Is Piracy the Pathway to Apple Profit?

An anonymous reader writes "Over at Apple Matters Chris Seibold writes an interesting piece hypothesizing that Apple's strategy may bank on people pirating OS X for their Intel boxes."

Worked for ...

[SirSlud]

Worked for MS :) /flame on

Re:Worked for ...

[AKAImBatman]

Worked for MS :)

This may be more true than you think. Back in the days of Win3.1, there were rumors flying about of revealing Microsoft memos. According to these rumors, Microsoft recognized that Win3.1 was the most pirated piece of software ever. The memos also detailed that Win3.1 never would have reached its current level of popularity without rampant piracy.

I don't have any sources to back this one up, so take it with a grain of salt. But if true, it means that Microsoft recognized that they never would have made their fortune without pirates. A bit odd, no?

Re:Worked for ...

[ssj_195]

Here's a random link - not precisely pertaining to what AKAImBatman mentioned, but very close:

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html [com.com]

Key quote:

Gates shed some light on his own hard-nosed business philosophy. "Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software," he said. "Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

But why miss the opportunity?

[Mr2cents]

I don't see why Apple would leak the software on purpose like some claim. They could also give the first version of osx86 away for free, and gain a lot of support and media attention for that move, instead of the "oh, look, it's leaked on the Internet"-approach.

Re:But why miss the opportunity?

[AmericanInKiev]

The first reply is generally right,

but I would suggest there exists a continuim of responsibility which correlates to success.

It may be more the case that individuals or small companies cut their teeth on "borrowed" software, but when they go to market or become successful, they would necessarily be in a position to purchase the software.

So "leaking" is a bit like investing in the future success of people who use your software - but it has to be deniable to work so there you have it.

AIK

Re:But why miss the opportunity?

[Sj0]

Many people will steal a 200 dollar piece of software before ever downloading a free one.

It's all about percieved value.

I was one of those BeOS downloaders

[SethJohnson]

I do remember BeOS R5 PE. I installed it on my PowerComputing 150. The problem with their business model wasn't that they gave away a version for free. I think the problem was that there weren't a lot of compelling applications available for BeOS. It was way cool. It did real multitasking-- that was the big 'gee-whiz' for me.

This situation with Apple is different. They've already achieved a critical mass of applications for MacOS X. If people were to install a free version, they'd recognize the credibility of the OS in day-to-day use. BeOS just didn't get over that hurdle.

Seth

Re:But why miss the opportunity?

[ScrewMaster]

More than visibility ... Apple is plenty visible. Matter of fact, Apple's rep has traditionally been higher among non-Mac users than among actual Mac bigots. Let's face it, Windows 3.1's success was due largely to mouse pointer envy, which is kind of like penis envy but not. DOS users wanted a mouse and some nifty icons and that's pretty much all Windows 3.1 gave them. Genius, really, when you think about it: Microsoft's marketing team managed to convince untold millions of lusers that that fifth-rate DOS shell called "Windows 3.1" was functionally competitive with a Macintosh. They did it again with Windows 95, and then again with Windows 98. Mindblowing.

In any event, what Apple wants is so-called mindshare, where people get familiar with a product at school or at home. Once they get used to it, they then pressure their workplace to let them have it there as well, which is what Apple (and Microsoft) desperately need because the corporate market is where the big bucks are. Nothing more than a page out of Microsoft's book (as so many others have commented) and it's perfectly legitimate (think of it as we'll-look-the-other-way while you try-before-you-buy). I mean, one can choose to accept a certain degree of infringement of one's IP rights before releasing the lawyers. That is within a software vendor's rights. Sorta like shareware but not.

And this is a perfect example of the difference between true piracy and simple copyright infringement. Apple may (or may not) be willing to turn a blind eye towards individuals illegally copying it's software, as a business strategy intended to gain future market share. But you can bet your bottom dollar that a pirate outfit burning OSX discs by the hundreds of thousands and selling them for profit would attract a degree of legal lightning that would do the RIAA proud.

The mere thought of having to compete with a MacOS on a cheap Intel platform has given Hell, Gates & Co. nightmares for years. If it actually comes to pass ... well. Goody for us, I'd say. I'd be more than willing to pay Apple for their operating system, I just never wanted to pay the premium for their hardware.

Re:But why miss the opportunity?

[Foobar of Borg]

Increased mindshare doesn't always work, though. I remember in college, Apple was donating computers to some universities. I cursed about having to use them in physics and engineering labs as a student, and then heard a lot of my students cursing about having to use them when I was a TA.

Now, of course, MACs are quite good, but back in the day their hardware was always screwing up for seemingly random reasons. It made a lot of people curse Apple to the ends of the Earth.

So, if you try this as a company, make sure your product doesn't suck.

Re:But why miss the opportunity?

[R.Mo_Robert]

Now, of course, MACs are quite good....

Yes, I really love Media Access Controls, too.

Re:Worked for ...

[rovingeyes]

Whoever modded the parent as flamebait is a moron. AFAIK, piracy is probably the best form of advertisement. Let me give you an example. Back in college, my roommate used to visit every goddamn warez site he could find. He downloaded all the softwares and tried them. Didn't matter if he needed it or not. Now he is a consultant where in his job is to suggest which apps to use for a job. Guess what, some of the weird obscure apps found their way to profitability because of this guy.

Now I am not saying that piracy will definitely lead to sucess or will create a career for you like my friend. But my guess is there are lots of guys sitting in their dorm with fat internet pipes just downloading stuff. To me that is advertisement. And besides you don't lose any money there as these guys will never buy the software in the first place but businesses do.

Re:Worked for ...

[DogDude]

Wow... Lots of bad mods today. But I totally agree. Back in "the day" (early-mid 90's), I tried out lots and lots and lots of pirated software. Today, I own copies of the best in every category that I currently use (my favorite small app that I bought because of seeing & using a pirated copy, is Textpad). All the rest that I played with that I didn't like ended up getting nuked. On top of that, in my days of being a developer, I ended up having my employers buy *lots and lots* of copies of various apps that I tried pirated copies of that I couldn't afford myself (like TOAD and more recently, XMLSpy). Take what I did and multiply that by millions of geeks and you have millions (or billions) of dollars of software sold, that wouldn't otherwise be sold (because I would have had no way to try them to see if they were worth using), because of piracy.

Re:I don't entirely agree!

[AoT]

I have spent many an hour at book stores just sitting and reading, Barnes and Nobles to be specific. And while I rarely buy from them, I do buy from them normally when I buy books. Same principle.

No, that was not a flame.

[WidescreenFreak]

No, your statement was not a flame. There are several "incidents" that have helped to solidify Microsoft's dominanace, and piracy can most certainly be attributed to that.

