Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Disabling Support for Intel Atom Processor in Latest 10.6.2 Build?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Read the case - it had nothing do with EULA's or their legality (in fact the document states that software is licensed and not sold). Verner v Autodesk had to do with First sale doctrine regarding the resale of non modified discs that were never used by anybody. That has nothing to do with the case at hand. Trust me, I read the decision and nowhere does it state that EULA's are invalid not does it state that software is owned.
In other words, it's irrelevant.
1. Yes. Just type "Mac OS X License" into Google .
2. Heard of any case where someone returning MacOS X after disagreeing with the license didn't get a refund?
Yes, and...? When did a judge rule that it is illegal to install OSX on a non-Apple machine?
Please point me to a source, because the article I'm reading does not mention that.
I would absolutely agree with this. Apple haughtily stated that they had no interest in producing a sub-$500 netbook, even though there's a huge market for them. If they had charged their usual 20-30% premium on hardware and produced a decent machine for $399 or $499, I'd have bought it. Apple would have had an even more profitable year, and they'd have trousered millions of dollars that's gone to Dell and the other PC manufacturers.
I don't expect Apple to support netbooks in any way as they update SL, but it's sad if they're deliberately trying to brick something that they refuse to produce themselves. When they brick the iTunes functionality for Pre, they can point to the iPhone. Where's the Apple competitor in the netbook sector? And don't even talk about the tablet/slate unless it's going to be affordable, i.e. sub-$500. Even then, many regular folks will still prefer a traditional interface that just works to a gorgeous (Steve's word) glass touchpad with a lousy on-screen keyboard. I suppose that makes us losers who should just settle for Windows.
I get a ton of people asking me about my Hackintoshed Mini 9 and I always tell them that the OS is terrific, and they should get a Macbook or a MBP or whatever if they're currently a Windows user. It's quite a statement that OSX is so good that you'd want to squeeze it onto a netbook made by Dell or whomever else, and I'd argue that a Hackintosh netbook is more of an advert for OSX and the Mac platform than for Dell's genius at manufacturing stuff cheaply.
My guess is that most Hackintosh users have other Apple hardware and have chosen this option because they love OSX and lament Apple's refusal to put it on a netbook. (My household: Powerbook G4, Macbook, Mac Mini, iMac, numerous iPods, etc.) So it's not pirates they're alienating, but members of the Apple community who just think that Steve et al. have missed a trick here. I bought SL specifically to install on the Mini 9. So that violates the EULA? Well, if Apple is going to go after the people who've paid for their software because they're not using it properly, they're going to run into the same problems that the music industry did with downloads and DRM. When you make life harder for the people who are actually willing to buy rather than steal stuff, you end up alienating the good guys.
Fair point.
Buying and returning are between the consumer and the merchant. The point is, that the user is asked to read the EULA before agreeing to its terms.
If the user does not agree, Apple has instructions for them:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx106.pdf
PLEASE READ THIS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT ("LICENSE") CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE. BY USING THE APPLE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, UNLESS YOU RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLE’S RETURN POLICY. IF YOU ARE ACCESSING THE APPLE SOFTWARE ELECTRONICALLY, SIGNIFY YOUR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE BY CLICKING THE "AGREE " BUTTON. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE APPLE SOFTWARE AND CLICK “DISAGREE”. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE, YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WITHIN THE RETURN PERIOD TO THE APPLE STORE OR AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTOR WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND, SUBJECT TO APPLE’S RETURN POLICY FOUND AT http://www.apple.com/legal/ sales_policies/. FOR APPLE SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH YOUR PURCHASE OF HARDWARE, YOU MUST RETURN THE ENTIRE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE PACKAGE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REFUND.
So, "read before you buy" isn't even a factor.
http://www.apple.com/legal/sales_policies/
The point is that it depends whether or not the contents of an EULA are enforceable. And since Apple's EULA involving installing OSX on non-Apple computers has never been tested in court, nobody knows it's illegal or not. EULA's are not valid per definition.
Then just stick with 10.6.1
The way I look at it, I have a netbook that runs 10.6.1 flawlessly, which is pretty good. If I can't upgrade from there, that is still OK - netbooks are meant to be small, light and semi-disposable - so I don't really need the latest and greatest OSX update(which at this point I actually HAVE). The same thing happened to my P4 hackintosh - at some point, the difficulty of installing the latest update exceeded the benefits it offered. It still did everything I wanted it to do until I retired it for a mini.
I do think Apple shouldn't be worrying about this stuff - if as a part of improving the function of Apple hardware they cripple or disable hackintoshes, fanstastic! The 3 legit Macs I have will work better, so I win. But to go out of their way to do it seems a little petty. Like most Hackintosh owners I do it more for the "sport" of it than anything else.
