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.
Judge Dismisses Psystar's Anti-Trust Counterclaim Against Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not asking you to justify it to me or anyone else. Just don't try to offer up your rationalization as a form of entitlement. You don't have any entitlement to do what you've done; you have simply decided to overlook the legal issues for reasons entirely of your own. Reasons, which to be perfectly honest, don't interest me in the least.
Are you raising your kids with that same warped ethical/moral compass--that as long as they, in their own views, judge something to be moral/ethical, then it doesn't matter what the law or the rest of society deems it to be? Very convenient. Very irresponsible.
Well said! It makes me realize how far we've fallen into an entitlement culture to see people argue so passionately for having some sort of inherent "right" to another's intellectual property. I truly wonder how they'd feel if it was there hard work being poached, but, let's be honest, the whiners never think like that...
It's very clear that Apple has no problem with Hackintosh builders. Jobs has, on many occasions, made it very clear that Apple *CHOOSES* not to address the needs of certain potential customers. In short, Apple doesn't care if you're a customer. They're interested in the 95% for whom Apple's offerings are more than adequate. They're downright fantastic. No one does design like Apple.
So, build a Hackintosh. Is it morally wrong to violate the EULA? I don't know. Personally, if I built a Hackintosh, I'd buy the OS and feel no guilt at all in violating the EULA. Others might consider this "wrong." I don't. Either way, Apple doesn't care. But they're not going to make it easy for you either. Apple will never tolerate an easy solution be it a clone maker or some kind of commercial software package. Nor should they.
I'm not so sure that Apple doesn't care. Obviously, they've gone to some length to lock down Mac OS X to their hardware, and I am sure they pay their programmers to develop and implement new ways to do so. That R&D and programming costs money. With 1000s of members on hackintosh sites, Apple may be getting a few more switchers, but they're also losing revenue. Buying the OS is a good start, but honestly, how many hackintoshers buy the OS? I bet it's a pretty small percentage. All in all, I would think that Apple wouldn't be too happy about losing sales = money.
Lets rephrase this scenario, and tell me it isn't something that is despicable (this is a hypothetical):
I am an office employee... surrounding me in the sea of cubes are other employees (and when it comes down to it, we are all just people right? doing a job right?). The guy sitting next to me works really hard, puts in long hours, and forgoes sleep on a regular basis, but the solutions he comes up with are amazing and would make my life much easier.
This isn't about time convenience, I just don't want to expend the excess time and energy consumption required to work with him on a solution so I can benefit from it as well. It isn't about pinching my hours, but rather responsible use of the time I actually have, and his solutions are exactly what I need to get my job done [so while he is at lunch I sneak into his cube and "borrow" them]. It's perfect!
Sure it isn't right to steal things from other employees, but I think the extra time I have available to spend with my family is more responsible then putting in late hours in the office. Could I have made the time? Probably, but think of all the other things I could use it for...
Truly some twisted logic. Keep in mind, I bear no particular ill-will against anyone that decides to build a "hackintosh"... but rather the truly frightening justifications people seem to come up with to make it "all seem okay". In fact, so long as you aren't like Pystar, and try to make a profit off such behavior, I don't really care... but that certainly doesn't put you in the right.
Locking OS X to the hardware makes sense for many reasons. Obviously, Apple doesn't want to make it EASY to run OS X on any ugly old beige box. But I don't think they care much about the very few people who decide to build a Hackintosh. They're too busy worrying about building new stores and serving all of their new customers. Pursuing a handful of Hackintosh builders would be a total waste of resources and they know that.
Apple will only get serious about enforcing the EULA on Hackintoshes if Apple's sales drop. And I seriously doubt they will. After all, why build a Hackintosh? There aren't very many good reasons. Maybe you're a serious techie and get off on building computers. You'd build your PC, so why not your Hackintosh? I get that. Otherwise, Apple pretty much has you covered, at a reasonable - not CHEAP, reasonable - price.
My time is valuable to me and I don't really derive any pleasure from building a computer. I'd rather pick one off the shelf that does everything I need out of the box, no upgrades to make, and looks awesome. The fact that I have a beautiful, slim, silent flat screen floating on my desk with minimal wires is worth every extra penny. I routinely have to explain to PC users that there's nothing else to it. They're always looking for the tower.
My guess is, there are many more consumers like me, people who want a simple, no-fuss, purchasing experience and who value design and style, than there are Hackintosh builders. Good design sells, and having a better OS sure doesn't hurt either! There's no incentive for me to spend my time building a Hackintosh. Of course, if Apple weren't the only supplier of MacOS-capable systems, I might consider a machine from another source. That's what Apple won't tolerate. They are concerned with anyone who tries to build a Hackintosh for commercial gain. Do that and they will tear you up.
Alter your hypothetical. Say your coworker agrees to license you his solution but only allows you to use it between the hours of 12 noon and 6pm. Instead you use it from 11am to 5pm. Are you breaking the terms of your contract? Yes. Are you ethically wrong for doing so? That's for you to decide. I happen to see it as inconsequential.
At the moment, they choose to do very little to prevent it. If it becomes too common, they'd probably implement an authentication/registration scheme similar to Windows.
