Apple OS licensing

RacerX

RacerX

Old Rhapsody User
For those who are a little confused on Apple OS licensing, hopefully this can clear up the issue.

Your license to use the Mac OS comes from the hardware. Your Apple hardware came with a Mac OS originally*, and any version of the Mac OS you buy is actually a strict upgrade to the license you were granted with the Apple hardware. Your Apple hardware is a license key for Mac OS X (which is why we have never needed a license string for the Mac OS).

... that is to say, boxed versions of Mac OS X are actually upgrades. And your license to used those is the hardware itself.

That having been said, there are no boxed versions of Mac OS X for Intel processors. The only legal versions in existence are tied to existing hardware that came from Apple. Anyone who got Mac OS X for Intel with Apple hardware is only allowed to use Mac OS X on that hardware.

Further, versions of Mac OS X for Intel before version 10.4.4 were distributed under a nondisclosure agreement. So on top of the license agreement to only run it on the Apple hardware it came with, it was also illegal to share it with anyone... or discuss the software at length with anyone before the final release (which has since come and gone).

Basically, there is no way to run Mac OS X on a PC legally. Even if you had a developer kit system. Or an Intel based iMac. Or a MacBook Pro.

And the first boxed versions of Mac OS X for Intel aren't going to show up until 10.5 is released (in case any of you were waiting).

Hope that helps straighten out the legal issues for any of you wondering.




* Mac Clone hardware came with a version of the Mac OS originally and the manufacturer was given both the ROM and logic board specification from Apple. Those items represent your license to use all future Mac OS versions.

Apple has never had any problems with XPostFacto because it is only used for installing Mac OS X on systems that would otherwise qualify for a Mac OS X license... but just are not supported by Apple.
 
Only to add: Even when the first boxed versions of Mac OS X for Intel will appear at version 10.5, those too will be upgrade versions which do _not_ allow installation on anything but a Mac which came with an older version of OS X. Basically.

I guess you wrote this thread for all of those who want to install OS X on their beige boxes (the "any PC"). I have to admit that I perfectly understand the wish to do so. Heck: Even *I'm* sometimes dreaming of buying one of those little subnotebooks, because Apple doesn't make them.
 
This is what will happen if you try to install os x on intel pc's...

To quote apple..
There once was a user that whined

his existing OS was so blind,

he'd do better to pirate

an OS that ran great

but found his hardware declined.

Please don't steal Mac OS!

Really, that's way uncool.
Click to expand...

If your tired of windows, install linux. It's that simple.
 
In many cases, linux is _not_ a good replacement for OS X. The case, of course, being that you actually _want_ to run OS X. ;) ... I guess for me the discussion is really one of three possible cases:


1.) If you want to play around with OS X to see whether it's worth what all those Mac geeks are constantly bragging on about, installing OS X illegally on a PC might seem like a good (because free) option. You could also go to an Apple store (or other store selling Macs) to try them. Of course, if you're playing with a crippled Mac at a store for five minutes, you won't get a really good impression of what a Mac's capable of. I think for _this_ case, Apple should actually create a demo-DVD of Mac OS X which _does_ run on many PCs. It's perfectly doable, but there's of course, a danger that this very disk could lead to easier OS X hacking...

2.) You _want_ to switch to the Mac, you know it, but the hardware's too expensive for you, and you'd also need to buy a lot of software (cross-grades, sometimes...), which further makes the switch more expensive. Well: I guess there's only one choice here... Get the money to do so.

3.) You have no intention of ever buying a Mac or related software and just want to be a free-loader. So you download illegal copies of system & software. Well: You're a criminal.

But the interesting case, in my opinion, is of course number one... Apple could reach many, many people. Put a demo DVD of Mac OS X (live system?) in every iPod's packaging. Wouldn't _that_ be a great way of reaching people. I know: Many PCs out there probably don't have the hardware to run if flawlessly, but you could make it clear what the requirements are. Easy. Good marketing. There could even be demo versions of MS Office for the Mac as well as demo versions of Adobe's and Macromedia's software inside... (once they're universal, I'd say, since else they don't make a really good impression...)
 
You can get an iBook for 700 bucks, and minis for sub-400 bucks at the refurb store. If you really want a cheap way to test out OS X, get one of those. PC's are not made for the mac experience.. it's just not the same with a PC. Plus, the refurbs come with OS X and iLife, everything you need to start working (or playing). iWork is only 79 bucks. MS Office is 279. Need I say more?

