no support... no warranties... no responsibility... that would turn apple into microsoft
Well, you'd have the choice. Most people would opt for the full Apple integrated experience, no doubt.
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.
Psystar Announces Program for Third-Party PC Manufacturers to Enable Snow Leopard Installation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, you'd have the choice. Most people would opt for the full Apple integrated experience, no doubt.
This is the worst example I have seen about it. Itself, it only proves that ignorance can lead to criminal actions.
Imagine two people. Person A and Person B. Both are in a dark room A and B respectively. Both have guns. You tell both of them to fire their guns. Person A and Person B cannot see anything, they fire and in room A, there is someone else and person A killed someone. Person B did not kill anyone.
Person A is a murdered and person B is not.
What does it prove? Even as an involuntary murdering, person A might go to prison. It is not getting 50 years, but it is getting time. And even if person A does not go to prison because the jury says "it is not guilty", the fact is person A killed someone.
This makes no sense. If Psystar are able to sell lots of copies of MacOS, then sales of Windows reduce.
All Apple needs to do is create a $5 custom chip that does not much, but is totally integral to how the OS controls hardware on the motherboard. This would effectively stop cloning, and Hackintoshes as well. I suspect Apple secretly likes Hackintoshes because it promotes MacOS, and most implementations are too fiddly to bother with.
What sort of person who 'has' to run a pro app cannot afford the machine used to run it?
Any professional would agree the hardware pays for itself.
It should not be about winning or losing, "the consumer"
Whether it is right or wrong, a lot of "users" will buy Psystar Crap thinking they are saving some dough. That is what I thought, now I know I was ripped off. Sorry, I am just a user on a budget, I believed Psystar claims, they were all false. I now have a $1,700 dollar brick. Please do not say, "that's what you get". Silly me to believe what a company says is true. Shame on Psystar is all I can say now, maybe someone else could make such a copy, but who would trust any new start up based on Psystar's track record. Let us pray for two things, one- psystar goes away, two-the victims of psystar get the satisfaction of knowing some execs from psystar go to jail, not for violating any UAL but for violating the public consumer.
Whether it is right or wrong, a lot of "users" will buy Psystar Crap thinking they are saving some dough. That is what I thought, now I know I was ripped off. Sorry, I am just a user on a budget, I believed Psystar claims, they were all false. I now have a $1,700 dollar brick. Please do not say, "that's what you get". Silly me to believe what a company says is true. Shame on Psystar is all I can say now, maybe someone else could make such a copy, but who would trust any new start up based on Psystar's track record. Let us pray for two things, one- psystar goes away, two-the victims of psystar get the satisfaction of knowing some execs from psystar go to jail, not for violating any UAL but for violating the public consumer.
Of course its Apples decision to forgo markets, e.g. Netbooks. However, this choice has the consequence of making a market to fill the niche they leave empty. The main computers I've seen running OSX on non apple branded hardware are Netbooks and midrange desktops. I have yet to see many people clamoring to run it on Dell workstations or higher spec laptops.
Maybe it is a bad example, but I at least hope you understand what I'm getting at. What I want is an explanation or argument for how installing a bought copy of OSX on non-Apple computers is piracy. I don't doubt that it's violating an EULA. I'm simply not convinced that it's piracy.
And yet, not all "professionals" are having windfall profits in this economy. Some decide not to upgrade software, some decide not to upgrade hardware. Still others compromise by getting the software and a slower machine than they want/need.
And some can do none of those options. You know, those 10% or so of Americans that have no job? A lot of them work in the world of 3d (many of my very good friends), where "cheap" software can easily run between $3500 and $10,000.
Now imagine you lost your job, and need to keep current and you freelance to pay the bills. What are you going to be able to afford? That $3500 Dual Xeon system, or that $3500 copy of Autodesk Maya/Max?
You can always get on subscription, for $750 a year- that's in addition to the initial purchase of $3500. And that dropped in price.
The trial has not started yet. Psystar is in violoation of the EULA, they are not denying that. They are simply trying to justify it.
