Agreed. Apple has left it open to the courts to interpret. To me labeled means labeled.
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 Sues Psystar over OpenComputer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed. Apple has left it open to the courts to interpret. To me labeled means labeled.
1) Yes.
2) Not for the CPU, the rest are user serviceable parts, so yes.
3) No.
4) Again, until you self modify/replace a non user serviceable part.
The Psystar/Apple lawsuit isn't about the SLA. It's about Psystar infringing copyright by: 1) reverse engineering and modifying Mac OS X; 2) MASS UNauthorized reselling of a modified OS X to the public, and 3) using Apple's brand without permission.
No, they do not require a previous version be present.
The install disk contains a COMPLETE and FULL version of OS X.
Nowhere on the disk or the packaging does it say it's an upgrade or that a previous version is required.
I must have brought a different package i see the word upgrade.
Hopefully Apple can defend this point, do you really want to lose the Archive and Install or the Clean Install options of the upgrade disks. that would be a royal PITA.
Oh interesting news of the other day
copyleft license term upheld on appeal.
Yep copyright holders may choose how to license without loosing their copyright.
So, let's say I buy a Mac Pro with the dual 2.8 procs. Then I buy two 3.2 Xeon procs, and swap them out.
I no longer have a Mac? I'm no longer legally allowed to install OSX?
So, let's say I buy a Mac Pro with the dual 2.8 procs. Then I buy two 3.2 Xeon procs, and swap them out.
I no longer have a Mac? I'm no longer legally allowed to install OSX?
First thing that will happen is you void the warranty. So long as it works and you do not need warranty service for anything you can enjoy your modified Mac. It's just a personalized Mac.
If you decide you can make money selling hot-rodded Mac's and sell them as an Apple product you are fine, but the buyers will be spending a lot of money for a machine that is no longer under warranty. If you rebadge them and sell them under your own brand name Apple will sue you.
Psystar is SELLING a product that is not made by Apple nor labeled as such and modifying Apples OS to run on it. End of story, it's going to cost them.
If they could make the computer run OS X without modification of the OS and do not include OS X with the computer in the sale they are safe. As soon as they include and/or modify OS X for sale they are hosed.
So, let's say I buy a Mac Pro with the dual 2.8 procs. Then I buy two 3.2 Xeon procs, and swap them out.
I no longer have a Mac? I'm no longer legally allowed to install OSX?
You make a good point seeing as I've already done something similar. I have a Dual 533 PowerMac G4 and I replaced the dual CPU module with a NewerTech 1.8GHz 7448 single CPU. The 'brains' of my Mac are now (gasp) on a non-Apple board!!! Did I just invalidate my copy of OSX on this thing? Wait... I didn't INSTALL OSX on this machine because it was ALREADY INSTALLED with the original CPU. So now there's a double legal conundrum now! It was already installed, but I replaced the CPU board...egad, what a dilemma! I've also replaced the video card and added USB 2.0 support, which Apple never approved for this machine. Should I lose any sleep over this?
Seriously, the whole question of what is an Apple and what is not and what OSX 'should' be allowed to be installed on is silly. I know Apple Worshippers hate the idea that it SHOULD be a legal right to install an operating system on whatever hardware you choose, but some of us do really believe that. What the law is NOW is largely irrelevant to my opinion. If it's not legal (still to be deicded in court), the laws should be changed so that it is legal for everyone. This should be a consumer right/choice, not a corporation's right to control you or your computing decisions, which is rather fascist, IMO.
Except, they aren't trying to control you or your decisions ... they are trying to control their property so that unintended uses don't tarnish their name.
You CAN choose to compute another way, in windows or linux.
Socialism has been around a long time, but I never thought it would threaten my Mac!
Where was the outrage when System x would only run on the 68000-series CPU? Or when OS X only worked on PowerPC machines?
Or is it just because that class of hardware was not available at commodity prices because it didn't have Intel's market, that gave Apple a free pass? And now that you can conceivably run OS X on cheap(er) hardware, Apple is mean because they won't let us?
Hey, they've been development porting to Intel since at least the OS 9 days. Wasn't Apple mean back then for not releasing it to retail for Intel? Or OS X 10.0, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3? All of them ran on Intel in the lab. We could have been saving thousands for a decade, so why only now are people annoyed?
When Apple adopted Intel, they should have chosen the Itanium platform. That way they could still support Windows (kinda), leverage Unix, and keep margins high and not worry about cloning like they didn't have to worry under PowerPC (once Steve denied them a System 8 license) and the 68000.
If Apple wants to release a "generic" version of OS X that runs on any Intel platform, I'm all for it, provided the cost of the product covers the cost of supporting it (driver development and testing, support analyst staffing, etc.). I'd rather not have to pay more for OS X on my Macs (via higher hardware prices) to support OS X on non-Macs. So if that means the Generic Edition costs $499 a copy or $1499 a copy, well, so be it.