The OS X experience is tempting.. don't go to jail for it!
 
If you put yourself in a person's mind who has a LOT less money than you're talking about here, has maybe got a PC from an uncle or something or built it himself two or three years ago, you'll see that 700 "bucks" might be QUITE a lot of money for *trying out OS X*. Your point certainly does not defeat mine...
 
Well, if you really want to "try" out OS X, you will only want to pay like 10 bucks. Borrow a friends computer or something. I'm just trying to show that a "real" OS X computer doesn't have to be as expensive as the ones advertised on apple's front page.. you can get an iBook for 700, a LOT less that the 2000-dollar Mac-book pro. If you're serious about getting a new computer, 700 bucks would get you a mid-range laptop with windows.

My dad found that getting a mac paid for itself: he used to have to fix the two HP laptops, 2 custom boxes, and his own work machine constantly. By getting macs, his downtime was significantly reduced.
 
fryke said:
I guess you wrote this thread for all of those who want to install OS X on their beige boxes (the "any PC"). I have to admit that I perfectly understand the wish to do so. Heck: Even *I'm* sometimes dreaming of buying one of those little subnotebooks, because Apple doesn't make them.
Click to expand...
It is mainly to make sure that people aren't going into these endeavors blindly.

And to let people know what is considered crossing the line from Apple's point of view.

Apple should actually create a demo-DVD of Mac OS X which _does_ run on many PCs.
Click to expand...
That sounds very much like what Be tried to do with BeOS Personal Edition (I think that was what it was called), which ran off a disk image (something like 400 MB) on Windows PCs. You could boot into it and then restart to get back to Windows... or something like that.


Beyond the fact that it didn't work for Be (and I'm not saying that this was the reason Be failed), I think that people actually need a certain amount of investment in something like a platform change.

For example... why in the world would people who could have afforded a Mac stay with MS-DOS? What I found was that these people had invested time and energy learning DOS and didn't want to feel like they wasted it (I've seen the same stance taken by command-line using Unix users and hand-coding web designers).

Another example... Me... and education. When I was in high school the only thing that kept me in class and getting a passing grade was Track. If my GPA dropped below 2.0, I was dropped from the team. I graduated with a (weighted) GPA of 2.03. Only what I needed to stay in Track.

But a couple years later, when I started college, even though I was on the Track team then, I was paying for school out of pocket. All of a sudden a class wasn't something to skip... it was something I paid for!

Honestly, paying for a Mac is the only real way to get most people motivated enough to get the most out of a Mac. Part of what I do for a living is to help people get the most out of their investment in an Apple computer.

The mystery gets them to put the money down. Putting the money down gets them to put the effort into the transition. That effort shows them not only what a Mac can do, but in a lot of cases, what a computer can do (a lot of people sleep walk through using a PC as they started with them).


I think that if people could prevews Mac OS X on their own systems, that would be enough for them to say they tried it and didn't like it.



On a side note... I own a couple versions of the BeOS. Other than trying out the BeOS Personal Edition on a PC at work back in 1999, I have yet to take the time and effort to actually install the BeOS on any real hardware.

The mystery was gone... and so was the incentive to try to work with it. The only reason I have the media at all is for my OS collection (odds are, if I would have had to pay more than I did I might have been more inclined to see what I paid for).
 
I actually used BeOS as my main OS for quite a while. I actually thought it was going to be the "one", as far as OS's go. I think everyone knew the writing was on the wall by the time version 5 hit the streets.

The BeOS was fast, and was amazing at multi-tasking. It didn't hurt that the OS booted up and was running in about 20 seconds. I still don't think much around now can touch it as far as multi-tasking goes. It was impressive then, and in that regard is still light years ahead of windows.

I think I still have all the intel releases laying around here somewhere.
 
jwoods said:
I actually used BeOS as my main OS for quite a while. I actually thought it was going to be the "one", as far as OS's go. I think everyone knew the writing was on the wall by the time version 5 hit the streets.

The BeOS was fast, and was amazing at multi-tasking. It didn't hurt that the OS booted up and was running in about 20 seconds. I still don't think much around now can touch it as far as multi-tasking goes. It was impressive then, and in that regard is still light years ahead of windows.

I think I still have all the intel releases laying around here somewhere.
Click to expand...

Every time someone mentions BeOS I get nostalgic and sad about how it all turned out for Be. They had a great operating system with some great potential. Of course, thanks to Microsoft, they didn't have a chance. Of course, Be wasn't a total saint. They thought they had Apple in the Palm :)p) of their hands. And then the NeXT Big Thing happened for Apple, which meant Be was left out in the cold.

