Neither is correct. P.A. Semi was absorbed by Apple. So they don't make anything at this point, and they were a PowerPC maker at the time they were acquired.
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.
Mac OS X 10.6.2 Confirmed to Drop Support for Intel Atom Processors
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So? The iPhone is OSX based and it runs on a non-Intel platform. Who says that the mythical tablet has to as well?
It makes a big difference. If OS X is subsidized by hardware, then there is a moral claim that using on non-Apple hardware is wrong. If they aren't, then there is nothing wrong morally with running it on non-Apple hardware, because they have been fully paid.
So? So MacRumors shouldn't call PA Semi an ARM chip maker. They made PowerPCs, and they no longer exist.
I think you got confused on the issues with the iPhone subscription revenue estimations vs. what he was saying. The change Apple made with how they report iPhone revenue was not due to Sarbanes-Oxley.
What he's referencing is that Apple's charging of a fee to unlock WiFi in the iPod Touch's was attributed by Apple as being due to Sarbanes-Oxley, in terms of the feature being provided post-release and Apple seemingly provided it as free once the consumer had already paid for the iPod Touch. Part of the reason for this was that Apple couldn't justify that they were providing a feature whose cost had already been built into the prior amount paid by the consumer, since it would mean that the update had been subsidized.
This part of SOX has not been changed. It's why when people bring up the fact that the current iPod Touches and iPhones have the capability of receiving FM signals, people mention that Apple might have to charge users to enable it (where as, if Apple advertises it as a feature limited to future iPod Touches/iPhones, the cost would already be built into what the consumer is paying).
This is why you can't say that OS X's low retail upgrade cost is subsidized by Apple's hardware sales. In reality, the revenue from hardware is what provides the largest portion (relative to retail sales of OS X) of R&D funds for further development of OS X (just like how Microsoft used revenue from other products to fund XBOX design, development and manufacturing for the long stretches where the game division was unprofitable), but for technical/legal reasons, that's a different idea than subsidizing the cost.
If you were to total up the cost of OS X development, it's likely Apple technically takes a "loss" for selling it at the price they do. It just so happens that their other sales massively offset this "loss".
The main OSX desktop is subsidized by hardware sales. That just means it gets to extends to other platforms and products. Hardware doesn't have to subsidize one thing. Apple's hardware sales allow it to develop and maintain OSX which is not only used on its main hardware but serves as a core for other platforms and products. I see nothing wrong and immoral about that.
Nothing as far as OSX is concerned is "fully paid for" since OSX is an evolving platform that is continuously developed and improved (via bug fixes, updates, enhancements etc). All the consumer ever pays for is physical hardware. The software is never "paid for" its just licensed for a fee. That's why you buy dot 0 releases - software updates are only covered by the license up to a point. Thats the advantage of intelectual property, you can bundle it, and distribute it an any for, you want to.
It's very easy contend that Apple inadvertently removed support for the Atom. There, I just did it. It's also very easy to contend that Apple did it intentionally, just to cause you pain. Unfortunately, assertion is not the same as fact. If someone who actually knows something describes what support Apple removed, I'll listen.
I've seen claims that people should sue Apple for breaking their unsupported hacks. It's really quite boggling.
Yes, I even said that in my last post. Here is what I said:
It's 5 bucks for the latest update. 3.0 might have been 10 dollars. But as I said, accounting principals may require that they have to charge something - it's very likley that no mater what GAAP accounting changes have occurred, Apple may not be roll teh clock back on older products. I am not an accountant though so I cannot say for sure.
So? Where have I ever said that was a problem? Who cares if Apple charges for their products? If I don't want to buy, I don't get to have it. I fail to see the problem and I fail to see where I am "spinning" anything. Subsidizing something does not remove the cost 100% AT&T subsidized my iPhone hardware cost and I still had to pay money to get the hardware. I have no problem with that and nobody forced me into that situation.
Subsidization is designed to reduce costs, not necessarily eliminate them. I fail to see the problem.
Your arguments are not making any sense to me. Apple doesn't care about morals. They are a business. Morals are irrelevant.
You're correct in that Apple's hardware sales allow it to continue to develop OS X (along with other products), because that's how most corporations work. Corporation Alpha brings in X amount of cash. It has to spend Y amount on development of its various products. Hopefully X is greater than Y, but they can apply X however they wish towards Y.
However, for legal reasons, Apple cannot claim that OS X's cost is subsidized by hardware sales. They can say that hardware revenue helps to continue OS X development, but that's a different idea/situation.
The consumer pays for a license. Apple could charge you for the 10.6.1 license, for the 10.6.2 license, etc., but they don't. They (currently) only charge for major revision (i.e. 10.X) licenses.
However, that having been said, they can't subsidize the license cost via hardware. Revenue (be it from iPhones, iPods, Mac hardware, etc.) contributes towards OS X's development costs. But in regards to OS X's licensing costs, Apple can charge whatever they want, be it the necessary price to recoup development cost, or at a price that ensures many more people will purchase it (albeit potentially resulting in a loss relative to development costs).
There's also the fact that far more Mac users will buy an OS X upgrade/installation at $29 vs. $129. At $129, I'd be willing to bet that OS X piracy would be fairly high.
That is the downside of hackintosh. No computer hardware support, no OS support. Upside is I can get 3 Mini10s for same price as one MacBook so if it's broke, throw it away and get another.
But that's just it, the GAAP accounting changes *ARE NOT * related to the fees Apple charged for the iPod Touch WiFi update. They are two completely separate situations.
