Why You Should Think Twice Before Going the “hackint0sh” Way
Lately, the issue of Mac OS X being locked to Macs and being able to run it unofficially on non-Apple hardware has been getting a lot of attention. It all started when a small outfit named Psystar announced its intention to sell an unofficial Mac clone called OpenMac (later renamed to Open Computer) which, according to them, could run Mac OS X Leopard straight out of the box with very little tweaking required. They also sell the computer with Leopard pre-installed.
Whether or not violating the Mac OS X EULA is a serious legal breach or not is still up for debate and no one can really be sure unless Apple actually sues them, which, surprisingly enough, they've has shown no intention to thus far. However, that's not what I'm here to discuss. Whether or not Apple is successful in putting a dampener on Psystar's plans is of little concern to me.
However, what does bother me is the amount of interest and hype this little stunt has generated in the Mac community. Not just in the Mac community, in fact, but even among users of other operating systems. Psystar, the daring little upstart, has seemingly flung open a window of opportunity for all those people who've wanted to use Mac OS X for a long time but either couldn't due to the high prices or wouldn't because they didn't want to commit to the platform given its inherently closed nature.
So, assuming that Psystar keeps going great guns and starts selling their Open computers by the truckloads, we're soon going to see a lot of Windows users jumping on the Mac OS X bandwagon, albeit one that does not run on the hardware it has forever been tied to and is considered a part and parcel of. My question here is: Do these people know what they're gonna be doing? When they switch to Mac OS X, when they make the big switch, do they really want to have the Psystar experience? If you've been planning to do this yourself, let me paint a picture for you, about what your experience would probably be like.
For starters, if you choose the base version of the Open Computer, the one that retails for $399 and doesn't come with OS X pre-installed, or build a "hackint0sh" yourself, you're going to have to install Mac OS X on it yourself. Trust me on this, it's easier said than done. Don't believe me? Well, here's what Macworld's Rob Griffiths observed when he decided to do a little Mac cloning experiment of his own (emphasis mine):
“Building the hardware is actually the easy part of the process. Next, I installed Vista on the PC, just to be sure everything worked. From there, it then took many more hours to get OS X working right—while the process is relatively straightforward, there are a lot of steps involved, and BIOS settings to tweak. If you want to run Windows and OS X on the same drive, there are more hoops to jump through to get it all working. But after many hours of reading, assembling, disassembling, screaming, installing, uninstalling, reinstalling, saying bad words, pestering friends, and generally not having very much fun, I was done: my machine was up and running, and capable of booting into either Windows Vista or Mac OS X 10.5.2.”
That's just the installation part, something which every user of unauthorized Mac clones, such as Psystar's product, will have to go through at some point of time, even if the machine shipped with the operating system pre-installed. That's because even after the operating system is up and running, the day-to-day experience is hardly going to be as rosy as one would expect from Mac OS X.
One visit to forums centered around the subject of getting Mac OS X running on a generic PC reveals that (a) the rate of successes is pretty low; and (b) even the ones who do manage to achieve this feat end up having to keep returning to the forum every time something breaks down, which happens unpredictably and often, because they have nowhere else to go.
Note that I'm not condemning the act of installing Mac OS X on a PC. Far from it. All I'm saying is that before you decide to spend $399 on a Mac clone, thinking that you've saved a lot of money, you should know what you're stepping into. Sure, the initial cost is a lot less than even the most inexpensive Mac out there, but if time is money and you could put a price to all the hassle you'll have to endure to keep your machine in working condition, it might just prove to be more expensive in the long run than a Mac would've been.
The absence of drivers for Mac OS X and the various conflicts result in frequent slowdowns and crash-proneness. Those are things that an actual Mac user almost never has to face. That's what it's all about. The ease of use and the generally stable and trouble free nature. What's the point of having a Mac when you're letting go of these traits? Sure, the idea of Mac OS X being a part of the Mac hardware and of the two being inseparable might involve a lot of marketing spin but no can deny the fact that it does have a ring of truth to it too.