The aformentioned incident about Windows 3.1 is most certainly valid. Look at how many people pirated numerous versions of Windows since the early 1990s. This allowed people to become familiar with the operating system. Then, when it came time for people to purchase a new system, what operating system do you think they would have gotten with it (assuming that they had a choice)? Some operating system that was unknown to the general populous, like OS/2, or something that they already knew well because they had been using a pirated version? Since the operating system came with the PC, Microsoft got a fee for that PC sale. So, whereas MS didn't profit from the initial piracy, they still made a sale later on and further addicted the user to Windows.

I still firmly believe that the "crack" for the Kinko's version of MS Office several years ago was planned. For those who don't know or don't remember, U.S. printing franchise Kinko's had a "special" 30-day, full-usage CD for MS Office (I forget the specific version) for something like $5. Shortly thereafter a crack was released that broke the 30-day protection. The change was a simple modification to a DLL file and a huge nuber of these discs were sold. I'm generally not a conspiracy theorist, but if there was a lot of concern for the "protection" of the "demo" software, Microsoft would (or should) have made it more difficult than a DLL file for protection. I also heard nothing afterwards about prosecuting the one who released the crack. So, for a few bucks per cracked disc, Microsoft snared how many hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of people into Microsoft Office. I'd just about guarantee that the vast majority of those people are still using a version of MS Office. Whether those versions are pirated or not is another matter, but I'll bet that many of them are not.

I really would like to know how much of Microsoft's current dominance is due to past piracy. I'll bet that Microsoft would not be anywhere close to where it is now if there was no such thing as software piracy.

And how many of us have pirated a number of games that we otherwise would not have bought but were so impressive that we purchased what was downloaded and/or purchased any of its sequels or expansion packs? I would think many of us.

I honestly think that there can be an argument made that piracy can under certain circumstances make a product more popular, and Microsoft's dominance is certainly what should be offered as proof of that. I would be willing to bet that Apple would be in the same situation. I know a number of people that I work with (myself included) who would love to work with OS X but are not willing to purchase an additional piece of hardware that we might not be interested in afterwards. But we'd be glad to try it out on one of my Athlon XP/64 systems.

... and Apple could win big time through piracy.

[WidescreenFreak]

However, if you sell demos that happen to get cracked and this drives out the competition then its all legal and you can't get sued in a trust case.

Exactly. That gives the perfect alibi. "No, no, we expected people to use it and buy it afterwards! It's not our fault that hundreds of thousands of people now use our products for $5 and a crack instead of our competitor's $200 version! We are just so very much the real victim here!"

Right.

But think about it. Apple releases their operating system f

Re:Worked for ...

[NanoGator]

"Funny, I was going to say it worked for Adobe..." ... and Discreet, and Newtek..

Not sure I can say the same for games, but when an app is something you can make a living off of, 'piracy' does have a way of making it necessity.

3D Apps in particular have an interesting attitude these days. It is easy to spend between $1,500 and $5,000 for a 3D app. Them's expensive. It wasn't all that long ago that a $500 version of XSI/Softimage came along. We're not talking watered down here, you could actually do st

Re:Worked for ...

[GutBomb]

sure worked for quake. id knows (and knew) that the pirated copies of quake and even quake 2 would get TONS of people hooked into quake 3 which pioneered the "valid cd-key to play online" concept.

Re:Worked for ...

[Demolition]

Not sure I can say the same for games, but when an app is something you can make a living off of, 'piracy' does have a way of making it necessity.

At the college where I once taught, piracy of the types of apps that you've described (e.g. Maya, Softimage, Lightwave, etc.) was rampant. However, most of the IT and teaching staff recognized that this would go on and, generally, turned a blind eye to it.

We understood that many of the students could not afford to buy these apps, even with substantial educational discounts. Therefore, piracy was perhaps the only way to access these apps outside of class or lab times. Much of the piracy may have been instigated by the fact that the majority of our students were using a different OS than the one that we used in our labs (we used Macs exclusively).

Eventually, though, most of the students did end up buying legitimate copies of the apps once they had graduated and begun to earn a living in the graphics and video fields.

I honestly don't think these would be around if not for piracy. At least some companies understand the value of giving something a worthwhile long-term test drive.

One of the companies that didn't seem to understand the value of a "test drive" was Macromedia. This was exemplified by their practice of releasing two versions of an app; the commercial version and the academic version. For example, the academic version of Director had all of the features of the commercial version, but at a huge discount. Sounded great at first, but what none of the students who were sucked into buying the academic version realized (because they hadn't read the EULA in which Macromedia states that the academic version cannot be used for comemrcial purposes) was that their finished products would display non-removeable splash screens that declared "Created with the academic/non-commercial version of Director". The students then found that upgrading to the commercial version would cost $799 CDN. Considering that they'd already spent $649 CDN for the academic version, they ended up spending almost the same amount as if they'd just shelled out for the commercial version ($1499 CDN) in the first place.

Then, to add insult to injury, many of the students noted that prospective employers were not impressed when shown presentations created by the academic version due to the aforementioned academic/non-commercial usage splash.

So, I suppose that the point of the foregoing screed is that some companies occasionally burden their apps with cumbersome EULA provisions that sometimes prompts people to pirate them. This is not the right thing to do, of course, but I can see why it happens.

Brainstorm1!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple should make a x86 version of Mac OS X that is compatible with gray boxes, BUT which is much more streamlined and doesn't have all the bundled software. Apple should sell this for cheap. Like $50 or something. People would snap it up.

And then if people want more where that little bait came from, why, they'll just have to switch :D

Re:Brainstorm1!!!

[Austerity Empowers]

I'd say simplify that, OS X for gray boxes that has no support at all.

Re:Brainstorm1!!!

[Marillion]

That's the difference between a System and a Runtime Environment. The bundled software is the added value that OS X has over anything else like Debian, Fedora, ***BSD. The bundled apps like iPhoto, iDVD, iCal or iTunes make the system useful, out of the box, to your average Soccer Mom or Nascar Dad.

Without those apps, OS X-x86-Lite would likely suffer the same fate as those who "tried" RedHat only to reinstall their orginal Windows because it wouldn't do anything for them.

Re:Brainstorm1!!!

[pla]

The bundled apps like iPhoto, iDVD, iCal or iTunes make the system useful, out of the box, to your average Soccer Mom or Nascar Dad.

Funny - Don't they call that "anticompetitive behavior" when Microsoft does it?

Re:Brainstorm1!!!

[VarmintCong]

Funny - Don't they call that "anticompetitive behavior" when Microsoft does it?

Yes, when a convicted monopolist bundles software as a tactict to further consolidate their hold on an industry, it is called "anticompetitive".

If you aren't a monopoly, you can bundle 'till the cows come home.

