The Prospects For Virtualizing OS X

seriouslywtf writes in with a look at the current state of the question: will people eventually be able to run Mac OS X in a virtual machine, either on the Mac or under Windows? Ars Technica has articles outlining the positions of two VM vendors, Parallels and VMWare. Both have told Ars unequivocally that they won't enable users to virtualize OS X until Apple explicitly gives them the thumbs up. First, Parallels: "'We won't enable this kind of functionality until Apple gives their blessing for a few reasons,' Rudolph told Ars. 'First, we're concerned about our users — we are never going to encourage illegal activity that could open our users up to compromised machines or any sort of legal action. This is the same reason why we always insist on using a fully-licensed, genuine copy of Windows in a virtual machine — it's safer, more stable, fully supported, and completely legal.'" And from VMWare: "'We're very interested in running Mac OS X in a virtual machine because it opens up a ton of interesting use cases, but until Apple changes its licensing policy, we prefer to not speculate about running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment,' Krishnamurti added."

so...

[President_Camacho]

Both [vendors] have told Ars unequivocally that they won't enable users to virtualize OS X until Apple explicitly gives them the thumbs up.

So what do people say when vendors behave the same way towards Microsoft?

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Dark Kenshin]

It seems to me the article is talking more about the legality of doing it, not the possibility. Apple therefore, has no obligation to support something it doesn't license.

I do agree with you about the restrictions. If I legally obtain OS X, there should no reason I shouldn't be able to run it under a virtual environment.

Re:so...

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

So what do people say when vendors behave the same way towards Microsoft?

I don't know about people - I can only give my opinion. But I'd say "Microsoft Sucks for doing that."

Apple is a hardware company.

[Jartan]

It's obvious they will never give "permission" to do this. Their whole business model is based on using OS X as a driving force to sell their hardware with high profit margins. Some people might agree that they could survive going the other way but Apple doesn't seem convinced.

That being said I doubt they can do much to stop it. It'll be interesting to see what kind of court cases get brought up over virtualization though. Perhaps they could finally bring the whole EULA nonsense to an end.

it will never happen

[oedneil]

For the same reason I don't believe Apple will ever release its software for installation on PCs. Hardware sales are where Apple makes its money, and who would really buy the hardware if they could install OS X on a $300 Walmart PC?

Great Example Of Why Apple Changed Their Name

[Anonymous Coward]

After getting dumped by IBM after IBM landed all three console manufacturers as clients, Apple was pushed closer to being nothing but an overpriced x86 OEM with nice industrial polish and typography.

OS X running freely in the x86 wild pretty much means the death of Apple hardware. Apple has known this for some time now and it is why they are turning their attention towards the iPod side of the company, changing the company name to downplay desktop computers, and have started to slow the OS X upgrade cycle.

Why not!

[CitX]

If it can be done technically why not. If Windows license prevented it I am sure someone would do it anyways. Why is Apple so different???

Also a little off the subject but this brings up lock in!!!

Apple locked the iTunes system to iPod and Europe is steaming and wants it to change. What about Mac OS itself. It is a Apple operating system that is LOCKED to Apple's hardware. Why isn't the EU trying to break that lock in??? You want Windows, buy from MS and buy any vendors hardware (Linux too). Want OS X you are FORCED to buy Apple's hardware too. I wonder if someday Apple will be forced to change by the EU.

I use the MacBook but I must say I hate being artificially forced via DRM, or any other system to prevent me (the customer) from options after I purchase a product.

Re:Great Example Of Why Apple Changed Their Name

[wtmcgee]

I respectfully disagree. A lot of people care about the entire 'experience' of Apple products, from the quality packaging, to the clean, amazing hardware, to the OS. If Dell started selling OS X on their machines tomorrow, people would certainly jump ship and buy cheaper machines. But I can almost assure you Apple would still be around. I think they just know it's important to their brand to not have another 'clone war' like the mid 90s.

Personally, if Apple licensed OS X, I'd probably buy a cheap HP or Dell desktop for use around the house or for my parents ... but I certainly wouldn't stop buying Apple hardware.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[timmarhy]

"No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple."

you just controdicted yourself in the same sentence. any form of reprisal WILL take the form of legal action, hence the legality of it is the issue.

