If you don't order your copy from a website (i.e. you buy it in a store) and the store doesn't accept opened software for returns, then you're screwed. No store in the US will accept open software for a return. Most won't even accept open software for a store credit.
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
If you don't order your copy from a website (i.e. you buy it in a store) and the store doesn't accept opened software for returns, then you're screwed. No store in the US will accept open software for a return. Most won't even accept open software for a store credit.
unfortunately, if your Brother in law doesn't already have a Mac running Leopard, then buying Snow Leopard directly from Apple is in some ways stealing it, since the stated requirement is an actual Mac running Leopard, or at least a valid license of it.
While I agree that some Hakintosh folks have been buying SL, the problem is that ALL OS X releases are "upgrades" that assume you have an Apple branded Mac to install it on, of which came with a pervious version of the OS. To not be doing something against the EULA, you need to have a Mac already. That may or may not be the case with your bro in law.
It makes perfect sense.
Apple can't argue in good conscience against Psystar in court while allowing individuals to run OS X on unauthorized hardware and doing nothing about it. At least this is in line with the spirit of Apple's policies and saves them from hypocrisy in front of Psystar. And this is assuming Apple deliberately targeted hackintosh users, which so far has not been proven conclusively.
In any case, it's the gesture that is important.
That claim for the return of software for a full refund is only valid if purchased from Apple themselves. Apple's EULA states that if the user decides they do not wish to accept the EULA, they can return the software to the retailer it was purchased from for a full refund.
The only problem is, companies like Best Buy, Fry's Electronics, etc., do not take back opened software packages. They only allow you to exchange opened software for the same software (it's an exception to the rule for those situations where the disk may be bad).
Thus, you'd better buy it from Apple, because otherwise the EULA may be incorrect.
And the EULA has never really been tested in court (although SLAs have, to varying degrees of success). No company really wants to test it, and for the most part no individual really has the ability to challenge multi-million or multi-billion dollar corporations. I think it'll depend on some group like the EFF some day trying to challenge it, but for the time being they're way too busy trying to get changes made to the DMCA.
In one breath you say "and the store doesn't accept opened software for returns, then you're screwed." implying that some do in fact accept opened returns and then you say "No store in the US will accept open software for a return" FOr clarification, What is it?
Of course Apple doesn't expect the retailer to return opened merchandise - they are not party to the licensing terms. That's why Apple warns you about the licensing terms at its legal page on the box before opening. Furthermore, Just because a retailer doesn't accept open boxes, doesn't mean that Apple as a buisness won't either. They may not have much sympathy if you did not read the terms before opening the box (which is possible), but they might do it - the terms of licence gives you that right.
Just an observation:
People who rate this "Positive" and who rejoice at this, are real miserable beings.... They gain nothing, but are happy that others have lost something.
Apple had to go out of its way, to prevent OS 10.6.2 from running on Atom. The most likely reason they did it, is to make sure that there isn't any hardware which could possibly compete with their upcoming tablet.
Sometimes, I wonder, what would happen, if MS decided to disable iTunes on Windows, and the ability to sync iPhones in Windows, so that they can protect their Zune hardware.
Or, if after all the bitching about Flash by the faithful, Adobe simply stopped developing CS for the Mac, and focused it's resources on the much larger Windows market.
I love Apple products, but Apple is becoming the Evil (mini)Empire: it locks out and tries to sue out of existence all possible competition.
People who rate this "Positive" and who rejoice at this, are real miserable beings.... They gain nothing, but are happy that others have lost something.
Apple had to go out of its way, to prevent OS 10.6.2 from running on Atom. The most likely reason they did it, is to make sure that there isn't any hardware which could possibly compete with their upcoming tablet.
Sometimes, I wonder, what would happen, if MS decided to disable iTunes on Windows, and the ability to sync iPhones in Windows, so that they can protect their Zune hardware.
Or, if after all the bitching about Flash by the faithful, Adobe simply stopped developing CS for the Mac, and focused it's resources on the much larger Windows market.
I love Apple products, but Apple is becoming the Evil (mini)Empire: it locks out and tries to sue out of existence all possible competition.
Have to say, we all seen this one coming.
I'm of the opinion that if you want a Mac, then buy a Mac.
Call that arrogant, but it's my opinion on the matter.
All this talk of "work arounds" with 10.6.1 kernels or whatever to get 10.6.2 to work on these netbook Hackintosh's ... Jesus, talk about a load of hassle.
Quite frankly, to hell with that.
I'm of the opinion that if you want a Mac, then buy a Mac.
Call that arrogant, but it's my opinion on the matter.
All this talk of "work arounds" with 10.6.1 kernels or whatever to get 10.6.2 to work on these netbook Hackintosh's ... Jesus, talk about a load of hassle.
Quite frankly, to hell with that.
"IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE APPLE SOFTWARE AND CLICK DISAGREE. IF
YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE, YOU MAY RETURN THE APPLE SOFTWARE WITHIN THE RETURN PERIOD TO THE APPLE STORE OR
AUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTOR WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND, SUBJECT TO APPLES RETURN POLICY FOUND AT http://www.apple.com/legal/
sales_policies/."
Apple's sales policies then go on to state that if you purchase OS X *from* them, and wish to return it as you do not agree with the EULA, they will make an exception and refund you your money, but that's limited to the user having purchased it from Apple.
And "for clarification", most retail stores in the US will only accept opened software as exchange items (to be exchanged for the exact same item, in the situation that the item you purchased turned out to be bad). Opened software is not allowed to be returned for a refund (since the user may have simply copied it, and then seeked to return it).