Re:Brainstorm1!!!

[codegen]

Funny - Don't they call that "anticompetitive behavior" when Microsoft does it?

That's because Aple doesn't command the large share of the market. If Apple had 90%+ of the market, then it would be anit-competative behaviour. Like it or not, the rules change when you become the dominant market force. It was the same for IBM in the 60's and AT&T in the 70's

If Apple hadn't controlled so much in the past...

[mcn]

...we might be using Machintoshes as PCs now. So, why not? It's never too late to start... but how long will it take before we get 50% Apple and 50% Windows market share?

Re:If Apple hadn't controlled so much in the past.

[hcdejong]

...or Apple might have gone bankrupt, because nobody would be paying $lots for Mac hardware, whose high profit margins have financed lots of R&D over the years.

Re:If Apple hadn't controlled so much in the past.

[DogDude]

I think the ideal may be more along the lines of 30% Apple, 30% Windows, 30% Linux, 10% (Something mysterious and new???)

Ideal??? Apparently, you don't remember the good ol' days of the Commodore/AppleII/PC clones/Amiga/PCjr/Tandy. Some people would have to run multiple computers at the same time because vendors didn't make software on all platforms. It was a nightmare for software developers, for IT people, and for users. Back in that day, if you wanted to buy boxed software, you had to read the min

From TFA: Only with hardware hack

[mindaktiviti]

"Apple is switching to Intel. This has some interesting ramifications, one of the foremost is that you will now, in all probability, be able download a copy of OS X on a P2P site and run it on any plain vanilla Wintel box by employing some sort of hack."

So he's assuming that you'll be able to hack OSX so it can run on non-MAC hardware. Just pointing this out because when I first read this story I was thinking: "OSZ can run on my PC now???".

Re:From TFA: Only with hardware hack

[harrkev]

Somehow, I doubt that OSX will be available on ordinary PCs. Ther is SUCH a variety of PC hardware, this would be unlikely.

Gee, you have a nVidia card? OSX only supports ATI.

Whoops. nForce chipset. Sorry.

Looks like your Athlon 64 does not support SSE3. Now, you software will crash for your amusement. Enjoy!

It is not that Apple could NOT support all of those devices. It is just that Apple is not likely to put the work into it, because they want people to buy THEIR hardware. I suppose that you MIG

It works for Microsoft

[jaavaaguru]

Piracy of the OS means that its userbase will increase exponentially. Then there are more people to lock in and sell other products to. I guess a few of the people who switch to OS X will also start to like iWork and some of the other apps that OS X allows them to run. More people using Apple's software will only benefit Apple.
The people who run pirate copies will probably be the people who would never buy it anyway since they already have Windows... probably the same people that think they got Windows for

Re:It works for Microsoft

[Belisarivs]

The people who run pirate copies will probably be the people who would never buy it anyway since they already have Windows... probably the same people that think they got Windows for free with their computer.

I was with you up until "with their computer". I think the same people who have illicit versions of Windows will be the people who get the illicit versions of OS X - people who don't do their own installing usually don't want to mess around with re-installing Windows, led alone some freaky Mac OS (

OS X on Intel

[wing03]

I Tried BSD with KDE and Afterstep and then Linux with KDE and GNOME. I went with my tail between my legs back to Windows. If, say, a copy of OS X for Intel 'landed in my lap', it worked on my plane Jane vanilla clone box, and it's as good as I hear it is and then reasonably priced, I would eventually buy it.

Intel CPU != PC

[martin]

Ok so where exactly did Steve Jobs say it would be a PC inside. He said Intel CPU's. Now given they are taking over a year to redesign the insides from PPC CPU to Intel CPU I doubt it'll be stock PC hardware in there.

Also Apple is at heart a hardware company. If they start using off the shelf PC type architecture why buy a Mac when all you need is the O/S?

I reckon it'll be Intel CPU's, but still speciallised hardware so you still have to buy hardware from Apple.

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[wing03]

Also Apple is at heart a hardware company. If they start using off the shelf PC type architecture why buy a Mac when all you need is the O/S?

The Ipod has countless competitors yet it still holds the crown. I'd think that Apple would innovate with their PC design (that'll run Windows too) and also offer an alternate OS to the masses.

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[martin]

maybe, but iTunes only works with an iPod. So you are locked in of you want to use iTunes.

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[womby]

iTunes worked with a large number of MP3 players before the iPod was even a seed of an idea, and it still does.

It is possible that you are confusing the fact that iPod only officially works with iTunes, but that doesn't mean the reverse is automatically true.

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[Councilor Hart]

If they start using off the shelf PC type architecture why buy a Mac when all you need is the O/S?
Because it is well designed. Just have a look at their powerbooks. Design != taking parts of the shell and stuffing it into a big grey box.

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[EraserMouseMan]

I bet the special component will be the BIOS chip. There will probably be others too. But if Macs use a special bios chip that would pretty much require you to buy a Mac just to get the chip. Does this make sense?

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[Nasarius]

They don't need a special chip or anything. All they need to do is support a very narrow range of hardware, so OS X won't run on 99% of non-Apple PCs.

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[mr_gerbik]

"Also Apple is at heart a hardware company."

Wrong. From the lips of Steve Jobs himself: "The heart of Apple is OSX."

How can you call Apple a hardware company? Because they put everything in a well designed box? All the components are 3rd party... Apple doesn't make processors, Apple doesn't make memory, Apple doesn't make harddrives or video cards or sound cards. They buy them from hardware companies, put them in a shiny box and then run *their software* on it.

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[rigau]

Not to be a stickler but Jobs said that the heart of the MAC (not Apple) is the operating system. That makes more sense too since the ipod makes up such a large chunk of the Apple revenue.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[Phroggy]

If they wanted to produce a non-standard machine that just happened to have an Intel CPU in it, they wouldn't be making a lot of the decisions they're making. There'd be no reason to abandon Open Firmware. There'd be no reason to change the disk partition format.

I disagree.

Apple has been building OSX on generic off-the-shelf PCs, because custom-engineered Intel-based Macs do not exist, and they have to run it on something. Obviously, generic off-the-shelf PCs don't run OpenFirmware, and without OF, they

Re:Your journal extry is incorrect

[daveschroeder]

Anything authoritative will be covered by NDA, and Apple will likely not release specs of the Developer Transition Kit, since it doesn't represent a shipping product anyway, and for various other reasons.

But the BIOS version has been posted around publicly on forums; also, note http://macintouch.com/macintel04.html [macintouch.com]:

MacInTouch Reader
In response to the BIOS statements, the Intel Developer Transition Platform is NOT a "PHOENIX BIOS". PHOENIX is a specific BIOS maker, and this is not a PHOENIX BIOS. It is an Intel BIOS.

