Are Hackintoshes Illegal?
Note: Apple Matters is not providing legal advice here. If you are concerned, or have additional questions please discuss this with an lawyer.
After last week's article about possibly building a hackintosh, I had the unsettling thought of doing something illegal. I usually avoid illegal behaviour, especially pirating software, music and movies, as that is depriving someone of their legally entitled income. But who is missing out if I build a hackintosh for my personal use?
As I want to focus on on the issues of you building your own hackintosh, I'm not about to discuss the Pystar situation, short of saying, if it simply sold an OS X ready computer, Apple wouldn't have much of a case. If you are interested in that argument, there is a very good discussion on the Pystar case over at OSNews.
If I build a hackintosh it would be done using a purchased retail off-the-shelf version of Mac OS X. That is, the full version OS X, not any pre-installed version from a Mac. So there's no pirating or breach of copyright there.
Some folks will argue off-the-shelf Mac OS X is an upgrade version so can only be used on existing Macs, but that is not the case. Nowhere in the End User Licence (EULA) or on the packaging does it indicate that it is an upgrade version. Nor does it behave as such. For instance, an upgrade version of software would normally look for an earlier version before installing. So, whenever I buy Mac OS X off-the-shelf, no one is losing any money, least not Apple.
Apple might claim that if you build a hackintosh it loses money because you're not buying a Mac. That is flawed on two counts.
First, every retail copy of OS X sold doesn't equate to a Mac sold, and probably rarely does, as it will instead be used to upgrade an existing Mac. Over the years I've bought Panther, Tiger and Leopard without buying a new Mac. So in fact, Apple's selling of OS X encourages you not to buy a new Mac.
Second, this restriction discourages people from switching to Macs. Imagine if you're a Windows user and Apple comes out tomorrow and says "We can't and won't provide technical support, but from now on we don't care if you install OS X on any PCs that will support it." This is why Linux has garnered the success it has. It allowed people to try it out without having to buy a new computer. Although, as an unsupported machine, the hackintosh market is always going to be very limited, mainly to geeksters and nerdiacs, so it's not like it's going to massively dent the Mac market.
That said, the uptake begins with geeks and nerds. If more of them got OS X on their PCs, we might see the walls built by bigotry towards Macs break down and the flow on effect could be quite beneficial to Apple to say the least.
Precedent?
Software aside, is there a precedent for the restrictive licence? Do car manufacturers restrict what roads you can use you car on? Fridge makers, do they say "I'm sorry, your kitchen is too ugly, you can't use our fridge in it."? Can any manufacturer control how their product is used? "I'm sorry, your going to priz. It clearly says on our shampoo's label only to be used on blonde hair."
The astute among you will be pointing out that these are all products you buy outright, whereas software you buy a licence to use. Man, whoever came up with that scam is owed big time by the software industry!
So lets consider software. MS Office does have limitations in its EULA, but all you who are defending Apple, how would you feel if Microsoft decided to change Office's EULA so you could only use it on Microsoft branded computers? Or ditto Windows? Or maybe if MS showed some compassion and limited it to only Dell and HP?
I trust there'd be many Apploids who'd be screaming for Microsoft's binary blood to be spilled.
Apple's view
Anyone who's looked at the mess the Windows world is in because of driver and compatibility issues will understand why Apple doesn't want to go down that path. Apple would do better to turn a blind eye to hackintoshes, and to some extent it has. Hadley has not been asked to take down his articles on building an OS X netbook, and nor most others who've done the same.
Am I breaching some other hidden clause if I build a computer capable of running OS X? Apparently not, as according to research on the web, many Dell computers are already OS X compatible. (Makes you wonder if Dell is up to something.)
When all's done and dusted, you shouldn't be made to feel like a criminal because you installed OS X on a non-Apple computer, should you?
So, are hackintoshes illegal? Well, Apple would like you to think so. Technically, selling a hackintosh is illegal simply because you're selling an illegal product. But for you knocking one up in your back yard, provided you're using a legit version of OS X and only on that machine, it's not worth Apple pursuing it. So go for it! And let us know how it goes.
