Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If you put an "Apple" sticker onto your computer, there are two possibilities: a. You claim it turns your computer into an Apple-labeled computer in the sense of the EULA. In that case you have been infringing on Apple's trademark by putting that sticker on the computer, so Apple can demand that you first stop the trademark infringement and then remove the software. Or you claim it doesn't turn your computer into an Apple-labeled computer, so you can't install MacOS X.

The definition of "Apple-labeled" is not in the EULA. If I print the word "Apple" on a label and stick it on the outside of a computer, that computer is "Apple labeled". I don't believe that as an individual, I am violating Apple's trademark. If I were selling computers and using the graphic representation that Apple has trademarked, that would be a violation.

I just think that Apple is missing a proper (and legal) definition of an "Apple-labeled" computer or hardware from their EULA.
 
If you put an "Apple" sticker onto your computer, there are two possibilities: a. You claim it turns your computer into an Apple-labeled computer in the sense of the EULA.
It does not, though, so you can claim it until you turn blue in the face but no court will entertain it.
In that case you have been infringing on Apple's trademark by putting that sticker on the computer,
Only if you're a seller of computers. Putting stickers that you own on things that you own is not trademark infringement without public display or sales.
The definition of "Apple-labeled" is not in the EULA.
That's because "label" is a term with a specific legal definition, synonymous with the physical marking of brand. There's no need to define terms with standard definitions.
I just think that Apple is missing a proper (and legal) definition of an "Apple-labeled" computer or hardware from their EULA.
There's no need to define what is already defined: "An informative display of written or graphic matter, such as a logo, title, or similar marking, affixed to goods or services to identify their source."
 
How about a change of tack regarding one of the main and in many senses pointless arguments price, as it's merely a smokescreen for the fundamental issue- lack of choice. Lots of expensive PCs are out there and they certainly sell very well. But also there are lot of different PCs out there including configurable and more affordable towers as well a huge variety of laptop forms.

I own one of the latest MacPros, I can easily afford a new MacBook Pro, yet I am seriously looking at this alternative solution. Why? Apple's current laptop range is so pathetically limited [and so obviously designed to save manufacturing costs], none of them are of any use to me [or many others as glassy screens for one are disliked by many]. Whereas if I look at PC laptops there is a huge variety of choices, to reflect that consumers use/need products in a large variety of ways.

The fact that Apple think they kmow so much better than I do what my needs are or anybody else's, shows how arogant and out of touch they are, when it comes to pro kit. For consumer equipment when good enough is OK, their stuff is fantastic and will sell well to people who know very little and are impressed by a glossy facade - literally as it happens now.
One of the dumb justifications for this move is that glassy screns are popular with consumers. Probably in the same way Silver TVs were very popular with consumers a couple of years ago - as there were no other options. Thankfully the 'fashion' has changed by to the more practical black bezel. But if you like a silver surroun, then once again you are stuffed due to the fashion now being black. The matte/glossy screen issue is actually no different as it is simply a fashion decision.
 
That was a lot of bluster over nothing .....

Do you realize how many people said pretty much the same thing about the Mac Pro that you're saying about Apple's notebooks here??

Do you regret your Mac Pro purchase too?

I remember an awful lot of whining about Apple not offering any other decent upgradable systems without built-in displays, so they were "forced" to pay too much for a Mac Pro, etc. etc.

The fact is, Apple is a company that offers a specific, limited number of systems at a given time. It's obvious they don't try to cater to everybody ... They simply offer a few things they think are appealing, and enough customers (pro and "consumer") agree that they keep doing record sales.

This B.S. about their notebook being "not worth considering" due to the glossy screen? Ridiculous! It *just* came out, and it's obvious they're not done with their updated notebook offerings yet. When they first went from Powerbook to Macbook Pro, they did this same thing ... didn't update the 17" model right away, etc. If you wanted one *first* and were ok with the initial 15" offering, you probably jumped in and bought one. Others held off until more options became available.

