Jobs Says Pirates Will "Burn in Hell"

Jobs has to say that, because officially he is not "allowed" to spread a "try before buy" hacked OS, for his

upcoming OSX 2006. When he and gates discussed their claims, they made clear positioning: Windows

ships with every PC and Mac with their own Hardware.

But now, in times of TCPA, things have changed, so that he has a very good argument to let OSX run on

AMD and Intel, without being any kind of danger for Windows. Well, thats what he sais. Not what he is

thinking.

Haven't you ever wondered, why there is Athlon64, nforce3 and 4 support, AC97 and so on, when it is

oficially planned, to only run it on lame Intel Chipsets? And why it is going to be released just a few month

before Vista? And why it leaked? The first commercial OS that ever leaked in history? And wouldn't it be a

perfect time for Apple to serve the consumer with a system, that 100% fits the iPod needs?

If you read between the lines, what does Jobs said:

It’s not because of the processor. Its because of the operating system, OS X. Intel Macs will feel the same.

Means in Cleartype sans Serif: We can do better on PC. Still runs fast, smooth and sexy.

The transition can be one that is very easy for customers. It wont be a dynamic shift for our customers.”

What kind of transition? Mac to PC or Vista to OSX? Easy? Oh yes, just sync your iPod wireless

I think this Hippie is on a big shopping tour.

Umm....support for everything you said is simply because the generic drivers that ship with Darwin happen to work with everything you mentioned, and Apple didn't bother removing those from the devkit releases - after all, it's not intended to be a production-quality release, just one that major developers can use on actual Intel Mac hardware to properly port applications.

And where do you get this notion that OSX86 is the "first commercial OS that ever leaked in history"? Nearly every build of Windows since 1993, and Mac OS since slightly after, has leaked, whether when they were new or afterwards, when only collectors would care.

You know, I seriously don't like these people that come in and say "oh look, it runs on generic hardware, apple must have wanted it to leakz0r!!!!!11". Did it ever strike these people that perhaps Apple's Intel team was simply making it run on as much hardware as possible, therefore creating more hardware options should they have to make the switch? Just maybe apply a little bit of logic here?

hmmm... I'm going back to my first thought on this transition, Apple only wants a better provider of CPU's, period (I may be wrong, but, it kinda makes sence)

@niteice:

Yes you are right, I was a litte confused last night (i am a little ill hanging around

@home with the flu ) What I meant to say was that I feel a kind of "viral markting"

touch in that whole leaked thing.

Sure, since "Whistler" Microsoft as we all know, kinda leaked "FCKGW"-hacked beta

Versions, and yes, every OS since 3.11 has been copied a million times. And was it

bad for M$? No, millions tried the upcoming OS and the features, gave their feedback

and became a kind of beta testers. Thats why Microsofts official point is, that they

have no interest about catching the pirate home user, they only want to get the

commercial copy-mafia.

Steve Jobs already pointed out his position to the music industry and Itunes (If

we make the songs more expensive, we will all lose). Same thing here. Why not let

an OS "leak", to see what thousands of hackers can do. And to show everyone, how

stabile an OSX already works in an unsupported stage with a lack of drivers and

quartz. Apple has nothing to loose by giving OSX to the people, because the

target group already owns a mac, and the x86 newcomers will not be able to use the

next OSX hacked.

@CFran:

That way, everyone has a chance to taste a very good alternative to Windows and linux.

I don't know, but I think, this really makes sense for an economically thinking person.

Apple big stake is its hardware more so than just software sales. I use a Mac not because I'm so much tied to Apple's computers (Granted minus the expandibilty the G5 is one helluva a designed computer and its piece of engineering art from the entire case design to the lack of cables) but rather the that I'm addicted to OS X. I buy my software. Hell, I just bought Cubase SL 3 last month for instance. I do however have a Dell 700m laptop namely because I got a good deal on it, I sometimes do need a PC (some GIGA studio format DVDs come as EXEs even tho' they're 'cross platform') and various other things.

The crazy part tho' is how many of us are willing to brave the uncertainity of lackluster support, glitchiness and hack job OSX86 installs just to use OS X. Apple probably will continue to try and prohibit non-hacked OS X INtel installs for good reason but I almost wonder if eventually that Apple may end up the competitor to M$ as the sole other OS alternative...

@CFran:

 

That way, everyone has a chance to taste a very good alternative to Windows and linux.

I don't know, but I think, this really makes sense for an economically thinking person.

makes sence too, but could it be a way to make people discover Mac OS X really? I mean, does anyone have an idea on how many people are running OSx86 anyways? I'd bet optimistically on a few thousands, if so, does these few thousands matter to Apple?