This does point to what my objection to Psystar was - that turning Hackintoshes from a hobbiest pursuit to a commercial venture was likely to draw negative attention, resulting in Apple taking steps to shut the whole thing down. Why Psystar didn't just tone it down, sell you a box with the most compatible components and w/o an OS, I don't know. They have to have known they'd get sued and probably lose. Hopefully they don't ruin it for those of us out here who do it for fun. But then we all know someone will figure out a way to get 10.6.2 to run on Atom processors. It would just be nice to keep the stakes of the game low enough that Apple has more important things to do.
The way I look at it, I have a netbook that runs 10.6.1 flawlessly, which is pretty good. If I can't upgrade from there, that is still OK - netbooks are meant to be small, light and semi-disposable - so I don't really need the latest and greatest OSX update(which at this point I actually HAVE). The same thing happened to my P4 hackintosh - at some point, the difficulty of installing the latest update exceeded the benefits it offered. It still did everything I wanted it to do until I retired it for a mini.
I do think Apple shouldn't be worrying about this stuff - if as a part of improving the function of Apple hardware they cripple or disable hackintoshes, fanstastic! The 3 legit Macs I have will work better, so I win. But to go out of their way to do it seems a little petty. Like most Hackintosh owners I do it more for the "sport" of it than anything else.
This does point to what my objection to Psystar was - that turning Hackintoshes from a hobbiest pursuit to a commercial venture was likely to draw negative attention, resulting in Apple taking steps to shut the whole thing down. Why Psystar didn't just tone it down, sell you a box with the most compatible components and w/o an OS, I don't know. They have to have known they'd get sued and probably lose. Hopefully they don't ruin it for those of us out here who do it for fun. But then we all know someone will figure out a way to get 10.6.2 to run on Atom processors. It would just be nice to keep the stakes of the game low enough that Apple has more important things to do.
That may be your point. And that was definitely my point. But it was not the point of the Autodesk case that you quoted.
Once again, license agreements are just as valid as any other contract. They are not more valid or less valid by definition. The question of whether or not the provision of the license agreement that ties OS X to Apple hardware is legal has not been decided. But the burden would be on the person violating the contract to prove that the provision is illegal. Do you have any legal basis to claim that it is illegal?
The problem of the legality of an EULA is the terms have to be agreed to AFTER you have paid for it. Yes, you can stop short of installing software, but just try and get your money back after it is unwrapped.
You have a legal right to a refund if you do not agree to the license in the US.
So its ok for apple to synthetically limit their software because it costs less than windows? Argument makes no sense.
People are installing retail osx discs onto their pcs, not the restore discs, which would be more akin to the oem license of windows (close enough).
Except if you actually read what you linked you would have found this:
"Opened software, memory, and other media can be exchanged for the same item, but cannot be returned for a refund."
Now tell me how I can return the product after disagreeing with the EULA please.
... . . ..
I would absolutely agree with this. Apple haughtily stated that they had no interest in producing a sub-$500 netbook, even though there's a huge market for them.
Yes, Apple was haughty about it. Doesn'r particularly bother me much, nor the bulk of Apple's market that they were haughty.
And Apple doesn't do low-end, even though "there's a huge market for them." Witness the Laptop Hunter ads. And it seems Apple again made the right choice in that regard. Can't argue with record Mac sales and their owneership of the Premium market. Apple doesn't do sub low-end for image reasons as well. Seems like a fair sacrifice.
If they had charged their usual 20-30% premium on hardware and produced a decent machine for $399 or $499, I'd have bought it.
Apple doesn't do low end. They've stated their reasons for this, and they're not just financial.
Apple would have had an even more profitable year, and they'd have trousered millions of dollars that's gone to Dell and the other PC manufacturers.
Apple makes sacrifices in certain markets, and say "no" to a thousand things in order to say "yes" to the right one. And they don't do low end. Better to keep your Premium image and still make an ungodly killing than get stuck in the netbook game. Apple won't build a sub-$500 PC, especially with a tablet in the works.
Giving in and putting out a netbook has consequences that are quite beyond just losing out on some *potential* revenue (they might have even had to take a loss on them.)
I don't expect Apple to support netbooks in any way as they update SL
Good attitude. It's fair.
but it's sad if they're deliberately trying to brick something that they refuse to produce themselves.
Oops, value judgment. it's not necessarily deliberate, either. Apple might have dropped support for entirely different reasons.
When they brick the iTunes functionality for Pre, they can point to the iPhone. Where's the Apple competitor in the netbook sector?
Why? I sone REQUIRED?? And the Pre issue is quite different.
And don't even talk about the tablet/slate unless it's going to be affordable, i.e. sub-$500.
And don't even think about Macs unless they're going to be "affordable." Oh wait . . . Apple just made a killing selling the most expensive computers on the market, and they own the Premium end.
Even then, many regular folks will still prefer a traditional interface that just works to a gorgeous (Steve's word) glass touchpad with a lousy on-screen keyboard.
