"Okay. So I won't download my OS"

You can, but if you want it to be legal it will have to open source.

You can make a hackintosh with a purchased copy of OSX - however, technically, all you can buy are "upgrade only" copies. Of course, one might argue that as long as you're breaking "the law" by violating the EULA you might as well break it some more by outright pirating the OS, but I certainly am not going to feel bad when Apple refuses to let you use their software without overpaying for the hardware.

@MightyDwarf56: It's only illegal if you get caught :D

That being said, I don't know why you'd do that. I purchase all my software 100% legally. I promise :D

And here I was thinking that this was common knowledge... last year.

@Megalomania: I've got no sympathy for apple. Bring the price out of the stratosphere and people might consider buying your product.

@tsume: Dude, totally why I boost cars. They're so unfairly priced!

@Megalomania: I don't entirely buy into "breaking the EULA" = "breaking the law". Worst case, I think all Apple can do is deny me upgrade and technical support. And I'm not entirely sure that having a license agreement that requires the OS to be run only on OS vendor hardware is enforceable. Maybe I've missed a legal case, but I'm betting that this EULA has not been tested in court.

That said, I wouldn't try it - but that doesn't mean that a blog / tech paper / news story can't suggest that it can be done. Perhaps, indirectly, MS is suggesting what I'm saying - that the EULA is unenforceable in law.

You all do know that bill gates and/or microsoft own about 50% of apple, so there making there money either way

@MightyDwarf56: Or subscribe to MSDN. They provide cd/dvd images and valid license keys to all their OSes.

I'm not sure why the reader who sent in this article thinks it's such a big deal. All media forms talk about gray areas and black areas. I mean even Consumerist talked about taking advantage of some loopholes which were blatantly forbidden.

As a periodical, you want to talk about interesting topics. Bittorrent is a good example. Though Bittorrent itself isn't illegal, it's commonly associated with illegally downloading and sharing files. Many technology periodicals would talk about it and sometimes even tell people that XYZ has been leaked onto Bittorrent before it hit the stores.

Are they suggesting that you go download XYZ illegally? No. Is it newsworthy? *Shrug*

@Spin359:
Unless you buy a laptop with Linux and install a pirated version of Mac OS, of course!

@humphrmi:
The only time I personally would think that breaking the EULA would be breaking the law is if it explicitely states that you have bought 1 license for use with this software to use on 1 machine only. As in you buy a single license version of windows, you can only have it running on 1 machine total at one time.

Buying a copy of OS X and running it on whatever machine you like, while against the EULA is not breaking the law, as long as you put it on only one machine. Crack it or put it on more than one PC or MAC and you have broken the EULA and the law by technically pirating software at that point.

Well, I'm typing this comment on one right now. It's amazing- now I don't have to worry about most of the things that bother me on Windows and boot time is half a minute, not 5. Shutdown time is measured in seconds, not minutes.

@YOXIM:

Is there such a thing as less than 100% legally?

@humphrmi:

Really? What country are you living in? Surely not the good ol' USofA. Are you familiar with the sick tale of the mother who coaxed a young girl into killing herself on myspace? What was she charged with? COMPUTER HACKING. And why? Because the Federal Government loves to create stupid laws that are so obscure and far reaching that they can be misinterpretted to suit it's needs. Computer Hacking. Because she violated the Myspace TERMS OF SERVICE by claiming she was a teenage boy and 'exceeded her authorized access'.
So if you draw bad attention, you can be charged in federal court for lying on a website application.
And you have doubts about EULAs?
Hah.

@slickdealer: Im sure lawyers can and have created such a thing. After all, they love making strange and silly rules!

@humphrmi: I put "the law" in quotes for a reason - the legality of EULAs have been called into question previously but never had an actual court ruling (as far as I know

@humphrmi:
I agree, since when a licsense agreement "the law". It's a contract outside the law that basically forms an agreement, and the law meerely says you should both honor that agreement or you can face civil penalties. The only way anything criminal becomes involved is if in the process of breaking the contract you violate any criminal laws that exist *outside* the contract. The agreement itself is not law.

Of course, I know I'm just splitting hairs.