The people I run into who are interested in a Mac for video are generally happy with even 2 generation old Macs with vastly underpowered processors and video compared to ANY of them offered today. Yet they'll claim APPLE is the "arrogant" one, as they tell people the new offerings are "garbage" because of some perceived "flaw" that doesn't seem to affect anyone who actually just sits down and USES the new tech. (Glossy screen is brighter and crisper than anything I saw before on an Apple notebook. Glare? Not stopping me from doing any of my work. Easy to whine when you haven't even bought and tried using one yet, I guess.)


How about a change of tack regarding one of the main and in many senses pointless arguments price, as it's merely a smokescreen for the fundamental issue- lack of choice. Lots of expensive PCs are out there and they certainly sell very well. But also there are lot of different PCs out there including configurable and more affordable towers as well a huge variety of laptop forms.

I own one of the latest MacPros, I can easily afford a new MacBook Pro, yet I am seriously looking at this alternative solution. Why? Apple's current laptop range is so pathetically limited [and so obviously designed to save manufacturing costs], none of them are of any use to me [or many others as glassy screens for one are disliked by many]. Whereas if I look at PC laptops there is a huge variety of choices, to reflect that consumers use/need products in a large variety of ways.

The fact that Apple think they kmow so much better than I do what my needs are or anybody else's, shows how arogant and out of touch they are, when it comes to pro kit. For consumer equipment when good enough is OK, their stuff is fantastic and will sell well to people who know very little and are impressed by a glossy facade - literally as it happens now.
One of the dumb justifications for this move is that glassy screns are popular with consumers. Probably in the same way Silver TVs were very popular with consumers a couple of years ago - as there were no other options. Thankfully the 'fashion' has changed by to the more practical black bezel. But if you like a silver surroun, then once again you are stuffed due to the fashion now being black. The matte/glossy screen issue is actually no different as it is simply a fashion decision.
 
The fact is, Apple is a company that offers a specific, limited number of systems at a given time. It's obvious they don't try to cater to everybody ...

Exactly. So it's equally obvious to me that those they don't cater to have every right to build their own machines as long as they purchase a legal copy of OS X. Apple wouldn't have sold any hardware to them anyway. And while some people are claiming the opposite here: they're NOT selling OS X at a loss. I'm pretty sure Apple will agree with me that it's better to have these people "on board" already for the time when they decide to introduce a customizable prosumer computer.
 
This B.S. about their notebook being "not worth considering" due to the glossy screen? Ridiculous! It *just* came out, and it's obvious they're not done with their updated notebook offerings yet.

Um, yes, they are done. They might introduce some additional niche-models like a netbook, but they sure as heck aren't going to be introducing new professional models for at least a year or so.

I've checked out the new glossy models very carefully and my honest opinion is that they're total and utter crap. Apparently, a very large number of customers is thinking the same thing. Just because you like them (and I very much accept that and don't have a problem with it) doesn't mean everybody else does, too. As far as I can tell, the majority of people dislikes the new glassy screens - and many of those previously worked with glossy screens. Instead of offering more choice with new models, Apple decided to take choices away. They also decided to introduce a display system that is ergonomically unsound, leads to increased eye-strain, makes display-calibration impossible and makes image- and video-editing a pain. This wouldn't be an issue for a company that produces Windows notebooks - customers who don't like that could just buy another brand. However, Apple customers didn't only buy into the brand but also into the system. In that respect, Apple has a bigger responsibility than other manufacturers to offer choice. Switching back to Windows is very much a financial decision - people bought software worth thousands of dollars for the OS X system.
 
How about a change of tack regarding one of the main and in many senses pointless arguments price, as it's merely a smokescreen for the fundamental issue- lack of choice. Lots of expensive PCs are out there and they certainly sell very well. But also there are lot of different PCs out there including configurable and more affordable towers as well a huge variety of laptop forms.

I own one of the latest MacPros, I can easily afford a new MacBook Pro, yet I am seriously looking at this alternative solution. Why? Apple's current laptop range is so pathetically limited [and so obviously designed to save manufacturing costs], none of them are of any use to me [or many others as glassy screens for one are disliked by many]. Whereas if I look at PC laptops there is a huge variety of choices, to reflect that consumers use/need products in a large variety of ways.