Note: Apple Matters is not providing legal advice here. If you are concerned, or have additional questions please discuss this with an lawyer.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Who cares? I bought a retail copy of OS X. If I want to make it work on my toaster, nobody is going to tell me I can’t try. All software companies can take their EULA’s and stick them up their ...
If Apple wants to control the OS, embed it in firmware on a Mac. Then we’ll see how far Apple goes.
I’m off to research building a hackintosh now. Apple doesn’t provide me with enough options on the desktop, therefore I’m interested in creating my own option.
Is English a second language for you, Beeblebrox?
You do not own the software; you have merely purchased a license to use the OS under Apple’s conditions. Most people are honest, but you are not. It is your hypocrisy that I decry.
Define stealing, Beeblebrox. Your contention indicates that you have no understanding of what it is. It is to take or misuse that which belongs to someone else. You are a moral midget—a sneak thief.
If you knew how to read with recrimination then you would know that my argument was not that people would go to jail or get fined, but that Apple will respond to your theft in ways that we legitimate Mac users will dislike.
The Hackintosh undercuts the market. It gives a disincentive to Apple to improve its OS. Why do you want to misuse Apple’s software? Isn’t it because the alternative OS’s are inadequate? And you are too cheap to pay for Apple’s hardware which funds the Mac OS?
Worse, you may be a Linux Socialist and want to destroy the computer marketplace. What ever it is, you are a parasite.
Chris, we haven’t attacked your arguments, because they are obviously false.
What a person has done when they purchase a license and misuse it by installing the Mac OS on a Hackintosh is to violate agreements they willingly accepted on purchase. So, their word of honor is worthless. Second, they have taken away Apple’s right to use the Mac OS under it’s terms. Money may not be the issue, but property rights always are. The courts are clear: unless you defend your property rights, they cease to exist.
What you are doing is to excuse the Hacker’s dishonesty. You are using specious logic to defend an immoral practice. How Multi-Cultural you are.
It doesn’t matter if Hackintoshes are good for Apple in the long run. This is not your decision to make.
Right now, Hackintoshes are too minor a problem for Apple to counter. If enough people violate Apple’s rights, this will change. Apple can use draconian measures, but does not. You take the fact that it does not, as an excuse to violate Apple’s property rights.
The security measures in Snow Leopard 10.6 can used for more than to shut down spam and malware. The same 64 bit software which will make it difficult to spoof the Mac OS, could make it difficult to install it on a Hackintosh.
When Apple begins to prosecute violators or “bricks” all hardware unregistered with Apple, what will be your argument? Will you say that Apple has no property rights, because they did not defend them sufficiently, before?
@ Chris Howard, “sometimes the only way to fight a draconian law is to behave unlawfully.” may be true when we’re talking about civil rights or some other point of humanity. This is a discussion about which OS you’ll use! **This is petty.** To compare this to other battles for rights and freedoms is plain wrong.
When someone wants you to play marbles, even with really neat ones, but only with their rules, you either play by their rules or you don’t. It’s pretty simple.
Using an illegal method before you have first tried a legal one (getting Apple’s attention by leaving Apple and using something like Ubuntu) isn’t an ethically valid position.
Apple doesn’t DRM it’s software, thank God, and it’s not the same issue. DRM is a nasty attempt at controlling behavior. Apple’s EULA is based on trust (much unlike MS!) that you won’t abuse the License. I see no reason to abuse that trust.
I would like a $400 netbook from Apple. Ain’t gonna happen. I also need FCP for some of my work. I’ll pay Apple for a safe, solid OS and Hardware that they stand behind when I’m doing video editing. To surf the web, email, write a doc, etc.? I could use almost anything. And I want Apple to recognize that and realize that if they want my $$ on the low end they are going to need to compete harder. But I won’t steal to make my point.
The point is, DJMW, is that Apple doesn’t want the Low End market. It intentionally avoids loss leader, no profit, equipment. What the hackers want to do is to veto that decision by stealing Apple’s property rights.
It was expensive for Apple to do the Research and Development which created the Mac OS. Why shouldn’t they profit from that?
