Apple DCMA-Bludgeons OSx86 Project Forums into Coma

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060217-6209.html' target='_blank'>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060217-6209.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Since last summer's announcement that Apple would be shifting its entire computer product line to Intel processors, PC enthusiasts have been trying to answer two questions. Would we be able to run Windows natively on Macintel hardware, and would we be able to run Mac OS X on commodity PC hardware? So far, the answer to the first question has been negative, with little or no prospect for success until Vista ships later this year. The second question is a different matter. Apple doesn't want Mac OS X running on anything other than Apple hardware, and as a result, has slapped the OSx86 Project with a DMCA violation notice."</i><br /><br />I recall there being some folks in our forums here that were cautiously optimistic that they could get OS X to run on their Intel boxes, and that maybe, just maybe, Apple would help, or at least not interfere. I was very negative on the idea of it ever happening, and this would seem to be a sad indicator that I was right.

[mememe]

Apple would help, or at least not interfere. I was very negative on the idea of it ever happening, and this would seem to be a sad indicator that I was right.

This truly is apple's IP and you can't blame them for keeping it only on Apple designed boxes, not in the least.. :roll: btw, how's the wireless line :?:

[Jason Dunn]

This truly is apple's IP and you can't blame them for keeping it only on Apple designed boxes, not in the least.. :roll:

I don't disagree, but this is typical Apple: people want their OS, not their hardware (it's funny, I'm almost the opposite), yet they know they can't play the pure OS game because it will put them out of business. They tried it during the late '90s when they licensed their OS to hardware companies who made Apple clones, and guess what? People bought the clones because they wanted the OS, not the hardware. Apple then didn't renew the licenses and put all those clone companies out of business. How's that for monopolistic, predatory practices? :roll:

With the iPod, it's almost the reverse - people love the hardware, but many for instance would like to see Apple hardware compatible with WMA music stores, to get the best of both worlds. Yet again, Apple won't allow that to happen.

The bottom line is that Apple is famous for telling people what they want. Sometimes (as with the iPod) it's in sync with the population (and they see huge success), but they haven't always been in sync (witness their current market share).

btw, how's the wireless line :?:

The wireless line? Sorry, I don't follow.

[mememe]

The wireless line? Sorry, I don't follow.

Do you still use a fido line :?:

[Jason Dunn]

Do you still use a fido line :?:

Yes, I'm still using Fido. That sure was a random thing to toss into the conversation. ;-)

[mememe]

Yes, I'm still using Fido. That sure was a random thing to toss into the conversation. ;-)

Well it came from me :lol:

[Jason Eaton]

The bottom line is that Apple is famous for telling people what they want.

I think that is a perception issue though. All companies are famous for telling people what they want. It fits the company agenda. Like MS telling me I need a stop watch in my MP3 player. :D

Short is do you have Apple's interest at heart or your own? The OS and Hardware are what Apple have put on the table. Either pull up a chair, or move to the next table as they say. That isn't ment as a dig just the truth as consumers we all have to ask ourselves.

I want Ford to price the GT40 like a Focus, but because they don't doesn't mean I should steal one off the lot nor start bashing the company because I want a V8 instead of a four in the engine bay on the Focus. The car is the way it is and their is no obligation to the public.