The fact that Apple think they kmow so much better than I do what my needs are or anybody else's, shows how arogant and out of touch they are, when it comes to pro kit. For consumer equipment when good enough is OK, their stuff is fantastic and will sell well to people who know very little and are impressed by a glossy facade - literally as it happens now.
One of the dumb justifications for this move is that glassy screns are popular with consumers. Probably in the same way Silver TVs were very popular with consumers a couple of years ago - as there were no other options. Thankfully the 'fashion' has changed by to the more practical black bezel. But if you like a silver surroun, then once again you are stuffed due to the fashion now being black. The matte/glossy screen issue is actually no different as it is simply a fashion decision.

A waste of youre time to post that. Actually, apple makes great products, but for certain people. go back to windows then...
 
And you know this how?

If you look at how much other OSs cost, Mac OS is right in line with what Microsoft charges. With the difference that Apple has a much more stream-lined development process involving fewer people, which in turn reduces costs. Why would Apple sell Mac OS at a loss? They'd be nuts to do so.
 
Why would anyone not want mac hardware. I mean, if you like a company, don't try to weasel your way out of supporting it.

Some people just don't seem to get it - Apple is a company and Mac OS is a system. I bought Apple hardware so far because I was interested in the system, not the company and because up until recently, I could live with the hardware Apple was offering. I couldn't care less about Apple. Just as I don't give a rat's a** about HP or Dell or Microsoft or Google. They're all inhuman, unscrupulous money-making machines that don't care about anything else but their own dividends. If Apple doesn't offer the hardware I want to run my system on, I'll build it myself. It's that easy. If anyone's weaseling here, it's Apple for not listening to customers demands and instead trying to force computers they don't want (but have to buy because they've made an investment in the system) on them buy virtually making the Mac OS X retail version an "upgrade" (although it clearly contains the full system) with the sole aim of trying to tie their (good) software to their hardware (which, partly, is crap - and they know it).
 
Some people just don't seem to get it - Apple is a company and Mac OS is a system. I bought Apple hardware so far because I was interested in the system, not the company and because up until recently, I could live with the hardware Apple was offering. I couldn't care less about Apple. Just as I don't give a rat's a** about HP or Dell or Microsoft or Google. They're all inhuman, unscrupulous money-making machines that don't care about anything else but their own dividends. If Apple doesn't offer the hardware I want to run my system on, I'll build it myself. It's that easy. If anyone's weaseling here, it's Apple for not listening to customers demands and instead trying to force computers they don't want (but have to buy because they've made an investment in the system) on them buy virtually making the Mac OS X retail version an "upgrade" (although it clearly contains the full system) with the sole aim of trying to tie their (good) software to their hardware (which, partly, is crap - and they know it).

To each their own, though you shouldn't call their hardware crap just because you don't like it. I'm having a b*tch of a time trying to find a glossy screen to replace this one. Thats right.. someone actually likes them. :rolleyes:
 
well, the copyright is not thing above all, apple should not press the charge of that, on the contrary, apple could acquire EFiX as its domestic stuff for further expanding market share as well as promoting the influence of Mac OS operating system. The availability installation of macos on a PC would be a incredible news for all PC users
 
Well, see, this is what YOU don't get, I think .....

If you go far back enough in the history of the "personal computer" (where many of us "enthusiasts" got our start), you were used to a time when MANY vendors offered unique computer systems that ONLY ran software and took peripherals designed for THEIR machines. This created "factions" of loyalty to specific brands. Each person had to shop around and carefully decide which offering they thought had the most "vision", "flexibility" and overall value. Since support was limited in those days, entire communities formed around the different makes of machines, and that "support system" added more value than the manufacturer themselves ever could.

Then came IBM and Microsoft, who managed to turn that whole business model on its head - selling the masses on the superiority of getting everybody under the SAME hardware and operating system choice.

Honestly, that's when the true enjoyment of owning and using my computer really started to die. It quickly deteriorated into being just another tool. The collective knowledge of "support groups" plummeted, as every single Tom, Dick and Jane who figured out one was there started flooding them with "noise". The main sales tool for new PCs became "lowest price!", and quality suffered. With millions of no-name expansion cards and peripherals being cranked out - device drivers were often "iffy" at best, and led to instability and system crashes everywhere. Instruction manuals went from 150 page quality documentation to 1 page fold-out fliers poorly translated from Chinese.

