5 ms·

1) There is no such thing as "non-Apple gear". The entire hardware platform is the same as any Intel box running Windows or Linux. They use the same CPUs, chips

1) There is no such thing as "non-Apple gear". The entire hardware platform is the same as any Intel box running Windows or Linux. They use the same CPUs, chipsets, graphics cards, memory, hard drives, form factors, etc. etc. etc. as the rest of the industry with some minor changes to the boot system and system startup entry points (nothing that hurts running Windows or Linux on the same hardware for example). 2) true. But I think the exception to Apple's behavior is that there are large numbers of customers who would be more than happy to fork over another wad of cash for an Apple branded netbook (in addition to their existing systems) and Apple has (yet again) failed to listen to their consumer. That's fine, Apple probably can't make the numbers work to preserve some margin figure they want to maintain. All Apple demonstrates by this is that consumer feedback is not as much a part of their development process as most people seem to think (or hope) it is. The problem is that not only is Apple saying "we can't be bothered with this netbook thing right now" but they are saying it with a middle finger, fully extended, at their customers. They've gone and put themselves out, expended effort, to ensure their users can't operate as they want to. So really it's "give us your money for our overpriced commodity hardware and we don't care what you think or actually want, you'll think and want what we tell you to, how dare you try and step outside of our carefully crafted ecosystem"

tptacek 17y ago
You seem awfully confident about (1). It's almost like you think Dell couldn't sell a piece of software that was locked to Dell gear. I'm not so sure. Remember, the goal of "software protection" (be it DRM, platform locks, or anticheating software) isn't to make it impossible to break the system; it's to make it (a) impossible to do it cost-effectively, and (b) impossible to do it permanently. The rest of your argument, with the "middle fingers" and whatnot, I don't care. Again: companies should be able to sell whatever they want, modulo antitrust and regs.
- elblanco 17y ago
  >You seem awfully confident about (1) Take a Macintosh, open it. Inspect using the novel technique of "looking". Not to be glib, but when Apple decided to ditch other platforms for Intel-styled chips, they bought into the entire R&D work of their principle competitors. Back in the day with the 680x0 Macs and the PowerPC Macs, even things like RAM and video-cards weren't interchangeable between the platforms (due to endian-issues and timing issues etc.). The early 3d cards were a prime example of having to buy Apple branded hardware (or co-developed in partnership) for Apple branded computers. So for example, if you wanted to upgrade your Mac with a better video card, you couldn't run over and buy the $199 Nvidia card that 90% of the market could buy. You had to buy the "Made for Macintosh" Nvidia card at the 20% markup. What Apple bought when going Intel was expertise in a vast marketplace of hardware manufacturers and R&D departments, doing Apple's work effectively for them. So what's in an Apple branded case? Probably some x-ATX board, the standard combination of chipset chips from whoever Apple could purchase from cheapest, a perfectly stock Intel chip and perfectly stock memory. With PCI-E ports with perfectly stock video cards (or video on the mobo, like value PC builders go with). If you are careful you might notice Apple uses a different boot system that's equivalent to the traditional BIOS (and is the direction some PC systems have already gone as well). What Apple also bought when adopting an open architecture was that unfortunately, it makes locking it down really really hard. They came to the same party as everybody else, but they don't like the music. Too bad. If Apple wants to sell a closed architecture, then that's what they should sell. But they decided to adopt an architecture that's designed not to be locked down, then are trying to lock it down after the fact.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    It just took you over 300 words to say the same thing you said one comment earlier. I think you know less about how platform technology works than you think you do, and you'd benefit from opening your mind a bit. Again: Dell could probably lock code down to Dell boxes, if they had anything worth locking down.
    - elblanco 17y ago
      Well, you didn't seem to understand it when I said it >shorter<. So tptacek, enlighten us, what's the principle hardware differences between a run-of-the-mill desktop Mac and a run-of-the-mill desktop dell? Protip: if you use the acronym "DRM" in your response you loose because you obviously don't understand what "DRM" means.