If EULAs are unenforceable in Europe, why do European companies distribute software with EULAs within Europe? More importantly, Psystar and Apple are both US companies, so European law is irrelevant to this case.
Breaking a legal contract is breaking the law.
Microsoft does not restrict the hardware on which Windows can be installed. Apple does.
It is my understanding that businesses are held to a different standard than consumers even in Europe. Can any Psystar-like European company actually claim to be ignorant of the terms of Apple's license pre-sale?
Copyright law specifically creates "post sale restraint on use". Every clause in a license agreement would fail your reasoning. Including those that allow for upgrade pricing and family pricing and education pricing.
Get over it already!!@! Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around!!! I guess it doesn't matter what year it is, people are always ready for a good old fashioned witch hunt...
Innocent until proven guilty only applies to criminal trials.
That's just an odd way of putting it. Imagine two people, Bob and Tom, and each one goes to Best Buy and buys a legitimate full installation version of Snow Leopard. They report to a computer lab where they're instructed to install Snow Leopard on two computers. Each computer is hidden behind a wall and each one has the exact same Apple LCD, keyboard, and mouse attached. The difference is that one is a Mac and the other is a Hack.
Unknown to Bob, he installs Snow Leopard on the Mac. Unknown to Tom, he installs Snow Leopard on the Hack. According to you, it seems that Tom is a pirate and Bob isn't.
Of course, things can get even more bizarre. What exactly is Apple hardware? Do Apple engineers design the logic of the mainboard? What about the CPU? The audio controllers? The GPUs? How about the hard drives? It seems that the only thing we can say Apple is genuinely an engineer of is the case, the design of the LCDs (not the internal components), the keyboard, and the mouse.
So, now let's imagine that each computer, the Mac and the Hack, are using type-identical internal components (or as type-identical as possible). Essentially the same mainboard, type-identical CPU, same hard drive, same GPU, and same Apple branded peripherals. The only material difference, then, with respect to the actual computer, is the case.
Thus, if this Hack-makers are Pirates charge is valid, then it's also true that in the case that two individuals actually legitimately purchase a piece of software and perform type-identical procedures with respect to installation and use, one is a pirate and one is not simply because one performs the same set of procedures as the other on type-identical computer components inside a certain sort of case and the other does not. Thus, being a pirate, with respect to Apple's OS supervenes on by whom the case is made...
Wow. Apple hardware is hardware manufactured by Apple. It's not some nebulous conglomeration of parts that is hard to define. The fact that they purchase parts from other companies does not change the fact that the final product is theirs.
Seriously? A 2002 opinion piece on licenses that restrict resale? Apple doesn't restrict resale of the software within their SLAs.
How can we understand where you are getting at if you cannot explain it properly?
I'm so unclear as to why so many people are against this.
Let's imagine this: Microsoft "declares" that its software can only be used on non-Apple branded computers. no more bootcamp, no Office for the Mac. That would be pretty lame of them wouldn't it? People would be on hear in a heartbeat calling them monopolistic monsters. Apple does this and everyone cheers them on??
What happened to looking out for our best interest......as the consumers? We sit here and complain about this piece of software, or that piece of hardware, that doesn't work on our Mac's, but then defend the closed system that Apple promotes.
Don't get me wrong, I own several Mac's. I just happen to believe that competition is a good thing and non-Apple branded machines that run OS X might, just might, make Apple take a second look at the limited offerings they have for us......as consumers.
Let's imagine this: Microsoft "declares" that its software can only be used on non-Apple branded computers. no more bootcamp, no Office for the Mac. That would be pretty lame of them wouldn't it? People would be on hear in a heartbeat calling them monopolistic monsters. Apple does this and everyone cheers them on??
What happened to looking out for our best interest......as the consumers? We sit here and complain about this piece of software, or that piece of hardware, that doesn't work on our Mac's, but then defend the closed system that Apple promotes.
Don't get me wrong, I own several Mac's. I just happen to believe that competition is a good thing and non-Apple branded machines that run OS X might, just might, make Apple take a second look at the limited offerings they have for us......as consumers.