Or is it just because that class of hardware was not available at commodity prices because it didn't have Intel's market, that gave Apple a free pass? And now that you can conceivably run OS X on cheap(er) hardware, Apple is mean because they won't let us?
Hey, they've been development porting to Intel since at least the OS 9 days. Wasn't Apple mean back then for not releasing it to retail for Intel? Or OS X 10.0, 10.1, 10.2 and 10.3? All of them ran on Intel in the lab. We could have been saving thousands for a decade, so why only now are people annoyed?
When Apple adopted Intel, they should have chosen the Itanium platform. That way they could still support Windows (kinda), leverage Unix, and keep margins high and not worry about cloning like they didn't have to worry under PowerPC (once Steve denied them a System 8 license) and the 68000.
If Apple wants to release a "generic" version of OS X that runs on any Intel platform, I'm all for it, provided the cost of the product covers the cost of supporting it (driver development and testing, support analyst staffing, etc.). I'd rather not have to pay more for OS X on my Macs (via higher hardware prices) to support OS X on non-Macs. So if that means the Generic Edition costs $499 a copy or $1499 a copy, well, so be it.
So? I did so for my Amiga 2000 (until Apple refused to sell them to Authorized Tech Shops unless they sent the "defective" pair back).
This whole things strikes me as driven by the view that since OS X can run on an Intel system, it should now de facto be allowed to run on any Intel system - even ones not designed, marketed and sold by Apple (either direct or through authorized resellers) just because, all of a sudden, there is now an actual alternative to Apple's "high-priced and under-powered" hardware.
And since Apple would have to either sell a great deal more copies of OS X - or charge a great deal more for each copy - to recover the lost revenue from assorted hardware sales (as well as the extra costs of supporting it on thousands of systems, instead of scores), I can't help but think that if Apple took the latter path, these people claiming Apple charges too much for their hardware would soon claim that Apple charges too much for their software and just pirate OS X.
After all, if folks are not willing to pay $500 more for a MacBook Pro to get OS X legally, would they spend $500 to get a "open" version? I tend to think not based on much of what I have read here.
That's what I was talking about. You are correct. Windows users think the same rules apply to the Mac OS and they don't.
Hey, I did some number crunching around this way back in post #432. Roughly estimated, Apple would either have to sell twelve copies of OS X for each Mac they didn't sell or they would have to charge twelve times as much for OS X (= $1,548). Seems to me neither is going to happen.And since Apple would have to either sell a great deal more copies of OS X - or charge a great deal more for each copy - to recover the lost revenue from assorted hardware sales (as well as the extra costs of supporting it on thousands of systems, instead of scores), I can't help but think that if Apple took the latter path, these people claiming Apple charges too much for their hardware would soon claim that Apple charges too much for their software and just pirate OS X.
After all, if folks are not willing to pay $500 more for a MacBook Pro to get OS X legally, would they spend $500 to get a "open" version? I tend to think not based on much of what I have read here.
What if there was no other system? How would your thinking work then? Maybe I HAVE to use the Mac at work and therefore at home too. Maybe I WANT to use the Mac. What's the difference? My rights should be my rights, not a corporations rights in a free country, IMO. This is for and by the people in the U.S. (or it's supposed to be). It's not for and by the corporations.
Frankly, when I buy OSX at retail price, it's should be MY property and I should be able to do with it as I like short of selling copies of it. As I said before, if that's not the law, then the law is wrong and it needs to be changed. What gives a corporation the right to dictate HOW you use their software? A license? Where's my option in that license to do something other than NOT USE IT? That's not a 'choice'. That's coercion.
How is my using OSX on one motherboard instead of another matter except that it means Apple can charge whatever they want for their otherwise nearly identical motherboard by using OSX for leverage against free open competition in the hardware market. Hardware and Software are two different markets. Apple is using tying to leverage one against the other. And THAT may already be illegal by precedent. It has not yet been decided in courts, which is what this thread is all about.
I'll give you a good example of how screwed up things are at the moment. The music industry says they're only selling you a license to listen to an album. You don't 'own' the album, yet if you get a scratch on that album do they provide a replacement at material cost? No. Are you allowed to listen to that album on any format because you own a license to listen to it (i.e. can I get it on tape or mp3 from whatever source and not worry about 'piracy' claims? No.). So how is it they can sell me a license to listen to or watch something, but they bare zero responsibility for the medium they sell it on? You're not even allowed (by their reckoning; just look at all the copy protection they put on movies, etc.) to make backup copies and if it gets scratched too bloody bad. Well, IMO, that's a load of bologna. They shouldn't get to have it both ways. Either I have a license to view/listen to something in any form or I 'own' that one copy and I can darn well do what I want with it. They want their cake and to eat it too and some people seem to think that's A-OK because they apparently enjoy getting their property rights screwed over two ways at once. Well, sorry, I don't.