@socalrob:
In this case you'd be comitting theft, which is a law that exists outside of the agreement. You are breaking a criminal law in the process of violating the EULA, which is meerely a civil agreement.

@Jacob Morgan: a common canard - it is true that Microsoft injected Apple with capital back in the 90s but the stake was sold off some time ago before the return of Jobs and the release of the iPod and OSX. Of the 8 people on Apple's board, 7 are CEOs/chairmen (the 8th is Al Gore) and none of them work for Microsoft. Apple's board is listed on their website: [www.apple.com]

@Spin359:

This is completely untrue and an urban legend. At one point, MS did own $150mil of nonvoting Apple stock (far less than 50%), but even that has since been sold.

http://justinhartman.com/2007/11/23/microsofts-equity-in-apple/

The observant will note that MSN is a content aggregator. The knowledgable will understand that MSN doesn't screen every piece of content that its providers pipe in. And anyone who's read the article might even note the following:

"Content by:
PC World"

@Spin359:

Completely false rumor. No apple shares are owned by Microsoft and/or Bill Gates. The largest corportate shareholder (non-apple) only holds 4.1%

[finance.yahoo.com]

@slickdealer: The woman in the MySpace hoax / suicide was not charged with computer hacking, in fact hacking is not illegal, I think the word you're looking for is cracking, and that wasn't what she was charged with, and either way it has nothing to do with running a EULA-controlled OS on non-vendor hardware.

And yes, I live in the good old USA, where EULA is law until challenged by someone and shot down by the courts.

@socalrob: Agreed.

Good point. This should be noted in the original article.

I got two of these, they are great little Hackintoshes. $350 for a little Mac, it's a pretty good deal.

Imagine the outcry if Apple posted the source code for Windows 7 or 20 best ways to hack remotely into a Windows computer to make it a zombie on www.quicktime.com, or pointed to a site that did.
People would rightly conclude that its an attempt by Apple to sabotage a competitor unethically.
MSN should drop the article and the writer & editor should be put on unpaid leave.

@krunk4ever: Except, if you'll read the article, you'll find that it's Microsoft suggesting it. Big difference.

actually this is good for apple.. because inevitably they will have problems with the PC laptop not running OSX properly, because OSX is designed to only work with specific hardware, and you will have driver problems, not to mention problems with updates. After going through headaches with OSX on PC's, people will realize it's not worth the trouble and just buy a mac.

Hi, I'm a PC. And I can do everything a Mac can do.

But cheaper.

And with less smug.

@krispykrink:

It's common knowledge to most tech savvy people. But the average computer user, won't know.

They'll just believe everything the Apple ads tells them to believe.

@Trai_Dep: Remember, MSN doesn't write tech content themselves, they instead aggregrate it from a content partner, in this case PC World.

In any case, perhaps they should have reviewed the article's contents first.

@Andrew Charron:
Problem is, it isn't a rumor, and it isn't false.

During the '90s Apple and Microsoft had a fierce legal battle, a battle of titans, or something. A settlement was made and one of the provisions of the agreement was that Microsoft would purchase shares in the company.

In '97, Microsoft purchased a bulk of non-voting shares to the tune of $150m.

@Megalomania:
Pretty sure that since Job's official return to the company was in December of '96, when Apple purchased NeXT, and Microsoft's entrance into the company was in August of '97, they were around to see Job's back with the company.

Oh, and we can't forget Macworld from the very same year, where both Jobs and Gates appeared, and the 5-year court ordered provisions for Microsoft's involvement in the company were explained.

Of course, I don't actually know when Microsoft sold their stock, but I would assume that the five-year provision means they would have only had the option of doing so at the end of 2002.

@krispykrink: Oh, anyone computer-savvy saw it coming as soon as Apple switched to Intel processors.

@tinmanx: I admit, my Macbook and I have netbook envy.

"Illegal" my ass. Has anyone ever been successfully prosecuted for this? I imagine they'd be laughed out of court. It's a eula, not the law, and stipulating which brand of computer you install YOUR software on is beyond Apple's authority to insist on.

Or else Aunt Jemima pancake mix can sue users who eat their product with anything other than Aunt Jemima syrup poured over them.