Further, it's no mystery how to get into almost any BIOS under the sun: just hold F2 at boot (F2 and alt-enter cover the vast majority of PC BIOSes). However, this means little, since this is merely a developer testing and transition platform only; the developer systems also don't have FireWire 800, or Bluetooth, or AirPort.

Does that mean that final products won't have these? Of course not. The transition platform's BIOS also has floppy support. Does that mean that Intel Macs will have floppy drives? No. The point is that the developer platform does not represent what will - or won't - be in shipping products. To see what Apple will be shipping with Intel processors in a year or two (or longer), look to Intel's roadmap. To see what technologies Apple will include, look to Apple's history and the current products: shipping Intel-based Macs will have all of the Mac features and functionality we have come to depend on.

Further, Apple has not forgotten about the 64-bit marketplace. But let's take this transition one step at a time.

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[Ath]

Let's get this right. They definitely and clearly stated it will be based on the x86 architecture. The development box is a P4 model and participants were instructed to look at Intel's x86 roadmap for the mid 2006 timeframe to get an idea which CPUs would be in the Apple models.

Apple also stated two other things. First, you will not be able to run OS X on a vanilla x86-based computer. Second, there will be nothing preventing Windows from running on the Apple computers and, it was stated, this is expected.

None of that means someone won't hack OS X into working on non-Apple machines. But everyone should be absolutely clear that Apple is moving to the x86 CPU architecture. Period. No Intel PPC. No Intel "Next Big Thing".

As for "stock hardware", most components in Macs now are the same components you find in x86-based PCs. The big difference is the architecture around the CPU. Interface cards use AGP/PCI bus. Memory is DIMM. Hard drive / DVD / CD is EIDE/SATA. I know I can buy off-the-shelf stuff to upgrade or replace many of the components in my iMac G5. Videocard manufacturers are still playing their games, though, by selling the same cards with different BIOS so they can charge a premium.

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[oneandoneis2]

They definitely and clearly stated it will be based on the x86 architecture.

Really? Where?

I've not been following the story particularly closely, but the last article I saw on the subject completely refuted the Apple would be based on x86:

an Apple spokesman [linspire.com] who commented on what the switch does not mean: "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac." Future "Mactel" computers will have specially designated Intel chips, not generic x86 compatible chips found in common PCs

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[caspper69]

Did you even read the quote you quoted? Where does it say that Apple would not be based on x86? This is an incorrect quote by whoever wrote the second part of this comment. The new Macintoshes will MOST CERTAINLY be x86. Go and read Apple's Universal Binary Development Guide [apple.com]. I don't know what's so hard to understand about #1) They're NOT using OpenFirmware; #2) The Intel platform IS x86 and 32-bit (although this article [infoworld.com] seems to suggest that OSX 10.5 Leopard will be the first 64-bit OSX from the grou

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[TheKidWho]

how about the fact that the developer kits run on a Pentium 4? which umm is x86?

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[mrtrumbe]

Yes there is: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/MacOSX/C o nceptual/universal_binary/ [apple.com]

In Apple's Universal Binary Programming Guidelines, they clearly indicate that OS X for Intel will run on processors based on the IA-32 standard. This standard is compatible with the x86 instruction set.

Granted they never say that OS X will run on generic x86 hardware, but the grandparent didn't say that either.

Taft

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[pohl]

I think it's a mistake to base your analysis upon what Steve Jobs said. If they were planning to release their OS for generic hardware, it would not be in their interest to announce it at this time. That would be a bit like standing on the drawbridge of a castle that you plan on storming in a year's time and yelling "Yo, all you enemies behind the castle walls, we're gonna be here on June 27, 2007 at 5pm to take over this castle, so prepare to get your war on." Not the greatest strategic move.

Not only

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[lseltzer]

I'll go you one further. A senior Apple exec is on record on CNet that they wouldn't allow it to run on standard PC architecture.

From Apple throws the switch, aligns with Intel (June 6) [com.com]:

• After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
  
  

  However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
  

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[rice_web]

They will not allow. That's key. It could simply mean that the EULA will prohibit installation on non-Apple hardware or imply that Mac OS X will not be licensed to other computer makers. It does not mean that John Doe, x86 PC with legacy ports will not run OS X. It simply means, at the least, that Apple won't allow it. Do not be surprised if Tiger on x86 is as easy as torrent, burn, and crack.

Re:Intel CPU != PC

[aonaran]

A lot of code that we think of as OSX lives in things like Aqua, above the kernel level.

Exactly, above the kernel level... where it is already abstracted from the hardware.

In Case Of Slashdotting

[ch0p]

Apple computer: Is Piracy the Pathway to Profits?

by Chris Seibold
Jun 13, 2005

If you remember the heady days of the first incarnation of Napster chances are you downloaded a song and later discarded the foul bit of pop. Chances are also pretty strong that you downloaded a song and ended up buying the compact disc from your local music store. For me the discarded song was Come on Eileen by Dexy's Midnight Runners. I am sure the music industry chalks that up to a lost CD sale, but honestly, there was no

slashdotted

[Jerbol]

mirrordot link: http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/a275d1e2b1ec65915 edb446546758a8b/index.html [mirrordot.org]

how long

[justforaday]

How long before my next machine comes with the words "Don't steal operating systems" on the plastic wrap?

No Apple won't take that route because

[Jackdaw Rookery]

No, I don't think so. Ignoring the huge sweeping generalisations that are bound to happen in this thread, I add my own -

Peaople of a certain mindset:

When you can't pirate something you buy it or don't use it. Apple gains in hardware and software sales.

When you can pirate something you use it for free. Apple gains in ... marketshare. Nope, this won't work anymore.

Apple is a Hardware and Software vendor. When MS 'allowed' Windows 3.1/95 to be copied so freely (read without restriction) they were, and with a few exceptions still are, a Software company only. Apple has the additional issue of not selling much Mac hardware now until the Intel Mac comes out, surviving on reserves, software and the iPod.

Apple has a lot more to lose if it tries this. That and the world has moved on; these are different times.

Re:No Apple won't take that route because

[spiritraveller]

When you can't pirate something you buy it or don't use it. Apple gains in hardware and software sales.

If people are pirating it at home (and they like it), those people will pressure their employers to give them legal machines at work.

The business market is much bigger than the consumer market. They've been trying to break into it for a long time. And they must realize that this is the best, if not the only way they can.

This is not a gamble at all. On the contrary, I believe it's necessary for their

Apple is a Hardware Company

[jonoid]

Since TFA seems to be down already, I assume it is talking about allowing the release of Tiger for Intel to propogate on BitTorrent networks. Perhaps Apple is allowing for this to give curious Windows users a taste of OS X and it's suite of apps, but this certainly would not continue when the final version is released.