Wait and see what "amany regular folks" are actually going to do. Most MR members haven't the faintest understanding of what "regular folks" are going to do. Regular folks are also putting up with AT&T, one of the worst carriers, just to get to use the iPhone.
I suppose that makes us losers who should just settle for Windows.
You said it, not me. The choice is yours. You always have a choice.
I get a ton of people asking me about my Hackintoshed Mini 9
Like? Because the bulk of Apple's market has no clue what a "hakintoshed Mini 9" is. Most don't even know what a "mini 9" is unless you show them.
and I always tell them that the OS is terrific, and they should get a Macbook or a MBP or whatever if they're currently a Windows user.
Good advice.
It's quite a statement that OSX is so good that you'd want to squeeze it onto a netbook made by Dell or whomever else,
I have to agree here.
and I'd argue that a Hackintosh netbook is more of an advert for OSX and the Mac platform than for Dell's genius at manufacturing stuff cheaply.
Dell does a great job of getting people to switch to Macs.
My guess is that most Hackintosh users have other Apple hardware and have chosen this option because they love OSX and lament Apple's refusal to put it on a netbook.
Their motivations don't really matter, but it does make for entertaining discussion.
(My household: Powerbook G4, Macbook, Mac Mini, iMac, numerous iPods, etc.) So it's not pirates they're alienating, but members of the Apple community who just think that Steve et al. have missed a trick here.
Psystar is dong the same thing, and much worse. Apple needs to send a message universally. Doesn't look very good when Apple is waving the EULA (among other things) in Psystar's face and then does nothing to take steps to enforce it everywhere else. Breaking compatibility of a particular type of unsupported hardware is the least they can do, if they've decided for whatever reason not to puruse individuals legally.
Psystar is problem for the entire Apple community at large.
I bought SL specifically to install on the Mini 9. So that violates the EULA?
It most certainly does. And says it in very clear language. Did you not know this? It asks you to read the EULA before you agree. So read it.
Well, if Apple is going to go after the people who've paid for their software because they're not using it properly, they're going to run into the same problems that the music industry did with downloads and DRM.
Not the same.
When you make life harder for the people who are actually willing to buy rather than steal stuff, you end up alienating the good guys.
Except the vast majority of people buying have no problem with what Apple's been doing. And hackintosh users are barely a fraction of Apple's market. There aren't enough of you to make a difference.
Says which law or court decision with jurisdiction in the original poster's place of residence?
In Germany a EULA is _not_ a contract. And I don't mean "not enforceable" but plainly _not a contract_.
P.S.: Anyone who thinks that a license agreement that you read while interacting with the product for the first time can constitutes a valid contract and that your actions with regard to the product constitute agreement of the contract, please note: By quoting any part of my comment and/or replying to my comment you agree that you will add the following disclaimer to your comment.
@@@this is the disclaimer@@@luckily it says nothing much@@@
@pray that the comment end user licence agreement never changes@
I'm not sure I believe that you know Steve Jobs well enough to make this diagnosis.
One good reason is easy. Apple no longer needs or anticipates needing Intel Atom processor support in any of their products.
It would be interesting it if were legally possible to sell people stuff they ultimately cannot use because the secret licence terms they only see after paying and bringing the product home say something wild. Even if they could legally return it for cash, there might be a number of people who really don't enjoy walking to a shop and back for nothing.
"Driving this car implies acceptance of the following terms which we didn't tell you about when you bought the car. You bought only the media, the physical car, but not an exclusive right to drive it. Driving the car is functionality licences but not sold to you. [More terms...] If you disagree with these terms you can return the car for a full refund."
And a further note will inform you that you cannot return opened cars for a refund, only for other cars.
From the same link:
Note that, as an exception, you may return Apple branded software within the 14-day return period, and not be subject to a restocking fee, if you do not agree to the licensing terms, provided you do not retain any copies, including copies stored on a computer or other device. However, if your software includes a license that you can read before you break the seal or sticker on the software media packaging, you may not return the software once you break the software media packaging seal or sticker.
It says "return", not "exchange", so I assume you get your money back.
Apple's EULA violates Fair Use: An end-user's right to use a copyrighted product in any non-infringing, non-brand-damaging way.
An XP CD burned in 2002 will boot on an Atom. It's "x86 compatible" - that's all that is needed. There's no "supporting code" involved, it's an x86.
Apple will have to actively change OSX to look for the Atom ID and refuse to load if they want to stop this.
That is not what fair use means. Fair use deals with copies made for "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research."
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
If, in violation of a EULA or SLA, you install that bit of software, you have committed copyright infringement. There is a legitimate question as to whether all copyright infringement is piracy, but the average anti-Hackintosh/anti-Psystar view seems to be that all copyright infringement is piracy. Whether violating SLAs is piracy or not is a separate question from whether it's copyright infringement, but to be clear, the current and popular view seems to be that it is copyright infringement.