Apr 01
That’s the “Mac nano” we’ve been waiting for. Yet some questions remain before we all run to the Apple Store:
- Question one: Does Apple TV qualify as “Apple-labeled computer”? The Software License Agreement for Mac OS X says “This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.”
- Question two: Where can I legally buy a copy of Mac OS X for Intel? The Apple Store lists a “PowerPC G5, G4 or G3 processor” as a requirement.
- Question three: Given the little RAM, how fast will it be? (Well, Apple claims that “At least 256MB of physical RAM” is required for Tiger…)
Credits for pulling this off go to Semthex, not to AwkwardTV.
April 1st, 2007 at 11:53 am
Here’s my take on the three questions, in reverse order.
Q3: OS X as a desktop OS has been chewing more and more RAM in recent years. Safari is reluctant to free memory in case you visit that page again and I often find it taking up more than 256MB of physical RAM. It’s far from clear that 256MB will be sufficient for running modern, general purpose OS X application. That said, if what people are after is running more flexible console applications in the appliance mode then it should be fine.
Q2: Currently, as far as I can tell, there is no publicly available OS X for Intel that can be used for this. The ‘one machine’ license that comes with the 10.4 you can buy in the shop covers only the bit of software you are buying; there’s no indication that it is in any way transferable to a different platform (since you can’t get to 10.4 on Intel by running Software Update, which looks like the only mode of license transfer). That said, when 10.5 comes out there will be a way to purchase OS X for Intel, so the problem is only temporary.
Q1: This is the interesting one. I would argue that the AppleTV is an Apple Labeled Computer, but at present the point is moot since there is no version of OS X to which you can buy a license which does the trick. When Leopard comes out you’ll be able to buy a disk of OS X for Intel, but Apple might re-write the terms to be more explicit. Of course then again they might not; after all, what do they care?
Most estimates to date suggest that the AppleTV is NOT a loss-leader product, unlike most games consoles. A new copy of Leopard will likely cost the same as a copy of Tiger, currently $129 (though you can get 5 for a household for $199 with the family pack). If Apple sell some AppleTVs and as a result some hackers who are willing to invalidate their warrantees and reformat drives also spend yet more money on copies of Panther then what’s Apple’s loss?
Ultimately Apple’s disposition to turning the AppleTV in to the “Mac nano” will come down to two issues: will it damage Apple’s brand and will it damage their bottom line.
Given that the resulting machine, when compared to the Mac mini, has no audio input, no CD/DVD drive, no BlueTooth, cramped RAM capacity, smaller hard drive, slower processor, slower network, and too few USB ports to be useful without an external hub it is really hard to see how this is going to eat into the market share of the mini. The only place it might have an impact is where people use the Mac mini as a console appliance at the moment. Hacking the AppleTV is not going to loose money for Apple.
I also don’t think that loss of revenue from the iTunes store is an issue. The AppleTV may encourage people to buy more movies and TV shows from the store but the sort of people who are going to hack these things are unlikely to change their buying habits just because they hacked it to run OS X. They were going to run VLC and DivX anyway.
As for the all important brand, which Apple are rightly keen to protect, that’s more complex. Coming down hard on fan-boy hackers who do no harm is considered mean. On the other hand, seeing Apple-branded hardware running Apple software and it running like a blocked drain because there’s not enough RAM is not a good advertisement. If I were at Apple I’d argue that people who see hacked AppleTVs will know it’s a hack and not be put off, but I don’t work there so who knows!