Re:it will never happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty much no-one. Apple proved this already during the cloning debacle - people immediately started buying Power Computing, Umax, Motorola and other clones because they offered higher CPU specs at the same or lower prices.

Re:Why would anyone want to do this?

[tkdog]

The "hardware benefit" of a Mac is indirect. It is actually the benefit of having the company build "the whole widget" which allows them to have full control of drivers, etc. etc. Whether that is a benefit or a limitation to you is a major factor in whether you would be pleased owning/using a Mac. I agree that Apple is only going to care if it looks as if it might cost them money or damage their "it just works" reputation. Geeks can hack all they want as long as they pay for it first.

OS X perhaps the worst OS for virtualization

[Florian]

Mac OS X makes heavy use of hardware accelerated functions: Quartz/Aqua 3D graphics (which unlike Vista's Aero can't be turned off), GPU-rendered graphics processing among others in CoreImage and iMovie, low-latency sound in CoreAudio, ... - likely making it perhaps the worst candidate for virtualization among all operating systems.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[GlassHeart]

it sounds like if you write "Apple" on a Post It and stick to your PC, you can virtualize away.

At which point you violate Apple's trademark instead.

Re:Apple is a hardware company.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Exactly. The Mac is a $1,000 dongle, and Apple legal isn't going to take kindly to that dongle being out-of-the-box emulated on a PC.

Isn't it ironic

[davmoo]

Hmmm...I don't seem to remember any companies having those concerns about running Windows virtualized. And I certainly don't recall Microsoft giving their blessings to anyone to do so.

Double standards make me laugh.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a deep breath, and repeat after me: The world is not the USA. The USA is not the world.

There are plenty of other countries that take the viewpoint of installing a program onto a hard drive, and running it, as being an expected part of using the software, and hence not in violation of copyright. Installing it onto a second hard drive without wiping it off the first, on the other hand, is (and fair enough too.)

In those countries, you do not need a license granted to you to use the software - it is implicitely granted when you purchase the software. This may make it perfectly legitimate to use the software in manners that contradict the EULA.

Naturally, the usual disclaimers apply: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice; seek a lawyer for information relevant to your specific situation; etc., etc., etc.

Limited License, Not Ownership

[nick_davison]

(as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).

You don't own the software, you've bought a limited license to it. Whether we like it or not, courts have upheld shrinkwrapped licenses.

Thus, you have the right to use OS-X in exactly the way Apple specifies (i.e. on Apple hardware only) or, if you have never done so, return it for a full refund.

It may not be criminally illegal for you to violate that contract but it is a violation of a contract and thus illegal in the sense of prohibited by civil law.

Apple sells OS-X cheaply in order to sell the hardware it's locked to at a large markup. This isn't any different to Adobe giving away Acrobat reader to allow them to sell Acrobat at a huge markup or Microsoft giving away Internet Explorer to WGA validated Windows users.

It's not in Apple's interest to unbundle the two:

• Apple has a finite list of hardware options they need to support. They don't need to worry about supporting that weird grey market motherboard or obscure Korean on board modem. They can keep their costs down by only supporting registered hardware. Microsoft balances the cost of a massive compatibility lab across 95% of the home market. Apple would have to balance it against 5%.
• Apple can give away the razor and make its money on blades. Without the hardware markup subsidizing the OS, they'd likely have to jack the price up even higher.

We may not like it but Apple evidently has their reasons (whether arguably short sighted or not). That you buy a shrinkwrapped license, not ownership, means that: yes, legally, they do have the right to do so and you don't legally have the right to do as you wish.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[EvanED]

[Oops, looks like I missed closing my <I> tag last post. Sorry about that.]

You need to study your copyright law better. 17 USC 117 [cornell.edu] explicitly allows copies that are made of a computer program that are required for using the program. In addition, I think you would have a very strong argument (at least if you were not reusing a license, and especially if you were virtualizing on a Mac) for fair use.

Be careful what you ask for

[Enrique1218]

I guess Apple subsidizes the development of Mac OSX with the hardware sales (price premium?). Now if Apple were to let OSX to be distributed independent of the hardware, the software would have to be sold at a higher price. Moreover, Apple may have to protect against piracy with the much loathe activation schemes that Microsoft currently employs. Be careful what you wish for? Besides I don't believe that OSX has enough mindshare to get many more users to make that model work. OSX link to Apple hardware is not only thing holding back the mass exodus from Wndows.