The "pride of ownership" was completely gone.

BUT - there was still ONE last exception to the rule. There was one alternate choice, still standing after all those years; Apple! Until Steve Jobs came back and revitalized it, it looked like it was headed right down the same drain the other "non PC clone makers" went down.... but with all new products and OS X, they finally had something again.

So I think Apple is much more than "just a company" that most Mac owners "couldn't care less about". They're your last viable personal computer choice that means you chose those values of "yesteryear". There's a reason Apple is big on the idea that you're buying a whole "experience" with their machines. If you don't value that or understand that, then you'll never understand why "people pay more for a Mac", or "tolerate fewer options" with one. You'll always complain about the "Mac fanboys" out there, and shake your head every time someone defends one proudly.

Dell or HP? Sure, they're just companies, mass producing generic PC clone with Microsoft OS's preloaded, like everybody else. Dell puts in 0% effort on research and development of their own OS to run on their hardware. Apple, by contrast, puts in 100% of the effort it takes to get their OS on theirs.


Some people just don't seem to get it - Apple is a company and Mac OS is a system. I bought Apple hardware so far because I was interested in the system, not the company and because up until recently, I could live with the hardware Apple was offering. I couldn't care less about Apple. Just as I don't give a rat's a** about HP or Dell or Microsoft or Google. They're all inhuman, unscrupulous money-making machines that don't care about anything else but their own dividends. If Apple doesn't offer the hardware I want to run my system on, I'll build it myself. It's that easy. If anyone's weaseling here, it's Apple for not listening to customers demands and instead trying to force computers they don't want (but have to buy because they've made an investment in the system) on them buy virtually making the Mac OS X retail version an "upgrade" (although it clearly contains the full system) with the sole aim of trying to tie their (good) software to their hardware (which, partly, is crap - and they know it).
 
They're done?

Unless you work for them and know something I don't know, I'd say with quite a bit of confidence that Apple still plans on releasing an updated Macbook Pro 17" model in the near future. They're not really going to leave things in a state where people wanting the larger screen get last year's model, complete with older style keyboard and appearance, no Firewire 800 (only 400), and last year's video chipset!

This is exactly how they handled notebook changeovers last time.... The 15" model gets updated first, and the 17" follows a few months down the road. At that point (or again, a few more months down the road), they'll start playing with different configuration options on the machines - such as a CPU "speed bump" and maybe re-introduction of a matte screen option for them too. (Since they're transitioning to LED backlighting, from the old fluorescent backlighting, it appears that's giving them some problems offering the same screen options they had previously.)

And as for the glossy screen itself on the new models? You're obviously entitled to having your own opinion of them -- but it's just plain wrong to suggest they're impossible to color calibrate because they're so glossy. In fact, reports I've heard so far say they calibrate "pretty well" using the hardware devices designed for that purpose. They're as good as or superior to previous model displays in that respect.

And again, I actually bought one and am using it every day here, so not just speaking from what I "thought would be the case, after looking at one in a store for a while". I find that yes, when the screen is dark (mostly black background or powered off), I see my reflection in the glass quite well. That confirms that it is, indeed, a glass screen. Fine by me. When I'm actually using the system though, it's bright, crisp and very readable - and glare is not an issue unless I do something stupid like sit so a bright light is just behind me, near eye-level. (It is a notebook after all, so it's not like it's a huge issue to get up and MOVE around a little bit, if you found you sat in a really bad spot, lighting-wise.) Better yet, it's the first Mac notebook I've had that can get bright enough so it doesn't totally wash out when trying to use it in bright sunlight outdoors.


Um, yes, they are done. They might introduce some additional niche-models like a netbook, but they sure as heck aren't going to be introducing new professional models for at least a year or so.

I've checked out the new glossy models very carefully and my honest opinion is that they're total and utter crap. Apparently, a very large number of customers is thinking the same thing. Just because you like them (and I very much accept that and don't have a problem with it) doesn't mean everybody else does, too. As far as I can tell, the majority of people dislikes the new glassy screens - and many of those previously worked with glossy screens. Instead of offering more choice with new models, Apple decided to take choices away. They also decided to introduce a display system that is ergonomically unsound, leads to increased eye-strain, makes display-calibration impossible and makes image- and video-editing a pain. This wouldn't be an issue for a company that produces Windows notebooks - customers who don't like that could just buy another brand. However, Apple customers didn't only buy into the brand but also into the system. In that respect, Apple has a bigger responsibility than other manufacturers to offer choice. Switching back to Windows is very much a financial decision - people bought software worth thousands of dollars for the OS X system.
 