CWallace said:
The problem with your comparison is you're only talking about money. I'm talking about getting the hardware I want for a reasonable price. Apple offers no mid-range dual-core tower for sale at ANY PRICE. If you want to be able to play games on a Mac (even under Boot Camp), you're pretty much limited to a Mac Pro ($2300+) or perhaps a customized top-of-the-line iMac (where you're then stuck with a certain monitor size and no expansion). Any $800 PC can play today's games. Why do you need a $2300 workstation level Mac to play a game? People want to say Apple hardware is competitive these days, but when you really look at it, it's not because they don't offer hardware for certain areas of computing and they apparently won't allow anyone else to either.
There are other systems, and if there weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion because OS X probably wouldn't be the system. The point is, you do have a choice, you have made your choice, life is about compromises - someone famous once said "You can't always get what you want."
Seriously, what rights do you have over the rights of the PEOPLE, not the corporation, that created OS X? Do they have no rights to get paid for their hard work? Do they have no rights to determine how their masterpiece is to be used? Should the consumer have the right to do whatever they want, to include stealing others work, modifying it and redistribute it as they see fit, because the consumer wants to use it for a purpose it wasn't designed for?
That right there is Marxism at its finest - the work of a few belongs to the many. It's sad that that is what people would like the world to be like. (Only because human nature prevents it from ever working.)
People need to get over the entitlement issues - "I am entitled to do whatever I want with any product, even though I agreed to use it for its intended purpose, and if it doesn't work right, I'll just complain that the product was junk to begin with, and if that doesn't work, I'll sue." This isn't really aimed at you, just a general reply to A LOT of the attitudes in the world recently.
Apple does not have to give you the option to use OS X, as a matter of fact, they have the right to never sell you a computer again should they feel like it. You keep mentioning YOUR rights, tell me, what LEGAL rights do you have? (Supporting links, please) Something that you feel is not a right.
I'm not defending corporations, although I will defend IP, because once that goes down the tubes, there will be no more innovation. People will just copy the stuff that has already been done and add a little more to it. Remember, you don't buy software, you buy a license - for which you must agree to the terms of the license.
are the people from phystler 17-25 year old geeks who do what they want because they think it's cool. Please just stop I hope the judge rules apple over them. I'm not a huge apple fan boy (I hate that term "fanboy") I just want phystler to wake up and stop being childish and stop breaking the Elua
Think licenses don't hold up in court? Think again...
Court Ruling Upholds Open-Source Copyrights: "Even if open-source or Creative Commons licensing agreements charge no cash, if you violate terms of the license you are infringing on copyrighted material."
Note however that the offending company took the code and developed a commercial product from it.
Court Ruling Upholds Open-Source Copyrights: "Even if open-source or Creative Commons licensing agreements charge no cash, if you violate terms of the license you are infringing on copyrighted material."
Note however that the offending company took the code and developed a commercial product from it.
Not for Apple. Nor should it be if a company decides to go it's own way. It's obviously working for Apple. You are basically saying that there can only be one model and the model of being only a complete systems seller should be illegal and immoral. To me that is utterly ridiculous.
You talk about your rights, but no one is stopping you running OSX, and you have no right to demand to be able to use it in whatever manner you choose. You talk about buying a retail copy and doing what you want with it, well Apple, to my knowledge haven't stopped any consumer from doing what they want with a boxed copy of OSX.
Your sense of entitlement over a computing enviroment when you aren't being stopped from running it in a number of ways and when there are plenty of others out there is pathetic.
No argument there.
Microsoft makes the majority of their money from licensing deals signed with manufacturers that ensure a copy of Windows (and, often, Office) are bundled with each of those hundreds of millions of PCs sold every year. No matter how much better OS X is, Apple doesn't have - and cannot hope to gain - that marketshare and without it, they don't have the leverage Microsoft does.
As such, Apple has to find other markets to make money - and right now, that is hardware. Apple makes a pittance from sales in the iTunes store because the market has spoken - we want content as close to free as possible. Apple could charge $4.99 per song or $24.99 per movie and not have to make as much from each iPod, but "nobody" would pay that and would seek...cheaper...alternatives. So Apple sells content for the minimum the rights-holders will let them get away with and makes their money on the hardware end - the iPod. Same with the iPhone.
I don't think it will be that many because remember the Macs are not pure profit for Apple. There is still the cost of building the hardware. But even if the average Mac brings in a 25% profit (it might sound low, but PC makers would put an entire city to the sword for that margin), say that is around $500 of profit that Apple would need to recover from each "open" OS X sale that would have gone to Apple if the person had bought a Mac.
Now, I understand that many people who would buy an "open" OS X would never buy a Mac and, like Linux, would get it to experiment with. So not every copy of OS X needs to recover that whole cost. But the number that would will not be insignificant - either in total dollar value or to Apple's bottom line.
Is that not money? Money you feel you are forced to spend on Apple hardware that you would prefer to save by buying hardware from another company?
True, and they arguably never have since soon after Steve came back. Yes, the G5 was available with two dual-core processors for $1999, but the single dual-core Woodcrest-based Mac Pro would have slapped it silly, to say nothing of the current single quad-core Harpertown. And both were only $300 more (which also included more base memory, a larger HDD and a better class of video card).