Running Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware is nowhere close to the real thing. It's only a pale imitation of what an actual Mac is like and, for all intents and purposes, no better than a glorified Windows, only prettier and a lot more secure. A computer is something that, in this day and age, becomes a central part of ones life and I'm not sure anyone wants to put an unofficial Mac, a hackint0sh, in that place. The first few weeks of running Mac OS X on your custom-built computer might be fun, but, trust me on this, the honeymoon tends to get over pretty quick. Think before you leap.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Interesting article. You say “trust me on this, the honeymoon tends to get over pretty quick”; Are you speaking from experience?
I have built over 20 hackintoshes for friends and families (since Leo was officially released) and all of them have continuously run fine, all normal programs work and they haven’t had the problems you or Rob (from Macworld) have had, and some of my family members are not the most computer literate or power users. I read Rob’s article, and he could’ve done things differently to make it easier on himself. The only requirement I make people do before I make them a hackintosh, is they buy a family edition of Leo to support Apple, and any programs they have installed, they buy as well.
So no, I disagree. Building, maintaining, and running a hackintosh is easier than you are insinuating. I own several official Macs, but I don’t need to buy more Mac Pros, when other PCs running Tiger and Leo do just fine.
What sort of support do these “hackintosh” users expect from Apple for any issues that they may encounter?
Apple can safely ignore these people. They do NOT represent main stream computer users. Only computer geeks ( like myself ) have the knowledge and the time to spend the countless hours getting these things to work. Probably the same people who run Linux.
NOTE: I have six computers in my home; two macs, two Windows XP, one Linux, and one FreeBSD.
So no, I disagree. Building, maintaining, and running a hackintosh is easier than you are insinuating. -turandota
Good for you. Your friends and relatives have a free Genius Bar for only $199 copy of Leopard family pack. You can’t say the same thing for the other 90% of Windows users out there who may need constant support from...you guessed it, Apple.
Apple has been mum on the Hackintosh front. They know it is happening. Apple wants you to try OSX on standard Intel PC guts but Apple will never offer support, technical or otherwise, for your custom Hackintoshes.
If when Apple chooses to license OSX to non-Apple hardware it will be on Apple’s terms. Cloners will need to abide by Apple’s reference designs and MSRP price tiers. This would be like Sony or Nintendo allowing clones of PS3’s or Wii’s that adheres to the strict hardware specifications and pricing at retail. The main reasons for this is to limit the number of hardware variations that can result in driver support nightmares. Knowing what’s out there streamlines this driver support conundrum.
OSX licensing will be a controlled model not unlike what it is now. You will just have more options of where you get your Mac hardware. Prices will be about the same so they won’t eat Apple’s tasty pies for zero gain. Apple will still make $$ from the OS priced exactly the same as retail. The OEM vendor will just make money somewhere else by not undercutting Apple.
With all that requirements, do you still think Dell, HP, or whoever have the necessary guts to support the Mac as Apple would tell them to? I doubt it. So much for OSX licensing.
Well said, turondota. Because no one is suggesting “hackintoshes” are for the mainstream.
They are still for the geeks and nerds who enjoy the thrill of spending hours getting it to work - which was me 10 ore 15 years ago.
Turondota’s friends are lucky to have him around but really, as I said, no one is suggesting that hackintoshes are for the majority. These, even if built by friends or Psystar, are still for people prepared to live on the edge.
Which part of breaking the law don’t we get anyway?
Psystar is not sanctioned by Apple. I’m sure the Apple Legal Eagles are having a field day with this company right now. Remember what happened to the iPod copycats?
Mac OS X on non-Mac machines is not legal and Apple has the right to come after you in court if you do so. Why support Psystar, if we know they are going to be shut down soon?
Talk about pissin’ in the wind…
Oh, and I sell Macs with either a .5% or 1% profit margin.
Which part of breaking what law are you referring to?
It is not illegal to put Mac OS X on a non-Apple machine. It’s simply in violation of the EULA. The Sale Of First Doctrine takes precedence over any EULA as of this post. How I know, because I was a part of the legal team when Adobe and Autodesk came calling on some of our clients for breaking parts of their respective EULAs; and they lost in court, and through all of the appeals. Except for some circumstances around import/export, it would be a losing battle for Apple and probabely would set a legal precedence that they wouldn’t want if they did take a homebrew Mac maker to court.
Also, who wrote anything about supporting Psystar? They aren’t even a real company.
“Talk about pissin’ in the wind...” is more like pontificating about a subject matter you don’t fully understand, and/or don’t have all of the correct facts about.