After that happened along with Microsoft thwarting their efforts on the PC side, the decisions just got worse and worse. Seeing BeOS turned into BeIA and running on a Sony eVilla was the most humiliating thing to see for such a powerful operating system with TONS of potential for multimedia and whatnot. Such is life, I guess...

Anyways, lots of the technologies that BeOS employed eventually made their way into Mac OS X and Windows as well. Linux also took advantage of a lot of the features BeOS had. I would still love to see the GUI from the BeOS implemented properly in either GNOME or KDE. YellowTab's Zeta is nice, but I don't see it going anywhere to be honest. On the PC side, Linux has the most potential in an open source operating system and with a nice BeOS look within either KDE or GNOME, it would be a great complement for me anyways.

Sorry for deviating from the topic a bit, but I had to respond......I guess just don't mention BeOS again and I'll shut up. :D

As for the licensing, I think it would be a shame if Apple didn't eventually supply a retail install of OS X for Intel. They would have to eventually, but who knows what is actually under Job's sleeves on that one.
 
Yeah. I was a big supporter of Be, but as you mentioned, they thought Apple was going to buy them out and of course, NeXT got the nod. That would have been an interesting thing for sure though, although I think the NeXT move was the right one for apple.

ZETA is selling for what? $99? Too much for too little, nowadays.

Ok, I'll shut up now. ;) (New rule? No BeOS talk.....LOL)
 
Well, if we look at this at a larger scale...

When Steve had to go from Apple back in the days, he came back to the computer world with both a new OS and new hardware (proprietary): NeXT was born. The OS was _so_ great. The hardware, although tricky in some aspects, was nice too. Much too pricey, but well... It then went down. OS was ported to other hardware, NeXT's own hardware department died completely. As an OS/application/development environment only, it didn't really survive –*until Apple bought NeXT.

Be was similar. They had hardware and software (proprietary) at the beginning, although they also had the software running on PPC Macs quite soon (after all, the Be hardware was also PPC-based). After a while, they dropped the hardware and ported the OS to also run on PCs. Then they dropped the PPC version and after a while, the whole project died. (Well, it went Palm's way, much like NeXT went Apple's way...)

I think we should just clearly state that _both_ OSs _failed_ in the market. You can say that they both had their niches and that they lived on in some or other way, but NeXT's OS never really had a wide audience before Mac OS X came along. And let's get something clear here, also: Even Mac OS X is not really the leader in desktop operating systems today. ;)

Would BeOS have been the better thing to buy back at the time? I don't think so. I actually don't think so at all. NeXT had it all prepared. It needed some brushing up (although Apple probably overdid this task 'slightly'...), but it was all there. It's not only about how quickly an OS can do 5 things well. It's also about scale, and I'm not sure that BeOS would've brought it all together as nicely as OpenStep/Rhapsody/OS X did.

Mac OS X, today, has a *LOT* of potential. Let's hope Apple makes sure that developers both inside and outside of Apple are aware of this and actually make use of it...

Now back to topic, please. ;) (We're in the opinions forum here. I guess RacerX really has already said everything there is to say about the _subject_ of this thread. Hasn't he?)
 
eric2006 said:
You can get an iBook for 700 bucks, and minis for sub-400 bucks at the refurb store. If you really want a cheap way to test out OS X, get one of those. PC's are not made for the mac experience.. it's just not the same with a PC. Plus, the refurbs come with OS X and iLife, everything you need to start working (or playing). iWork is only 79 bucks. MS Office is 279. Need I say more?

The OS X experience is tempting.. don't go to jail for it!
Click to expand...
Well, iWork isn't MS Office, and comparing the two isn't really fair. Office has Excel, which is the standard spreadsheet app that every Windows user has installed on their computer and is familiar with. This is the one app that has not been outdone by any other company in recent years, and it's what keeps Microsoft Office flying off the shelves for PC users. iWork is missing too much to be considered an office-capable package. It doesn't really compete with Office, so this is OK.

I wouldn't pay for any additional software if all I wanted to do was test a cheaper Mac. TextEdit will give you your simple word processor, and iLife is the perfect small taste of what a Mac can do. Office looks nicer on a Mac than a PC, so a PC user will appreciate that, like I did. They can install the Office test drive that comes with their new/used Mac and get a feel for it.