I guess it depends on the game. I found the ATI 2600 in my 24" iMac to be fine for most RPGs and many FPSs. Same with the nVidia 8600 in my Macbook Pro. And let's be honest - even the Mac Pro does not offer the same GPU firepower available with Windows PCs, so even if Apple would release a Mini Tower, if they limit the GPU options to the same ATI 2600 or 8800GT as the Mac Pro, then you're still SOL if you want to play a game that needs it. Unless somehow people think Apple will release $500-1000 gaming video cards for the Mini Tower and keep them from the Mac Pro?
Heck, some video cards out there cost $800.
But that entire argument is only valid - and only valid now - because you can now run on OS X on a computing platform that is so dominant in the industry that it is available at low(er) prices from other vendors.
OS 10.1, OS 10.2 and OS 10.3 won't work on Intel hardware, so even though it is argued by you to be your property, what you can do with it is one thing - install it on an Apple PowerPC-based Macintosh. You can't even install it on another company's PPC system like an IBM RS/6000 or an Austin Computer Systems' (now IPC Technologies, Inc.) PowerPlay 604/100 (which was the first computer offered for sale that could run the PPC version of Windows NT 3.51).
Should you not be outraged at that? Is that not as heinous a crime perpetrated by Apple? After all, those are PPC machines and OS X supports PPC machines. By your argument, Apple was leveraging OS X (and System 8 and OS 9) to their PPC hardware by not allowing it (them) to run on other folks PPC hardware.
As to your analogy about the music/video industry, if I scratch the door of my car, is the car company obliged to give me a new door for free? And before you answer "a scratched door doesn't affect the usability of the product", ok. How about I drop a spanner and open a hole in my radiator so all the coolant leaks out? Should the car company replace my radiator for free?
And if not, why not? Because I caused the damage? Well records don't spontaneously scratch themselves. Some "user intervention" is required.
And as to making back-ups of the media, I am pretty sure that it is either allowed or it is implied. The industry may say that making a backup is illegal, but I don't know of anyone who has made a backup and used it exactly as such (kept it on a shelf until such time their original was damaged to the point it was unusable and that original was kept as proof of purchase) having been sued, much less found guilty of violation of a law. If it has happened, I'd be interested in a link to information about it.
I keep hearing the same tired reasons for unfair competition on Apple's part over and over again. I see two types of people supporting Apple's position on here as no other types make any logical sense. You have those that support Apple because they own Apple stock and want Apple to make the most money possible (i.e. greed is the motive) and the other type supports the motif in general that the rich and powerful should have the right to make the laws and control the country (i.e. the Republican argument). The former is simple to understand. You don't want things to change because you believe in Apple and you want to make the most money possible. The latter is a bit trickier to comprehend because it involves a system of belief that the Aristocrat/Peasant system is ultimately a good one and that the rich should control the country and the poor should serve the rich.
You Aristocrat or Republican types hold disdain for unions and the rights of workers in your hearts. That is to say you believe in all kinds of rights for the rich, to slowly eliminate the middle class and keep the poor down. All power should be in the hands of the elite class and all rights should favor the rich and the corporations they control. Copyright Law and Patents should be extended to be infinite instead of expiring so the inventors and their surviving families and ageless corporations should carry on those elite rights forever. Nothing should ever go into the public domain. The people should never have the right to use your intellectual property as they see fit, even hundreds of years later long after you're gone. It should be your childrens' legacy forever. Society and the people in it should always have to pay for your intellectual creations. You believe socialism and programs for the poor are a waste and akin to evil; let them earn their own keep and stay far from your well deserved monies. You should not have to pay taxes; taxes are for the poor. Let them pay for their own social programs! Survival is for the fittest. Let the weak die or serve as slaves for the rich and powerful.
THAT is largely the nature of the arguments I'm hearing. I've heard them before. It's a very distinct set of political and social beliefs that have pervaded mankind through history. The system was common in the Middle Ages. There was no such thing as a Middle Class. There was the rich royalty and the peasants. Peasants have no rights. The rich and powerful control everything. I truly believe this is the direction the world is heading once again. We had an amazing democracy in ancient times in Greece. We had the thousand year empire of Rome that ultimately fell apart from corruption, elitism and separation of the classes and then we had the Dark Ages where the Elitist motif was in full force.
People ultimately fled from the tyranny of the systems in place and came to America where they could start anew and bring power back to the people, ALL people, not just the elite and rich. But as things go, money controls all in this world and the rich are not happy until they control everything so slowly but surely they have been making in-roads into democracy here in the U.S. and making new laws and changing old ones so that were once the people had rights such as fair use, now they have NO rights under the DMCA. People that believe as you people do that Apple should control every aspect of its own so-called market and not have to compete at any level what-so-ever (Go buy someone else's operating system if you don't like that you can't run OSX on the hardware of your choice. Go buy someone else's hardware if you don't like Apple's hardware options even if it means you then have to run an operating system you don't like to use otherwise identical hardware or in order to get the graphics chipset you actually want or internal storage space Apple's consumer models completely lack). Yes, shut up and take it like a Middle Age peasant should. You have NO RIGHTS as a consumer! What is mine is mine and not yours, even if I sell it to you because (ah-ha!) I did not REALLY 'sell' it to you, I only 'licensed' it to you for limited use! The joke is on you pal!