I agree with you that they are currently doing little to prevent installations on non-Apple hardware. While they might go the Windows authentication/activation route, I've been thinking that their acquisition of a chip company is just the beginning of Apple further distinguishing their hardware from other manufacturers after the switch to Intel. I think we are going to see more and more Mac hardware with unique chips, e.g. the recent H.264 chip in Macbooks. So while it's not a direct way of locking their software down, it does provide a unique incentive such as performance benefits with video (compared to other manufacturers) to buy Apple hardware and software. Just my 1/2 cent (inflation sux).
I have no idea why you think so - why do you care if you're going to use Apple hardware regardless? It wouldn't have any effect on you whatsoever.
I agree with you that they are currently doing little to prevent installations on non-Apple hardware. While they might go the Windows authentication/activation route, I've been thinking that their acquisition of a chip company is just the beginning of Apple further distinguishing their hardware from other manufacturers after the switch to Intel. I think we are going to see more and more Mac hardware with unique chips, e.g. the recent H.264 chip in Macbooks. So while it's not a direct way of locking their software down, it does provide a unique incentive such as performance benefits with video (compared to other manufacturers) to buy Apple hardware and software. Just my 1/2 cent (inflation sux).
This could happen too, but I believe Apple hardware is already distinguished in other ways that the vast majority of Mac owners value. These distinctions will never impress the pure bang-for-buck crowd though, and I suspect that Apple will never sell Mac hardware that will provide them with many thrills, at least not for very long. They will always be seeking a PC that does more or less the same thing for cheaper, and given the commodity nature of the PC hardware business, they will probably find it.
I'm not necessarily predicting that Apple will implement a registration/authentication scheme for OSX, but if they do, I think we'll know whom to thank.
That's what you've been doing throughout the thread--"altering the hypothetical" to frame it in a way which allows you to rationalize your actions. "Energy savings" and "terrible hardware" are just lame excuses. It's still the theft of someone else's intellectual property. You're not Jean Valjean, just a common shoplifter. It's illegal. It's unethical.
___________________
I am mccldwll and I approve this message.
Wow, so when did Microsoft start selling computer systems? Linux, I'm sure there are Linux braded machines right? Oh wait, those are software vendors.
Apple makes Hardware and sells software to run on their hardware. They put in the effort of designing the hardware AND software. I don't see Microsoft, Red Hat, Ubuntu, etc selling laptops/desktops.
That's like suing RIM because their enterprise server software won't work with my iPhone or Treo.
So you are like matticus who thinks that every law is ethically right.
Law is a shifting slew of imperfect rules made by imperfect people.
I don't claim to know what is "right" and "wrong" but I know what my heart tells me. It tells me that if I've paid for a piece of software, and am not damaging Apple by putting it on 3rd party hardware, it's not wrong to do so.
You accuse me of living in an "entitlement" world... I see it just the opposite. Corporations feel entitled to continue control how a product is used after it is purchased and leaves to store! While this is legally allowed, I want to know how you ethically justify it?
For me to see a company sell something but say "you can only use this product on this other completely unrelated thing that only we sell" is wrong. Ethically. In my opinion. Can you, on the other hand, justify this behavior?
Of course you can. You'll just relegate it to being illegal and therefore wrong, just like matticus.
Most laws are well-founded, but that doesn't mean they are all ethically right. That said, bending or breaking laws isn't always ethically wrong. If you choose to allow your ethics to be determined by people who are not you, fine. You are a follower, as most are.
If your heart tells you differently, however, to allow other people's laws determine your behavior is to compromise your own beliefs. You might be willing to do that, but I am not. I choose to stand up for what I believe in and fight against what I don't.
-Clive
You keep saying that the hardware is completely unrelated to Mac OS X when, in fact, they are most definitely wholly related. Can you use Mac OS X without any hardware? No. Therefore there's a relation there. The fact that Apple's hardware is, according to you, 95% equivalent to generic hardware, does not make it unrelated, it just makes it coincidental. If Apple were to sell Mac OS X and require you to buy that ice-cream maker with it, but you could still use Mac OS X on its own then, sure, those are unrelated products and probably constitutes illegal tying. But Mac OS X and the hardware to run it on will always be related no matter how much you claim otherwise.
I keep hearing about what your "heart" tells you, but I have yet to hear where your head comes into this. I have also not heard any "ethical" defense of your behavior, only one that involves you doing what you believe benefits you. Suffice to say, ethics have nothing to do with acting out of self-interest, unless you subscribe to objectivist claptrap about self-interest being the only legitimate form of ethics. Short of some credible line of reasoning backing up your claims of an ethical basis for violating someone else's rights, the characterization of people who choose to respect the rights of others as "followers" is nothing less than a crass insult.
Nice try. The reality is that it's an upgrade for a buyer's existing mac system. The fact that it's sold in a complete form to make it easier for a consumer to install, and you to steal, is irrelevant. Wrapping yourself in a flag of "rugged individualism" is laughable. Again, you're not Jean Valjean but a common shoplifter. You're just trying to put lipstick on a pig.