Well outside of teh small problem of Microsoft having been legally classified as a monopoly, there would be nothing illegal about that. It would be really stupid though since Boot camp makes MS money via software licensing.
Microsoft is a software company. Apple is a hardware company. Their business practices are going to differ.
Publicly held companies have the legal obligation to make their shareholders money. They do not have the obligation to bend to the consumers every wish. If you do not like what Apple offers, exercise your consumer choice and go with a vendor who does offer what you want. - Legally of course.
Apple is competing! They compete in hardware and software markets and they do so vigorously. Lets see in Operating systems they compete against MS (90% or so market share), UNIX, Linux, etc. In hardware they compete with Dell, Lennovo, HP, Asus, Acer, and so on and do forth.
So I just erased my Mac's hard drive so I can prepare to sell it. I'll preinstall the latest OS for the next buyer, and... oops, now how am I going to do that?
Yeah, we still need physical media for OSes.
Unfortunately when you "buy" and OS, it doesn't belong to you. You're buying a license to use the OS, upon which you agree agree to its terms.
Whether or not that ultimately holds up in court is another matter, but you're not "buying" software. This is true of pretty much any major software house out there right now.
Violating an EULA is not a criminal act.
It would be a civil matter.
Doesn't change the fact that it still against the law.
Exactly. That's when Apple eventually adopted mobile Intel processors (the first iMac was white with a PowerPC chip, then due to a desire for a thinner form factor Apple began utilizing mobile processors).
My other concern is with the (rumored) iMac refresh. If the rumor mill is accurate and the iMacs may adopt a slimmer, curvier shell then placing a quad-core processor would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) due to size and heating constraints. This begs the questions, is Apple ever going to address the lack of a true desktop system?
Depends on the nature of the contract and the nature of the violation.
I suspect an individual who breaks an EULA for personal use would be treated as a civil matter, not criminal.
That is also provided a judge would even bother with wasting his time hearing the case.
If they were really the same, Hacks wouldn't be possible, and the EULA wouldn't be needed. Fact of the matter is, OS X is a PC operating system that Apple tries to make only run on the PCs that they sell, but can very easily be made to run on a wide variety of PCs.
Just like Lexmark makes printers, and sell ink, and want you to have to buy their ink. They don't want people selling refilled ink cartridges.. but it isn't up to them. Nor is it up to Apple how people run OS X after they buy it. There are many different legal theories that can be brought to bear in the US: restraint of trade, unfair competition, illegal tying/bundling, and old fashioned anti-trust.
OH MY GOD!! APPLE IS VIOLATING SARBANES-OXLEY!!! SpinThis just admitted it!
I never claimed it was criminal. I claimed it was breaking the law.
As far as the "nature of the contract and the nature of the violation", I don't know what you are getting at. I did specify a legal contract.
Violating an EULA is not a criminal act.
It would be a civil matter.
Thank you. This is sort of the point I'm trying to get at, even if I'm doing it badly. It has been claimed here that installing OSX on non-Apple hardware is piracy. Piracy is a criminal act.
Certainly, installing OSX on non-Apple hardware is a violation of the OSX EULA. Nobody can contest that, and in that sense it's illegal as to contract law. But, is violating the EULA the same is committing piracy, and thus illegal as to criminal law? I'm not so sure.
I'm certain that loads of people have performed non-upgrade installations to Snow Leopard on their Macs with the $30 copy of Snow Leopard they bought at the Apple store. Are those people EULA violators, pirates, or both? If what's being said in this thread is right, they're pirates and EULA violators.
Furthermore, with respect to software, if what's being said in this thread is correct, it's difficult for me to understand how anyone can just be a EULA violator (as opposed to a EULA violator and a pirate). It seems that if what's being said in this thread is correct, then every EULA violator is also a pirate/criminal.
agreed....
Apple's answer to this is simple really. forget all the legal fights and PITA's out there building clones....
apple should just subsidize their entire line of computers by $1000 and sell the required OS for $1000 with a an instant rebate for sub-$1000 computers (upgrades of course would still carry the $30 price). then they are selling $1000 software suite and no one can claim they are violating free trade or monopoly or whatever their argument is.