Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacquesm | Hacker News Reader

If you want to stay legal and use OS/X you'll have to forego that part.

That's not how I would like to see things but that is how Apple wants you to use their software, and if you abide by their terms of service that is how you should use it.

That you ought to be free from such restrictions is something that I agree with but if it were ok to run OS/X on 'foreign' (i.e. non apple) hardware then the apple clone factories would spring up like so many mushrooms.

And I'd expect that to not just be limited to the mac and OS/X but to be applied to Ios in a heartbeat.

Apple has chosen not to license their software separate from their hardware and that is their right. So it becomes our right to either buy apple hardware or to go elsewhere.

View on HN

If you want to stay legal and use OS/X you'll have to forego that part.

I'm not sure it's wise to let EULAs dictate what you do for fun.

EULAs are not even legal in Germany [1], I see no moral or legal obstacles to trying to install OS X on a PC, at least if you are in Germany. (The procedure described in the linked article is obviously also in Germany illegal since it involves torrenting a copy of OS X. I see no problems if you can do without that, though.)

[1] That’s always the case if the EULA is not readable before buying the software. Disclaimers (“You have to agree to the enclosed EULA to install the software.”) or URLs (“Find the EULA at http:// …”) don’t count. The full document has to be easily accessible to you before buying, EULAs inside the box or displayed while installing are automatically void. Even if the EULA is legal, such asymmetric contractual agreements are severely limited in their scope by German law.

You can buy OS/X directly from Apple for a fairly small fee.

So if you're not bound by any licensing terms then that would be one way to get it done legally.

Apple licensed OSX to clone makers in the past, but that was one of the first things Jobs put a stop to if I recall correctly. There's a strong thread in Apple's strategy to prevent computing from becoming a low margin commodity. This helps Apple with its image of high-end or well-crafted devices, increases profit etc. Which is a smart move if you don't own the entire market (but can differentiate yourself from your competitors)

Apple was profitable before the iOS devices hit and much of that was due to this kind of smart thinking. It reminds me of Nintendo, who, despite not dominating the market, still manages to be quite profitable (especially compared to their competitors) with a very similar strategy.

Letting anybody build any ol' system willy nilly would cannibalize Apple's profits, plus give them quite a bit more work since ensuring drive compatibility with random hardware would become a major priority.

As a user I think it sucks, but I have to respect that as a business strategy.

> As a user I think it sucks, but I have to respect that as a business strategy.

No, I do not think respect is quite what it deserves. It does not flow from their capability, but from particular exploitation of given laws that allow market restriction. Respect them for making good products, not for avoiding competition. Respect them for persuading you to buy their products, not for preventing you from having more choice.

> Respect them for making good products, not for avoiding competition. Respect them for persuading you to buy their products, not for preventing you from having more choice.

Exactly.

It's interesting how there are also plenty of people that would respect them exactly for their smart use of what the law allows. That's a sad thing, really and it would be nice if apple would find less restrictive ways of dealing with the consequences of more user freedom. For instance, I can see that they seem to be sensitive to a possibly reduced user experience on non-certified hardware, but I can't believe that a tech savvy company like apple wouldn't be able to set up a certification program to mitigate such concerns.

I've ran a hackintosh since 10.4 and I've never seen Apple do anything to actively prevent users from doing it or pursue anyone for a non-commercial EULA violation. They stop resellers like Psystar, and they've broken a few things which appeared to be ancillary to moving their own products forward (Atom CPUs), but they could be far more annoying about it every point release if they really felt like it. Early on, they also needlessly released a few fat binary hardware drivers for ethernet, sound, and wifi devices that have never been bundled in a real Intel Mac.

Apple certainly has the means to stop it, but I don't think they mind the fringe hackers running OSX. I've seen a few people converted by it, and I own a few real Macs plus the hackintosh as well, and I suspect most people who hackintosh are Apple customers of some degree. Getting stuffy about it could be pretty damaging to their perceived good will.

It seems strange to describe 'we'll give you something, if you agree not to use it for certain purposes' as depending on 'particular exploitation of given laws that allow market restriction.' To me that's more just about 'common courtesy' between consenting parties.

Apple never licensed OS X to clone makers. The clone era was very short (at most 1993-1997), and ended while the Classic MacOS was current. OS X didn't ship until 2001.

Apple licensed variants of OS 7 to the clone makers. When Steve returned, someone decided that the clone license agreements did not cover OS 8 ... so boom. New OS, but no new license. IIRC, Apple did buy one of the clone makers (possibly Power Computing).

Oh yes...too right. Apologies. I meant MacOS and my brain immediately brought up OS X for some reason.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com