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 vs. Mac OS X Hackers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple Is Right On
Why don't those guys just buy a mini?
499 isn't bad
we all know PCs are crap,
if they were real computer geeks they would already have a mac
Why don't those guys just buy a mini?
499 isn't bad
we all know PCs are crap,
if they were real computer geeks they would already have a mac
I'm all fine with all of you people who believe that apple should make Mac OS X run on all x86 hardware. I mean, given that apple's profit model is set up for hardware, I wonder how long the company would last. (Mac OS = $130, Windows Pro = $230?) Probably would be out of business after a few years at least with that subsidized price...
Greeeeeeeaaaat business plan.
Greeeeeeeaaaat business plan.This reminds me of how, in I Heart Huckabees, Jason Schwartzman's character Albert, uses poetry as his activist weapon of choice. If Apple is actually using this to deter potential hackers then, well, it's lame. But I'm still glad that Apple is the kind of company that would do this in the first place (Now if only they'd bring back easter eggs, like that fun one with the lizard and the flag ).
).You're a good poet.MacMusicMan69 said:
fahlman said:
While I would agree with you on that level, there is still the rather large issue of enforceability or the EULA. In fact, they're unenforceable in most of the US. So the license agreement is not upheld in most of the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_licence#Enforceability
Another thing is this (it really goes into ethics, but its the way I feel): I think that you should be allowed to install software that you've purchased on any computer that you own. Some licenses allow this, some don't. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. And if there's a family license, I'd buy that instead.
MeatBiProduct said:
That's what capitalism is though. If I own something, I have say over who can partake and who cannot. It's not just Apple, but every producer of goods.
windmaomao said:
You're being naïve... I speak for myself, I actually love OSS/GNU/Linux, I think it's a nice option for computing, as I even use a few open source apps daily, like aMSN. But to say the internet is "going to freedom" (when it's actually just another hugely profitable means of communication) is just plain false. And Apple is a company (which actually produces proprietary software, even though it is *based* on OSS components), thus, it's a money making machine, period. So there isn't "right" or "wrong" here (from an ethical standpoint), just "profitable" or "loss-making", "legal" or "illegal". By the way, may I remind you, as others have already pointed out, that Apple had plenty of practical reasons (not just economical) *not* to allow (both technically and legally) OS X to run on generic x86 hardware... That's a choice for Apple to make, not for you, the consumer. And you have a choice: you can just *not* use OS X at all!
Hate to burst your bubble, buddy (I myself used to be an idealist, who dreamed of the day M$ would go bankrupt, and even today I still feel largely unconfortable about this economical system in general anyway), but this is the world where you're living in, so you either stop whining and get along with it (otherwise, you may either not get your point across if you base your arguments in false statements, or incur in legal action if you try to prove your point by force), or go start a revolution (not through hacking/cracking/whining, though... why don't you just stick with Linux? Why not doing the classical "vote with your wallet" thing?)! Just my €0,02...
By the way, you shouldn't use the term "freedom" that lightly (read my sig.)... I'd rather have freedom of speech over "freedom as in having loads of OSS at my disposal" any day of the week... And it seems the 'net is lacking also in the first kind... Remember Google.cn?
pizzach said:
So charge $499 for the full distribution and $130 for major upgrades (get Tiger to Leopard). If you buy an Apple, you get the full distribution for free. Once you have a full distribution, you can install it on any one computer (Apple-labeled or not).
Apple could even offer a crossgrade from Windows for $270 if you trade in your original Windows media and license key.
Of course, as Mainyehc points out, neither Apple not most of its customers (me included) want to change the business model in this way.
This is the most idiotic statement I've ever heard. How does buying a gearbox for Ferrari that won't fit in your Hyundai constitute torture? The only word to describe this situation that comes to my mind is stupidity. You know beforehand that whatever you are buying won't run on your hardware, at least not legally, and still you buy it. You can blame only yourself. And all that is assuming you can buy a standalone copy of Mac OS X for x86, which you really can't do. If you want to drive a Ferrari you have to buy a Ferrari!windmaomao said:
pizzach said:I'm all fine with all of you people who believe that apple should make Mac OS X run on all x86 hardware. I mean, given that apple's profit model is set up for hardware, I wonder how long the company would last. (Mac OS = $130, Windows Pro = $230?) Probably would be out of business after a few years at least with that subsidized price...
How long are they going to last if Vista is any good? The iPod isn't going to Sustain them forever.