Wintel’s ruthless pursuit of the lowest price destroys innovation. It’s going to be even more expensive to push on to the next leading edge. Who else, but Apple, can afford to do it? What the hackers are doing could sabotage that technical progress.
The Hackers are spoilers, scofflaws and thieves. I would have some respect for them if they accepted those labels. I would, at least, admire their brass balls. But no, they hide behind lies.
@UrbanBard,
I wouldn’t attribute motives to the hackers, not fair. I want a cheap netbook, which I believe is a very innovative machine. Apple may introduce a Multi-Touch® iPod plus or a Multi-Touch® MacNano, but as you point out it won’t be low-end. You argue against low price, but it is only in Apple’s going to lower prices that they have continued to further crack market share. Apple has more than enough cash to stay innovative for a long time. I doubt they’ll go there, but I want to encourage them to do so.
Plus, I was responding to Chris.
@DJMW,
What you want is immaterial, if this is not what Apple chooses to supply. I am not against low prices, but I respect Apple’s freedom to avoid these markets. Companies are not obligated to be wise. Apple exercises its freedom; it is very careful about what products and services it will deliver. This does not give anyone permission to violate Apple’s choices which they consider unwise.
What I objected to were the sanctimonious lies being told here. What draconian laws are there? The motives of the hackers are transparent. Justifying their usurpations is odious.
Perhaps, you are unaware that this an open forum? This means that anyone can make a comment even to a statement which is not directed at them. It’s called free speech, man. If you don’t like what I have to say, ignore me.
As I said before, my comments were for Chris in response to his points, not the ones you attribute to him or Apple.
@DJMW
Actually, I actually firstly compared it (i.e. acting unlawfuly to get an unfair law over turned) to DRM saying, “one reason the record labels backed off on DRM is because they saw that people hated it and were being driven to pirate music because of it and/or unlawfully circumventing it.”
So, yes, a civil rights example may be over the top, but how do you contend DRM? People acted unlawfully to get an unfair licence restriction changed. The difference between OS X and DRM, is OS X is based on trust, DRM didn’t give us any choice.
As one of you said, the next version of OS X might have some form of DRM to stop you installing it on anything but a Mac.
Which would clearly demonstrate the similarity of music DRM and Apple’s trust based OS X licencing, in regard my argument that unlawful behaviour can achieve its intention.
(That said, I would never be against any unlawful action that harmed any other person.)
It was interesting reading your first comment again, coz you said music is the same, i.e. “purchasing a record, tape or cd has never conveyed to the purchaser any rights other than to listen to the music.”
But, DRM aside, no music I’ve ever purchased restricted me on what device I could play the original media on. My records weren’t restricted to just Sony equipment, even if Sony was the record label parent.
@UrbanBard
Saying something is “obviously false” doesn’t make it so. Putting forward your own opinions why, also doesn’t make it so.
We all here are arguing opinions, hence, none of us are any more right than the other.
The only facts we have are:
- OS X can be installed on non-Mac computers
- it is in breach of the EULA to do so, and thus illegal
- but Apple turns a blind eye to it provided no one is profiting from it (e.g. Pystar)
- I have encouraged people to act unlawfully
Anything else we say is conjecture. e.g. me saying allowing hackintoshes would help the spread of Mac just like the way that happened with Linux, is unproven and therefore conjecture. You saying it will hurt Apple and lead to more restrictive controls is also conjecture.
So yes I am encouraging unlawful behaviour. (And that really goes against my grain!) And yes you can abuse me for that if you feel that helps your cause. So be it.
Also, regards again the “obviously false” etc, one of my first articles on Apple Matters way back four years ago, called for Apple to release a multi-button mouse.
Unsuprisingly, copped a lot of flak. My arguments were obviously false after all. Ironically, just one week later Apple did release a multi-button mouse.
The same could happen to you. You can argue all you like about why hackintoshes are wrong, but you could wake up tomorrow and find Apple has made a fool of you. (BTW I doubt Apple will ever change the EULA, no matter mow much or how any of us protest.)
