5 ms·

I am surprise that almost no one seems to be discussing whether it's right or wrong to be installing MacOS on non-Apple hardware. I'm pretty sure it's against

I am surprise that almost no one seems to be discussing whether it's right or wrong to be installing MacOS on non-Apple hardware. I'm pretty sure it's against apples EULA. Shouldn't we as software developers care about that kind of thing?

userbinator 8y ago
The enforceability/validity of EULAs is debatable.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  Yes it is but I don't see why the part of Apples EULA saying you can't install MacOS on other hardware would be ruled unenforceable or invalid. Even if that part is invalid, only people with actual Mac computers would be in the clear because that's the only way to get a copy of the OS. Apple won't sell it to you by itself. Anyone else making a hacintosh also has piracy issues to contend with.
  - auslander 8y ago
    > only people with actual Mac computers would be in the clear because that's the only way to get a copy of the OS I have a real Mac and a hack. I can legitimately download OS, and I paid for Snow Leopard CD years ago and still have it. Am I in the clear?
    - wilsonnb 8y ago
      It depends on whether you think Apples EULA is valid or not. It's never been ruled on by a court as far as I know. The closest we got was the Psystar case which Apple won, so there is precedent that third parties can't install MacOS on a computer and sell it to you. I suppose it's also precedent that at least some of Apples EULA is enforceable. Personally, I think that the EULA is valid and hackintoshes are a violation. Even so, it's unlikely that Apple will sue you for it.
      - auslander 8y ago
        > unlikely that Apple will sue you Agree, very unlikely, its not Oracle after all > that third parties can't install MacOS Well ... I'm a First party :D
vbezhenar 8y ago
There's no Apple hardware, if we're talking about computers. There's Intel CPU, Intel Chipset, Toshiba SSD, Kingston RAM, etc. The fact, that Apple puts their logo on top, doesn't make it somewhat special. And the fact, that Apple doesn't enforce its OS usage tells, that they are OK with that. They could easily make hackintosher's lives a nightmare: checking hardware IDs, etc.
- userbinator 8y ago
  checking hardware IDs, etc. The OS does do that --- search the Internet for "SMCDeviceKey" to learn more. I think Apple deliberately makes the check trivial and, since Hackintoshing is a tiny minority (potentially of users who might eventually buy hardware from them), doesn't push too hard on it lest it backfire --- the SMCDeviceKey protection is quite similar to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  Saying that it's okay because Apple doesn't stop it does not hold water to me. They shouldn't be required to stop it if it's already against the EULA. There wouldnt be much point in disallowing it if they had already made it impossible. Anyways, there is Apple hardware. Apple hardware is hardware that is sold by Apple. I understand that they dont manufacture it. The real issue here is that when Apple sells you a Mac, they include a copy of MacOS and say you can use it on that hardware. People with hacintoshes are saying "no, we can use it on whatever hardware we want". My question is, who's right? Some people are also saying "I don't have a Mac and therefore Apple has never given me a copy of MacOS, but I pirated it anyways". I think that those people are fairly obviously in the wrong because of the piracy involved.
GeekyBear 8y ago
It goes against Microsoft's EULA for people who build their own PC to buy the OEM version of Windows for it instead of the full retail version. In my experience, nobody shows a lot of concern there either.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  Yes it seems like most people tend to not care about this kind of thing and assume that as long as it's a large company getting the short end of the stick, whatever an individual person does is okay.
  - mgbmtl 8y ago
    What they are doing is not particularly reasonable either. They have their reasons, we have ours. Tutorials like these help people who have more time than money. While I don't use or encourage the use of this kind of software, for some its their only option to get started.
    - wilsonnb 8y ago
      I guess that's where we disagree. I think it's quite reasonable for Apple and Microsoft to decide on what terms you can use their product. I do sympathize with people who's only option for starting out with iOS or MacOS development is a hackintosh, though. In an ideal world that would not be the case.
      - hungerstrike 8y ago
        > I think it's quite reasonable for Apple and Microsoft to decide on what terms you can use their product. Fair-use trials have gone to the supreme court and the companies always lose. And I agree with them: Once you buy a product, it's yours to do what you want with. Anyway, even if you were correct and it was reasonable for Apple and Microsoft to decide what I can do with my personal property...they do plenty of other things wrong that I can justify "stealing" from them. Also, here's the EULA for my comment: By reading this comment, you must agree with me.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
PostOnce 8y ago