Just ran into this somewhere else (and no, I'm not a golfer). What would you have done, since its only a dumb rule?:
By Jay Busbee
The true test of a man's character is what he does when no one is watching. John Wooden said that, or maybe it was Spider-Man. Whatever, it still holds true; being noble and upstanding is easy enough when you've got people watching, but when you're alone with yourself, when you could do the wrong thing (or avoid the right thing) and get away with it, well -- that's when you find out what kind of person you are.
By that standard, then, J.P. Hayes is among the best that sports has to offer. He played a nonconforming ball for a single hole of the second stage of Q School last weekend. He realized it more than a day after the "violation," called it on himself, and thus disqualified himself from Q School ... with some severe, career-altering effects down the line.
So how did this go down? So easily, you'll cringe:
On his 12th hole of the first round at Deerwood Country Club last Wednesday, Hayes' caddie reached into his golf bag, pulled out a ball and flipped it to Hayes, who missed the green with his tee shot. He then chipped on and marked his ball. It was then that Hayes realized the ball was not the same model Titleist with which he had started his round. That was in violation of the one-ball rule, which stipulates that a player must play the same model throughout a round.
Okay, so, two-stroke penalty, no big deal. He recovered well enough to put himself in position to finish in the top 20 and advance to the third and final round of Q School. The top 25 finishers in that round, plus ties, earn exempt status for the entire 2009 PGA season. So, breathe deep, think about how close you came to disaster, then tee it up for the next round.
Only, while Hayes was breathing deep, he realized something else -- not only did he play the wrong ball, he might have played a ball that wasn't even approved for play at all.
"It was a Titleist prototype, and somehow it had gotten into my bag," he said. "It had been four weeks since Titleist gave me some prototype balls and I tested them. I have no idea how or why it was still in there ... I called an official in Houston that night and said, 'I think I may have a problem. He said they'd call Titleist the next day. I pretty much knew at that point I was going to be disqualified."
Now, the easy move here would be to either do nothing or blame the caddy. Hayes rose above both those temptations, putting all the blame on himself and asserting that everybody else on the PGA in his shoes would have done the exact same thing. We'll never know, but let's hope so.
Also, Hayes already has more than $7 million in career earnings, so it's not like he'd consigned himself to another year working the counter at the Quik Stop. But still, knowing you're taking yourself out of the running for a year of career stability and wealth takes some serious situational ethics.
Would you do it?
Really?
No, tying is legal even between two unrelated products if the person doing the tying doesn't have market power. On my market stall, I'll sell you a pack of twenty Christmas cards, but only if you buy four oranges at the same time. That is tying of two unrelated products, and it is completely legal, because I have no market power. That is why Apple can tie the use of MacOS X to an Apple labeled computer: Because they have no market power in the operating system market.
I don't think Logitech has market power in the market of computer mice. If Logitech did what you say, nobody would buy their computer mouse, no matter how amazing it is, except for a few dozen people who want an ice cream maker. Now if Logitech had a patent on computer mice, and you could only buy Logitech mice and nothing else, that would be entirely different. If you had no choice but to buy the unwanted ice cream maker because you need a computer mouse, then the tying would be illegal because it is combined with market power.
In this particular case, it is well justified, but it is a bit more complex.
First, it is quite customary that a software upgrade is cheaper than buying a completely new software package. You get say Software V.6.0 either by paying $300, or by paying $100 plus stopping to use your legally installed copy of Software V.5.0. That happens in many places.
Second, it is quite customary that you give different prices to good customers to reward them than to non-customers. Like Dell might offer a printer or monitor very cheap to it existing PC customers.
These two added together, anyone who buys Leopard and installs it according to Apple's license, is in fact upgrading, and is a valuable previous customer for Apple. So _if_ Apple sold MacOS X with different license (upgrade, full version for Apple computers, full version for any computer of your choice), then clearly the upgrade version would be a lot cheaper than the other two versions, and the one that you would want (full version for any computer of your choice) would be the most expensive one. Apple doesn't sell the product you want; if they did sell it, it wouldn't be for $129.
Let's apply your argument to the Family Pack. For $199, you get MacOS X with a license that allows installation on up to five computers within the same household. Who gives Apple the right to restrict you in this way? It should be five copies, installed anywhere. Clearly you should be allowed to buy a Family Pack for $199, install one copy on your computer, then sell four copies to strangers for $129 each and make $317 profit.
They heart Apple, you am bad man!
Clive, you must be one hell of a big scary monster for your detractors to selflessly defend a multi billion corporation against the mighty power of your personal opinion, via the unbending self-righteousness of personal attacks.
This is part of the reason why I seldom participate anymore (and deleted a few other sites from my bookmarks), the small but vocal cell of zealots attempting to destroy sensible discussion yet again
Clive, you must be one hell of a big scary monster for your detractors to selflessly defend a multi billion corporation against the mighty power of your personal opinion, via the unbending self-righteousness of personal attacks.
This is part of the reason why I seldom participate anymore (and deleted a few other sites from my bookmarks), the small but vocal cell of zealots attempting to destroy sensible discussion yet again