.

[Ouch]

Do you have a source for those figures or were they extracted from somewhere between you left and right ears?

[bjr1028]

Macworld's reports. Apple's marketshare is 4.8% U.S., 3.1% global. Intel Macs just started shipping and even with phenominal sales, they'd make up only a small percentage of all Macs.

[Cyman]

It would be suicide for Apple to release a box version of OX86 for any computer. It would be pirated even more. They could however OEM it to Dell, HP , Lenov etc with all the same TPM stuff.

 

I don't think they can take significant market share by going it alone. I also think they will run the risk of people starting a MacWine project - that is running MacOs Apps on top of windows or Linux.

 

If they implemented security measures such as serial numbers together with other copy protection stuff, they could at least try to make it difficult pirating Mac OS. I guess, Apple is going to introduce some new things with the release of Leopard which will make it quite harder to copy their OS.

 

Also you have to see that every attempt on hacking/cracking future OS X Intel versions, Apple will learn from the success of the hacking scene and react with another new copy protection tactics.

[Captain Ahab]

If they implemented security measures such as serial numbers together with other copy protection stuff, they could at least try to make it difficult pirating Mac OS. I guess, Apple is going to introduce some new things with the release of Leopard which will make it quite harder to copy their OS.

 

Also you have to see that every attempt on hacking/cracking future OS X Intel versions, Apple will learn from the success of the hacking scene and react with another new copy protection tactics.

 

Yes, right. There won't be any Apple equivalent of the MS-4-in-1 keygen, anti-activation patch, fixed LegitCheckControl.dll, will there? MS didn't achieve much with successive releases of Windows. I really don't think that Apple would be in any better position than Microsoft here but who knows?

[Cyman]

As I said, Apple will probably not prevent people from copying their OS, no matter what security measures they implement to it. There is no copy protection which cannot be cracked. History proves that. Anyway they can make it so difficult that it's simply not worth the effort (like having a half-working OS which is quite senseless).

In fact there are some programs out there which until today cannot be used without proper registration (I can remember a GPS navigation software and some music software, but I can't recall their names, maybe it proves that I am wrong here).