      - tptacek 17y ago
        So, I just took the 7 minutes required to give a casual read to every comment you've posted here, and here's what I've come up with: * I have no idea what your technical expertise is, because you're anonymous, haven't filled out your profile, and have never posted a technical comment here. You have "a lead developer" and an ex CTO that screwed your company, so I assume you (a) didn't found that company and (b) don't lead a dev team. Once you typed the letters C++. * You really, really dislike Apple. As evidence for that, I submit the fact that you (a) have never agreed with any pro-Apple comment here, (b) said you have an irrational dislike for the platform, (c) haven't used it enough to make sense in an argument about how app focus works on OS X, and (d) tried to win an argument about how overpriced Apple hardware is by linking to what appears to be the worst-reviewed input device on NewEgg. * Your dislike for Apple currently constitutes the majority of all your comment-words on HN. I have no problem arguing with you on how effective software protection could or couldn't be on a standardized ISA with a tiny number of valid build configurations, or how microarchitectural profiling works, or what the parameters are for a "win" for Apple in this cat-and-mouse game are. I fully accept that you might win that argument; I feel comfortable with my position, though, with some fair amount of practical experience to back it. But whatever. I'm simply not going to do that until you tell me who you are and why I should take you at all seriously. Otherwise, I'm just going to remember you as someone never to talk to here.
- kburn 17y ago
  You are right, Dell used to give out restore disks that locked to Dell hardware. They'd even give an appropriate error on non-Dell hardware. I don't think anybody cared to subvert it since it as usually COTS software they just packaged up.
Zev 17y ago
But I think the exception to Apple's behavior is that there are large numbers of customers who would be more than happy to fork over another wad of cash for an Apple branded netbook (in addition to their existing systems) and Apple has (yet again) failed to listen to their consumer. So, companies are free to make their own products up, but only as long as there isn't another product that may be in demand, in which case, they should be forced to spend time developing said product based on a hunch of someone who isn't familiar with intimate details of Apple's business? The problem is that not only is Apple saying "we can't be bothered with this netbook thing right now" but they are saying it with a middle finger, fully extended, at their customers. They've gone and put themselves out, expended effort, to ensure their users can't operate as they want to. Apple is a company who's goal is to make lots of money. If they want to shun one area and focus on other areas instead — perhaps because one area isn't as profitable as another area — why shouldn't they be able to? To Apple, their users are the people who buy their hardware. If you buy a Dell netbook, download an osx86 image off of the Internet and then install it, you're not an Apple users. So really it's "give us your money for our overpriced commodity hardware and we don't care what you think or actually want, you'll think and want what we tell you to, how dare you try and step outside of our carefully crafted ecosystem" So its a business. Whats wrong with that? If you disagree with their policies, dont use their products. Pirating it and using it isn't "sticking it to the man" somehow.
- elblanco 17y ago
  >If you buy a Dell netbook, download an osx86 image off of the Internet and then install it, you're not an Apple users. Precisely. There aren't many non-apple users (classifying them as people who already own an Apple system, but want the improved portability the netbook formfactor affords) who are interesting in taking the time or energy to hackintosh their netbook. These people are saying, as loud as they can "Apple! We love your platform, make some hardware like a netbook and we will buy it! For goodness sakes, look at all the trouble we're going through to simulate it!" Apple doesn't even have to R&D the netbook formfactor. They don't have to work with chip vendors to come up with lowpower chips and chipsets, or downgraded low power GPUs. They literally have to do nothing except get Jonny Ive to cook up a unibody case and put OSX on them. Charge $400 instead of $350 and they have and Apple netbook. But Apple can't find the margins in the product line and the equation means that they have no offering for this huge hole in their lineup.

