Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Big Mac · May 6, 2012, 01:18 AM

Tell me if you think this statement is true or false: Apple doesn't care about Windows PC virtual machines unofficially running Mac OS X.

I'm curious right now to see what everyone thinks about this T/F. I think I pretty conclusively already know the answer, which I'll show soon.

turtle777 · May 6, 2012, 01:44 AM

Steve cares.

-t

Big Mac · May 6, 2012, 01:46 AM

True dat.

besson3c · May 6, 2012, 02:11 AM

I'd say that their level of care is very minimal.

Waragainstsleep · 06:11 PM

Steve would have cared for sure and I don't see them changing their official stance any time soon but I doubt anyone in Cupertino is losing sleep over it.

besson3c · May 6, 2012, 03:38 PM

I don't know it's a given that even Steve Jobs cared. If he cared, wouldn't the Mac Pro have gotten more TLC over the years? Wouldn't there have been that xMac that people wanted?

This isn't to say that he didn't care at all about Mac desktops, but I don't think Jobs was one to fuss over yesterday's Apple products.

Big Mac · May 6, 2012, 04:19 PM

Okay. I thought this was something Apple cared about, but I guess it falls in the same category as Hackintoshing (Apple doesn't care what highly advanced users do).

I'm just surprised to see it so public.

Wiskedjak · May 6, 2012, 04:43 PM

Doesn't a PC running a MacOS VM just encourage people to go buy a Mac to run MacOS?

besson3c · May 6, 2012, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Okay. I thought this was something Apple cared about, but I guess it falls in the same category as Hackintoshing (Apple doesn't care what highly advanced users do).

I'm just surprised to see it so public.

If it is perfectly legal to jailbreak an iOS device, wouldn't it be perfectly legal to do the Hackintosh thing, providing you paid for your copy of OS X?

Waragainstsleep · May 6, 2012, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

If it is perfectly legal to jailbreak an iOS device, wouldn't it be perfectly legal to do the Hackintosh thing, providing you paid for your copy of OS X?

Running software that was intended to run on specific hardware on unauthorised hardware is in violation of the EULA. Part of the price of OS X is that the cost of having bought a Mac is factored into it. If Apple were to officially allow a retail VM or hackintosh version of Lion it would be way more than $20 or whatever it costs now.

besson3c · May 6, 2012, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

Running software that was intended to run on specific hardware on unauthorised hardware is in violation of the EULA. Part of the price of OS X is that the cost of having bought a Mac is factored into it. If Apple were to officially allow a retail VM or hackintosh version of Lion it would be way more than $20 or whatever it costs now.

Doesn't the jailbreaking lawsuit establish the precedent that you can do what you want with the software you have purchased, or am I reaching?

Waragainstsleep · May 6, 2012, 09:24 PM

Its a fair question. I thought it meant you could do what you want with it once its installed, not that you can install it when, where and how you want. This would seem to be the case as if the jail breaking lawsuit applied to an OS then large parts of the EULA would be voided for any OS. Onlive recently had to swap all its VMs from Win 7 to Win 2008 Server because of EULA restrictions on virtualisation. Can't imagine they'd have done it if your interpretation was applicable.

Wiskedjak · May 6, 2012, 09:44 PM

EULAs don't supersede law. A careful reading of many EULAs will uncover many attempts to do so, but that doesn't mean those attempts will hold up when the company tries to enforce them.

Spheric Harlot · May 7, 2012, 02:51 AM

It also depends upon where you are.

EULAs aren't legally binding in Europe, as you cannot define the terms of sale and use after the purchase has already taken place.

besson3c · May 7, 2012, 03:02 AM

I can't stand all of this legal crap. I don't mind paying Apple or any other company for writing software, but once I have purchased this software, I wish I could install it anywhere and do what I want without having to worry about these legal restrictions. Well, everything except reselling the software and the like, but that's a pretty obvious ethical and legal violation.

This is almost as bad as AT&T not allowing me to use the data I've already paid for for tethering.

P · May 7, 2012, 04:35 AM

EULAs aren't legally binding almost anywhere. I understand that a handful of states in the US have made them so, but that has not been tested in court AFAIK.

The hard point is the circumvention clause of the DMCA (and the EUCD, although that has rather more loopholes). It is illegal to circumvent copy protection, even if the use you intend to make is legal - unless there is an exemption. Jailbreaking phones has such an exemption that expires every three years. Mac OS X checks that it runs on an actual Mac, and Apple calls this copy protection. Circumventing it means violating the DMCA even if you have a license - or so Apple argues. This is the reason Psystar lost (along with the fact that they apparently pirated Leopard copies on some of the clones it sold), so apparently the US courts agree.

P · May 7, 2012, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I can't stand all of this legal crap. I don't mind paying Apple or any other company for writing software, but once I have purchased this software, I wish I could install it anywhere and do what I want without having to worry about these legal restrictions.

I agree. This is the problem with the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA/EUCD - it gives all your rights to the seller of a media, and then lets them sell those rights back to you piece by piece. In my opinion, that clause is worse than all of SOPA.

besson3c · May 7, 2012, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by P

EULAs aren't legally binding almost anywhere. I understand that a handful of states in the US have made them so, but that has not been tested in court AFAIK.

The hard point is the circumvention clause of the DMCA (and the EUCD, although that has rather more loopholes). It is illegal to circumvent copy protection, even if the use you intend to make is legal - unless there is an exemption. Jailbreaking phones has such an exemption that expires every three years. Mac OS X checks that it runs on an actual Mac, and Apple calls this copy protection. Circumventing it means violating the DMCA even if you have a license - or so Apple argues. This is the reason Psystar lost (along with the fact that they apparently pirated Leopard copies on some of the clones it sold), so apparently the US courts agree.

Heh. Pirated copies... Pystar sounds like a bunch of flipping genii (that's plural of genius for those of you not a genius like me)

What you say here makes sense. I don't understand how the Mac hardware check is considered legal copy protection though...