Of course, I also see complete hypocrisy out there as well among the same that blindly support Apple and corporation control over consumer rights. I mean these same people gladly import their CDs into iTunes, but that is breaking DMCA copyright law. These same people use Handbrake and/or Mac The Ripper to import DVDs into iTunes and AppleTV even though that is a clear intervention of copy protection and thus a violation of the DMCA's clause of contravening any form of copy protection. Each act is punishable by up to 5 years in prison so don't tell me you have any rights to do it. People once said you have a right to keep one backup of your software. My Nintendo64 cartridges manuals say otherwise. It says there is no NEED or RIGHT to make any kind of backup of their cartridges. Even if you believe you have the right to backup a DVD, any ATTEMPT to do so is a clear 100% violation of the DMCA so you SHOULD be going to prison under law. Hey, these are the laws you WANT because they support the corporations you love and the control they want over your viewing habits. Some say it's even illegal to skip watching commercials using a DVR since those commercials are paying for the programming you are watching. Thus, if you have to go to the bathroom, you should hit pause before you go and then resume watching the commercials when you get back at normal speed and seriously consider buying those products or else you've STOLEN that TV Show you were watching! I PAY for cable networks, yet they whom once did not have commercials now have them also but I still have to watch commercials AND pay for those networks above broadcast TV. This is what the industry wants (notice how Tivo caved and now makes you watch lines of commercials even when you fast forward!) It's what they will get if you continue to support their rights for control over what you do in the privacy of your own home. It's not 'fascism,' though to tell me how I can use the fast forward and rewind buttons on my remote? Many DVDs disable those buttons during the FBI warnings and some even during commercial previews of other movies. They are trying very hard to FORCE you to watch things you may not care to watch. And you're telling me that's good. I just hope some day some of you come to realize who and what your are and what you are really supporting in the long run by pushing for corporate rights, but not consumer rights.
What if Microsoft announces tomorrow that it will only sell Windows7 for use with Lenovo brand motherboards? As Apple users, you'd probably be happy. If you're a Windows user, you'd be beating the walls of the justice department down as an unfair, unreasonable tactic. But if you're an Apple user and Apple says you can only use the operating system you bought and paid for at Best Buy with their brand motherboard, even though it's 99.9% identical to the one sitting next to it and will work with it with only a few minor tweaks and the only reason Apple says that is so that it can have a monopoly on the market for OS X operating system, you're A-OK with it because you love Apple and will do anything to support them.
Hey, some of us just want to use OSX to do the things we need to do, not worship Apple and if Apple can't supply a decent GPU, we're going to go elsewhere and I don't mean to Windows. Some of us support consumer rights, not corporate rights. Some of us believe in we the people, copyrights expiring and works becoming public domain in time, fair use recording and backup rights. We believe in the Middle Class and taking care of the poverty stricken with government programs and the rights of privacy within our own homes. We believe the rich should pay their fair share of taxes for living in a country that enabled them to become rich in the first place. We don't believe corporations are people and should not have the rights of citizens. We don't believe in our government being controlled by special interests by means of bribes, but that a true republic is controlled BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE! Any laws that are not in the interest of the people of this country should be stricken down. Any laws that remove consumer rights, especially ones that do so only so they can make more money by not competing fairly in the market such as Apple does by tying artificially its OS to its own generic hardware should be stricken down.
If OSX is so great, it should be able to stand on its own. Similarly, if Apple hardware is so great, it should be able to stand on its own. Let Apple compete on the same playing field as those making hardware for Linux and Windows. After all, some of you are telling me that those operating systems are my alternative choices to Apple, yet those operating systems will work on nearly ANYONE's hardware, including Apple's own hardware! Apple's will run on anyone's hardware also, but they say you're 'not allowed' to run it on it. That is using OSX as leverage to sell hardware and that should be (and possibly is as ruled by a case with precedent already) illegal.
As for someone's argument that OS X wouldn't run on someone else's PowerPC hardware, we had no clone makers trying to run it on their own hardware. Apple had 4% of the market and it could not run Windows also then. Basically, no one CARED about the Mac outside Apple. Things have changed (iPod, iPhone, etc.) and Apple's market share has increased and so has interest in OS X. All the arguments against running OS X on alternative hardware do ONE thing and that's make Apple (and thus Apple shareholders) more profit. If Apple had to make OS X available to all hardware makers, it would mean more hardware choices for the consumer and probably lower prices, even on official Apple products. Basically, the consumer would win. Thus, when I read these arguments on here that basically amount to, "Apple should be able to do what they want with their operating system" what I'm really seeing is, "I am an Apple shareholder and I want to make more money" or "I'm a devotee of the Apple religion and Apple should rule the world" because NOTHING else makes any logical sense what-so-ever. If you are for consumer rights you are for OS X having to compete along side Windows and Linux for a legitimate market share, not being coddled by artificial tying so Apple can make inflated profits by not having to directly compete with Dell, HP, Lenovo and others.