Oh no what will the poor most valuable company in the world do if we violate their made-up rules? It's an existential crisis, isn't it? Why should software have a EULA and not a screwdriver or a tractor or a pair of socks? "I bought it and I'll do what I want with it", why is software the only thing that isn't sold? Just because rich software dudes made up some rules doesn't mean they can make us follow them. lol. Isn't this place called hacker news, don't hackers bend and break rules all the time, in the pursuit of knowledge and better technology? Even the founders of YCombinator (one of em) made the most infamous worm in computer history, that's hardly "following the rules". And then Apple decided you couldn't install any software on your own computer (aka phone) unless they both approved it and you give them a 30% tithe on top of what the author makes. Fuck 'em. Build more Hackintoshes; do whatever you want. I'll keep on using open source since it's no-effort, free, and non-patronizing w/r/t my software sources. The internet only stops being the wild west when you turn in your guns and buy a plow (that can only be used on Apple-approved sharecropping projects).
- briandear 8y ago
  So when people violate GPL or other open source licenses, it’s ok to ignore that too right? This is morally equivalent: one can’t expect “made up rules” of open source to apply to anyone if “made up rules” can just be arbitrarily ignored.
  - seba_dos1 8y ago
    GPL is about distribution, completely different kind of license than EULAs.
  - PostOnce 8y ago
    Sure, if you can handle the heat from the GPL Police. I'm not entirely convinced open source licenses are a better idea than just making all open source public domain, with no restrictions at all.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  >Oh no what will the poor most valuable company in the world do if we violate their made-up rules? It's an existential crisis, isn't it? Just because Apple is the most valuable company in the world doesn't mean they shouldn't get the same rights that every other company does. >Just because rich software dudes made up some rules doesn't mean they can make us follow them. lol. They actually can make you follow these rules, or at least attempt to, by suing you and anyone else who violates their EULA. They probably won't, and even if they do the courts might not hold it up, but they can certainly try if they want to. >Why should software have a EULA and not a screwdriver or a tractor or a pair of socks? I'm perfectly fine with socks and screwdrivers having EULA's. There are several reasons they don't and software does. 1. People will buy another company's socks and screwdrivers, because they are all pretty much the same. OS's are much more complicated and differ from each other more. 2. It's much harder to check if a physical object is violating it's EULA than software that is (almost always) connected to the internet. 3. Software can be easily copied an infinite number of times and is therefore more prone to certain kinds of misuse than physical objects. >Isn't this place called hacker news, don't hackers bend and break rules all the time, in the pursuit of knowledge and better technology? This place may be called hacker news but there are plenty of people here who are just software engineers, not hackers. Anyone who wants to be able to license or sell their software, or get paid for writing software that will be licensed or sold by someone else, should at least question the ethics behind making a hackintosh.
shortformblog 8y ago
Conversely, it's unethical for a company of Apple's size to fail to cater to its user base in a way that would make something like a Hackintosh desirable. It's not like they don't have the money to support its userbase.
- briandear 8y ago
  How is it unethical? Are they not adhering to the terms of purchase?
  - shortformblog 8y ago
    I think there's a degree of unspoken contract that comes with buying through a single ecosystem like this. You're buying into an ecosystem that isn't supported by other hardware providers because it works well. By failing to upgrade the hardware on a regular basis—something that, specifically, can be said about the Mac Pro, and to a lesser degree about the Mac Mini—the company is failing to follow up on its end of the deal in supporting that ecosystem. It's egregious in Apple's case because the company is not struggling and the user base of macOS is still large enough that there's no reason for it to ignore that user base. The business model works, and it's not outdated; it's just not as attractive as the iPhone business model. The issue is less about them adhering to the terms of purchase and more about them failing to give its users a path forward. People have spent thousands of dollars on software that only works on macOS, and to change their operating system because the technology isn't keeping up creates a real conundrum in professional environments. IT departments spend real money on these products and a lack of an upgrade path is a big problem. There are apps I use on macOS that have deep integrations with iCloud—which means Apple makes money off of my use of that third-party app. I can't switch from that tool very easily, which means that I'm tied down to their ecosystem. In an age where computing goes beyond the product you buy, ecosystem neglect is a real problem. You're not buying the current MacBook Pro. You're also, hopefully, putting a downpayment on the next one. And that's where Apple is falling short.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  I don't consider that to be unethical. I am curious as to how you came to that conclusion.
segmondy 8y ago
Yeah we do. it's not wrong.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  That's a pretty weak statement without any justification for why you think it's not wrong. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you are interested in saying it.
toomuchgov 8y ago
Let us discourse on the necessity of the 13th through 15th amendments of the US constitution.
eric-hu 8y ago
I'm curious about your opinion. I own a 2012 MacBook Pro and I've swapped out the ram, hard drive and battery with non-official components. I'm technically running macOS on non Apple hardware. Do you disagree with this, morally?

