Hacker News Reader

If anyone remembers the long discussions at the start of 2000s in relation to music/video pirating, this is not "stealing", it's "intellectual property something something".

The content companies had giant advertising campaigns trying to brand this as "theft" or "stealing". Of course, when they sued someone they used the proper term: "IP violation"

I'm not arguing if it's acceptable or not, but it's not the same as theft which leaves the owner without the item.

It’s on the same level as IP theft of any kind since you cause some loss of revenue and investment, now what portion of piracy results in a financial loss is a different story but it’s not 0.

Look at it this way if I steal your trade secrets and clone your product after you spent R&D money on it I’ve essentially “stolen” both a part of your revenue and your investment.

Music, film and games cost money to develop and produce pirating them does incur a financial penalty and that does fall under the common definition of theft.

However as far as Apple goes if you buy a copy of their OS you can easily consider that acceptable since EULA restrictions on the usage can be ethically counter argued.

Infringement != theft

IP infringement and theft are different things, infringement is often done in regards to IP that is in the open, if I hack and steal your trade secrets which are by definition secrets and not protected by a patent what is that then?

And in any case you are arguing about semantics, "theft" is also technically not a singular legal definition but an amalgamation of different civil and criminal legal statues.

In most jurisdictions intangible property also does fall under the broader definition of theft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

Theft in the UK (England and Wales) is covered by the theft act 1978 (and previous)

A key term is intent to deprive, hence most people nicking a car will be done for taking without consent - no need to prove an intent to permanently deprive.

Copyright infringement is a whole separate law and is clearly not theft as there's no intent to permanently deprive.

> since you cause some loss of revenue and investment

Wouldn't leaving a bad review of a bad product be considered theft under this definition?

Yeah, I feel like that definition of theft would lead to some really awful legal precedents. If a family member has decided to buy some product, and I talk them out of it, I would be committing theft by that definition. At least in the US, that would run afoul of the First Amendment. The company can yell at me all they want or ban me from their services, but they could not legally get the police to arrest me for a bad review or for convincing a family member.

Of course, just like with piracy, it would not provable that the revenue was guaranteed in the first place. But companies would absolutely try and litigate over it anyway.

I suppose this discussion is unrelated to this thread, though.

Now walking somewhere is theft from the taxi company. Incredible how successful these media companies have been at redefining the word.

You can’t steal something from somebody if they still have it after the “theft” (the IP) or if they never had it in the first place (the revenue).

Its not loss of revenue per se since apple doesnt sell licenses for the OS. And presumably you are making the hackintosh because you DONT want the exact hardware apple sells.

If only during the recent bike thefts in our apartment building, the thieves would have run away with perfect copies instead of originals. :-(

I wouldn't steal a car... but I sure would download one if I could.

"You will face the consequences."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

> I use Linux (and OpenBSD occasionally) these days [...] may be the last un-nerfed general purpose computing platform standing.

I really hope you're not right about this, but unfortunately it seems all too likely. Linux will finally win on the desktop not because it finally starts listening to potential users and making things better, but because everyone else just stops making desktops.

> it finally starts listening to potential users and making things better, but because everyone else just stops making desktops.

Of course those of us on this site are members of the Hacker Class. Putting our own house in order might involve writing code, but meaninful contributions can come in the form of bug reports or even just using software and occasionally writing something about how you use it.

I really don't get why I would want to run an operating system where the vendor refuses to support my hardware.

Also, the font color on this blog is absolutely horrible.

> the font color on this blog is absolutely horrible.

Yeah, I've noticed more sites do this. Super annoying. I made this bookmark for those cases:

    javascript:(()=>{document.querySelectorAll("p,div,article,section,ul,ol,li").forEach(x=>{x.style["color"]="black";});})();

Thank you for that. Nothing worse than shitty web design.

I think this is the real reason not to build a hackintosh.

I don’t find the “theft” argument compelling, because Apple doesn’t even sell OSX anymore. They’re a hardware company.

There’s not really a vendor here since macOS is free. Linux isn’t exactly free from the need to choose well-supported hardware either, particularly of you need to run a more stable distro

macOS isn’t really free. It just “comes with” the hardware you just bought. You’re not supposed to download the OS unless you have qualifying hardware. A hackintosh rig does not qualify.

