Apple Disabling Support for Intel Atom Processor in Latest 10.6.2 Build?

[diamond.g]

I buy a new computer when I want to, not when Apple tells me to. I've just updated my 3 year old Mac Book Pro and my 18 month old iMac to Snow Leopard for £39, it would cost over £2600 if Apple were to go with your suggestion.

And no, I don't want to "support" Apple. I like a lot of their products and buy the things I need (and often some I don't need ) As a company they are no different to Microsoft, Dell or any other multi billion dollar corporation. I certainly don't have the emotional attachment to Apple that a lot of people on here seem to have.

It sounds like a lot of people here (in this thread) would support such a move (based on the contents of this thread). How many Mac users actually upgrade versus just buying a new computer. It would seem those that are here would be more inclined to upgrade, but what about the average user?

 

[Amdahl]

What law?

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

Section 117(a)(1). Presumes the original is a legal copy, then the incidental copies (in RAM) are not considered infringements.

 

[pdjudd]

er no...

the S/L box only says that there is a licence not what those licence terms are.

Apple prints on the box that there are terms of usage that require accepting and refers you to the legal page. I can't quote the specific wording, but the SLA ia readily available to the end user before opening the box

so, if you buy S/L from them and then don't like the terms, which you can't know until you open the box then Apple says to return it but Amazon's policy says that you CANNOT return opened software.

Amazon probably won't because they are not a licensee and as such are not party to the terms of usage. When you open the box, you fulfill amazons terms of sale. Apple is a separate party because the contract is between you and them

If Apple want to go down that line then they shouldn't deal with re-sellers and should accept returned opened software.

I believe they (Apple) will within reason.

 

[gnasher729]

So the customers who bought from Psystar did not get an OS disc? I find that hard to believe, because doing that part right was the key to the whole operation.

You and I need to have a legally purchased box with MacOS X 10.6 if we want to upgrade a Mac to 10.6. It doesn't matter whether we have a receipt, or a box, or original DVDs, because factually the only difference is that we either _know_ that we paid for a legal copy or we _know_ that we didn't pay for it.

In Psystar's position, it isn't enough to have bought boxes with MacOS X, and it isn't enough to ship one box with each computer, they need actual _proof_ (like purchase receipts) or it is just one more nail in their coffin. If you start a business where you know you end up in court with Apple, you must make sure that you do everything 100% legal _and that you can prove_ that you did everything 100% legal.

 

[BaldiMac]

BaldiMac, click this link:
http://www.amazon.com/Mac-version-1..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0CYYEGJ5BK4G664WN9VR
And please tell where you see the term license is used in the sale?

I believe you without clicking on the link. I'd even bet that Apple's store doesn't list licensing terms in the product description. Doesn't change the fact that courts have made multiple rulings confirming the fact that the software is licensed. With the notable exception of the Autodesk case in regards to the first sale doctrine. Even then, the judge noted a contradiction with previous decisions that will need to be resolved. If it is not obvious, I am discussing this policy in respect to US law.

er no...

the S/L box only says that there is a licence not what those licence terms are.

so, if you buy S/L from them and then don't like the terms, which you can't know until you open the box then Apple says to return it but Amazon's policy says that you CANNOT return opened software.

In the UK your contract of sale is with Amazon not Apple and at the point that Amazon takes the money.

It is for this reason that the EULA (in Germany for example) has provably been shown to be useless.

It is illogical, unreasonable and unfair to buy such an item, which includes a provision for rejecting the license terms and then NOT offer a means to obtain the refund.

If Apple want to go down that line then they shouldn't deal with re-sellers and should accept returned opened software.

Once again, US law and Apple's SLA provide for a full refund if you reject the terms of the SLA. I do not know how this applies in other countries.

 

[OllyW]

It sounds like a lot of people here (in this thread) would support such a move (based on the contents of this thread). How many Mac users actually upgrade versus just buying a new computer. It would seem those that are here would be more inclined to upgrade, but what about the average user?

