That hackint0sh-thing
Many of you, I’m sure, are aware of the rise of the Hackint0sh—Mac OSX installed on other, more open, hardware. I think (I’m no historian), some attempts have been made before the Intel-move to do so, yet with moderate success, and I understand that the 90s saw a lot of clone-Macs, until Steve Jobs shut it down.
The rise of Intel as a platform for Macs is the main culprit today. While the performance-gains are significant, a dream of every gamer, I’m sure, who (ironically) probably uses Bootcamp to play games in Windows, it also bridged the incompatibility-gap that the Mac-community has both enjoyed (I enjoyed it) and not enjoyed, respectively.
So the Hackint0sh came to be, in the form of the OSx86 project, and later through numerous how-to’s (e.g. Lifehacker’s) on how to easily build a budget-PC and install OSX on it. Dozens of “OSX-laptops” are possible as well, btw.
If it wasn’t for the fear of a lawsuit, I’m sure this would have been turned into a business before long. After all, the hype for the Mac is at an all-time high, while, at the same time, Apple continues to cater to the niche, those few that are actually willing and able to pay for a $1000+ machine, while the price-trend for IT in general continues to inch downwards.
Well, now a company called Psystar has actually done it, and released a so-called “Open Computer,” which is both built to support OSX, and has a controversial installation-option included as well. While plenty of people expected for this to be shut down quickly (and still do), the Psystar-people have made a statement that they are not doing anything illegal and will continued to offer this product.
Why Apple would care is obvious. It is a hardware-company and most of its margins come from that part of its business. OSX, as a profit-driver, is more like the napkin with the coffee than anything else—no matter how the community may feel about it. Now, I suspect that most of its Mac-sales come from the laptop-segment, and some of its offerings, like the Air, are hard to beat. So far, this is not being challenged. If Psystar sets a precedent, however, it could easily translate to “open” laptops being offered with the same installation-option, and that would eat at Apple’s bottom-line.
How to fight this is dubious, however. Is this a trademark-issue? “Open Computer” does not infringe on the Mac- or Apple-name in any obvious way. The only infringing-part seems to come from Apple’s EULA, which states that: “You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.”
EULAs, however, are more of an informal contract between company and user, and its legal solidity is not guaranteed. And Psycorp believes it has a good legal argument, that the Mac is actually an illegal monopoly, on an otherwise open (x86) platform.
I think it is a tricky situation and, while there are a lot of passionate fans of the Mac and Apple out there, who want Pyscorp to fail, and equally a lot of PC-fans, who want Apple to fail, I think the solution is more technological then anything.
Apple can fight on the basis of innovation—by continuing to produce machines that stimulate gadget-lust (Even I want an Air after using it). And by focussing more on its “touch” platforms, which are arguably not so easy to emulate, run OSX, and could be the future of computing in more ways than one.
More immediately, Apple will likely fight on two fronts: legally, and by releasing a patch that would make future hacking more difficult, though, I’m sure, not impossible.
It can also simply ignore these machines, refusing any type of support, and hope the problem dies that way. And, with future incompatibility-patches, I’m sure it will.
All in all, I think the can of worms was opened by Apple’s move to Intel, and the question is whether it has or will not come to regret that decision, and whether anything can be done about it.
This piece was written by Vincent van Wylick, co-author on Tech IT Easy. The image is courtesy of Gizmodo
Related posts:
[...] (His command and control of product, brand, and squashing of copycats have made him far from the king of the open source revolution. It will interesting to see how Doc Evil Stevie responds to his latest Mac-Hackers of Hackintosh. Check out this story at TechITEasy) [...]
This trend is very interesting: people willing to look “open” and “cool” and “trendy” and “young”, etc. This new ‘race’ of web developers / designers / geeks never existed before. I’m curious about the way it is going to evolve over time.
Personally, I think it’s always existed, except pushed below the mainstream. Developers, particularly the open source ones, are natural hippies.
But yeah, as the internet makes sharing information so quick and transparent, “openness” is definitely something that’s quickly becoming mainstream, and I wonder how/whether commercial companies can react to that.
Openness is perfectly compatible with business, I think.
Except if your business relies on things easily shared, but that you want to keep closed. E.g. software and media, which is pirated all the time, or, in this case, a hardware-model, which seems to be under threat (though not a big one).
But I agree, that business should be and is compatible with openness. That’s the difference between the old economy and the new one.
[...] when you thought Evil Stevie and friends might lose their marketing mojo, they create Apple Camp. I joke about the evil part (a [...]