Apple Shuts Down Group Trying To Put OSX On PCs

from the take-that. dept

Dosquatch writes “It seems that Apple doesn’t mind the open source software thing when it benefits them by, say, helping them build an OS. But if somebody else wants to poke at their code, they get all pissy. Imagine that.” They’ve sent a DMCA-based cease-and-desist to a group who was working on putting OSX on (non-Apple) Intel PCs.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Apple Shuts Down Group Trying To Put OSX On PCs”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
ZOMG CENSORED (user link) says:

Well that settles that debate...

You know all those Open OS freaks who’ve been saying that apple would be behind such a project? I guess they were wrong… I would love to have OS X on my PC, however, I would probably want it to be done by apple… I just don’t know how well something would work without the official support of the company.

Fantastical monkey says:

Re: Re: Well that settles that debate...

I think it would be stupid for Apple to separate the Hardware and software.

At the moment, they know exactly which graphics cards will be used, which HDs, etc.

I believe this helps in the stability of the OS, rather than Microsoft having to code for all varietys.

Plus the hardware is a large part of what defines a Mac.

Jeremy Hoffmann says:

Re: Re: Well that settles that debate...

The thinking is that he doesn’t want to put out JUNK! Other Windows based PC’s are over-stretched in the hardware dept. Apple is brilliant in wanting to make things JUST WORK right the first time! I don’t think that any business that leads technology the way Apple does, doesn’t want to be known for shortcuts and technology that doesn’t work! Just my opinion!

Anonymous Coward says:


God I hate apple so much. I dont like Microsoft much, but at least my PC was cheap, stable (even running windows it has litterally never crashed), and cheap. On the other hand I could go out and get a Mac for a few grand which is a few times what my pc cost, and it would be killer slow, and freeze up and crash all the time. The other day I was going to try to watch a .mov so I went to download quicktime. It turns out they dont have quicktime alone, you have to get quicktime with their itunes garbage. Then once you have it installed THERE IS NO UNINSTALLER. So I went to just delete it and it said that it was in use. It turned out that between a hidden quicktime process and a hidden itunes process they were using up over 40mb of my RAM. I dont understand why on earth you would want OSX on a PC when you could just run Linux.

Anonymous Coward says:


Let’s pick this apart, shall we?

“I could go out and get a Mac for a few grand”
Let’s see, going to the Apple store, I can pick up a Mini Mac for $500. That’s a bit less that a few grand. Oh, maybe you were talking about the iMac, which is $1500. Wait, that has a built in 20″ LCD, 250GB hard drive and a DVD+RW drive in it. I’ll bet your cheap Windows box doesn’t have those. And if it does, it sure ain’t no cheap PC.

“freeze up and crash all the time”
Have you ever used OSX? Obviously not because it never, ever crashes.

“they dont have quicktime alone”
Ummm, sure they do, you just have to look for the Link that says QuickTime Standalone Installer (it’s right next to the big Download Here button). Here, I’ll even Link it for you.

Are you just that dumb? Of course it comes with an uninstaller.

“So I went to just delete it”
Yeah, you’re a real tech genius, just deleting a program. But you know what? If you were on a Mac, you could just delete it, that’s the whole uninstall process on a mac, drag it to the trash can.

“could just run Linux”
Wait, I thought you were running Windows?

To sum up, you said “I have no idea what I’m talking about, all of my information is incorrect, so you should listen to me.” Nicely done.

Ghost says:

Re: Re: Re:4 iSuck

I dont even care and no one else should either. Apple and their entire line of iSuck products can kiss my PC use whatever hardware I want, look I’m not locked into one crappy companys nazi grip on my wallet loving ass.

It comes down to this, People will love Linux, Windows and Apple. I hate Apple, I like Linux and Windows. Everyone in the world that isn’t a homosexual dislikes Apple, and if you like Apple and don’t think you are gay, you just don’t know yet, it will happen, just keep playing with your iPod, iTunes, iMovie, iSuck Software.

Chadwick says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Throw that APPLE out the WINDOW(s)

I must give it to Apple, It is Cute & good looking @ times, BUT FAR from a PC. And while it does have its Advantages (like a clean uninstall, clean looking interface). Apple Lacks a Development community even with its unique hardware. There is a very small market for software designed for the APPLE platform.