There was uproar on here when it was announced Snow Leopard required an Intel processor meaning 3 - 4 year old G5's couldn't upgrade to the latest OS. Could you imagine what would happen if you couldn't upgrade a six week old Mac?

 

[archipellago]

You just completely forgot to reply with a meaningful reponse?. Why don't you explain, then?.

Because we'll never agree and it's pointless.

My point is in the majority and is all that needs to be said

 

[diamond.g]

There was uproar on here when it was announced Snow Leopard required an Intel processor meaning 3 - 4 year old G5's couldn't upgrade to the latest OS. Could you imagine what would happen if you couldn't upgrade a six week old Mac?

There would be an uproar and tons of returns around that period, but ultimately it would be spun as a net positive (just as the dropping of PPC has been).

 

[Amdahl]

Apple prints on the box that there are terms of usage that require accepting and refers you to the legal page.

This is only on Snow Leopard. For the Psystar case, Leopard is at issue. Just to clarify for anyone reading this.

Amazon probably won't because they are not a licensee and as such are not party to the terms of usage. When you open the box, you fulfill amazons terms of sale. Apple is a separate party because the contract is between you and them

Then why is Amazon getting your money, and shipping you the disc? It is so clear that OS X is sold, not licensed, I can not believe any one tries to pretend otherwise. Name same item that claims to be licensed, when it is sold, besides computer software? Now, point to me the area of the UCC that has an exception for computer software from normal UCC?

If there is a license, and not a sale, then why not present the contract? Why not sign it? They do this with rebate forms all the time.

In Psystar's position, it isn't enough to have bought boxes with MacOS X, and it isn't enough to ship one box with each computer, they need actual _proof_ (like purchase receipts) or it is just one more nail in their coffin. If you start a business where you know you end up in court with Apple, you must make sure that you do everything 100% legal _and that you can prove_ that you did everything 100% legal.

I agree with that. If Psystar fails on that, it would be quite embarrassing. They have an excellent case that is an interesting twist on previous rulings. The case essentially asks how far you can go to get competition and interoperability when a copyright holder wants to prevent both, as long as you have paid the copyright holder for the copy.

 

[BaldiMac]

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

Section 117(a)(1). Presumes the original is a legal copy, then the incidental copies (in RAM) are not considered infringements.

Not quite. Section 117(a) presumes ownership of a copy not simply that the copy is legal. Courts have generally upheld that the copy on the DVD is licensed and not owned, though that precedent is far from decided.

"Incidental" copies are not addressed in Section 117. It provides for "a" copy from the owned copy. Additional copies created from the the installation (which is obviously not an owned copy) are very much in question.

I'm not making a claim either way. A number of issues need to be resolved by the courts before the legality of an installation of OS X under Section 117 can be determined.

 

[OllyW]

There would be an uproar and tons of returns around that period, but ultimately it would be spun as a net positive (just as the dropping of PPC has been).

Only if you drink the kool-aid.

I'm sorry, we'll have to disagree on that point. I would rather go with serial numbers and activation than be forced to buy a new computer if I want an OS upgrade.

I don't believe the Hackintosh is that a big threat to Apple anyway. You also read on here that quite a few people who have tried it end up buying the real thing because they like the OS so much.

 

[archipellago]

I believe you without clicking on the link. I'd even bet that Apple's store doesn't list licensing terms in the product description. Doesn't change the fact that courts have made multiple rulings confirming the fact that the software is licensed. With the notable exception of the Autodesk case in regards to the first sale doctrine. Even then, the judge noted a contradiction with previous decisions that will need to be resolved. If it is not obvious, I am discussing this policy in respect to US law.



Once again, US law and Apple's SLA provide for a full refund if you reject the terms of the SLA. I do not know how this applies in other countries.

Apple now sell more computers outside the US than within it.

The EULA will be fairly universal and the same refund clause will apply everywhere, unfortunately that EULA frequently puts Apple at odds with the actual law of the land in the said country.

the sale of goods act applies over here in the UK.