userbinator 8y ago

The enforceability/validity of EULAs is debatable.

wilsonnb 8y ago
Yes it is but I don't see why the part of Apples EULA saying you can't install MacOS on other hardware would be ruled unenforceable or invalid. Even if that part is invalid, only people with actual Mac computers would be in the clear because that's the only way to get a copy of the OS. Apple won't sell it to you by itself. Anyone else making a hacintosh also has piracy issues to contend with.
- auslander 8y ago
  > only people with actual Mac computers would be in the clear because that's the only way to get a copy of the OS I have a real Mac and a hack. I can legitimately download OS, and I paid for Snow Leopard CD years ago and still have it. Am I in the clear?
  - wilsonnb 8y ago
    It depends on whether you think Apples EULA is valid or not. It's never been ruled on by a court as far as I know. The closest we got was the Psystar case which Apple won, so there is precedent that third parties can't install MacOS on a computer and sell it to you. I suppose it's also precedent that at least some of Apples EULA is enforceable. Personally, I think that the EULA is valid and hackintoshes are a violation. Even so, it's unlikely that Apple will sue you for it.
    - auslander 8y ago
      > unlikely that Apple will sue you Agree, very unlikely, its not Oracle after all > that third parties can't install MacOS Well ... I'm a First party :D

vbezhenar 8y ago

There's no Apple hardware, if we're talking about computers. There's Intel CPU, Intel Chipset, Toshiba SSD, Kingston RAM, etc. The fact, that Apple puts their logo on top, doesn't make it somewhat special. And the fact, that Apple doesn't enforce its OS usage tells, that they are OK with that. They could easily make hackintosher's lives a nightmare: checking hardware IDs, etc.

userbinator 8y ago
checking hardware IDs, etc. The OS does do that --- search the Internet for "SMCDeviceKey" to learn more. I think Apple deliberately makes the check trivial and, since Hackintoshing is a tiny minority (potentially of users who might eventually buy hardware from them), doesn't push too hard on it lest it backfire --- the SMCDeviceKey protection is quite similar to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade
wilsonnb 8y ago
Saying that it's okay because Apple doesn't stop it does not hold water to me. They shouldn't be required to stop it if it's already against the EULA. There wouldnt be much point in disallowing it if they had already made it impossible. Anyways, there is Apple hardware. Apple hardware is hardware that is sold by Apple. I understand that they dont manufacture it. The real issue here is that when Apple sells you a Mac, they include a copy of MacOS and say you can use it on that hardware. People with hacintoshes are saying "no, we can use it on whatever hardware we want". My question is, who's right? Some people are also saying "I don't have a Mac and therefore Apple has never given me a copy of MacOS, but I pirated it anyways". I think that those people are fairly obviously in the wrong because of the piracy involved.

GeekyBear 8y ago

It goes against Microsoft's EULA for people who build their own PC to buy the OEM version of Windows for it instead of the full retail version. In my experience, nobody shows a lot of concern there either.

wilsonnb 8y ago
Yes it seems like most people tend to not care about this kind of thing and assume that as long as it's a large company getting the short end of the stick, whatever an individual person does is okay.
- mgbmtl 8y ago
  What they are doing is not particularly reasonable either. They have their reasons, we have ours. Tutorials like these help people who have more time than money. While I don't use or encourage the use of this kind of software, for some its their only option to get started.
  - wilsonnb 8y ago
    I guess that's where we disagree. I think it's quite reasonable for Apple and Microsoft to decide on what terms you can use their product. I do sympathize with people who's only option for starting out with iOS or MacOS development is a hackintosh, though. In an ideal world that would not be the case.
    - hungerstrike 8y ago
      > I think it's quite reasonable for Apple and Microsoft to decide on what terms you can use their product. Fair-use trials have gone to the supreme court and the companies always lose. And I agree with them: Once you buy a product, it's yours to do what you want with. Anyway, even if you were correct and it was reasonable for Apple and Microsoft to decide what I can do with my personal property...they do plenty of other things wrong that I can justify "stealing" from them. Also, here's the EULA for my comment: By reading this comment, you must agree with me.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