The whole reason Apple moved to Intel in the first place was people WERE voting with their feet for Intel hardware, many of them that preferred OSX but were fed up with slow hardware on an incompatible platform. They were clearly fed up to the point where the preference for the operating system fell below the need for better hardware. If Microsoft HAD made Windows for Apple's PPC hardware at the time (You CAN get Linux for it even now) and even if all the Windows world software were somehow available also, would it have mattered? No, it would not have mattered because slow is slow. So Apple moved to generic Intel style hardware (i.e. clone hardware) AND it made its machines able to easily boot Windows. Apple was making the statement that it's now Intel compatible and it can run Windows and Linux on its hardware now. Yet Apple is crying the blues when someone else purchases OS X and wants to run it on their hardware. So Apple is saying it wants its cake and it wants to eat it too. Well, I say too bad. If you're going to play in the game with the big boys, then you have to play by the rules of that game. And that is why I say Apple will lose in court. Artificial tying has already lost in the past and the precedent has been set so Apple is in danger of losing. If Apple's share keeps on increasing, the justice department will not be able to look the other way forever that Apple controls a monopoly on the GENERIC HARDWARE for OS X. As I said before, Hardware and Software are two different markets and the fact their hardware can run Windows and Linux and generic clone hardware has been proven to be able to run OS X shows Apple is TYING and that is ILLEGAL whether you elitists like it or not.
I know I just wasted my time writing this post because you cannot change a belief system over night. Those that believe in the rich ruling and the poor serving will not suddenly lose their disdain for consumer rights because I make it plain to them. They will continue to look for any weak point or argument that makes the case for the Rich lording it over the Poor because that is where they are or where they want to be. I mean ask yourself why you support corporate rights over consumer rights. It's either because you are making more money that way or you imagine yourself being in that position and making more money that way (i.e. if that were me, I'd want to control the market and not have to compete in that area of the market so yeah I support Apple in this argument!) The whole reason consumer advocacy groups exist is to try and counteract the tide of special interests in places like Washington D.C. Before unions existed, working conditions for the 'middle class' were often abysmal and unsafe. The rich that owned the factories didn't care. They didn't have to do the jobs! History has shown time and time again that if you let the rich rule with no checks in place, the people tend to suffer. History and books like The Bible are filled with stories about evil kings lording it over the people and very very few 'good' kings that cared about the people. The whole idea of democracy is to give the power TO the people so the rich CAN'T lord it over them. But that's where countries like the U.S. have gone wrong over time because special interests ultimately bribe YOUR representation in government to favor the rich and eliminate consumer rights such as 'fair use' and so the swing IS going the way of history once again despite the form of government. Apple Vs. Psystar is just one more example of the little guy trying to fight back and the big guy trying to squash him.
You Aristocrat or Republican types hold disdain for unions and the rights of workers in your hearts. That is to say you believe in all kinds of rights for the rich, to slowly eliminate the middle class and keep the poor down. All power should be in the hands of the elite class and all rights should favor the rich and the corporations they control. Copyright Law and Patents should be extended to be infinite instead of expiring so the inventors and their surviving families and ageless corporations should carry on those elite rights forever. Nothing should ever go into the public domain. The people should never have the right to use your intellectual property as they see fit, even hundreds of years later long after you're gone. It should be your childrens' legacy forever. Society and the people in it should always have to pay for your intellectual creations. You believe socialism and programs for the poor are a waste and akin to evil; let them earn their own keep and stay far from your well deserved monies. You should not have to pay taxes; taxes are for the poor. Let them pay for their own social programs! Survival is for the fittest. Let the weak die or serve as slaves for the rich and powerful.
THAT is largely the nature of the arguments I'm hearing. I've heard them before. It's a very distinct set of political and social beliefs that have pervaded mankind through history. The system was common in the Middle Ages. There was no such thing as a Middle Class. There was the rich royalty and the peasants. Peasants have no rights. The rich and powerful control everything. I truly believe this is the direction the world is heading once again. We had an amazing democracy in ancient times in Greece. We had the thousand year empire of Rome that ultimately fell apart from corruption, elitism and separation of the classes and then we had the Dark Ages where the Elitist motif was in full force.