1/ My contract is with the reseller not Apple.

2/ They can legally refuse to accept the returned software opened or unopened unless it is faulty.

so, again. I can buy the software which has limited info. on the box, take it home, open it, then read the license, disagree with it and even though Apple say I can have a refund I can't get one from the only person I have a contract with .... the retailer.... because I've opened it.

I'm not sure how the point about unfairness can even be argued....


this is not the first time Apple (over here) has blatantly flouted regulations either. They did it with the distance selling rules, and got fined accordingly.

 

[pdjudd]

This is only on Snow Leopard. For the Psystar case, Leopard is at issue. Just to clarify for anyone reading this.

They did the same thing for Leopard IIRC and the terms were widely available then too.

Then why is Amazon getting your money, and shipping you the disc? It is so clear that OS X is sold, not licensed, I can not believe any one tries to pretend otherwise. Name same item that claims to be licensed, when it is sold, besides computer software? Now, point to me the area of the UCC that has an exception for computer software from normal UCC?

1) Amazon is a reseller - they pay for the box and resell it - Apple gets money but they retain ownership of the product and the licensing. At no times is Amazon a licensee and therefore the terms do not matter to them. Returning software is between the manufacturer and the consumer.
2) Apple's SLA (and the entire software business model) is that Software is not sold - the physical distribution disc is sold - but the software is licensed.

If there is a license, and not a sale, then why not present the contract? Why not sign it? They do this with rebate forms all the time.

Because such actions are not necessary. The SLA is reviewable before sale. That's enough. Just becasue rebates work that way (probably becasue their is a finacial return via check) doesn't mean licensing has to.

 

[Amdahl]

Not quite. Section 117(a) presumes ownership of a copy not simply that the copy is legal. Courts have generally upheld that the copy on the DVD is licensed and not owned, though that precedent is far from decided.

The licensing issue is key, yes. But take PS3 game, clearly not licensed. I can rent it out (like Blockbuster does with games and movie DVDs), and the copy that is created in RAM, or installed to the PS3 hard drive, is not a copyright infringement under 117(a)(1)

"Incidental" copies are not addressed in Section 117. It provides for "a" copy from the owned copy. Additional copies created from the the installation (which is obviously not an owned copy) are very much in question.

Again speaking to owned copies, "incidental" is my word. The law uses the phrase "an essential step in the utilization" of the program.

I'm not making a claim either way. A number of issues need to be resolved by the courts before the legality of an installation of OS X under Section 117 can be determined.

Yes.

 

[pdjudd]

1/ My contract is with the reseller not Apple.

Your contract with the reseller concerns what they sell. Any licensing terms are supplementary to opening the box and occur after the sale. Amazon clearly discloses that their contract of sale is far more restrictive (unable to return open software) because they do not have any contractual control/rights over the content. They cannot deal in that real becasue they are a separate party. They sell you the box. They compensate Apple. You accept the license between Apple (Leaving amazon as the middle person). You reject the terms before opening and Amazon pays you back and gets their money back from Apple. You reject after opening and Amazon rejects the return.

Amazon's terms have to be restrictive because they are a reseller. Thats the same weather you are dealing with Apple products or Microsoft products.

 

[archipellago]

They did the same thing for Leopard IIRC and the terms were widely available then too.


1) Amazon is a reseller - they pay for the box and resell it - Apple gets money but they retain ownership of the product and the licensing. At no times is Amazon a licensee and therefore the terms do not matter to them. Returning software is between the manufacturer and the consumer.
2) Apple's SLA (and the entire software business model) is that Software is not sold - the physical distribution disc is sold - but the software is licensed.


Because such actions are not necessary. The SLA is reviewable before sale. That's enough. Just becasue rebates work that way (probably becasue their is a finacial return via check) doesn't mean licensing has to.

definitely wrong for the free world and hopefully wrong for the US as well.