I agree completely with fryke that Apple would do best by offering a bootable test drive DVD of the Mac OS. They have little on their Web site that really highlights the Mac OS because you have to be able to use it for a few minutes to see what it can do. Many will say, "tell them to go to an Apple store and test it out." Yeah, that's fine, but they won't, and that attitude isn't going to sell more Macs. It only reenforces the PC users view of the arrogant Mac user (i.e. - "We have the best OS. You are all stupid for using Windows. We don't really care if you switch, but, if you want to, you have to come to us, because we don't need you.").
 
dmetzcher said:
I agree completely with fryke that Apple would do best by offering a bootable test drive DVD of the Mac OS. They have little on their Web site that really highlights the Mac OS because you have to be able to use it for a few minutes to see what it can do. Many will say, "tell them to go to an Apple store and test it out." Yeah, that's fine, but they won't, and that attitude isn't going to sell more Macs. It only reenforces the PC users view of the arrogant Mac user (i.e. - "We have the best OS. You are all stupid for using Windows. We don't really care if you switch, but, if you want to, you have to come to us, because we don't need you.").
Click to expand...
Well, what if I was interested in switching to Windows? Is there a Windows test drive DVD that will run on my Mac? How is it any less arrogant for me to have to go to a PC store to try out Windows? I sure haven't seen this attitude hurting the sales of Windows.

Apple knows that as the other guys they don't have the ability to bully people into buying their systems. Further, they are very aware that first impressions are hard to overcome.

Which is why Apple spends so much of their time and effort on presentation.

Why did Apple drop Best Buy as a distributer back in 1998? Because the demo systems were in awful condition and it gave people a bad impression of Macs.

Apple isn't about to make the same mistake as Be. If you are going to try the Mac OS... it'll be in the best possible environment for the Mac OS. Period.


See, the amazing thing is, people form first impressions very early and very quickly. Once a first impression has been formed, people generally will look for ways to reenforce that first impression (they hate to be wrong).

Moving to Macs from another platform isn't easy. There are always problems. Now, if you formed a bad first impression of Macs, those problems are going to reenforce the user's negative views. But if the first impression was good, then users will be less likely to let problems deter them from their initial good impression.

This is why things are done this way at Apple. And even if you don't agree or thing this is totally wrong... it really doesn't matter, because things aren't going to change. Apple wants you in the perfect selling environment if you are a first time Mac buyer, not in some back alley attempting to get Mac OS X to work on a system it was not designed to work on.


And I can tell you from experience... the whole Mac on PCs thing is a pain in the rear!

I'm pretty well known as the Rhapsody guy on the net, and as such I get questions on how to install Rhapsody all the time. And usually it is from people trying to run Rhapsody on a system it was never designed to run on.

When I decided to run Rhapsody on a PC, I only bought PCs and PC parts that were listed as supported hardware. Did I have any problems? No.

These days I usually try to point people at the PowerPC version of Rhapsody because it runs great on actual Apple hardware. And I don't have to deal with people saying Rhapsody sucks because they never got a chance to see it actually running the way it should and they had gotten such a bad first impression trying to shoe horn it onto a system it should never have been on in the first place.


My reasons for agreeing with Apple on this matter come from my real world experiences with something like this... frankly, Apple really is doing the best thing!
 
Like RacerX, I think it would be a terrible idea to release a "test drive" for OS X that ran on windows. First time something didn't work, you'd lose a sale that you might have had from a potential switcher. OS X runs great on hardware it supports.....The cheap arse PC's that people buy on the cheap for internet access probably would not run it all that great. Nevermind driver support, etc.

Best if people see it in action where it can be presented in the best light.
 
RacerX said:
Well, what if I was interested in switching to Windows? Is there a Windows test drive DVD that will run on my Mac? How is it any less arrogant for me to have to go to a PC store to try out Windows? I sure haven't seen this attitude hurting the sales of Windows.
Click to expand...
Two things:

First, I should be clearer regarding what I meant by a demo CD. I'm not talking about something that runs the same as a Mac. I'm talking about something that shows off the look and feel of the OS, something that many Windows users who have seen my machine have drooled over. I'm not talking about installing apps or editing video here. Something very simple, that contains information about the OS, in addition to showing it off a bit, would be all that is needed. Something that can be given away in an Apple store, or something that a visitor to the Apple Web site san get sent to them would be great. You could even forget the CD. If Apple could somehow deliver the same experience via the Web (something small that can be downloaded), that would be even better.

