I'm not stating Apple should release OS X for other machines as Microsoft. I am stating that perhaps selling a "Mac Pro" desktop system that is cheaper may (unlikely) force Apple's hand into producing an actual desktop processor system. As for cost, Apple literally has billions of dollars burning a hole in its pocket, I doubt this lawsuit will hurt them financially.
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 Exits Bankruptcy, Launches New Xeon-Based Systems Running OS X
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not stating Apple should release OS X for other machines as Microsoft. I am stating that perhaps selling a "Mac Pro" desktop system that is cheaper may (unlikely) force Apple's hand into producing an actual desktop processor system. As for cost, Apple literally has billions of dollars burning a hole in its pocket, I doubt this lawsuit will hurt them financially.
No, you pay money for a copy of OS X that comes with certain restrictions from Apple as to what you can do with it. If you don't agree, don't purchase it.
Look, what the purveyors of intellectual property can and cannot do is covered by laws of IP and copyright. They certainly cannot put restrictions that are illegal (such as giving up your first-born son). And if there are clauses that someone finds should be illegal, they have a right to challenge that in court. That's kinda what Psystar is doing, isn't it? But this whole attitude of "I paid for it, I can do what I want with it" is just over-inflated self-entitlement poppycock.
Uhh.... when you buy OS X you agree to the EULA.... So no, you may not do what you please with OS X.
What if Ford wanted to use Chevy's Small Block V8 and GM said no, but Ford went ahead and bought the Small Block and sold it in the Mustang.... I think GM would be suing Ford......
It amuses me when people take sides with a corp that is enemies with Apple on an Apple enthusiast site.
MacRumors: mac community discussion forums.
nevertheless, to me, if i had a hackintosh, i don't see how i wouldn't still be an 'Apple Enthusiast'. Running their OS+Software.
Technically the only thing does is make their own towers on the Mac Pro line... Everything else is from different manufacturers.
This type of argument is silly. Auto manufacturers make most of their money on accessories. However, if they didn't sell cars, they wouldn't have a profit.
Apple sells computers. It is up to them to market them to make a profit as they see fit. Users believe most of their profit comes from the hardware because they can calculate the price differential from purchasing a copy of the operating system. When Apple gave the OS away, did that mean all of their profit came from the hardware?
If Apple is selling OS X as a loss leader, that is their prerogative. A purchaser is not obligated to buy other groceries if a store lures customers with cheap milk.
Nothing wrong with buying the stuff. It's selling it that is very bad.
users vs dealers
Hardly. How is Apples "intellectual property" different than any other product that requires "intellect" to create? Thats like saying BMW can sell me a car, but dictate how I might choose to use said car once I take "ownership". Do you see the kit car industry getting brow beat by Ford or GM for designs that require specific engine types? So, do engines not contain intellectual property?
Ok, sure Ford can't start buying GM small blocks and ship them in their cars. But Joe consumer absolutely can go buy a GM motor and shove it is Mustang if he so desires. Now, this is territory that PsyStar is skating on thin ice to be sure....but the underlying EULA issue doesn't get settled with this argument.
Like I said, if Apple wants absolute control over how an end user must use OSX then they need to make it a lease. Only then does it take care of the ownership issue.
I believe most of their profits come from hardware because it says so in every quarterly report they release.
Uhh, yeah BMW does have control what you do to the car even when bought outright. Modify a car and they can void your warranty.
What happened to ethics in this country? It isn't right to take a companies IP and sell it for profit without their permission. PERIOD!
it's easy, you just need to find some mystery investor who is desperate not to be named as an investor if you go bankrupt
I think this speaks more and more to the idea of total ownership going to the wayside. Especially in the digital age, ownerships isn't absolute anymore, which i think is the few ruining it for the masses but in the end, consumers and companies both lose.
Software (and other "soft" goods) and manufactured products have different laws covering what you can and cannot do with them. Going to the old "car analogy" proves nothing, other than your ignorance in this subject.
Yeah but 90% of the driver issue you refer to aren't really "technical" issues. Most of those examples have issues because they don't get a vendor match at the BIOS level, not because the drivers won't work.
No I know you weren't, I'm just saying that those are ways in which Apple could be hurt, b/c you said it can't hurt.
There would be no OS X without Apple's hardware sales. You wanna make Apple license their OS you can kiss that OS good bye. They make money by selling Macs not by selling OS X
When I purchased my copy of OS X I agreed to all restrictions which were presented prior to the *sale*. (That is, those actually present in copyright law.)
I bought my own copy of Leopard at the local Apple store, and did not see the EULA until several *days* after the sale took place. You cannot (legally) modify the term of a sale after the fact without the consent of both parties. Because I did not agree to the terms of the EULA, I cannot be bound by those terms. Therefore, I am left with the rights allotted to my by copyright law, which include the right to make any copies and/or adaptations necessary to *use* the software. This is exactly what Psystar is doing.
If they did, they'd lose. Once Ford buys the engine, it belongs to Ford, and Ford can do with it what they please. (Now, reproducing the engines would likely cause Ford to run into patent issues, but that's a different matter entirely.)
Very likely, Chevy would make a killing being able to charge Ford the after-market price for an engine, and then go ahead and use the obvious superiority of their engines as a selling point in their ads.
Wrong. The Mac Pro is BY FAR the cheapest workstation out there. Compare it to Dell's Xeon based Precision workstations. With equal specs on both, the Mac Pro is $1,600 CHEAPER than the Dell. This is true of EVERY Apple line. (Macbook Pro vs Dell Precision, all in one iMac vs all in one XPS 1 etc etc).
Macs are incredible cheap for the level of hardware offered.
Hardware company? Check the Apple store, iWork, Final Cut Pro, etc., are software programs.
The sole issue is whether Apple can use its EULA to limit purchasers to Apple branded hardware. It does not mean Apple must support non-Apple branded hardware unless they chose to do so.
Um, actually you could have read them just fine right here:
http://www.apple.com/legal/
And according to the "Sales Policies" linked there:
"Note that, as an exception, you may return Apple branded software within the 14-day return period, and not be subject to a restocking fee, if you do not agree to the licensing terms, provided you do not retain any copies, including copies stored on a computer or other device. However, if your software includes a license that you can read before you break the seal or sticker on the software media packaging, you may not return the software once you break the software media packaging seal or sticker."
Voiding the warranty is alot different than telling me I cant drive the car anymore don't ya think?
Nothing unethical about buying a product and doing with it as I wish. Your trying to make it an ethics issue when it really is a consumer rights debate. Seems like your the one that is confused.