People ultimately fled from the tyranny of the systems in place and came to America where they could start anew and bring power back to the people, ALL people, not just the elite and rich. But as things go, money controls all in this world and the rich are not happy until they control everything so slowly but surely they have been making in-roads into democracy here in the U.S. and making new laws and changing old ones so that were once the people had rights such as fair use, now they have NO rights under the DMCA. People that believe as you people do that Apple should control every aspect of its own so-called market and not have to compete at any level what-so-ever (Go buy someone else's operating system if you don't like that you can't run OSX on the hardware of your choice. Go buy someone else's hardware if you don't like Apple's hardware options even if it means you then have to run an operating system you don't like to use otherwise identical hardware or in order to get the graphics chipset you actually want or internal storage space Apple's consumer models completely lack). Yes, shut up and take it like a Middle Age peasant should. You have NO RIGHTS as a consumer! What is mine is mine and not yours, even if I sell it to you because (ah-ha!) I did not REALLY 'sell' it to you, I only 'licensed' it to you for limited use! The joke is on you pal!
Of course, I also see complete hypocrisy out there as well among the same that blindly support Apple and corporation control over consumer rights. I mean these same people gladly import their CDs into iTunes, but that is breaking DMCA copyright law. These same people use Handbrake and/or Mac The Ripper to import DVDs into iTunes and AppleTV even though that is a clear intervention of copy protection and thus a violation of the DMCA's clause of contravening any form of copy protection. Each act is punishable by up to 5 years in prison so don't tell me you have any rights to do it. People once said you have a right to keep one backup of your software. My Nintendo64 cartridges manuals say otherwise. It says there is no NEED or RIGHT to make any kind of backup of their cartridges. Even if you believe you have the right to backup a DVD, any ATTEMPT to do so is a clear 100% violation of the DMCA so you SHOULD be going to prison under law. Hey, these are the laws you WANT because they support the corporations you love and the control they want over your viewing habits. Some say it's even illegal to skip watching commercials using a DVR since those commercials are paying for the programming you are watching. Thus, if you have to go to the bathroom, you should hit pause before you go and then resume watching the commercials when you get back at normal speed and seriously consider buying those products or else you've STOLEN that TV Show you were watching! I PAY for cable networks, yet they whom once did not have commercials now have them also but I still have to watch commercials AND pay for those networks above broadcast TV. This is what the industry wants (notice how Tivo caved and now makes you watch lines of commercials even when you fast forward!) It's what they will get if you continue to support their rights for control over what you do in the privacy of your own home. It's not 'fascism,' though to tell me how I can use the fast forward and rewind buttons on my remote? Many DVDs disable those buttons during the FBI warnings and some even during commercial previews of other movies. They are trying very hard to FORCE you to watch things you may not care to watch. And you're telling me that's good. I just hope some day some of you come to realize who and what your are and what you are really supporting in the long run by pushing for corporate rights, but not consumer rights.
What if Microsoft announces tomorrow that it will only sell Windows7 for use with Lenovo brand motherboards? As Apple users, you'd probably be happy. If you're a Windows user, you'd be beating the walls of the justice department down as an unfair, unreasonable tactic. But if you're an Apple user and Apple says you can only use the operating system you bought and paid for at Best Buy with their brand motherboard, even though it's 99.9% identical to the one sitting next to it and will work with it with only a few minor tweaks and the only reason Apple says that is so that it can have a monopoly on the market for OS X operating system, you're A-OK with it because you love Apple and will do anything to support them.
Hey, some of us just want to use OSX to do the things we need to do, not worship Apple and if Apple can't supply a decent GPU, we're going to go elsewhere and I don't mean to Windows. Some of us support consumer rights, not corporate rights. Some of us believe in we the people, copyrights expiring and works becoming public domain in time, fair use recording and backup rights. We believe in the Middle Class and taking care of the poverty stricken with government programs and the rights of privacy within our own homes. We believe the rich should pay their fair share of taxes for living in a country that enabled them to become rich in the first place. We don't believe corporations are people and should not have the rights of citizens. We don't believe in our government being controlled by special interests by means of bribes, but that a true republic is controlled BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE! Any laws that are not in the interest of the people of this country should be stricken down. Any laws that remove consumer rights, especially ones that do so only so they can make more money by not competing fairly in the market such as Apple does by tying artificially its OS to its own generic hardware should be stricken down.
If OSX is so great, it should be able to stand on its own. Similarly, if Apple hardware is so great, it should be able to stand on its own. Let Apple compete on the same playing field as those making hardware for Linux and Windows. After all, some of you are telling me that those operating systems are my alternative choices to Apple, yet those operating systems will work on nearly ANYONE's hardware, including Apple's own hardware! Apple's will run on anyone's hardware also, but they say you're 'not allowed' to run it on it. That is using OSX as leverage to sell hardware and that should be (and possibly is as ruled by a case with precedent already) illegal.