Apple could not easily survive as a software company. Apple has been a hardware company for it's duration. Remember back in 1997, when Apple almost died? Steve Jobs had to kill the clones because Apple could not compete with the cheap hardware. Arguably, Apple is in a much stronger position to sell software due to it's larger user base, better public image, etc., but I don't think Apple would profit as much.

Apple is a hardware company that might be hoping that some users download the torrent, fall in love with OS X, and buy an Intel Mac in a year. Or maybe this whole thing is overzealous speculation on the part of imaginative bloggers. Either way, Apple will remain a hardware company and provide an integrated computing solution that is clean, solid, and attractive.

Re:Apple is a Hardware Company

[stang]

Apple is a hardware company

Bingo. Look, Steve Jobs already tried the software-only route with NeXT. And we can see where that got him.

I, for one, am looking forward to X86 Macs - because I want the hardware. I've known for years that Apple can make a great box, but I have neither the room nor the inclination to stick a Mac next to my Wintel stuff. If I can put Windows on Apple hardware (hey - I'm a Win32 developer), and have it supported, my next box will be a Mac, whether or not I do much with OS

Also keep in mind...

[artemis67]

that the Bittorrent leak of OS X PPC was entirely bogus, so the whole premise of the article is off.

People mention that Microsoft "allowed" people to pirate Windows for years to increase marketshare and increase sales. It's true that having more systems out there running Windows means more potential marketshare for other apps like Office. However, if someone pirates Windows, why would they not pirate Office, too? So I just don't buy that MS ever encouraged people to pirate Windows.

As you point out, though

Hacked copies of OS X on EXISTING hardware is

[crovira]

viral marketing for Apple.

Apple makes hardware boxes, they make their money off their boxes. They don't support every other box out there. They don't have to either.

OS X has "Software Update" (second item on the Apple menu at the top left of the screen or in the system section of the "System Preferences") which calls home once a month (or weekly or daily) at least.

They can get the geshtalt of the box (including the CPU ID) to verify that's its a legitimate request from a box that they have sold (25M to 1

Re:Apple is a Hardware Company

[dmayle]

Remember back in 1997, when Apple almost died? Steve Jobs had to kill the clones because Apple could not compete with the cheap hardware

People talk about the Jobs reality distortion field, but I've never seen it more in effect than with regards to the "clone wars".

Apple has a product Y that requires widget X to run. In this example, product Y is the computer, and widget X is the operating system. If every competitor making product Y has to buy widget X from you, than you control the competition. If your competition is squeezing you out of the market for product Y, you are either not charging enough for widget X, or you are charging too much for product Y. Plain and simple.

You don't need an advanced math degree to see this. What was killing Apple was not the clones, but the poor management. Jobs came back, but he didn't have to kill the clones to keep Apple afloat. He had to kill the clones to make sure Apple remained a hardware company. And, since Jobs likes the control, he killed the clones.

I think, however, that Steve has grown over the years. Now that he's got more experience under the belt, he's got the perspective of age, and I think he's learned how to manage a multi-billion dollar company. He likes to be agile, and he's doing what is necessary to make sure Apple is. He's taken the hardware division, and made sure that it's not dependant on one type of product (adding iPods). If the market for computers tanks, or at least, the market for Apple computers tanks, the hardware division has a place to go.

At the same time, he's making the software division capable of surviving without the hardware division. If the hardware division goes belly up, the software division is no longer reliant on it to sell product. They can easily adapt OS X to commodity hardware and give it a shot that way.

Finally, Steve has created a web services division. For the moment it only makes money off the distribution of music, but the huge showcase of movie trailers should show that the plan is there for movie distribution as well.

Oh, and one thing I almost forgot to mention, iLife. I used to wonder who was going to be first to the subscription based model of OS sales, and I thought it would be Apple (with .mac). I mean, look how the updates are coming more frequently. But then I realized that Apple has no need. With iLife, they get to have their cake and eat it to. Users pay each time there is an upgrade, and they pay the subscription fee as well. Steve Job's success has nothing to do with a calligraphy class, or dropping out of college. It has to do with the fact that he is a marketing genius.

He Did have to Kill The Clones

[mbkennel]

Jobs: "Been there, done that, got the 'buy us now before we go out of business' t-shirt."

The "other" business model was NEXTSTEP. They did what all the talking heads told them to do: give up proprietary hardware and go to the "vast" x86 market and sell the operating system, as OPENSTEP.

It was disasterous because they couldn't keep up with the vast array of weird PC hardware, the PC manufacturers had no desire to help them write drivers (and they barely do for the much larger Linux market) and there just

I can only say one thing...

[CrackedButter]

lets hope not. I mean a company, HOPING that the general population will steal from them in order to gain market share? What kind up stupid fucked up thinking is that? I doubt that will happen anyway once little Jimmy fails to install half life 2 on his new operating system.

A few bumps before that works

[Iriel]

First of all, I remember reading that OSX will only work on the Apple computers, and while a crack may exist, one would have to wonder how long it will be until such a fix would be mostly bug free.

The other problem with that idea is that people are going to have to download new programs because being an intel computer of any type doesn't allow you to install the same software on Windows as you do on Unix. OSX is a BSD Unix system after all. This may not be a very good toy unless people are downloading it to make a complete switch pending any advancement in cross-platform software.

Lastly, how many people can you think of running pirated WindozeXP that were so impressed with the product that they bought it? It may work for CDs in a good number of cases, but I can't see that happening as much as this article hopes on an OS level. It may help to increase publicity, which will garner some increase in sales, but nothing like the fame achieved by The Grey Album.

If it works out for Apple in the end, then kudos, but with increased DRM practices and the great deal of elitism among the diehard mac fans, one would have to wonder about the possibility of two camps of mac fans if the piracy worked. Imageine authentic vs. underground fans disputing like Linux vs. BSD users sometimes do...

Or Maybe...

[vontrotsky]

Or maybe IBM just couldn't supply the chips that they promised. Nothing to see here...

Seems logical to me...

[H_Fisher]

...but I think the main problem is not how this could help Apple, but how Apple will respond. It will probably depend on the hacking of OSX to Wintel boxes not gaining too much popularity, real or perceived.

If the perception is something like "only one out of 1,000 users know how to do this, and only one of out 10 of those actually have the time and energy to try," then I really doubt we'll see a concerted, RIAA/MPAA style response to this.

Give it time, though - ESPECIALLY if Longhorn has a lot of ini

Apple is not the same as Microsoft

[wallykeyster]

There is plenty of data and anecdotal bits floating around indicating that Microsoft knew about widespread piracy, allowed it to continue, and benefitted from it. Now, they have a solid monopoly and are finally trying to crack down on piracy to increase their revenue.