> - you can’t get a good keyboard (for some definitions of good)

You mean like, a PS/2 keyboard or what are you on about? Any bluetooth or usb keyboard works on any regular mac.

> - macOS gets more iOS-ified with each release and some people don’t like that

Again, what are you on about? A hackintosh is running a just as ios-ivied macOS as a regular mac.

You are arguing against a point the parent doesn't make, they are arguing against using Hackintoshes at all. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17709707

I think he's implying that you would run an older, less iOS-ified version of MacOS on the Hackintosh.

You can still do the same on mac hardware though.

No, peatmoss's argument is to not use macOS because (among other reasons) Apple is making it less desirable (iOS-ifying it). Don't use it on Apple hardware, don't use it on hackintosh hardware.

> You mean like, a PS/2 keyboard or what are you on about?

I believe GP refers to the crapboards in the recent MacBook Pro lineup, which are amazingly bad. Also, IIRC Apple doesn't offer a real wired keyboard anymore.

Correct. That was my intent.

I'm typing this on my dasKeyboard plugged into my (well, work's) MBP. Sadly bought just a couple of months before the 6-core i9's became available.

The “crapboards” are very much a case of YMMV. I much prefer the one on the new MBPs to the spongy abomination that is the current Thinkpad keyboard.

>Most people invoking a moral imperative to not make hackintoshes are coming from the angle that it’s stealing from Apple.

>I look at it another way. Apple, as a company is failing to meet the needs of some of its users:

I don't see how the two perspectives are related, unless you think a company failing to meet your needs as a consumer is a valid reason to steal from said company.

They aren't saying they are related except that they are both arguments against using Hackintoshes?

By saying that they don't look at it as stealing and then saying that they look at it another way, there is an implication that the way they look at it somehow relates to the perspective that it's stealing.

In other words, there has to be some reason that they don't see it as stealing but do see it as a failure by Apple to meet the needs of it's consumers. That reason is the relationship between the two concepts and I don't understand what that relationship is.

No, they just see the their argument as a better one against making a Hackintosh. No need to even consider the "stealing" angle if you think a Hackintosh would be bad anyways.

I didn't read their argument as being anti-hackintosh.

I read their argument as "some people say it's immoral to run a hackintosh, but I think it's not immoral because Apple isn't providing their consumers with a valid alternative".

The last bit is pretty clear IMHO:

> Every Hackintosh continues to add momentum to that platform ecosystem, enriching it so that Apple can continue on more or less as they want.

I use Linux (and OpenBSD occasionally) these days, and I do so in part so that I can sometimes be the guy who sands off a rough corner or two. Even by using the platform and occasionally submitting bug reports, you’re enriching a platform that may be the last un-nerfed general purpose computing platform standing.

Yes, this is what I mean. I recognize that one major argument against hackintosh is that some view it as stealing.

I don’t really care one way or the other about the stealing question, because this other argument against hackintoshes is more compelling to me.

Copyright infringement isn't theft: it's copyright infringement.

My main (additional) consideration: to develop for any Apple platform its required to use MacOS. There is no alternative way for developing and publishing in Apple App Stores.

There was a single year where my primary machine was a Mac because I had to do some iOS work. Since I did't want the hassle of dealing with multiple machines every day, I went with a MacBook. As soon as I realized this was exactly what Apple wanted (to force developers to user their machines if they have to develop for their platform, even if they primarily develop for other platforms), I started my migration away from iOS development forever. In that year, I also learned the hard way that it's a terrible idea to have a business model that relies on an iOS presence as Apple will reject your app and/or it's mission critical updates without a care in the world.

Only for iOS, tvOS and watchOS, because ironically, you don't really need a Mac to develop for macOS.

How can I develop for macOS without a Mac?

> If we lose general purpose computing to a world of app-store enabled iPad Pros and Windows Store-locked Surfaces, we will have lost something important I think.

Absolutely. Here, here.

> Most people invoking a moral imperative to not make hackintoshes are coming from the angle that it’s stealing from Apple.

I don't feel a moral obligation not to steal from Apple. I'm not sure I could steal (and use) an amount from them that would impact them at all. I mean even if I stole a classroom full of MacBook pro's in order to give free programming classes - it's not like it would affect Apple in any meaningful way.