Consequently it’s also always dangerous to laden your arguments with personal abuse (not to mention undermines your integrity).
(I’m sure also a lot of people got told their arguments calling for Apple to switch to Intel were “obviously false” too.)
Also, regarding unlawful behaviour, it is illegal where I live to record TV broadcasts. Maybe where you live too.
And yet PVRs are selling in the squillions. And some even have programming built into them to make recording even easier. A few years ago there was even a system of barcodes printed in the TV guide you could scan to pre-program your recorder.
Just like Apple turning a blind eye to people unlawfully building hackintoshes for personal use, TV stations etc turned a blind eye to people unlawfully taping TV broadcasts for personal use.
And that is the big difference between what Pystar is doing, and say Hadley building his Mac netbook.
As much as you guys are worried about personal hackintoshes hurting Apple or causing it to change to a more restrictive model, I think your fears are unfounded. But that’s just my opinion.
@ Chris
“but how do you contend DRM? People acted unlawfully to get an unfair licence restriction changed.”
Do you believe the reason people acted unlawfully was for the purpose of getting the companies to change their rule on DRM? I believe they did it (and neither of us can prove anything here, just attribute motives) because they wanted the music, free is cheaper than $$ and for them it was easier to go to a Torrent site than to a music store.
Did that result in DRM getting yanked. Probably.
“As one of you said, the next version of OS X might have some form of DRM to stop you installing it on anything but a Mac.”
Total conjecture. No one knows but Apple. Hopefully they won’t.
“Which would clearly demonstrate the similarity of music DRM and Apple’s trust based OS X licencing, in regard my argument that unlawful behaviour can achieve its intention.”
I’m sorry, I see no logical connection. If the inverse is true, no future Apple DRM, does that kill your arguement? No. Way too many factors, suchas, Apple is a hardware company first.
“It was interesting reading your first comment again, coz you said music is the same, i.e. “purchasing a record, tape or cd has never conveyed to the purchaser any rights other than to listen to the music.””
Perhaps I stated it poorly, but the similarity is between the Licenses of CD’s and Software: we can use it for ourselves, but not copy nor attempt to sale copies.
“But, DRM aside, no music I’ve ever purchased restricted me on what device I could play the original media on. My records weren’t restricted to just Sony equipment, even if Sony was the record label parent.”
No, but the companies tried for years to shut out the shifting the media from Albums to Cassettes and 8tracks. They finally got a piece of the action of blank audio cassette tapes, much like the record companies want a piece of Apple’s profit on iPods. (They do under the same principle get a slice of “Audio” CD-R’s!)
Do you remember what old MS mice were like when Windows 3 came out? They sucked. It wasn’t until after Windows 98 that MS and others started paying attention to the little details that make Macs so sweet. Apple wants to control the total experience and keep it at the highest level.
Again, I think the marble argument is the clearest and most accurate. If you want to play with the really shiny marbles, you have to play by the rules of the kid who has them.
I’m tired of beating the dead horse and repeating myself too often. Goodnight.
“I’m tired of beating the dead horse”
True, we are just banging heads, so I’ll leave the last argument with you. Thanks for keeping it civil.
Chris Howard said:
“@UrbanBard
Saying something is “obviously false” doesn’t make it so. Putting forward your own opinions why, also doesn’t make it so.”
Yes, but I gave my reasons to back up why they are false. Simply because people did not reply to them does not make them true, either. As soon as I confronted you on them, you got offended. Why? You asked for a rebuttal. I gave you one.
“We all here are arguing opinions, hence, none of us are any more right than the other.”
Did I say anything different from that? I just called a spade a spade.
“The only facts we have are:
- OS X can be installed on non-Mac computers
- it is in breach of the EULA to do so, and thus illegal
- but Apple turns a blind eye to it provided no one is profiting from it (e.g. Pystar)
- I have encouraged people to act unlawfully”
No, those are merely the contentions which you wanted to represent. These are not the only ones.
You said that Apple has a weak case to defend itself. But, there are ramifications of dishonest behavior. Orderly markets depend on trust. When trust is broken then a series of disagreeable patterns appear: higher prices, stricter rules which all buyers must follow, etc. Legitimate Mac users will lose because Apple will eventually respond to these illegal actions.