However, Apple is not a software company like Microsoft (was) and they don't have the large base of businesses and OEMs to subsidize the home piracy market. If OS X is hacked to run on commodity x86 hardware and is available via P2P, Apple wi

Apple _is_ profitable!

[Trurl's Machine]

Pathway to Apple Profit?

Apple needs no pathway to profit - it is profitable as a hardware company. They need software only as a selling point for their hardware. Releasing MacOS X compatible with standard non-brand PC's would undermine their hardware sales - and it would be a pathway to ginormous losses like they had in 1997 and 1998, when they allowed cloning. They are profitable since then precisely because Jobs killed clones. Do you seriously believe he did it only to reintroduce Mac cloning ten years later?

Apple's success is already base on piracy...

[hafree]

It's no secret that the reason for Apple's comeback was the iPod, who's popularity was primarily due to rampant music piracy. Come on, does anyone really think a college kid purchased 10,000 songs for their iPod at $0.99 each?

It's called ripping

[civman2]

It's no secret that the reason for Apple's comeback was the iPod, who's popularity was primarily due to rampant music piracy. Come on, does anyone really think a college kid purchased 10,000 songs for their iPod at $0.99 each?

No, but I'm sure an awful lot of people do what I do and rip their CDs to MP3s. I have something like 6 gigs of completely legit music.

I don't think so..

[Mean_Nishka]

And I also don't think we'll even see a 'leaked' development version in the wild anytime soon. Apple is distributing the dev kit installed on hardware and not on CD. I would venture to guess they are doing that for a reason.

Apple is also a company used to having their software run on a pre-determined combination of hardware and software. I suspect these dev kits are no exception. Even if it somehow leaks out, I highly doubt it will work on any 'ol wintel PC simply due to a lack of drivers.

Re:I don't think so..

[Barlo_Mung_42]

"Apple is distributing the dev kit installed on hardware and not on CD."

Wow. That is tight security. So there's no way to clone the drive? There's no Ghost type app for Apple?

Re:I don't think so..

[rthille]

Apple uses the same security system on the development boxes that James Bond used on his brown Lotus Esprit (that is, it explodes when you open it :-)

based on a hoax release

[E Zimmer]

The original premise was that an x86 release for generic x86 hardware (non Apple firmware) was already released. This however turned out to be a hoax. I doubt Apple is trying to make a revolution giving an OS away.

10.4 Could Be a Bad Try-Before-You-Buy Experience

[Shuh]

Although there is a MacOSX developer-version that will run on a particular Macintosh "P.C.," it may not run on your regular vanilla P.C.

But what's worse is that it might run on vanilla P.C., but badly. I can see it now: punks downloading Mac OSX "for free" and having it either crash, or have Quartz disabled, or otherwise run funky. Then the fallout on many a P.C. site/blog will be all about how OSX is crap and can't run well on a Dell.

In short, this could turn out to be bad publicity, if there is such a thing.

Already 2 torrents are up

[NeedleSurfer]

And don't download them, you can find them on torrentspy and torrentreactor, the problem is that the >900MB one is a goatse.cx picture weighting 1GB once uncompressed and the other one, >600MB, is stuck at 13% for everyone, plus 600MB for MacOsX is dreaming wide awake, Tiger weights alot so don't expect it to be that small even compressed.

What I mean is that all those article you read about osX being pirated are wishfull thinking, which is then used as a fun opportunity for malware writers.

If you want to create a buzz about osX on x86 this is the worst way, wait till you have actually found a working copy, personnaly found it, not being told about it and then talk about it. Right now those stories are pissing people off because all they get is a wide opened ass or an interminable wait... and I really don't understand how can this help Apple sell more MacOsX or create a buzz before releasing it. If you want this type of marketing to work don't spoil it before it happens because once the good copy is out there people will be very hesitant to get it... and the marketing tactic will fail, and we don't want that :)

P...P...P...P...P...

[happymedium]

Are Alliterative Headlines Hopelessly Hokey?

Search your feelings, Slashdot editors.

Hardware revenues not helped by piracy

[Shannon Love]

If we take the experience with the IBM PCs in the 80's as our template I think it is easy to see that cloning and piracy don't contribute to the success of individual hardware companies.

IBM owned the PC market up until the late 80s but the evolution of cloned hardware destroyed their business. It was Microsoft who made their fortune from cloned hardware not IBM. Microsoft may have benefited from software piracy but they held a unique position of being able to get reliably paid for their products by large institutions like OEMs, corporations and government entities. Pirated copies of their software didn't effect their principle revenue streams because MS didn't have a reliable mechanism for getting people who did pirate to pay in the first place.

I don't see Apple benefiting from clones (de facto or formal) or pirated software. Cloned hardware would cannibalize Apple's own sales. Clones would not functions as well as real Macs which would damage the brand. Trying to recoup by selling the OS and other software like iLife would require serialization and all the headaches that entails in addition to support issues.

Perhaps Apple could gain an edge by capturing the small but influential "hacker" market. People who enjoy futzing with Linux might be willing to suffer the headaches of running MacOS X on unsupported hardware. Beyond that, however, I don't see much advantage.

The so-called "network effect"

[fprefect]

The same rationalization is floated at all the warez and P2P sites, and it just doesn't hold water. The network effect may be real (up-front loss in sales yields free advertising and subsequent monetary transaction), but it is neither as large or as desirable as they make it out to be. First, if you can download game ABC from the network, play through it in 2 weeks for free, what incentive do you ever have to buy it down the road? What is the point of letting 100,000 people get your game for free only to convert 1,000 of them -- when it's more likely that 5,000 would have forked over the cash had it not been so easy to Google or torrent? Productivity and utility software is a little harder, because its long life usually means that there are several upgrades/updates that invalidate a pirated code, and give someone another chance to "go straight", but there are no hard statistics either way. No, the "lost sales" never quite jive with the numbers the BSA always publishes, but you have to be naive to think that warezed software is anywhere close to effective in getting users to fork over money.

Next, the software industry does not rely on piracy to sell product -- the argument is crap. There are plenty of ways to leverage the network effect without shooting themselves in the foot: time or feature limited demos, shareware, light versions, free framework/pay-for plugins, competitive upgrades, bundling, educational discounts, site licenses, support contracts, etc. etc. These companies desperately want to put their software in front of you, they want you to learn it, love it, advocate it, but they aren't dumb enough to give you the keys to the store without something in return. Adobe Photoshop will still be king even if it wasn't splashed over all the P2P networks, because it's a professional tool and businesses will still fork over the big money to buy it -- regardless of whether Jimmy warezed it or got the $50 version at the campus bookstore. Jimmy isn't the market, and he's deluding himself if he thinks he's doing Adobe a favor.