 

[archipellago]

Your contract with the reseller concerns what they sell. Any licensing terms are supplementary to opening the box and occur after the sale. Amazon clearly discloses that their contract of sale is far more restrictive (unable to return open software) because they do not have any contractual control/rights over the content. They cannot deal in that real becasue they are a separate party. They sell you the box. They compensate Apple. You accept the license between Apple (Leaving amazon as the middle person). You reject the terms before opening and Amazon pays you back and gets their money back from Apple. You reject after opening and Amazon rejects the return.

Amazon's terms have to be restrictive because they are a reseller. Thats the same weather you are dealing with Apple products or Microsoft products.

I think you miss the point.

I cannot get a refund from Amazon because they will not issue me with an RMA so I can't return anything. What do I do?

lie.?

UK law is different and your points are invalid.

 

[pdjudd]

The licensing issue is key, yes. But take PS3 game, clearly not licensed. I can rent it out (like Blockbuster does with games and movie DVDs), and the copy that is created in RAM, or installed to the PS3 hard drive, is not a copyright infringement under 117(a)(1)

Actually, when you buy a game, you are licensing it from the game maker for personal use. You can lend it, but I don't think you can engage in an act of commerce like renting outside of first sale (IE selling the game used).

 

[pdjudd]

I think you miss the point.

I cannot get a refund from Amazon because they will not issue me with an RMA so I can't return anything. What do I do?

lie.?

UK law is different and your points are invalid.

You take it up with the reliant party. In this case Apple. Their licensing terms specify rejection of the terms. They even provide it before the sale and warn you before you open the box.

Amazon is out of the picture because they have paid Apple out and are no longer party to the licensing. Once the box is opened, the reseller is pretty much out of the picture. That's how resellers operate. After you open the box, you business is picked up by Apple and the sale is 100% complete when you accept the license formally. YOu are bound by their terms now.

 

[OllyW]

Actually, when you buy a game, you are licensing it from the game maker for personal use. You can lend it, but I don't think you can engage in an act of commerce like renting outside of first sale (IE selling the game used).

There are loads of shops on the UK high street selling used games, of course it isn't illegal.

 

[pdjudd]

There are loads of shops on the UK high street selling used games, of course it isn't illegal.

I never said that selling used games was illegal. That's why I said "Outside of first sale". Selling used games is first sale doctrine.

 

[Amdahl]

Actually, when you buy a game, you are licensing it from the game maker for personal use. You can lend it, but I don't think you can engage in an act of commerce like renting outside of first sale (IE selling the game used).

Then how does Blockbuster rent games? How does GameFly do it?

Is a Blu-ray disc also protected by your envisioned law? It contains Java software for the menus and to enable the advanced features of Blu-ray. Is Netflix about to be sued out of existence?

 

[Amdahl]

I never said that selling used games was illegal. That's why I said "Outside of first sale". Selling used games is first sale doctrine.

If first sale doctrine applies, then it isn't licensed.

 

[archipellago]

You take it up with the reliant party. In this case Apple. Their licensing terms specify rejection of the terms. They even provide it before the sale and warn you before you open the box.

Amazon is out of the picture because they have paid Apple out and are no longer party to the licensing. Once the box is opened, the reseller is pretty much out of the picture. That's how resellers operate. After you open the box, you business is picked up by Apple and the sale is 100% complete when you accept the license formally. YOu are bound by their terms now.

Again....

UK law is different.

I have no contract with Apple and they don't tell me the complete terms before the sale at all, thats just rubbish.

I have a contract with Amazon, enforced when the sale was completed when they took my money.

Legally Amazon are obliged to deal with me as their responsibility is to me, not Apple.

please try to understand...I'm getting tired

 

[pdjudd]

If first sale doctrine applies, then it isn't licensed.

No, first sale can apply to something licensed. You are selling the medium. The contents are still contained under licensing and copyrights. Verner V AutoDesk contended just that staing that you are allowed to sell licensed content while still upholding the notion that licensing terms are still valid.