As for someone's argument that OS X wouldn't run on someone else's PowerPC hardware, we had no clone makers trying to run it on their own hardware. Apple had 4% of the market and it could not run Windows also then. Basically, no one CARED about the Mac outside Apple. Things have changed (iPod, iPhone, etc.) and Apple's market share has increased and so has interest in OS X. All the arguments against running OS X on alternative hardware do ONE thing and that's make Apple (and thus Apple shareholders) more profit. If Apple had to make OS X available to all hardware makers, it would mean more hardware choices for the consumer and probably lower prices, even on official Apple products. Basically, the consumer would win. Thus, when I read these arguments on here that basically amount to, "Apple should be able to do what they want with their operating system" what I'm really seeing is, "I am an Apple shareholder and I want to make more money" or "I'm a devotee of the Apple religion and Apple should rule the world" because NOTHING else makes any logical sense what-so-ever. If you are for consumer rights you are for OS X having to compete along side Windows and Linux for a legitimate market share, not being coddled by artificial tying so Apple can make inflated profits by not having to directly compete with Dell, HP, Lenovo and others.
The whole reason Apple moved to Intel in the first place was people WERE voting with their feet for Intel hardware, many of them that preferred OSX but were fed up with slow hardware on an incompatible platform. They were clearly fed up to the point where the preference for the operating system fell below the need for better hardware. If Microsoft HAD made Windows for Apple's PPC hardware at the time (You CAN get Linux for it even now) and even if all the Windows world software were somehow available also, would it have mattered? No, it would not have mattered because slow is slow. So Apple moved to generic Intel style hardware (i.e. clone hardware) AND it made its machines able to easily boot Windows. Apple was making the statement that it's now Intel compatible and it can run Windows and Linux on its hardware now. Yet Apple is crying the blues when someone else purchases OS X and wants to run it on their hardware. So Apple is saying it wants its cake and it wants to eat it too. Well, I say too bad. If you're going to play in the game with the big boys, then you have to play by the rules of that game. And that is why I say Apple will lose in court. Artificial tying has already lost in the past and the precedent has been set so Apple is in danger of losing. If Apple's share keeps on increasing, the justice department will not be able to look the other way forever that Apple controls a monopoly on the GENERIC HARDWARE for OS X. As I said before, Hardware and Software are two different markets and the fact their hardware can run Windows and Linux and generic clone hardware has been proven to be able to run OS X shows Apple is TYING and that is ILLEGAL whether you elitists like it or not.
I know I just wasted my time writing this post because you cannot change a belief system over night. Those that believe in the rich ruling and the poor serving will not suddenly lose their disdain for consumer rights because I make it plain to them. They will continue to look for any weak point or argument that makes the case for the Rich lording it over the Poor because that is where they are or where they want to be. I mean ask yourself why you support corporate rights over consumer rights. It's either because you are making more money that way or you imagine yourself being in that position and making more money that way (i.e. if that were me, I'd want to control the market and not have to compete in that area of the market so yeah I support Apple in this argument!) The whole reason consumer advocacy groups exist is to try and counteract the tide of special interests in places like Washington D.C. Before unions existed, working conditions for the 'middle class' were often abysmal and unsafe. The rich that owned the factories didn't care. They didn't have to do the jobs! History has shown time and time again that if you let the rich rule with no checks in place, the people tend to suffer. History and books like The Bible are filled with stories about evil kings lording it over the people and very very few 'good' kings that cared about the people. The whole idea of democracy is to give the power TO the people so the rich CAN'T lord it over them. But that's where countries like the U.S. have gone wrong over time because special interests ultimately bribe YOUR representation in government to favor the rich and eliminate consumer rights such as 'fair use' and so the swing IS going the way of history once again despite the form of government. Apple Vs. Psystar is just one more example of the little guy trying to fight back and the big guy trying to squash him.
Apple is looking the other way when individuals load OS X onto their machines.
They are however not looking the other way when companies do it, or small machine manufacturers do it.
Might consider it tying, but Psystar still hasn't licensed the product or paid Apple their fee for getting that right to include it on their machines. Don't even think they even bothered to try, they just said our lawyer at the local titty bar said we are right, so we paid for a lapdance, got blitzed and decided to do it.
Ford and MS would likely be pissed if China Motorscooters Inc. started selling their cars with their Sync software included, and GM would also be pissed at people selling Onstar equipped vehicles without a license.
Wouldn't matter if China Motorscooters Inc. went to a Ford or GM dealership to buy the complete system for their vehicles at retail. They'd still be pissed off at the companies for selling new cars with their unlicensed systems inside and advertising them as Sync/Onstar equipped new cars.
They are however not looking the other way when companies do it, or small machine manufacturers do it.
Might consider it tying, but Psystar still hasn't licensed the product or paid Apple their fee for getting that right to include it on their machines. Don't even think they even bothered to try, they just said our lawyer at the local titty bar said we are right, so we paid for a lapdance, got blitzed and decided to do it.
Ford and MS would likely be pissed if China Motorscooters Inc. started selling their cars with their Sync software included, and GM would also be pissed at people selling Onstar equipped vehicles without a license.
Wouldn't matter if China Motorscooters Inc. went to a Ford or GM dealership to buy the complete system for their vehicles at retail. They'd still be pissed off at the companies for selling new cars with their unlicensed systems inside and advertising them as Sync/Onstar equipped new cars.