No, Apple isn't going to rely on warezed versions of the MacOS to build marketshare -- they already have iPods, iTunes, pretty iMacs, and plenty of rabid press to remind people how user-friendly the Mac is. They will produce consumer-friendly x86 iMacs, they will continue to make great laptops, and they will continue to push the MacOS against Longhorn. They will probably license the MacOS to bundle with other x86 computers (HP, Sony) to get even more people on board (but not for free).

Now, the technical hurdles involved in tying the hardware to the OS and vice versa are pretty large. In the end, Apple will be unable to stop people from running Windows on their Mac-branded hardware (Apple still gets their hardware cut) or from running the MacOS on their commodity hardware (Apple still gets a software cut) -- Darwin and Windows hackers will see to it. It doesn't mean they will embrace it, let alone turn a blind eye to piracy as a way to build marketshare, but they will pick their battles and make sure to grab a little revenue where they can. Ideally, when Longhorn ships, people will go to CompUSA or Fry's, and see it sitting next to Tiger on the shelf -- they will think back over all the virus/trojan/worm hassles they've had with Windows, and then decide how to spend their $129. Now thatis the network effect in action.

Think about iTunes -- it's a pretty good solution that makes it easy to find, try, and buy cheap music. Apple has put up reasonable barriers so that they can still get the music industry on board without alienating users. You can certainly buy an album on the cheap, burn it, and give it to your friends or post it to P2P -- but how many people actually do that? It's not worth the hassle for moderate quality music. Sure, the freedom is there to reassure users, but Apple sticks to the corporate line that piracy is bad and easy/cheap is good. Now, the MP3 market may have been forged by P2P, but Apple has done a pretty good job making it profitable without giving away the keys to the store.

Mac OS X is going to be the center of the platform

[Enrique1218]

With Apple moving to x86 pc's, Apple system will no longer be to differentiate from stock x-86 system from Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. Apple can no longer argue that thier systems are more powerful than the comptetition. So, what's going to be selling point? Mac OS X. With it, Apple will be able to highlight the strengths they have ove the Windows OEM. But, Apple will have to get that message to the consumer buying his next PC. Apple store perform that function now by letting consumers play with the system but this not very efficient considering Apple stores are in limited locations. So, they should leverage the internet and allow users play with mac osx on their own desktops.

Apple shouldn't turn a blind eye rampant to piracy. But, they should take a more proactive approach that they largely control. They could release a live DVD or CD of Mac OSX. Something that illustrates the strengths of Mac OS X but leaves it largely useless on an whitebox PC.

Why Mac OS X for Intel hasn't leaked yet

[DECS]

Every development build for OS X ends up getting published on p2p networks within days. If Apple was cool with this, they wouldn't have a NDA covering access to development builds, and they wouldn't have sued the guy who obtained developer access via a real developer so that he could give Tiger away.

But the Intel version isn't a DVD - it's only available as part of a $999 "package" that includes a PC mobo in a G5 case, that Apple is demanding back at the end of the year.

It's pretty hard to track a DVD sent to thousands of developers, but if Apple is charging developers $1000 each for access to the Intel hardware, it would be rather trivial to give each copy that goes out a watermark, so that if it gets released, it would be very easy to see who leaked it.

And since developers are in a special agreement to participate in the Intel dev package, Apple could very easily add substantial financial penalties to the contract if their copy got leaked.

Movies have similar watermarks to identify where pirated films are getting copied, but it would be so much easier for Apple to hide a chunk of code in each DVD to identify the very developer involved.

---

After Intel based Macs are available, the majority of users will find that modern Macs are not commodity PCs just because they share the Intel processor, and give up trying to install OS X after their PC fails to boot it from BIOS.

Even if Apple made Mac OS X very difficult to install on PC hardware, it seems like it would be fairly trivial to create a virtual machine for PCs that could run it. Such a product could not be commercial, because Apple said they wouldn't allow it.

Somewhat ironically, Apple enterprise tried to sell OpenStep for Intel and OpenStep for Windows for some time in 1997 after first purchasing NeXT, and couldn't find much interest. Of course, at the price they were asking, they are now basically throwing in a Intel Mac for free!
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/images/openstepcd.jp g [roughlydrafted.com]
---

The few l33t haxxors who get Mac OS X running on a PC will have little effect on Apple's existing market, either in 'loss from piracy' or in 'viral spreading of OS X to create new demand.'

The Mac Mini, iBooks and PowerBooks are all quite popular among those who have bought them, including Linux users who buy them for their hardware features rather than the integration with OS X. All are running proprietary hardware unable to realistically run Windows today. If new versions also allow users access to the only reason wintel PCs need to exist (PC games), buying actual Apple hardware will be even more compelling.

Why buy a Dell system when you can get an Apple Mac that runs OS X for about the same price, and still run your old Windows software in a VM?

I don't think so, Tim.

[Dcnjoe60]

It's ironic that we keep hearing that Linux on the desktop won't take off until the average-joe can install it. And, now, someone is proposing that the same average-joe who can't install linux because it is too hard, is going to figure out how to hack and install OsX?

I don't think so, Tim.

Parent is trolling

[Hieronymus Howard]

That's remarkably similar to a post made earlier today:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=15264 6&cid=12811069 [slashdot.org]

Re:FoSS?

[DaHat]

Nice theory, care to give an example of any FOSS application or package putting Microsoft out of business? Sure it gives them competition, but historically every time they come back stronger than before. Only reason I'd like to see Mac OS reach wide spread use would be to drive even more competition within the desktop market, making my beloved Windows even better.

Re:FoSS?

[atomm1024]

Yeah, right, and put Apple completely out of business too.

Let's see...

[Anaphiel]

... Apple is a software company, and they make at least some money by selling software.

Apple is also a hardware company, they make most of their money by selling the only computers that can run the software that they sell (by my estimates Apple currently owns, oh, about 100% of the Macintosh market).

Open-source OS X and you not only lose your OS Revenues, you lose the hardware monopoly.

What's left? iPods and iTunes downloads? Hard to afford the Steve's Gulfstream on that revenue.

Re:That's going to be a neat trick

[CdBee]

If - and this is only uninformed speculation - they intend to lock their OS to a DRM chip fitted to one particular custom motherboard it won't be easy to hack!... and even if it is possible the pirates will have to custom-build their OSX systems.

Wouldn't surprise me if they use it to secure the iTMS as well.

Re:That's going to be a neat trick

[AKAImBatman]

How is Apple going to use the DRM features of a chip I do not have to prevent me from installing OSX on my P4? Am I missing something?