tptacek 17y ago

You seem awfully confident about (1). It's almost like you think Dell couldn't sell a piece of software that was locked to Dell gear. I'm not so sure. Remember, the goal of "software protection" (be it DRM, platform locks, or anticheating software) isn't to make it impossible to break the system; it's to make it (a) impossible to do it cost-effectively, and (b) impossible to do it permanently. The rest of your argument, with the "middle fingers" and whatnot, I don't care. Again: companies should be able to sell whatever they want, modulo antitrust and regs.

elblanco 17y ago
>You seem awfully confident about (1) Take a Macintosh, open it. Inspect using the novel technique of "looking". Not to be glib, but when Apple decided to ditch other platforms for Intel-styled chips, they bought into the entire R&D work of their principle competitors. Back in the day with the 680x0 Macs and the PowerPC Macs, even things like RAM and video-cards weren't interchangeable between the platforms (due to endian-issues and timing issues etc.). The early 3d cards were a prime example of having to buy Apple branded hardware (or co-developed in partnership) for Apple branded computers. So for example, if you wanted to upgrade your Mac with a better video card, you couldn't run over and buy the $199 Nvidia card that 90% of the market could buy. You had to buy the "Made for Macintosh" Nvidia card at the 20% markup. What Apple bought when going Intel was expertise in a vast marketplace of hardware manufacturers and R&D departments, doing Apple's work effectively for them. So what's in an Apple branded case? Probably some x-ATX board, the standard combination of chipset chips from whoever Apple could purchase from cheapest, a perfectly stock Intel chip and perfectly stock memory. With PCI-E ports with perfectly stock video cards (or video on the mobo, like value PC builders go with). If you are careful you might notice Apple uses a different boot system that's equivalent to the traditional BIOS (and is the direction some PC systems have already gone as well). What Apple also bought when adopting an open architecture was that unfortunately, it makes locking it down really really hard. They came to the same party as everybody else, but they don't like the music. Too bad. If Apple wants to sell a closed architecture, then that's what they should sell. But they decided to adopt an architecture that's designed not to be locked down, then are trying to lock it down after the fact.
- tptacek 17y ago
  It just took you over 300 words to say the same thing you said one comment earlier. I think you know less about how platform technology works than you think you do, and you'd benefit from opening your mind a bit. Again: Dell could probably lock code down to Dell boxes, if they had anything worth locking down.
  - elblanco 17y ago
    Well, you didn't seem to understand it when I said it >shorter<. So tptacek, enlighten us, what's the principle hardware differences between a run-of-the-mill desktop Mac and a run-of-the-mill desktop dell? Protip: if you use the acronym "DRM" in your response you loose because you obviously don't understand what "DRM" means.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      So, I just took the 7 minutes required to give a casual read to every comment you've posted here, and here's what I've come up with: * I have no idea what your technical expertise is, because you're anonymous, haven't filled out your profile, and have never posted a technical comment here. You have "a lead developer" and an ex CTO that screwed your company, so I assume you (a) didn't found that company and (b) don't lead a dev team. Once you typed the letters C++. * You really, really dislike Apple. As evidence for that, I submit the fact that you (a) have never agreed with any pro-Apple comment here, (b) said you have an irrational dislike for the platform, (c) haven't used it enough to make sense in an argument about how app focus works on OS X, and (d) tried to win an argument about how overpriced Apple hardware is by linking to what appears to be the worst-reviewed input device on NewEgg. * Your dislike for Apple currently constitutes the majority of all your comment-words on HN. I have no problem arguing with you on how effective software protection could or couldn't be on a standardized ISA with a tiny number of valid build configurations, or how microarchitectural profiling works, or what the parameters are for a "win" for Apple in this cat-and-mouse game are. I fully accept that you might win that argument; I feel comfortable with my position, though, with some fair amount of practical experience to back it. But whatever. I'm simply not going to do that until you tell me who you are and why I should take you at all seriously. Otherwise, I'm just going to remember you as someone never to talk to here.
kburn 17y ago
You are right, Dell used to give out restore disks that locked to Dell hardware. They'd even give an appropriate error on non-Dell hardware. I don't think anybody cared to subvert it since it as usually COTS software they just packaged up.

Zev 17y ago

But I think the exception to Apple's behavior is that there are large numbers of customers who would be more than happy to fork over another wad of cash for an Apple branded netbook (in addition to their existing systems) and Apple has (yet again) failed to listen to their consumer. So, companies are free to make their own products up, but only as long as there isn't another product that may be in demand, in which case, they should be forced to spend time developing said product based on a hunch of someone who isn't familiar with intimate details of Apple's business? The problem is that not only is Apple saying "we can't be bothered with this netbook thing right now" but they are saying it with a middle finger, fully extended, at their customers. They've gone and put themselves out, expended effort, to ensure their users can't operate as they want to. Apple is a company who's goal is to make lots of money. If they want to shun one area and focus on other areas instead — perhaps because one area isn't as profitable as another area — why shouldn't they be able to? To Apple, their users are the people who buy their hardware. If you buy a Dell netbook, download an osx86 image off of the Internet and then install it, you're not an Apple users. So really it's "give us your money for our overpriced commodity hardware and we don't care what you think or actually want, you'll think and want what we tell you to, how dare you try and step outside of our carefully crafted ecosystem" So its a business. Whats wrong with that? If you disagree with their policies, dont use their products. Pirating it and using it isn't "sticking it to the man" somehow.

elblanco 17y ago
>If you buy a Dell netbook, download an osx86 image off of the Internet and then install it, you're not an Apple users. Precisely. There aren't many non-apple users (classifying them as people who already own an Apple system, but want the improved portability the netbook formfactor affords) who are interesting in taking the time or energy to hackintosh their netbook. These people are saying, as loud as they can "Apple! We love your platform, make some hardware like a netbook and we will buy it! For goodness sakes, look at all the trouble we're going through to simulate it!" Apple doesn't even have to R&D the netbook formfactor. They don't have to work with chip vendors to come up with lowpower chips and chipsets, or downgraded low power GPUs. They literally have to do nothing except get Jonny Ive to cook up a unibody case and put OSX on them. Charge $400 instead of $350 and they have and Apple netbook. But Apple can't find the margins in the product line and the equation means that they have no offering for this huge hole in their lineup.