I’ll give it to you MACies, it use to be STABLE compared to a WINDOWS 98/ME/NT but has a longway to come in development if it wants to stand up to a Windows 2k/XP OS. Microsoft partnered with any decent hardware vendor can boast performance gains over the power pc/OSx platform as well as support for a billion applications on all pc based hardware.

Why do we you think apple is moving toward an intel based chip… someone?s finally waking up @ apple.

I mean honestly if a pc hardware vendor came out with a pretty pc, APPLE would?ve been in trouble. (Cant figure out why we still don?t have a pc hardware vendor with a pretty PC?& if your thinking sony? they started off with a good idea but that?s it)
You can always find a better value for your money when comparing any major vendor to any of apples hardware, it may not look as nice though!

So in closing I will say this, I have had the opportunity of working with both Apple & PC.
I own both (never brought an apple)
My Apple today is an attentionpiece ? the girls seem to think its cute.
My Pc is a Masterpiece ? I love it & the girls know how to use it..
My apple has a couple of kewl appz like IPhoto? (Still lacks common sense logic) but good for ordering picture books.
My Pc has everything except Iphoto,? I can use 1 million other apps.

If the Macintosh is any indication of an Apple , we all know it gets rotten within a short amount of time?
Throw it Out the WINDOW!!!


Ghost says:

Re: Re: Re:3 QuickTime Alt

Use QuickTime Alt:

Not nearly as gay, but allows you to play the mov format….because mpg and avi were not Apple, they had to make their own.

Oh yeah I hear because Apple didnt developer English they are creating a new called “iSpeak” should be around sometime in 2008, it will cost you 22 years of your life to learn to speak it, but the people who waste their time with it sware it’s worth it.

FatPat says:

Re: Re: Re:4 QuickTime Alt

My, aren’t our panties in a bunch today.
Look, “Ghost.” Get out of the house, dude. You’re much too involved in this OS war thing. Go to a park, walk a dog, do something.
Look, I know you’re all pissy because you haven’t gotten your drivers license but relax, man.
And yes, you are right. All Apple users are gay. [sarcasm]
Sheesh, don’t be such a dork.

Jon says:

Re: Re: Re: Well that settles that debate...

>The thinking is that he doesn’t want to put out JUNK! Other >Windows based PC’s are over-stretched in the hardware >dept. Apple is brilliant in wanting to make things JUST WORK >right the first time!

I must read different lists than you…. The pro audio community is suffering terribly from design flaws in OSX. Add to that the constantly changing hardware specs and you have a recipie for serious problems. Apple has lost it’s lustre in the pro audio community and is now being viewed as a high end hobbyist’s machine. Every new release of OSX changes timing and stability… what a mess.


Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Well that settles that debate...

Is it wrong for a company to want to be profitable? Now, of course, money should not trump things like values, however the product that they invested in with their money is theirs, and that’s the end of it. They don’t want people tooling around with their code in an unsanctioned manner, because they are protective of their brand. This isn’t the response many people wanted to see, by shutting down the project, but it’s a matter of what is theirs and what isn’t.

Jeremy Hoffmann says:

Re: Re: Re: Well that settles that debate...

If anyone wants to use the FreeBSD code they are more than able to do that… Apple has THEIR additions to the Kernel of the FreeBSD code that is FREEWARE or SHAREWARE… the actual OS X itself is property of Apple and is NOT shareware! This is something that people dont seem to understand. Look at Linux, there are many flavors of Linux but Red Hat and SuSE sell their OS because it is a license now if you go and create something off of thier OS and re-sell the product that is against the law! That is why Apple doesn’t want THEIR software product to be stolen. Just my opinion…

Jeremy Wall (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Well that settles that debate...

Actually that’s a bad example. There are many distro’s that began as a fork of RedHat or SuSE. Yes the two companies do sell their distro but you are perfectly welcome to take all the components of that distro and repackage and resell it yourself. That is if it is OSS software. The difference here is that while Apple has opened source the Mach kernel All the rest of the system is not open source. So running the GUI, OS utilities, and other parts of the system in a way that violates the EULA is indeed transgressing the law.

I do happen to think it’s a stupid law though

Rye (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re: Well that settles that debate...