PostOnce 8y ago

Oh no what will the poor most valuable company in the world do if we violate their made-up rules? It's an existential crisis, isn't it? Why should software have a EULA and not a screwdriver or a tractor or a pair of socks? "I bought it and I'll do what I want with it", why is software the only thing that isn't sold? Just because rich software dudes made up some rules doesn't mean they can make us follow them. lol. Isn't this place called hacker news, don't hackers bend and break rules all the time, in the pursuit of knowledge and better technology? Even the founders of YCombinator (one of em) made the most infamous worm in computer history, that's hardly "following the rules". And then Apple decided you couldn't install any software on your own computer (aka phone) unless they both approved it and you give them a 30% tithe on top of what the author makes. Fuck 'em. Build more Hackintoshes; do whatever you want. I'll keep on using open source since it's no-effort, free, and non-patronizing w/r/t my software sources. The internet only stops being the wild west when you turn in your guns and buy a plow (that can only be used on Apple-approved sharecropping projects).

briandear 8y ago
So when people violate GPL or other open source licenses, it’s ok to ignore that too right? This is morally equivalent: one can’t expect “made up rules” of open source to apply to anyone if “made up rules” can just be arbitrarily ignored.
- seba_dos1 8y ago
  GPL is about distribution, completely different kind of license than EULAs.
- PostOnce 8y ago
  Sure, if you can handle the heat from the GPL Police. I'm not entirely convinced open source licenses are a better idea than just making all open source public domain, with no restrictions at all.
wilsonnb 8y ago
>Oh no what will the poor most valuable company in the world do if we violate their made-up rules? It's an existential crisis, isn't it? Just because Apple is the most valuable company in the world doesn't mean they shouldn't get the same rights that every other company does. >Just because rich software dudes made up some rules doesn't mean they can make us follow them. lol. They actually can make you follow these rules, or at least attempt to, by suing you and anyone else who violates their EULA. They probably won't, and even if they do the courts might not hold it up, but they can certainly try if they want to. >Why should software have a EULA and not a screwdriver or a tractor or a pair of socks? I'm perfectly fine with socks and screwdrivers having EULA's. There are several reasons they don't and software does. 1. People will buy another company's socks and screwdrivers, because they are all pretty much the same. OS's are much more complicated and differ from each other more. 2. It's much harder to check if a physical object is violating it's EULA than software that is (almost always) connected to the internet. 3. Software can be easily copied an infinite number of times and is therefore more prone to certain kinds of misuse than physical objects. >Isn't this place called hacker news, don't hackers bend and break rules all the time, in the pursuit of knowledge and better technology? This place may be called hacker news but there are plenty of people here who are just software engineers, not hackers. Anyone who wants to be able to license or sell their software, or get paid for writing software that will be licensed or sold by someone else, should at least question the ethics behind making a hackintosh.

shortformblog 8y ago

Conversely, it's unethical for a company of Apple's size to fail to cater to its user base in a way that would make something like a Hackintosh desirable. It's not like they don't have the money to support its userbase.

briandear 8y ago
How is it unethical? Are they not adhering to the terms of purchase?
- shortformblog 8y ago
  I think there's a degree of unspoken contract that comes with buying through a single ecosystem like this. You're buying into an ecosystem that isn't supported by other hardware providers because it works well. By failing to upgrade the hardware on a regular basis—something that, specifically, can be said about the Mac Pro, and to a lesser degree about the Mac Mini—the company is failing to follow up on its end of the deal in supporting that ecosystem. It's egregious in Apple's case because the company is not struggling and the user base of macOS is still large enough that there's no reason for it to ignore that user base. The business model works, and it's not outdated; it's just not as attractive as the iPhone business model. The issue is less about them adhering to the terms of purchase and more about them failing to give its users a path forward. People have spent thousands of dollars on software that only works on macOS, and to change their operating system because the technology isn't keeping up creates a real conundrum in professional environments. IT departments spend real money on these products and a lack of an upgrade path is a big problem. There are apps I use on macOS that have deep integrations with iCloud—which means Apple makes money off of my use of that third-party app. I can't switch from that tool very easily, which means that I'm tied down to their ecosystem. In an age where computing goes beyond the product you buy, ecosystem neglect is a real problem. You're not buying the current MacBook Pro. You're also, hopefully, putting a downpayment on the next one. And that's where Apple is falling short.
wilsonnb 8y ago
I don't consider that to be unethical. I am curious as to how you came to that conclusion.

segmondy 8y ago

Yeah we do. it's not wrong.

wilsonnb 8y ago
That's a pretty weak statement without any justification for why you think it's not wrong. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say if you are interested in saying it.

toomuchgov 8y ago

Let us discourse on the necessity of the 13th through 15th amendments of the US constitution.

eric-hu 8y ago

I'm curious about your opinion. I own a 2012 MacBook Pro and I've swapped out the ram, hard drive and battery with non-official components. I'm technically running macOS on non Apple hardware. Do you disagree with this, morally?