[OT] really?

[Daniel Gimpelevich]

Well, that's what Apple might do if they were Microsoft, but they're not,
so when Apple puts in their EULA that you're not allowed to run any Apple
OS on non-Apple hardware, they really mean it. The number of people
currently running an Apple OS under MOL on their Pegasos or IBM/pSeries is
too small for them to bother with, considering the small number of people
who have such machines, and the number of people installing an Apple OS
under PearPC on their Windows machines is likewise small because the
experience is so intolerable. That will change as soon as OSX for x86 is
released. Almost immediately, someone will make an XPostFacto-like utility
for x86, and they will do it using existing Darwin-x86 code. Windows users
will eventually try out OSX in droves in the manner Rick described
earlier, because Windows users practically never read any EULAs they are
presented with, much less comply with them. Apple has already locked
themselves out of any hardware-based deterrent to that, so they'll be left
with no choice but to resort to legal action against Joe Consumer. That
will make potential customers hate Apple more than they hate Microsoft,
because Microsoft privately views the piracy of their own software with a
wink and a nod whenever it suits their product strategy. Apple will also
have to write off most overseas markets as a source of revenue, because
due to their relatively limited hardware market penetration worldwide and
the difficulty in obtaining valid Apple licenses locally, OSX running on
commodity x86 hardware will be the only OSX most people in the world ever
see, and will therefore be the only OSX such people will consider running.
Apple has already tried and failed to be primarily a software company.
They know that the reality is that hardware is their bread and butter. It
would appear that they have now completely resigned themselves to the idea
that that hardware no longer consists of computers. Unless you own stock
in Apple, their future as a company should now be somewhat more irrelevant
to you as someone who uses Linux at least some of the time.

PS - Running Windows on an Intel Mac will also take some XPostFacto-ish
work, and while a large number of people will initially try this, the
phenomenon won't last longer than it takes for people to realize that
dual-booting any two or three operating systems on any kind of machine is
a waste of resources, and a maddeningly inconvenient one at that. It will
become more obvious to people that a separate machine for each operating
system, regardless of what kind of machine it is, would greatly simplify
their lives.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:11:40 +0200, Geert Janssens wrote:

> On Saturday 11 June 2005 07:37, Rick Thomas wrote:
>> [quoted text muted]
> Actually, I think Apple WILL definitely consider having their OS run on 
> commodity PC's. Wether they will eventually make it happen, is another 
> question.
> 
> I imagine a scenario as follows:
> - Officially, Mac OS X will not run on anything but Apple Hardware.
> - Mac OS X will almost certainly be hacked (or better, Darwin) by someone to 
> make it run on non Apple hardware. Apple will likely make this a hard one.
> - Since the hack is not too easy, it will never get to average PC users, but a 
> certain number of enthousiasts will definitely try this.
> - By evaluating this behaviour, Apple can make an estimate of the popularity 
> of Mac OS X on PC. Important parameter 1.
> - Next, in their own labs, they can now do real performance comparisons with 
> windows, since the hardware differences now are minor, certainly those that 
> influence performance. If Mac OS X performs favourably on commodity hardware, 
> they would have a selling point there also. Parameter 2.
> 
> Again I don't know if Apple would eventually feel strong enough to go into 
> competition with the Windows department of Microsoft. But I'm still curious 
> to see this evolve.
> 
> Geert Jan