What pisses me off about it, is that if MS did this people would scream saying their evil nazi jackinapes for trying to lock everyone into their hardware, their OS, their products, but Apple does it, and they’re protecting their IP. What BS. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. What someone does with something they own, is their own business, unless they’re selling someone elses IP for money, otherwise Modchips, hacking Ipod, or any OS, should be fine, just as long as your clear you void your warranty. Its people like you who agree with the RIAA saying ripping music and putting it on your Ipod isn’t fair use.

PsuedoDragon (profile) says:

Re: Re: Well that settles that debate...

that and the other major diffrance between macs and pcs is that they use a completely different hardware architecture its like trying to put diesel fuel in a gasoline engine. yeah the size of it fits but diesel fuel just doesnt work in a gasoline engine and there is just no way around it. if you have a gasoline engine you must use gasoline fuel.

RH says:

Re: Re: Well that settles that debate...

I think to say that all businesses are out there to make money is not true. and certainly apple isn’t one of them. They are more consumer based than money hungry. Microsoft has just brought out vista, people are buying it for a ridiculous price, thinking that they are getting the latest technology, best security etc. Well the “cool” things you see on vista have been on mac for almost 8 years- nothing new, OS X is far more secure than windows will ever be.

This post was written from a PC running on windows XP

Sohrab says:

No Subject Given

This is a hard take. Because although it sucks to have the site shut down for the people who work on it, you can take the stance that this will popularize Apple more, might shift people to just Buy a Mac and etc but then

what if people make it work and start profitting off of it, isnt that just wrong? Take somebodys work, change it and start selling it?

For all we know, Apple has their own plan to do this and this would be straight up stealing from them.

its a hard call being a Mac/Pc user.

Rikko says:

Re: No Subject Given

what if people make it work and start profitting off of it, isnt that just wrong? Take somebodys work, change it and start selling it?

That’s kind of the impetus behind the open source movement, and a large part of why Corel and Sun are still big players and helping so much..

Then again, if I go and take Red Hat’s distro (which they built off free, open source code), modify it and resell it, will the Red Hat Foundation get royally pissed at me? Probably.

Shoal Creek says:

Re: No Subject Given

what if people make it work and start profitting off of it, isnt that just wrong? Take somebodys work, change it and start selling it?

Isn’t that what Apple did with MacOS in the first place? I think the idea came from Xerox if I remember right. Not just that, Mac OS X is a ripoff from BSD that they are trying to pass off as their own.

Of course, Microsoft did it with Windows by trying to take a Mac-like approach. In fact, I would be willing to bet that nearly 90% of all patented software was taken from previous art.

Pongidae says:

Re: No worries...

This arguement is all well and good and we will certainly heard from the Apple lovers and the Apple haters (since both extremes are full of narrow minded zealots). The reality here is quite simple the OS that is being used for the OSX/PC hybrids being developed by “open-sourse” users is a stolen/pirated copy of the code. Wake up people of course they will get upset and shut them down for telling people where to get and how to use that code. Would you be upset if someone was telling people where you lived and exactly how to break into your home to steal your most prized possessions. DUH!
Get off your pedestal and get real. Apple probably was happy about people being excited to get OSX running on an Intel processor, which is helped to build buy in prior to distributing their own MAC/Intel machines running OSX. Now if your excited about it maybe you’ll buy one of the new Mactels. Makes perfect sense to built up excitement and then to shut down other (non-legal) outlets to supply the OS on Intel.

Agonizing Fury says:

Re: Re: No worries...

The reality here is quite simple the OS that is being used for the OSX/PC hybrids being developed by “open-sourse” users is a stolen/pirated copy of the code.

Could you by any chance cite that? I can’t find a reference that says this. I would love to think that Apple would be ecstatic about porting Legal Copies of OSX to work on an x86. I hate to risk being accused of comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended) by asking; if it were legal copies, wouldn’t it fall under fair use? Almost everyone who comments on techdirt agrees that if you buy music designed to play on hardware with the “Compact Disc” Logo on it you should be able to play said music on hardware not designed for CDs by modifying the music slightly. Shouldn’t the same apply if I buy an Operating system designed for hardware with an apple symbol on it, that I should be allowed to modify it to work on other hardware as well? At least so long as I’m not circumventing copy protection software to do so.
Just my two cents

Posterlogo says:


I don’t know where you get off thinking that OS X is some kind of freeware…?? If you think an open source/freeware project could even come close to the elegance of OS X, be my guest and just go use that. Until then, don’t whine that a company makes a software/hardware package that is meant to be used together as such. If you think the open source linux crap out there is so awesome, stop condoning the hacking of OS X. It would be academically interesting to see OS X run on a non-Apple hardware platform, but it’s their decision to do it if they want to, not anybody elses. If YOU want to buy a legal copy of Tiger and futz with it on your PC, I think that should be allowed (I’m not sure even that is legal, but I have very little moral argument against it). On the other hand, pirating it is simply stealing.