But I don't quite get why anyone would go out of their way to get hw they'll never be able to run legally licensed os on. For fun and learning, sure. Turn your linux/bsd box into a hackintosh by dual booting. But you can never do any work on it without risk. So what's the point?

Sure you can "buy" a copy of os x - but you only get install media and a license to run on Apple hw.

What does “never be able to run a legally licensed os” mean in this context? I am an iOS engineer and avid photographer: I work on a Hackintosh, I develop my photos on my Hackintosh. I’ve had 0 problems with this setup and it cost me 1/10th as much as a similarly specced Mac. And my “similar” I’m being generous to the Mac because my machine is faster

I’m guessing they’re referring to the fact that Apple’s EULA prohibits—or prohibited at one time, I believe it still does—running macOS on anything other than Apple hardware. Hence, a Hackintosh violates the EULA.

Not saying it’s bad or not. I despise EULAs. I think that’s what the parent means, though.

I don't think he's at all concerned about the license. He's just saying most people won't and shouldn't do "real work" on a machine that could break at any point with no possibility for support.

That too.

https://www.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macOS1013.pdf

> 2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. A. Preinstalled and Single-Copy Apple Software License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, unless you obtained the Apple Software from the Mac App Store, through an automatic download or under a volume license, maintenance or other written agreement from Apple, you are granted a limited, non-exclusive license to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-branded computer at any one time. For example, these single-copy license terms apply to you if you obtained the Apple Software preinstalled on Apple-branded hardware.

(...)

> J. Other Use Restrictions. The grants set forth in this License do not permit you to, and you agree not to, install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-branded computer, or to enable others to do so.

(...)

If you're not going to abide by the license, you're essentially running "pirated" software.

So what? You've paid for the OS you can run it wherever you want.

Depends on your jurisdiction's view of the legality of apple's terms of use

Not seriously, unless you believe Apple is going to start working with cops to kick in doors and inspect homess for non-Apple branded hardware for unsanctioned OS installs.

Even if a judge agreed with Apple's EULA (unlikely, and unlikely to be tested), that's not really enforceable in any practical sense unless you're selling computers with MacOS preinstalled. Then it's a matter of commercial licensing and distribution which they do have an interest in protecting.

So you're saying it's fine to break the law of you don't get found out?

Most people think its ok to break the law if you won't get found out AND they don't think breaking the law presents any moral issue.

Ever noticed how people tend to drive at a speed that seems safe given conditions? Respect for ethics is a virtue respect for the law for its own sake is a disease.

I suppose you just get a license for one cpu core for your database servers and run them on 32-corevservers too?

The license is strange - but it is what Apple is selling.

And AFAIK the latest release is a "free" (gratis) download anyway - so you can't even claim you've paid for it.

I mean sure, you can ignore the license. Maybe Apple won't sue, but they might revoke your developer access, I loud account etc.

[ed: anyway, the thread started with a claim about "moral" obligation, I'm just pointing out that Apple is refusing to give or sell a valid license, so you're in breach of the license. I don't see how it's legally very different from an illegal copy of Microsoft Windows).]

> But you can never do any work on it without risk.

What risk is that?

Same as running any other not legally licensed software - a civil suit. And/or "sanctions" if the company who's license your violating has the power to, say, disable a cloud account, developer license etc.

This probably wouldn't bode well for them. It would provide negative pr and the majority of hackintosh users would be liable to move off the platform.

These users would be paying them the say zero dollars right now either way but they would no longer be potential future customers.

What would they gain by this?

> - macOS gets more iOS-ified with each release and some people don’t like that

How does running the same software on a different machine do anything to address this?

It means you don't give Apple money.

> It means you don't give Apple money.

Well, sure, but where's the victory in using something you don't like (the situation that peatmoss (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17709084) describes) for free? Sure, it's better than using something you don't like and paying for it, but (1) you're still investing time and effort, if not money, and (2) it seems better still just not to use the thing you don't like.

- You oppose the direction Mac OS is heading but still like the current version, or

- You like Mac OS after modifying it to counter its Iosification but don't want to support a company that makes you jump to those hoops, or

- You actually like Mac OS but oppose Apple's tendency to restrict their user's freedom on principle.

Using a hackintosh just because you don't like Apple would be pointless, of course.