Edit - And Apple charging iPod Touch users $10 for an OS update is nothing more than Apple recouping development costs. That has nothing to do with Sarbanes-Oxley. If it did, Apple would also have to charge iPhone users, which they don't.
And I suppose you drive 55 all the time too.
Seriously, I can't tell which is more obnoxious..
1) Hackintoshers who feel violated
or
2) fanboys who want to tar-and-feather anyone who dares to "think different"
seriously.. Fanboys, the hackintoshers aren't hurting you, and hackintoshers, it's a hack. Fix your hack.
Hmmm - I think I didn't really made clear what I wanted to say. I have zero problems with anyone using software for which they have no licence. If I wanted a hackintosh - that means a netbook I guess I would hack one myself BUT if an Apple update would break it I definitely wouldn't blame Apple for it. Same thing for jailbroken iPhones or Palm trying to sync the Pre with iTunes. If it works - fine. But there is no RIGHT for it either.
This is how I view it.
I think part of the problem is that whenever you see news posts like today's, you get a few of the hackintosh users coming in complaining that Apple made some change (which Apple has full right to do), as well as the Apple diehard fanbois who make it one of their missions in life to try and stop/decry anything Apple themselves don't do. Thus, the two camps collide and a lot of entertaining drama results.
You are both making the assumption that Fry's will not accept the return. If they are an Apple authorized distributor, they have to accept the package for a refund if you do not agree to the license, unless the license is printed on the outside of the package. Now, of course, any individual Fry's employee could be uninformed.
Apple has never charged iPhone user for updates. Apple never claimed SOX requires them to charge where costs are incurred. Of course you can subsidize the cost of software development with hardware.
The claims that you are attributing to Apple were made by forum posters and bloggers. Apple only cited accounting implications.
Indeed. In affect that is what Apple's business motives are. That's what I have been trying to say!
Which is why I used "tying" and wasn't trying to state things from a literal legal perspective. My statements were more of "for what it's worth" than anything else. I was trying to say what you were right above. Apple bundles its software with its hardware becasue its profits are in hardware. That's how most people should view Apple's business strategy. Legally speaking, everything has a cost even if we as the customer never sees it or pays it directly.
I used tying since that is a perfectly legal behavior and it accurately describes how Apple sells its computers. All other software is licensed of course but the computer and the license is tied together. I was mearly trying to describe how they sold their product. They sell it by a tie. How they fund everythign internal is a whole different issue that I got dragged into.
I think we should avoid talking about Apple's tying business anyway. As far as I am concerned, it's Apple's legal right to sell their products that way.
Indeed. They could charge of anything if they could get away with it. They don't have to give anway anything if they don't have to. That's not inconsistent with my views.
Legally, no. They aren't subsidizing license costs - they subsidize the development costs of OSX. Which is what you are saying of course and what I have been trying to get across. Maybe I may not have made that distinction clearer but I hope I am now.
Agreed. Which is why Apple probably lowered the price down. As a rule of thumb Apple is going to charge what the market bears as long as that works to their advantage. As the iPod Touch updates prove, they nay not be able to do that as I am certain that Apple would just rather give those away like they do with all of their other firmware updates.
Whatever Apple charges it's products is their own choice. That's the bottom line here.
I cannot see how people would like to use an atom cpu as a stable processor. My girlfriend has a netbook with an atom cpu and it's slow as hell. Even my Mac Mini with a 1.83 GHz is sometimes slow as hell, but maybe that's because I'm used to my MacBook Pro and my Hackint0sh with a quad core.
I don't mind hackint0shes, but I do mind if the machine running OSX is a fast and capable machine. Why would you want to run it on a slow machine (it's pretty much useless to run it on a pentium 4 as well).
I don't mind hackint0shes, but I do mind if the machine running OSX is a fast and capable machine. Why would you want to run it on a slow machine (it's pretty much useless to run it on a pentium 4 as well).
Most retailers have a written policy regarding returning opened software - they just won't. My memory muight be a bit hazy, but a I believe that a retails obligation ends when you open the package (unless it's defective). Now Apple has an end run around this - Their box directs you to their website to read the SLA meaning that opening up the box is no longer required. Most products do the same thing - redirect you to a website to refer you to licensing terms. That way the only reason a retailer should need to return a product is to replace a defect.
My guess the intention is that Apple (or whoever) probably doesn't want the retailer to be an arbitrator of an agreement between teh company nd consumer. Apple is licensing the software to you - not to Fry's who licenses it to you. Apple doesn't want Fry's or any other retailer to have any say in the terms. I assume the lawers would rather keep it simple too and avoid getting a business involved when they don't need to.
As far as I am aware, Fry's is like any other retailer that sells software - they are not officially apple sanctioned acting as a direct front for Apple - they are just a reseller.
How much memory, and spinning or solid-state hard drive?
My netbook with 2 GiB and a cheap SSD isn't "slow as hell". It's slow compared to the i7, but for mail/web it's fine.
You are missing the "authorized" part of Apple "authorized" distributor. It is a contractual relationship.
And I suppose you drive 55 all the time too.
Seriously, I can't tell which is more obnoxious..
1) Hackintoshers who feel violated
or
2) fanboys who want to tar-and-feather anyone who dares to "think different"
seriously.. Fanboys, the hackintoshers aren't hurting you, and hackintoshers, it's a hack. Fix your hack.
I have no problem with hackintoshers, but, I don't think they deserve anything either. And the fanboys need to step away from the cool-aid and remember a computer is just a tool, and that EULAs are some of the most vile legal documents on the planet.
Post wins </thread>