Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The macOS itself is free, sure, to be installed in Macs.😏

You payed for it by buying a Mac … it’s part of the bundle. Once, further versions weren’t part of the bundle. They decided to bundle it all.

Free is a punch line on Apple storyline. Free means free of cost, you would not need to pay Apple anything for it, or provide anything in return. Which is not the case.

If you want an example of free software there is plenty of examples … macOS, any Apple software aren’t examples of that matter.
 
Last edited:
You payed for it by buying a Mac … it’s part of the bundle. Once, further versions weren’t part of the bundle. They decided to bundle it all.
I didn't pay Apple for my MBP, someone else did, and that's his problem. I bought the MBP in the aftermarket to use that macOS. Now that I'm using it, I can tell that it is not much, compared to Linux (or Windows 11), but I like some free apps that come with it, such as Preview and Safari. I still use better open source apps, such a Geany, GIMP etc.
Free is a punch line on Apple storyline. Free means free of cost, you would not need to pay Apple anything for it, or provide anything in return. Which is not the case.
You are right here. Apple is for profit, and profit only.
If you want an example of free software there is plenty of examples … macOS, any Apple software aren’t examples of that matter.
Sure, I came from Linux. MacBooks are not even good for Linux, "Windows" laptops are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sophisticatednut
Apple does not sell IP. It sells devices and digital services. Nothing has been given for free by Apple on MacOS.
The fact that people can install software beyond what is offered by the App Store, much like any prior art in this context, it’s does not equate to selling IP or giving it for free. That is Apple surreal storyline.

Last time I checked users have payed for those devices and licensed the OS with the premise that they can run software intrinsically. What is an OS in this context without the ability of running software? What would be its worth? 0. Just like any other desktop / laptop OS. When this intrinsic ability of an OS to be valued to an end user went optional is the result of clever storytelling. That is all.


Users have payed for the device to run software. Developers using XCode and OS and native Frameworks, have payed for that to build their software. They also pay for botorization if they ever so decide it is important o their customers.
Every time they sell a device they sell a copy of their IP to a customer that they can do with as they wish.

In EU when you buy something it actually means explicitly that and nothing else.

When something is sold it can only be in two states, a temporary license known as renting/ borrowing etc. And a perpetual license known as transfer of ownership.
The software is an intrinsic part of the hardware and sold as a single unit. They are not separable.

And the fact apples fails to supply the licensing terms before any transfer of ownership is done makes it legally questionable and in most jurisdictions meaningless
 
  • Like
Reactions: laptech and ric22
Well, it appears Apple are deliberately ignoring the law still. I don't see why they're bothering- the EU will slap them down, maybe with a fine. They're simply dragging out the inevitable before devs can create and offer apps on third party stores without the blatantly unacceptable fees Apple have created.
 
Apple does not sell IP. It sells devices and digital services. Nothing has been given for free by Apple on MacOS.

The fact that people can install software beyond what is offered by the App Store, much like any prior art in this context, it’s does not equate to selling IP or giving it for free. That is Apple surreal storyline.

…..

Users have payed for the device to run software. Developers using XCode and OS and native Frameworks, have payed for that to build their software. They also pay for botorization if they ever so decide it is important o their customers.

So who is in the legal wrong here then according to you?

The developer who made an app that acces any API they want on the user’s device…

Or is it the user who installed this app that blatantly violates apples alleged IP?

Apple can’t have it both ways
 
  • Like
Reactions: laptech and ric22
You payed for it by buying a Mac … it’s part of the bundle. Once, further versions weren’t part of the bundle. They decided to bundle it all.

Free is a punch line on Apple storyline. Free means free of cost, you would not need to pay Apple anything for it, or provide anything in return. Which is not the case.

If you want an example of free software there is plenty of examples … macOS, any Apple software aren’t examples of that matter.
Fun fact, when you buy something for free it’s still a purchase and is treated the same as a transaction.
 
Fun fact, when you buy something for free it’s still a purchase and is treated the same as a transaction.
You just can't buy something for free. The concept of selling implies exchanging goods or services for some form of payment. "Nothing" cannot be some form of payment.
 
Every time they sell a device they sell a copy of their IP to a customer that they can do with as they wish.

So they aren’t in the business of selling their IP. They sell devices and license the OS to the user o such device. The underlaying inventions are not at any point being sold just the device and an OS license. Neither are being given for free.

If they sold their IP would mean you would be the owner of the invention. In turn you would be able to produce and market their realization.

I was just correcting your perception that their IP/Invention is anyway being given when you buy a macOS device.
For free or whatnot.

Neither the IP is being given or its realization is given to the market for free.
 
Every company, hell even people, will try to gain an advantage by standing on their prior work and rightfully so but you call it “entrenching themselves.” Shouldn’t either people or companies —essentially a group of people— be allowed to do that? And how exactly will they prevent any competition, new or old, from gaining ground in a free market? Please explain the mechanics exactly.
There is absolute ton of different methods companies use to entrench themselves in the leading position they have obtained. Like, actual thick books have been written on this subject alone. If you insist on an example: strong-arming your vendors into contracts that force them to supply to you and you alone and shut out any of your potential competitors.

Things like this are not at all "rightfully" and are objectively bad for society as a whole.