Dosquatch says:


If you think an open source/freeware project could even come close to the elegance of OS X

Dude. BSD is open source software, from waaaay back. Before Linux, even. Using open-source code is not “theft”. It is the point, the definition, of open source. Open source licenses state that, sure, you can build your product out of the codebase, but as your payment, you have to make the source available for others to do the same with… only one of the finer points that Apple seems to have missed. And how did you think the OSx86 group got the source to tinker with anyway, hmm?

This does not prohibit you from selling your project. No, you don’t have to make available any original code you write as part of the project. Anything proprietary is off limits, but then… OSX, though, is predominantly BSD. OSx86 is within the rights of the license. Apple is off their nut.

stop condoning the hacking of OS X


intel_killer says:

Re: Re: not FREEWARE

BSD is Open Source, but it is not GPL = which for some reason has come to mean “open source”
BSD has been under its own license well before the GPL even existed.
Yes BSD is free in open, in that I can download the source modify it and resubmit it to the community.
However, the BSD is different in the GPL in that If I want you to pay for my modifications and want to resell my code then thats all fine and legal.
That’s what exactly Apple is doing, it’s fine and I’m ok with it. You want a BSD ‘NIX with pretty windows and controlled but supported hardware?
Ok fine by me.
If Apple had used a bunch of GPL’d code or something then we could get all pissy about something. I have downloaded and used the vmware image and Maxxus code from the OSx86 project, but am I all pissy because of Apple? No, they are a company who is making a product like Microsoft that is reality is closed-source no matter how you try to spin it in your head.
Just because they used “open” source BSD code to get there, doesn’t make there software “open”. I could do the same, add my own Window Manger to FreeBSD and sell it just the same.
Which is why the BSD license makes more sense for companies than the more restricitve GPL.

Tom says:

"... why 1984 won't be like '1984'."

That’s part of the tag line that introduced the Mac to the world. Supposedly as “protest” product against the tyrany of IBM, supposedly a machine to democratize the personal computer market.

It is the supreme irony that the most tyranical, the most restrictive, the best example of an Orwellian computer, became the Macintosh.

wiley riley says:

why it all sux

i should be entitled to do with software/os as i wish

including re sell it (once)

install to whatever hardware

these software gigs have way too much power

they spend all their time outdoing each other on worthless BS instead of clearing out vulnerabilities bugs and security flaws

osx is a delightfull system, certainly the most polished linux around ~ and by a loooong way, but for whatever reason Jobs thinks hes a hardware company, and apparently not only does his hardware underperform it costs the earth too. if its enough to challenge MS about packaging software and the anti-competitive behaviour that defines, its also fair to state apple is limiting my choice of hardware to what they sell (they dont make it we all know that)

sheetfaced says:

there's no "i" in apple products

ill never use an apple product, the iphone, the ipod, f*ck, whats with “i” in every product of theirs!, i predict they’ll buy a football team, and guess what it will be called, ironically “iTeam”, They’ll release a sleuth of unimaginative, yet – media hype-socalled innovative crap that only works on macs, guess what it will being with a lower case “i”, now ive never tried apple products, why because their dog-shit expensive and plus i’m just a hater.

Jeremy says:

Apple OS on a PC

You all realize it isn’t that the opensource is a major issue as you can compile the Darwin OS and build your own OSX box on a PC. It is that Apple makes sure the hardware is 100% utilized by the software with very little to no issue. Why should they want to put out thier OS (or let others) for systems that are not going to make them look good? It is simple they wouldn’t! It is good marketing when you have a product that is the most robust piece of equipment on the market and it keeps to a higher standard than other PC systems that aren’t built for the OS. I think if you really want to have an Apple OS then build it yourself… Darwin is freely avaialbe and you can compile it from binary source and add in what ever you want… Don’t try to make something of nothing when the company is just simply protecting it’s image… Have fun building the OS it is hard work but in the end you will have learned a lot and be happier that way.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...