There's a couple of methods they could use:

1. Have Mac OS X check for the presence of an authorization chip ala NES Carts. If no chip is found, refuse to install.

2. Make the OS rely on OpenBoot features. Since PCs have a BIOS instead it would be difficult (if not impossible) to install OS X without swapping out your BIOS.

3. Replace all the crappy PC hardware (e.g. chained interrupt controllers, A20 gate, etc.) and replace it with something more sensible. OS X would then only run on a machine with sensible hardware.

4. All of the above. ;-)

Re:Awww, the crApple fanboys.....

[AKAImBatman]

ROFL!

Umm... okaaayy. You really have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

Let me clarify something: Back in the day, IBM made several decisions about the PC architecture based on component prices and software design. Most of those decisions seemed to be good at the time. As the PC architecture grew, however, it was quickly found that these original decisions wouldn't support modern hardware designs. Unfortunately, backward compatibility needed to be maintains, so a compromise was reached. Interrupts we

Article Text

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting AC for no karma whoring.

Apple computer: Is Piracy the Pathway to Profits?

by Chris Seibold
Jun 13, 2005

If you remember the heady days of the first incarnation of Napster chances are you downloaded a song and later discarded the foul bit of pop. Chances are also pretty strong that you downloaded a song and ended up buying the compact disc from your local music store. For me the discarded song was Come on Eileen by Dexy's Midnight Runners. I am sure the music industry chalks that up to a lost CD sale, but honestly, there was no way I was ever going to buy any music by Dexy and his intrepid band of late night dashers. On the other and when I downloaded Devil's Haircut by Beck I went out and actually purchased the entire CD.

The above is a simplification of how piracy can actually move product. Chances are very good that without the illicit download one less copy of Odelay would have been sold. So, for no great investment on his part, Beck sold one more album that he normally would have thanks to being pirated. Software companies have understood this concept for quite some time. They will grudgingly put up with piracy if it sells more copies in the long or if it prevents a competitor from gaining a foothold. Say, for example, someone company produces a legitimate competitor to Adobe Photoshop. The new product feature all of the pixel manipulating goodness of Photoshop but retails for half the price. In basic economic theory the new product would soon displace Photoshop as the image editor of choice. In reality that is not necessarily the case. If Adobe Photoshop gets passed around on P2P sites there is no incentive for theft happy users to try the new competitor, both are stolen and to the end user stolen=free. Years later the one pirate removes the eye patch and becomes burdened with kids and full employment. Suddenly spending hours on the internet looking for registration codes and illegal copies no longer holds the same appeal, it has become easier and safer just to purchase a legitimate copy.

Which brings us to the question of Apple computer and piracy. You, as a reader of fine Apple oriented commentary, are no doubt aware of the recent announcement that Apple is switching to Intel. This has some interesting ramifications, one of the foremost is that you will now, in all probability, be able download a copy of OS X on a P2P site and run it on any plain vanilla Wintel box by employing some sort of hack. To many Apple fans this is a nightmare scenario. "Why" they wonder "would anyone ever buy another Mac if they can run OS X on a Wintel box?"

Before considering why people might still buy Macs even if they could hack a Wintel to do the job let us consider the benefits of OS X piracy. For years interested parties have heard people complain: "Macs are too expensive." At this moment most people are thinking about only of the retail price. This is a mistake, the cost of Macs to a fence sitting switcher encompasses much more than the price tag. To get in the world of Mac you have to be willing to take a massive leap of faith. You must be convinced that a Mac will serve all your computing needs admirably and you probably have to accept that as a truth without extensively using a Macintosh. It is also wise to remember that for most computer users it is an "either/or" decision, not many have the resources necessary to grab a Windows for safety and a Mac just to decide if it a suitable OS. Faced with a decision like that it is not hard to understand why people, time and time again, choose the OS with the greatest amount of familiarity. With rampant piracy suddenly this is not an issue. People can play with OS X on their Wintel box and make an informed decision when they make their next computer purchase. It is not hard to imagine that actually being able to use OS X for a significant period of time might result in more switchers than Apple's ads ever dreamed of producing.

Here one suspects Apple will face a careful balancing act. If hacking a PC to run OS X is triv

Re:.torrent

[fatwreckfan]

Seeders 0 (number of peers with the completed file and fully distributing)
Downloaders 381 (number of peers downloading the file and partially distributing)

Even if there were any seeders, has anyone verified that it actually is what it says it is?

Re:.torrent

[EvilIdler]

I wouldn't trust a .exe ;)
If it was real, it would be a .iso or .bin/.cue pair.

Re:.torrent

[XFilesFMDS1013]

But all the porn files on torrentspy come as .exe's....

Re:Listening RIAA?

[PriceIke]

The RIAA knows this, but they are deliberately ignoring it because they are more concerned with control of the product before profitability. They have the data which shows that music sharing increases sales. But for them the issue is about control of the distribution, so they can be the arbiters of who's "hot" and who's not. They have many artists' careers to control and profit from. Surrendering that control renders them effectively useless, so they will spend millions prosecuting 14 year olds to intimidate people away from making their own decisions about what music they want.

Apple (and Microsoft) basically have one product they're responsible for, and they want that product to succeed both PR-wise and financially, so they'll take advantage of things like "quality control" and "customer preferences" .. you know, those evil capitalist things that actually involves paying attention to the customer.

Re:Listening RIAA?

[cooley]

I wholeheartedly agree. They know you probably weren't gonna buy that tune you downloaded anyway. They know that tune might turn you on and get you to buy the artist's CDs (or not).

They also know that if it's that easy for consumers to get music directly, they become redundant. Their tactics are intended to retain control of the artists.

Indefinite Trials

[Vandil X]

Try first, buy later. Trust the customer.

It's too bad many who "try first" don't become "customers." Instead, they extend their trial period indefinitely, citing minor/imaginary flaws to be the reason for not purchasing the item.

Quality vs. Quantity

[Lysol]

Jobs has always been a hardware guy. He sees the value in tight integration and limited configurations. I'd say a lot of the trouble M$ is in with Windows is the fact that there's too much hardware out there. It has to somehow support everything.

Granted, M$ has billions more than Apple, but in the arena of public opinion, Apple is much 'cooler' than M$ because of design. Plus, Apple can also tout that it just works. Something M$ cannot. Apple stands on the shoulders of others like BSD, Apache, Samba, Java

Re:The Cost Of Switching

[BackInIraq]

I think for a lot of people, myself included, switching to a different operating system would mean having to discard the thousands of dollars of software I've purchased in the past and repurchase it. It would take at a minimum a whole software generation (however long that is) for OSX to overtake Windows in the market for that reason, I would think.

Except, of course, that the switch to x86 is likely to make it easier to run those applications you already own on your new Mac without repurchasing them, by