There is a cause/effect relationship here. There are potential consequences which I have been pointing out. We have laws and court actions because people commit crimes. More crime leads to harsher punisments. Justifying another person’s crimes tends to lead to increased crime.
Apple may at any time defend its rights. It is likely to do so by technical means. I pointed this means in Snow Leopard out. I don’t know if Apple intend to use what is technically possible.
“Anything else we say is conjecture. e.g. me saying allowing hackintoshes would help the spread of Mac just like the way that happened with Linux, is unproven and therefore conjecture. You saying it will hurt Apple and lead to more restrictive controls is also conjecture.”
I am saying that this is not your decision to make. If Apple acts in ways that you disagree with, then you can gripe about that. I just disagreed with you giving the hackers a rationale which justified their illegal behavior. There are those who break the law, but defending their acts will encourage them.
“So yes I am encouraging unlawful behavior. (And that really goes against my grain!) And yes you can abuse me for that if you feel that helps your cause. So be it.”
How do you profit from breaking down orderly markets? What you are attacking is Apple’s business plan whereby it differentiates itself from Wintel.
Apple is not excessively priced. There are many studies which show that Apple is very close to other name brand computers, such as Dell or HP. Apple merely chooses not to engage in the very low price, loss leader, razor thin profit margin computers. Apple does not seem to care about market share.
“Also, regards again the “obviously false” etc, one of my first articles on Apple Matters way back four years ago, called for Apple to release a multi-button mouse. Unsuprisingly, copped a lot of flak. My arguments were obviously false after all. Ironically, just one week later Apple did release a multi-button mouse.”
Let me change that by saying that many things said about Apple and the Mac are “patently false.” The PC pundits are always fielding old or erroneous arguments.
Apple introduced as standard equipment the Mighty Mouse—a four button mouse in August, 2005. There are PC users who still claim that the Mac has only one button mice. Besides, you could buy three button USB mice for the Mac as early as 2002.
“The same could happen to you. You can argue all you like about why hackintoshes are wrong, but you could wake up tomorrow and find Apple has made a fool of you. “
How could Apple make a fool of me? All I am doing is to retorting to false arguments. And to defend Apple’s right to choose these matters, not you or the hackers.
“Consequently it’s also always dangerous to laden your arguments with personal abuse (not to mention undermines your integrity).”
People defending the right of others to steal have no integrity or morality. They couldn’t define what integrity and morality are.
Why is it wrong of me to say that? This is not personal abuse either; I didn’t call them bad people. I merely applied the proper label to another person’s actions. I was merely pointing out the obvious to anyone who had been taught morality.
“(I’m sure also a lot of people got told their arguments calling for Apple to switch to Intel were “obviously false” too.)”
You can call for Apple to do anything. They don’t have to obey you. I merely disputed your contention that you or others have a right to make Apple’s decision for them.
Chris Howard said
“Also, regarding unlawful behavior, it is illegal where I live to record TV broadcasts. Maybe where you live too.”
Yes, but the fact that people can get away with illegal acts gives them no RIGHT to do so. Nor should they proclaim a right that doesn’t exist.
“And that is the big difference between what Pystar is doing, and say Hadley building his Mac netbook.”
I merely disagreed with the hypocrisy here. If Hadley built his Mac netbook and did so openly as a matter of experimentation or civil disobedience, then fine. Let him take the risk that Apple will punish him for his act. Just don’t excuse his illegality. Don’t give him cover. Maybe, Apple will let him get away with it, maybe not.
“As much as you guys are worried about personal hackintoshes hurting Apple or causing it to change to a more restrictive model, I think your fears are unfounded. But that’s just my opinion.”
I do not know what Apple intends. I merely know what is possible in Snow Leopard due to the improvements in 64 bit security.
The problem with the Hackintosh is that it is getting too easy to make one. A support network has sprung up. Eventually, this will invite Apple’s attention. Are you saying that Apple has no right to defend itself?