And again, I actually bought one and am using it every day here, so not just speaking from what I "thought would be the case, after looking at one in a store for a while".

I'm sorry - but I'm not going to buy a computer that I don't like after having checked it out very carefully. I've worked with other glassy screen macs (the iMacs, 20 and 24 inch models) and found them awful. I've also been able to directly compare the 15" glassy-thing to the 17" glossy - the 17" glossy is a heck of a lot less annoying than the new MBP line to me.
 
Why would anyone not want mac hardware. I mean, if you like a company, don't try to weasel your way out of supporting it.

Its becoming more expensive while less capable for the sake of vanity with each passing revision. I signed on to a company which made the best computers with a bit of flair, now they're company who makes very ordinary PCs to match the decor in a living room. The only link between the great company that was Apple Computer to the fashion company which is Apple inc is the great OS that is being held hostage far from its potential.
 
Its becoming more expensive while less capable for the sake of vanity with each passing revision. I signed on to a company which made the best computers with a bit of flair, now they're company who makes very ordinary PCs to match the decor in a living room. The only link between the great company that was Apple Computer to the fashion company which is Apple inc is the great OS that is being held hostage far from its potential.

I'm pretty sure no contract was signed. If you want to leave, then leave, otherwise, don't break copyright because your too cheap to buy the real thing.
 
I'm pretty sure no contract was signed. If you want to leave, then leave, otherwise, don't break copyright because your too cheap to buy the real thing.

Whatever man. Nobody's breaking copyright when using EFI-X with a legally acquired copy of OS X. There's a difference between copyright and a license agreement.

It's not about being to cheap to buy "the real thing" (which happens to be identical to all other Intel computers, let's not forget that - it's just wrapped differently). It's not being able to use the platform most of us have heavily invested in with the hardware some of us want and that Apple won't sell to us.
 
I'm pretty sure no contract was signed. If you want to leave, then leave, otherwise, don't break copyright because your too cheap to buy the real thing.

Too cheap? How many get pick Five grand out of thin air? To get the same capability of my $1299 iBook you now have to spend $2000 for a less than portable 15" Macbook Pro. To get the same capability that my PowerMac gave me for $1299, you have to spend a minimum of $2200. Or you can do what I did spend $1499 and get the iMac which combines the expansion and performance disadvantages of a laptop with the portability disadvantage of a desktop with the added disadvantage of throwing away the display when the hardware very rapidly reaches its useful life. Please, take off, the white robe and rose colored classes, stop sipping the koolaid for a little bit and take a look at reality for a change. Apple is taking its customers down a road many of them don't want to go.
 
Whatever man. Nobody's breaking copyright when using EFI-X with a legally acquired copy of OS X.
Key word being legally acquired. It's not legally acquired if it's not used consistent with the terms under which it was conveyed. The owner has a right to sell a product, or copies of that product, with whatever terms he sees fit, subject to independent illegality.
There's a difference between copyright and a license agreement.
Yes, but not the difference you imply.
It's not being able to use the platform most of us have heavily invested in with the hardware some of us want and that Apple won't sell to us.
You "heavily invested" in a platform you knew to be closed and subject to determinations outside of your control.
Apple is taking its customers down a road many of them don't want to go.
Then they should leave. They should not take it upon themselves to take Apple and remaining Apple customers down a road toward increasingly drastic protection schemes. They should certainly not exploit Apple's resistance to said invasive schemes for their own gain, for doing so simply proves the other side's case.

If Apple loses business or market share because of a choice, it will make a different choice. If those "customers" you speak of were acting out of principle, they would do without, not rationalize and blame Apple for their misconduct. If a vendor does not offer what you want at a price you're willing to pay, go elsewhere. If that means losing something distinctive, like OS X, so be it. Taking what you want because you can is not an acceptable form of protest.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.