MeatBiProduct said:
Look, you obviously have no idea why Macs work like they do. Mac OS X works well not only because it is built on the stability of UNIX, but because Apple controls the HARDWARE it runs on! Yeah, maybe it is generic PC parts, but Apple doesn't have to make an OS that runs perfectly on 5000 different motherboard combinations and different PC configurations. Ever realize how crappy a cracked Intel OS X runs on most machines that aren't identical or similar to the specs of a Developer Machine or Retail iMac? That's because they're not designing it with that in mind. The integration (and yes, price markup as well) gives a strategic advantage in controlling everything about the whole computing experience. This is way different from Dell, which just slaps Windows on their hardware and calls it a day. I understand you are a Mac user, but you seem to fail to understand the underlying reasons for the hardware/software integration, a Mac is mostly about the software (OS X and apps), but the hardware that Apple controls and monitors helps aid it in that stability aspect.
MacMusicMan69 said:
Aw, the "Apple meets my needs and since I'm the expert on all things, they must meet everybody else's needs too" argument. Sorry Kid, things work a little different in reality.
1. Non-upgradeable
2. Slow CPU
3. Single Notebook Optical drive
4. Single notebook Hard drive.
5. Very few USB and Firewire ports
6. No PCI, AGP, or PCI -Express expansion slots.
Lurch_Mojoff said:
omg, i hate people use word like idiotic. Come on, what if you want to use gearbox somewhere else if someone stole your Ferrari and leave your gearbox there.
Do you call yourself i***? or you just can't imagine yourself at a situation like that !
1. EULA would be Invalid if EULA itself is not totally legal by itself.
2. From Anti-Trust law, Tying is unacceptable. That means one or more components of the package are sold individually by other businesses as their primary product, and use of market power because it limits the choices available to the consumer.
Therefore, what Apple said in EULA of "Only Apple-labeled computer are allow", and the fact Apple changed to X86 System which many other computer manufacture's primary product, are indeed violate the Anti-Trust law.
3. Conclusion: If Apple sue me for violating the EULA, sorry, EULA cannot be enforced since itself is invalid. US DMCA does not apply to me neither since I don't live in US.
4. Apple labeled computer.
I think it's a very good question. What is Apple labeled computer?
Some people might think that upgrade is fine, but as far as I can see, you can upgrade motherboard in PM; you can upgrade CPU; you can upgrade RAM... after all the upgrade, all are left that was originally from Apple is the case. And today if I want to throw away the case because CPU is too hot, does that mean I still have Apple labeled computer? I just changed all the component that Apple provided me!
Therefore, as far as I can see, Apple labeled computer means all the Apple product that you purchase from Apple remain unchanged. Any change of RAM/HD/CPU/Motherboard/... ... will violate EULA.
5. So far, Apple can still set charge against people who use 10.4 X86 version because there is NO way you can actually buy one on the street. But as soon as 10.5 is out, Apple has difficulty to set charge to user outside US who bought a legal version of 10.5. And for US resident, the only problem remain is DMCA.
Sorry, Apple. I guess you have to say your original EULA bye bye. It's just matter of time if somebody has the spare time and spare money to sue Apple for Anti-Trust.
But even OS X can install on any PC, I will still go buy another Apple laptop.
2. From Anti-Trust law, Tying is unacceptable. That means one or more components of the package are sold individually by other businesses as their primary product, and use of market power because it limits the choices available to the consumer.
Therefore, what Apple said in EULA of "Only Apple-labeled computer are allow", and the fact Apple changed to X86 System which many other computer manufacture's primary product, are indeed violate the Anti-Trust law.
3. Conclusion: If Apple sue me for violating the EULA, sorry, EULA cannot be enforced since itself is invalid. US DMCA does not apply to me neither since I don't live in US.
4. Apple labeled computer.
I think it's a very good question. What is Apple labeled computer?
Some people might think that upgrade is fine, but as far as I can see, you can upgrade motherboard in PM; you can upgrade CPU; you can upgrade RAM... after all the upgrade, all are left that was originally from Apple is the case. And today if I want to throw away the case because CPU is too hot, does that mean I still have Apple labeled computer? I just changed all the component that Apple provided me!
Therefore, as far as I can see, Apple labeled computer means all the Apple product that you purchase from Apple remain unchanged. Any change of RAM/HD/CPU/Motherboard/... ... will violate EULA.
5. So far, Apple can still set charge against people who use 10.4 X86 version because there is NO way you can actually buy one on the street. But as soon as 10.5 is out, Apple has difficulty to set charge to user outside US who bought a legal version of 10.5. And for US resident, the only problem remain is DMCA.
Sorry, Apple. I guess you have to say your original EULA bye bye. It's just matter of time if somebody has the spare time and spare money to sue Apple for Anti-Trust.
But even OS X can install on any PC, I will still go buy another Apple laptop.
Choppaface said:
Actually, I would do the VERY SAME thing. Why? because only letting geeks take control over patches and improvements to the OS you will get a robust and 100% compatible system.