@floraposte:

to quote a phrase

"if I could download a car, I would"

1. If contested, an EULA will likely not hold up in a US or Canadian court.

2. Most educational institutions with a computer store can legally sell full retail versions of OS X to students; they may or may not check IDs.

3. If you follow the links back to the source of the information for the article, you'll end up at [www.mydellmini.com;] a great site for hacking/modding the Dell Mini Netbooks.

4. MOST laptops/netbooks will not run OS X very well/fully. The Mini 9 and Mini 10v are unique in that their hardware and chipsets are all 100% MAC compatible.

5. The Mini 9 mentioned in the article is no longer available for purchase new in the US or Canada. In the US you can get a used/refurbished/open box one from the [www.dell.com] Outlet store, or buy a Vostro A90 (hardware identical to the Mini 9) from the Small Business channel. In Canada you can only get one from the [www.dfsdirect.ca] Outlet site. The other option in either region is the Mini10v, not the Mini 10 though.

@Spin359: That makes it even weirder. Can you imagine an MSN article that says "Hey, pirated windows is free, safe, and awesome!"

I've seen a lot of people here whining that Apple's price is too high for them so that justifies why it is okay for them to illegally pirate the software. These are the same people who will complain when people try to take away their consumer-based capitalist economy.

The person who runs your local restaurant can set the prices for the food they create on their menu. If you think the restaurant is too expensive are you going to go in there and dine and dash? You're probably just not going to eat there, instead of having to face the chefs, waitstaff, bussers, hostess and other staff that as you steal from them.

Apple developed the hardware and software and can charge what they please. That's what our economic system is all about. If you don't like it, don't buy it or use it. There are plenty of other of viable alternatives.But don't use the excuse that you think the price is too high or it's a victimless crime (because you don't personally see the person you are stealing from) as an excuse to steal. It's still wrong and you know it's wrong.

@nocturnaljames: I'm not certain how many users are likely to fork over the extra green because "it's not worth the trouble" who hadn't already come to that conclusion through other means, but, the general concept that this is potentially good for Apple isn't unheard of.

Many people believe that the rampant "sharing" of various releases of Windows when it was still in the 3.1-95 range is what led to its dominant market share overall. People used it, got familiar with it, developed for it, and when it came time to buy a new box, bought one with Windows installed.

Is it true, and will it happen this time for Apple/Mac OS?

I wish, but I doubt it.

Kinda funny Consumerist runs articles that tell you not to run a Hackintosh and Lifehacker has articles telling you how. :-D

@xkevin108x: Where does the article tell the reader not to run a Hackintosh?

@gtbernstein: I agree with you about the price issue; a company can charge whatever the market will bear, and Apple seems to be doing OK.

But the other thing is Apple's incredibly galling assertion that you use it's software, that you PAID for, only on a certain brand of computer. Imagine Sony Records music only being playable in Sony devices.

It doesn't justify theft, but anyone who can hack purchased software to make it run on the computer of their choice, God bless.

@NitrousO: Remember that is their job. The more rules that exist the more they get paid and what they really love is money.

@humphrmi: If you break the EULA they can sue you but I doubt they can actually arrest you or prosecute you for doing it. Just like people don't get arrested for bailing on other contracts. It is a money thing but not a crime.

I don't know if this is still true, but until somewhat recently, the license just said it needed to be on Apple "Branded" hardware, not hardware actually manufactured by Apple. You can buy Apple logo stickers (hell, sometimes Apple software even COMES WITH one to stick on your car) and slap it on your netbook and you're now the proud owner of some Apple branded hardware.

It's not the most clear cut thing in the world and it would probably depend on the judge for it to hold up in court, since Apple will say that only they can provide a "branding," but hey, maybe they shoulda worded their EULA more clearly, huh.

@slickdealer: She was actually convicted of computer fraud(according to slate.com) Although the EULA was part of it the real reason she was convicted was not because of the EULA but was because she impersonated some one else. And remember the law makers don't get to choose who goes to jail the jury does. And in this case the jury was probably tainted by the knowledge that the girl killed herself. If the girl hadn't killed herself she would have just been banned from myspace and probably arrested for harassment instead. Note: IANAL