But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, (just don’t state them as fact), and you learn something new everyday.....
“A violation of the EULA” in my book makes it illegal. I think perhaps Apple may have a better Lawyering team than Adobe and Autodesk did, based on all the suits they’ve had to handle over the years. And nearly all threats to Apple have been resolved, one way or another.
I used to receive the Microsoft Tech packs each year. The Microsoft police were gunning for me when I stopped paying the annual fee (written strong-arm desist letter) and I was “forced” to remove any and all software from machines and destroy any and all CDs, etc. or be threatened with a lawsuit. Apple isn’t there yet, but the weasel-worded legal sleaze is pretty darned close.
And Psystar is a real enough business as a consulting firm in Florida - http://www.psystar.com/ But they will get a “knock it off” letter fro Apple, if they have not had one served to them already. Count on it. The contract is implicit in how it is to be used. Bloody wars have been fought over less. Psystar is obviously violating the Mac OS X contract.
Apple’s eventual workaround? include the OS in the chipset as hardwired.
I think turandota is referring to this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softman_v._Adobe
Ah, that would explain why when I want to transfer my Adobe software to a new machine, I have to go through Adobe (by phone) for authorization to finish the install (verify it has been removed from the old machine). I hope Apple never ends up there.
Apple owns the software and they can terminate it at any time if the EULA is violated. We basically bought the permission to use it. Nobody is authorized to resell it.
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
BTW, turandota, thanks for making the Adobe software transfers so difficult. (Snarky remark)
Psystar is yet to be proved to be a “real company”. It is yet to trade anything. So far all it is is a front for challenging the OS X EULA.
Of course Apple will likely send scary lawyers letters to it, telling it to stop. That is an age old bullying technique to test the challenger’s intestinal fortitude. Will Psystar have the guts - and money - stand up to the bully?
It’s reasonable to expect people to pay for software and to not duplicate it. But to then say you can only install it on machines from a particular vendor is really stretching the friendship.
Imagine if Pixar came out and said “Sorry, you can only now watch our movies on our authorised players.”
What if Microsoft came out and said you could only install Windows on MS machines? All the Apple zealots would be the first ones to scream the “M” word (monopolization).
(The funny thing that would happen too is Windows would lose marketshare and the profit on the hardware would not offset those losses and subsequent losses on Microsoft’s other products such as MS Office.)
It’s time for this to change. Psystar are rocking the boat and that’s all I think they are here to do. But at least they’ve got the ball rolling.
Even if this Psystar pseudo-company makes good on its promises to deliver a Mac clone for $399, I do believe Apple (courtesy of SJ) will not try to interfere for two good reasons:
1. They are not catering to this market with even the cheapest Mac mini at $599. So, letting someone with entrepreneurial spirit like Psystar to test this market for them. Apple has been slow to serve those bottom-feeders, and mind you, there are millions of them.
Look no further than the success of those cheap Dell Inspiron boxes at $349-499 without displays. They are everywhere. What if these countless clones were OSX preinstalled? We may be talking at a duopoly of Apple and MS dead even. Do we really like that outcome?
2. Apple really want to have OSX on generic PCs but they are too scared of cannibalizing their own profit machines - pro desktops and notebooks. Psystar gives Apple a guinea pig for this experiment.
If OSX on generic PCs flop (and we know how distant this is) then Psystar is the only casualty. Apple would just coast along like nothing ever happened.
If OSX on generic PCs do take off (as we expect mightily) Apple will then have a choice of making Psystar a subsidiary for the low-end or license OSX out right but in a very controlled way. All hardware reference designs and specifications must be approved by Apple’s Mac hardware division.
Psystar will pay Apple for OSX royalties plus the rights for those “Made for Mac” or “Designed for Mac” stickers.
I still think it wouldn’t be a bad deal for Apple nor Psystar. In the end, if this little experiment works, as it should, it will make the Mac installed base a bit larger than now compared to the sea of Windows PCs year in, year out.
Psystar will fail with this kind of “support” for customers. I would not pay $50 to for shipping to Psystar to have Leopard reinstalled on a box.
http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20080424103119539
Robert Pritchett, “Psystar” will now be a euphemism for a Mac cloner with guts to challenge Apple’s EULA from this point on. It didn’t have to be Psystar The Fake Company in Florida.