There are some stores that will accept it, but it's fairly rare.
They're becoming an Evil Empire by protecting one of their most, if not THE most, valuable asset in the company ... Mac OS X?
If you want to use OS X, buy a Mac ... it's that simple. Don't mod one, don't build your own, just go out and buy a Mac.
If you can't afford to or don't like the spec of the Macs available and think they're a con, then shop elsewhere.
Apple are well within their rights to protect their assets, and comparing this to allowing the iPhone to sync on Windows is somewhat ridiculous.
No, but it also points to just how valid the EULA is. People here continuously claim that the EULA is a binding, legal contract. The fact then that it states you can return OS X for a refund, means that legally, that is what you should be allowed to do.
However, retailers have a right to legally state that they will not accept opened software back.
Thus, which one supersedes the other?
To be completely honest, Apple should remove the line stating you can return it for a refund, except in the situation where you purchased it from Apple themselves. Or, they should make it so that to become an "Apple authorized reseller", that if the retailer is selling OS X, that it must be allowed to be returned for a full refund in the situation where someone does not accept the EULA.
True, and there's only two reasons.
A) They don't like the specs of the current Mac line up and believe they can build better.
B) They can't afford a genuine Macintosh.
I'll go with Option B, but I'm a pompous git.
Seriously though, if you want a Mac then buy a Mac. Why people bitch when Apple protects one of it's own major assets is beyond me. These people are hacking, hence the "system" name of "Hackintosh", Apple's asset and running it illegitimately, yet they moan when Apple disable the hardware to stop them doing so.
The Apple store does, obviously, since they are the retail arm of Apple and as such follow Apple policy.
Thus negating your argument.
If a store refuses to refund the software, then maybe you'll have a leg to walk on when you go to court and claim the EULA was invalid, until then, you're just a whiner.
Nice personal attack and painting with a broad brush!
Wrong. Eliminating support does not equal preventing competition. Apple right now has no tablet and yet the market already had tons of them. How is Apple preventing competition? Oh and before you bring up "mac marketshare" thats not applicable.
It would be legal.. Except MS is already a convicted monopolist. But they have every right to restrict their platform that they developed. The problem is that they are a special case due to their conviction of being a monopoly. Something that Apple has never been guilty of.
Perfectly legal and their choice. There is no legal imperative to support other platforms. Of course Adobe's business is pure software so their interests are selling as much product as they can to as many people as possible. Apple does not share this business practice.
Apple has embraced this behavior for years. Apple has to protect its intellectual property. Just like any other company does. They have been all about closed platforms for 30 plus years and with a brief a failed excursion in the 90's they have always kept a closed platform. Let me make this clear: Apple (nor any other company) does not compete with their own property. Coke does not compete against Coke Zero or Diet Coke. Apple competes against Microsoft, Dell, HP, etc.
You do not compete against your own intellectual property. Hackintoshes are not competition.
I find it funny that, in a way, Apple has become exactly what they criticized IBM for being (in the early 80s): an over-bearing corporation that attempts to control everything and enforce its viewpoints onto others.
Personally I don't really care. I use Macs and PCs (that I build). OS X serves me well, as does Windows 7.
Try buying OS X from Fry's Electronics. Walk outside, open it up, then walk back in. Tell them you wish to return it for a refund, stating that you decided you did not want to accept the EULA.The Apple store does, obviously, since they are the retail arm of Apple and as such follow Apple policy.
Thus negating your argument.
See what they tell you.
Why on earth would you factor out those who run Windows? Is Apple not getting paid for those Mac sales? Is that not a major selling point for Apple now?
I'm talking hardware marketshare. Not software. Compare Apple to HP, Dell, Sony, Acer, etc. not MS.
Dropping support for Atom will provide a great opportunity for many Hackintosh owners to learn about Linux. I suspect most of them will like what they see.
Many Linux distributions (like Ubuntu) are very Mac-like and are even more stable and secure than Mac OS X. Ease of use is about the same.
I wonder if pushing so many Mac OS X users to Linux is good for Apple.
Many Linux distributions (like Ubuntu) are very Mac-like and are even more stable and secure than Mac OS X. Ease of use is about the same.
I wonder if pushing so many Mac OS X users to Linux is good for Apple.
Yes, that is my rebuttal. You claim that I cannot prove that Hackintoshers generally do not buy OS X, so I ask you to do the same damn thing: Prove to me that hackintoshers generally DO buy OS X FULL RETAIL. But you cannot prove that to me. I can go by piracy statistics for OS X, what do you go by to prove OS X is being purchased by Hackintoshers?
Instead you resort to name calling. Classic case of someone who has no ground to stand on.
And speaking of my intelligence, I would love to have some conversations about programming algorithms, networking, electrical engineering or any other technical concepts with you.
Then you should have stated hardware market share, to be precise. And I'm all for Apple gaining market share in the hardware market. It puts impetus on the other manufacturers to improve their product offerings.
However, the RDF Mac crowd here tends to always throw out "Mac share is increasing!" Ok, define that. Apple's share of hardware sales are increasing. That's great. Their share of the OS market? Fairly flat.
LOL, you really think all the hackintosh users will run to linux? Not likely, if anything most hackintosh owners (of the netbook variety) will either not upgrade to 10.5.2, or they will instead just install windows 7
I can agree with this statement... Good for Apple, end the free ride and make these hosers pay to play with OS X.