If you aren't going to compete on the merits of the product or service you are selling but instead decide to actively make choices that utilize your power to make life for your competition as hard as possible, people will look past things if you are a small fish with littel real impact. But if you are Apple or Microsoft or whatever with massive market influence, you may THINK you have the right to ride this success into making life hard for competitors, but thankfully the EU legislators go "lol, **** no" at that idea.
 
Last edited:
There is absolute ton of different methods companies use to entrench themselves in the leading position they have obtained. Like, actual thick books have been written on this subject alone. If you insist on an example: strong-arming your vendors into contracts that force them to supply to you and you alone and shut out any of your potential competitors.

Things like this are not at all "rightfully" and are objectively bad for society as a whole.

If you aren't going to compete on the merits of the product or service you are selling but instead decide to actively make choices that utilize your power to make life for your competition as hard as possible, people will look past things if you are a small fish with littel real impact. But if you are Apple or Microsoft or whatever with massive market influence, you may THINK you have the right to ride this success into making life hard for competitors, but thankfully the EU legislators go "lol, **** no" at that idea.

Amen to that.

Important context as Apple readies another minute iteration on their iPhone hardware.

Everything about Apple these days screams that they are a company that don't think they have too work to hard. Users locked in as much as possible, competitors locked out as much as possible.

Biggest change we've seen to the iPhone in recent years was usb c. Thanks EU!
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: rmadsen3 and I7guy
If you insist on an example: strong-arming your vendors into contracts that force them to supply to you and you alone and shut out any of your potential competitors.
We can imagine how Apple is "strong-arming" Chinese vendors into contracts that force them to supply to Apple and Apple alone...😏
 
  • Haha
Reactions: vantelimus
Any business charges money to their customers for their products and services. Last time I checked Apple is not selling IP but products and services.

Just look around and check how many businesses do just that and don’t have an issue with regulations. A lot are successfull for way longer than Apple.
Many of those businesses are not ultra successful American tech which was targeted by the eu.
As you know Apple wants to charge a lot more than money 😉. Through an Internet terminal and clever story telling they found a way to put a gag on the entire and the internet connected economy at their discretion. Given that there were no regulations in place for these kinds of devices or providers of the kind, unlike many others that are crucial to the Internet function. Regulations that were unnecessary up until now.

Otherwise Apple approach to regulations would not be entirely based on presenting false dilemas to the market to steer businesses to the act of handing over their cash registers to Apple if they want to service their customers (not Apple’s) on the device. In the way their customers expect to in the device of their choice to access the Internet.

The idea that a technology company in order to be successfull and innovate these terminals needs to proceed this is way false. Other successfull players, also innovating and producing crucial technology to the way Internet works and the digital economy in general, yet not terminals, with even greater impact … simply do not. Why? Because at many instances their products and services were regulated. Giving space to companies like Apple to come to the place they are. Indeed , Apple business itself stands on the shoulders of many regulations. Without which it would never have existed … it would have been eclipsed by these players.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: ric22

Amen to that.

Important context as Apple readies another minute iteration on their iPhone hardware.

Everything about Apple these days screams that they are a company that don't think they have too work to hard. Users locked in as much as possible, competitors locked out as much as possible.

Biggest change we've seen to the iPhone in recent years was usb c. Thanks EU!
Enjoy your generative AI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vantelimus
We can imagine how Apple is "strong-arming" Chinese vendors into contracts that force them to supply to Apple and Apple alone...😏
You don’t have to ”imagine” anything when you can real factual history on this very subject.
 
You don’t have to ”imagine” anything when you can real factual history on this very subject.
In other words, Apple just can't "strong-arm" any Chinese company. Apple has to go along with them. Without China, there's nothing!
 
You just can't buy something for free. The concept of selling implies exchanging goods or services for some form of payment. "Nothing" cannot be some form of payment.
Of course you can. You enacted in a legal transaction. A transaction where you give away any personal information or agrees to some terms such as clicking get/buy.

And the act of transferring ownership is a legal purchase from a firm.

Even if you don’t exchange money or data when downloading a free digital product, pressing “purchase” or “get” still forms a contract under EU law. This contract triggers consumer rights and protections, ensuring that you receive the digital content as promised, and that you are protected under relevant EU regulations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ric22
Of course you can. You enacted in a legal transaction. A transaction where you give away any personal information or agrees to some terms such as clicking get/buy.

And the act of transferring ownership is a legal purchase from a firm.

Even if you don’t exchange money or data when downloading a free digital product, pressing “purchase” or “get” still forms a contract under EU law. This contract triggers consumer rights and protections, ensuring that you receive the digital content as promised, and that you are protected under relevant EU regulations.
You can get something free, but you can't buy or sell something free.
The concept of selling/buying implies exchanging goods or services for some form of payment. "Nothing" cannot be some form of payment.
 
Many of those businesses are not ultra successful American tech which was targeted by the eu.

EU regulations are applied to local or multinational companies.

Much like regulations in the US.

It seams that you are now digging for anti Americanism into your rhetoric. Are you ok or just desperate?

This is the same kind rhetoric construction Dictators use to cattle in the general population for their own profit. Never thought the debate would come to this.

The EU market is liberal and founded on strong democratic and social values.

What are yours founded on? Your Apple stock?

Behave.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.