Look what has happened to Linux. Let's put aside that is free, the people that programs for it is helping in the development of the system and, correct me if I'm wrong, from efforts like those we have Apache, THE web server by excellence, MySQL and other Web technologies that make possible this forum to exist (although, those are multi-platform technologies, most of it's development is done on Linux machines).
I think Apple is taking the wrong steps in sending DMCA violation letters. It's bad for their PR.
Look it this way: You sell OS X to geeks at the same price as the retail version, but with the following condition: NO tech support at all.
That way, who would be buying the OS? Only the geeks, but.....what if the geeks that you sold your OS made it so stable, so compatible, so "perfect" that can easily trash any Linux or Windows distribution?
Apple could easily release a "public" version that anyone can use at the same or lower price than windows, with the guarantee that "it will just work". Just imagine the figures of retail sales. It would be a HUGE success.
...but Apple is saying "I don't want to be popular. I don't want to earn money" applying these policies. It should encourage developers, advanced users and hackers to improive their system.
Shame on you, Apple....shame on you.
If Apple were to turn around and provide some sort of x86 / hacker-friendly / whatever alternative of OS X it would make them look like they were bowing down to a group of hackers/enthusiasts.
If for nothing else, I get the impression that the response was political. Apple doesn't want to appear weak in any regard, especially concerning software piracy.
At least, that's part of the picture I'm sure.
If for nothing else, I get the impression that the response was political. Apple doesn't want to appear weak in any regard, especially concerning software piracy.
At least, that's part of the picture I'm sure.
Soo much for logic in this argument
Apple does not sell OSX by itself; they sell upgrades to OSX. They are still well within their rights and they are not Tying in any manner from what I have seen them sell in the market. I think you just to BELIEVE that they are Tying to justify your desire to steal from them.
It is Apple's choice of business models, not their customers. If you want free software, go get Linux.
snowmen said:
Apple does not sell OSX by itself; they sell upgrades to OSX. They are still well within their rights and they are not Tying in any manner from what I have seen them sell in the market. I think you just to BELIEVE that they are Tying to justify your desire to steal from them.
It is Apple's choice of business models, not their customers. If you want free software, go get Linux.
pizzach said:I'm all fine with all of you people who believe that apple should make Mac OS X run on all x86 hardware. I mean, given that apple's profit model is set up for hardware, I wonder how long the company would last. (Mac OS = $130, Windows Pro = $230?) Probably would be out of business after a few years at least with that subsidized price...
Your off about $100
windows pro 64 bit: $137
windwos pro 32 bit: $139
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16837102034
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16837102062
Funny how Microsoft doesn't need to sell ONLY windows on ONLY Microsoft hardware to still develop its O/S. I think that **** is just a easy cop out.
Of course I know this isn't true, a 90% share of the market with just crappy software is enough to fund their projects. (which is debateable, **** almost every web server on the net is linux/bsd).
All I'm saying is that execuses are excuses. You can only operate Brand A on Brand A equipment because their business would loose everything if it was any other way. Steve Jobs is a tool just like Bill Gates, however I can understand that for most people seeing the forest from the trees is nearly impossible.
How about this, Fedora Core is FREE. How does that O/S still dominate as #3 in the O/S wars? They only sell support contracts. The truth is, Bill and Steve both need their massively expensive lifestyles and all the other crap that comes from getting rich off a bunch of suckers. They are all wanking to threads like this with mac people thinking their equipment is superior and windows people thinking their O/S is better.
The truth is, your mac hardware is NOTHING special, nothing at all - we've been running OS X for 10 years before it even existed - we just called it Unix and KDE/Gnome/Litestep was our shell er sorry, window managers. I can get the same crappy hardware from a mac as OEM for 1/3rd the price you paid for it. The problem is, you can't get ALL the parts because Apple has the **** locked down to keep their best interest in mind -- making fat loot off all you suckers cause you think you are actually getting something unique. Your not, you just dropped 4x the amount of money as the rest of us on the same old crap in a cuter package.
Anyways the worste bug I encountered in OSX is the inability to disable the shell and choose something other than candied up UI lagging down my already slow machine. Performance? who needs it, we need EYE candy.
http://frugalware.org/images/shots/kde.png
Where did you get the idea that fahlman was a thief? I gather that the poster is a brutally honest person, not a thief at all.generik said:Arguing about the semantics of theft to a thief is like participating in the special olympics; even if you win you are still a retard
iMeowbot said:
No, but I mean to say that arguing about how hacking OSX is... "against the EULA" or some such really looks very hilarious in the face of the fact that this Maxxus guy seems to be in russia, and please allow me to point to this site: www.allofmp3.com, allegedly run by russian mafia.
Ruled by their own courts to be perfectly legit too, I'd bet whichever judge presiding over that decision knew that if he said otherwise he is as good as a dead man.
And here we are talking about a EULA? What's a EULA? "Extra Ultra Luxurious Asswipe?" (aka toilet paper)