Regarding the lack of a Windows test drive...
Who needs one? Most computer users are Windows users. If you are in an office, chances are that you are using a Windows machine. If you are in a school, the chances are still good that you are using a Windows machine. My point here is that people are familiar with Windows. Microsoft doesn't have to bend over backwards to get people to try out their software. All the PC manufacturers are doing it for them with low-cost boxes.

You talk about arrogance with regard to Microsoft not offering the same thing that I think Apple should offer. Yes, they are arrogant. They can be arrogant. They have the user base that allows them to be confident in their arrogance.

Is the lack of this disc hurting Apple's sales? We don't know. We'll never know unless someone starts randomly polling Windows users across the nation and asking them if they would be willing to take a look at a DVD containing a simple Mac OS test drive. I don't think that the hardware issues that you mentioned would be an issue if the DVD, made to run on Windows, could mimic much of the look and feww of the Mac OS. It couldn't do everything, but it could do enough to wet someone's appetite. What I was saying, simply, was that I thought it could help Mac sales. Windows never came into the argument because that was not the topic at hand.
 
dmetzcher said:
First, I should be clearer regarding what I meant by a demo CD. I'm not talking about something that runs the same as a Mac. I'm talking about something that shows off the look and feel of the OS, something that many Windows users who have seen my machine have drooled over. I'm not talking about installing apps or editing video here. Something very simple, that contains information about the OS, in addition to showing it off a bit, would be all that is needed. Something that can be given away in an Apple store, or something that a visitor to the Apple Web site san get sent to them would be great. You could even forget the CD. If Apple could somehow deliver the same experience via the Web (something small that can be downloaded), that would be even better.
Click to expand...

The problem with the Live CD approach (which is essentially what you're advocating) is hardware support and speed.

A Live CD needs to have good hardware detection and support if you're going to convince anyone to switch. You can't limit what people can run the Live CD on. If your Live CD fails to correctly detect the video card for example, or the sound card, this gives a very poor impression of the demo. People will leave with the wrong impression that Mac OS X isn't going to detect the video card, etc. correctly, even though you can only install Mac OS X on Macs so this a moot point. Unless Apple is prepared to add support for pretty much all PC hardware, such a Live CD is a bad idea.

Another problem with Live CDs is the lack of performance. Everything takes much longer to load up on a Live CD. Sure, this is for demo purposes but if it is too slow, people will yet again leave with the wrong impression of the OS. You've already got enough nonsense floating about the Internet, claiming that OS X is 'sluggish' by people who've never used OS X for longer than 5 minutes. A Live CD will compound this problem. Of course, you could allow installation to hard disk like most Linux Live CDs, but it still leaves the problem of hardware support.

I personally believe that allowing people to play with machines at Apple Stores is a better way of showing off the Mac. There, you've got real Apple hardware to run OS X on, and they'll see the actual experience (i.e. performance, stability, eye candy, etc) of OS X. You won't be able to get everyone into an Apple Store. As such, downloadable movies of operations will be definitely a killer. Friends have been impressed when looking at Exposé, even if it was in a movie.
 
Well... This might all be well in the USA where an Apple Store with good staff is just around every corner by now. (Kidding...) - Here in Switzerland, most people will probably see Macs for the first time when they go to Manor's multimedia floor. Something like Best Buy, I'd say. The staff doesn't know about Macs, the Macs are in terrible states (either there's a screensaver running, password protected so people can actually only look at the _hardware_, not at Mac OS X at all, or they're hanging at some point) and they have usually _one_ iMac to show and next to it have the price tags for all iMac models. (So they might show the 20" version, but the price tags also show the 17" version. Mix and match? Erh...)

So you guys think a live CD is not the way to go. Because it's not a good experience. Then Apple should simply _make_ it a good experience. Thank you.
 
Im sure this post is not in the proper forum. And I guess my first mistake was posting anything at all. I did post a question to this board which has gone unanswered. And while visiting tried to help others with problems I have experience with. Things went wrong when a poster asked an innocent question about a 5 users tiger license and another poster (not named but knows who I am talking about) started pointing his finger as though someone had been killed. And I think it was the middle finger. Myself I never liked reading posts like that, And stupid me got all mixed up in the mess. Ohwell, This was the first and probably last forum I have ever posted in. As thru all my years the answers to my questions have always come from the books. I must be getting lazy or bored thinking that posting a question to my problem for another person to answer was solution. Back to the books. Bye. P.S. disregard all my previous posts as none were intended ofensive. Although I am not religious, God bless you all, (I guess)! CHOW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top