Great for developers

[mike3k]

It would be very useful to be able to run OS X in a VM for testing different versions. I have to test my software in 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5. Of course it won't help with PowerPC versions, but it would be nice to be able to use 10.5 without rebooting.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Anonymous Coward]

A funny thing happened to me the other day. I went to apple.com to check out the MacBook Pro and clicked on Get A Mac. One of the reasons they list to get a MAC is:

2. You can even run Windows.
The Mac gives you choices. With the latest software options, an Intel-powered Mac can easily run Vista or Windows XP applications.

Isn't that just hypocritical of them? They tout one of the benefits of using a Mac is that they give you choices. You can run OSX or Windows and they imply that with a PC you don't have choices and can only run Windows. What they fail to mention is that this is not because of Windows or the PC but because Apple is placing the restriction themselves. Hello?!

Re:VMWare "appliance" of OS X

[jafac]

Most people who use OS X for any time at all love it. Why not give everybody a chance to love it?

They don't give a crap if anybody USES OS X.
They want to sell hardware.

That's why they let people run Windows, or Linux, or Solaris x86, on their hardware, if that's what they want to do. I agree that Apple has "hardware profits" blinders on. But what can you do?

(My guess is that soon, someone, somewhere, out there, will try this, and have it working anyway, with or without Apple's sanctions)

Re:Already Done

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Notice anything about those solutions? They are not aimed at the consumer market, are not commercial enterprises, and are very limited in their ability. Creating software that can only be used legally in a weird edge case is one thing. Profiting by commercially marketing software that can only be used legally in an edge case is called "contributory copyright infringement." Now I can see the use case for OS X used legally in a VM (if you have Apple hardware and want to run OS X in a VM on top of some other OS, or if you live in a country with copyright laws that are different than the US). I can see arguments that contributory copyright infringement laws are a bad thing, and many of our other copyright laws are also negative for society. In this particular case, however, I do see the point of view from Apple. The market is dominated by a monopoly. Apple's best product would directly compete with that monopoly. Even if it is greatly superior, both recent history and the economics of monopolies show they will lose in that market if they try to compete. The classic strategy for competing against a monopoly is to build a separate vertical chain of supply the monopoly cannot undermine (hardware under your OS and apps on top of it). This is exactly what Apple has done.

Lots of people on Slashdot like to think Apple could abandon the tie between their OS and hardware and everyone would benefit. Those people mostly think that, not because they objectively looked at the market and understood it, but because they want it to be true because it would benefit them directly. It is not true. Unless MS's monopoly is broken up or ousted by tertiary market intrusions, Apple must maintain their tie in to survive. If EULAs are rendered null and void, Apple will stop selling their OS separately at all and probably start selling slightly more expensive boxes with a OS tied to a hardware signature and either sell upgrade versions (which suck) or provide free upgrades for some period of time, like 5 years. It is simply the reality of the market

For anyone out there who want Apple to stop tying their products, simply fixing the market will likely cause that to happen. Break MS into at least two competing companies, each with full rights to Windows, and in two or three years Apple will be forced to unbundle by the now competitive market and they will be able to do so without being killed. Problems like these are best solved at a higher level, rather than micro-managed.

It won't happen

[Kazymyr]

At least not while Jobs is still with Apple. Everyone seems to think these days that Apple is the company that sells OSX. Well, they're not. They're the company that sells Apple-branded computers, which incidentally run OSX. Their business plan includes selling hardware, with software added as an extra benefit - contrast with Microsoft which are in the business of selling software. Virtualization would cut into their hardware sales, so they won't allow it.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[bnenning]

There's plenty of good reasons to do that. Cross-platform testing is a major one; say your primary development environment is Linux or Windows, but you want to test on OS X. And when Leopard ships it would also be useful to run a virtualized Tiger under Leopard (or vice versa), to test Mac apps under both versions. And there's always the standard reasons for virtualization to run apps that aren't available on the native OS; Windows or Linux users might want to run Delicious Library or OmniGraffle or other Mac-only apps.