I am no Apple apologist or loyalist, but this is clearly breaking their macOS EULA. Are Apple Legal just turning a blind eye to this stuff where the person is clearly identifiable? OP link goes to a blog post, one click away from there and I know this person's name, city and there's a photo of them. It's trivial.
Don't get me wrong, there's no vendetta or negativity, I am genuinely curious about why people do this.
If Apple was seriously concerned about hackintoshes, the logical place to start would be taking down the popular guides and forums discussing how to build hackintoshes, not targeting people who follow those guides. Shutting down a few subreddits / discords would deter far more people than targeting an individual.
Finally, hackintoshes have been around decades. 99% of people who want to use Mac will not have the knowledge/time/energy to do this and will just buy a Mac instead. The niche is sort of self-limiting to a tiny group of people, so it will never be an existential threat to the sale of Apple products.
So overall I don't see much risk in doing stuff like this.. the risk/reward for Apple in going after Hackintoshers just doesn't make sense. So hackintosh away ;)
Indeed. Setting up a hackintosh is only really feasible for people with some tech chops. In most Western countries, someone with enough technical background to set up a hackintosh machine will probably have an hourly wage where (hardware price + hourly wages x hours to setup/maintain hackintosh) >> purchase price hackintosh.
Setting up and maintaining a hackintosh is just a fun technical challenge for a lot of people. Similar to how running OpenBSD on a PowerPC or SPARC is fun. Some will also use hackintosh because Apple doesn't offer the hardware that they want.
Apple seems to draw a line at selling Hackintosh machines (see e.g. their lawsuit against Psystar ). Fully compatible, supported hackintoshes would be a threat to Apple's bottom line.
Both me and a family member installed OS X on a HP/Dell laptop in 2007 as sort of a challenge. We both liked OS X so much that we had both bought a Mac Mini and a MacBook in weeks and have been users since then.
But of course, it is quite likely that once Apple kills x86_64 macOS, it's also the end of Hackintosh. Apple uses too many proprietary extensions (e.g. AMX) and custom hardware (neural engine, GPU, etc.) to make running macOS on generic ARM hardware easy.
Is that a good reason to believe that COVID was created by the government? M1/Hackintosh - same reasoning, different example.
The way Americans let their IT overlords dictate their lives seems pretty absurd from here :)
My understanding is that in cases like this, copyright law within the EU allows you to make personal copies
Personal copy (singular). However, more relevant in this context:
You are allowed to download a work protected by copyright from the internet provided you have the author’s permission. The permission to download can be indicated in the terms and conditions of the respective internet site or can be derived from the reference to an open content licence or its terms.
If you do not have a Mac, Apple does not give you permission to download macOS. So, if you download macOS, you are violating copyright law. Furthermore:
The circumvention of TPMs (technological protection measures) is not allowed.
Probably using the Apple OSK string is on a Hackintosh considered circumventing protection measures.
I think a decent (legal or moral) argument can be made either way here.
The circumvention of TPMs is allowed in the case that they restrict you from exercising your rights and you cannot obtain a remedy from the rightholder.
Furthermore it might be useful to look at the Computer Programs Directive. I quote a Wikipedia summary here:
> The legal owner of a program is assumed to have a licence to create any copies necessary to use the program and to alter the program within its intended purpose (e.g. for error correction). The legal owner may also make a back-up copy for his or her personal use. The program may also be decompiled if this is necessary to ensure it operates with another program or device (Art. 6), but the results of the decompilation may not be used for any other purpose without infringing the copyright in the program.
For an implementation of this directive in English you can look at e.g. the Irish one at , particularly regulations 5, 6 and 7.
It's also worth bearing in mind that EUIPO is a "network of experts and specialist stakeholders" who aren't necessarily writing from the perspective of consumer rights.
Also, EULAs are basically digital toilet paper in large parts of the world.
My m1 macbook air cannot go to deep sleep either. Whenever battery deeps to 0% it crashes. It's been supremely annoying and haven't found a way to solve it yet
Where it’s the former, government needs to step in with regulations about planned obsolescence/curbing ewaste. However, I’m not sure there’s much value in such legislation and that it would effectively curb ewaste. If it wasn’t cool looking marquee features, they would find some other way to make you want new shiny things. The problem is people want shiny new things. Apple will just push for even more HW tie in to features which isn’t necessarily that good for the consumer.
I think that it's likely that they will continue to provide security updates for some period after they axe x86_64 support.
They are still releasing security updates for iOS 12 after all, to extend the lifetime of iPhone 5s (released in 2013!) and iPhone 6.
However, this is far from the first time Apple have changed architectures. Running older OSs for different architectures _tends_ towards emulation, which does cause some difficulty. (Performance impact, DRM subsystems that try and break under virtualisation, etc.).
However, there are still "hardware" efforts like this.  So long as there is curiosity, you can expect that someone will eventually succeed.
Partial efforts like Wine's support for the M1 , help to close the gap around translating things that are unique to Apple's architecture.