Well maybe you are too US/Canadian law centric. Things are done differently in the EU.
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 Releases 'Rebel EFI' Software to Enable Installation of Snow Leopard on PCs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well maybe you are too US/Canadian law centric. Things are done differently in the EU.
No, my speculation is based on historical facts. You know, "been there, done that" type of speculation.
Don't think that because your speculation is baseless that everyone else's is.
Actually, you and hachre about both about right; just him for Europe and you for the US. There has been a lot more activism in the EU against this type of activity than in the US. Witness MS and the browser selection shebang.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Apple's EULA was upheld in the US and not in the EU. That seems to be where the different legal climates are about now.
And in a court test of the EULA, you'd bet that Microsoft and Apple would be the best of friends on that one.
Really, because about the only people being slapped down the EU commision is Microsoft and Intel, two very big monopolies with questionable business tactics.
Sigh. Except MS is a very big monopoly, even in Europe. Unless you can provide some case where a highly competitive market got some of its players slapped down by the EU for this type of product tie-in, I think I'm safe in my assumption that anti-trust is pretty universal in its application.
Right. I'm sure everyone selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA.
Or do you think you're justified in trashing the whole idea because you're/you:
a) cheap
b) want to turn OS X into a Windows clone
c) want to dictate to Apple how to run their business so as to make things more convenient to you
d) only respect whatever is of imediate benefit to you personally
e) all of the above
In general a nice argument but what's the basis for accepting your first premise? You say after having exchanged my money for the box I don't own what's inside and that the sale is conditional. But that's bogus to me. My giving Apple my money is not conditional on extra terms I will subsequently inform them of nor vice versa. If I sent Apple a letter saying the sale was not final because I was only conditionally buying the software under the premise that no bugs were present, but because there are bugs I want a refund, Apple would laugh at me and say sorry no refund, all sales are final. So too will I say to them, sorry, once you take my money and hand me the box, its too late for extra stipulated terms. The time for that was before the exchange. So unless you can give me any good reason to buy your "licencing" rhetoric, I'll just keep ignore it.
An honest licence agreement or contract is one agreed upon prior the sale not after. Until that happens I'll reject it unless a court tells me I cannot do so.
You should just use the Google and read some market reports on where Apple is making money.
The past can't be repeated. The Apple of today isn't the Apple Computer of the 90s. The business model is completely different. That isn't speculation. That is discernible from reading their PR from last week or reading third party market reports and analysis from the the last couple years. iPods ad iPhones changed everything.
Really, because about the only people being slapped down the EU commision is Microsoft and Intel, two very big monopolies with questionable business tactics.
Last time I checked Intel only had a 60% market share vs AMD. In my previous example it seemed that a monopoly for you only exists at 100%.
Microsoft wasn't hammered because of their market share. They were hammered because they leveraged their success in one product field to help place products in other fields. This is no different from what Apple is doing. They are using OS X to place Apple hardware, or they are using Apple hardware to place OS X. Just that at 5% world share nobody cares. But it doesn't take a majority share to change that.
I am not alone in wanting current generation hardware and upgrade options. The past week was just an example of how desperate Mac users are for better hardware.
And why do I look at Macs? Because I am a developer and work on Windows, Mac, and Linux.
Fixed.
MR doesn't represent Apple's market. We're a minority on here. Keep that in mind when talking about yourself and those living in your bubble.
Apple's market just got "better hardware", which will, as usual, sell extremely well.
Mac computers. Gotcha.
Seriously, 3M vs 10M units in Macs vs iPods. Let's assume the cheapest Macbook at 999$ vs the iPod Touch at 299$ compromise 100% of those sales (which they don't).
That's 3B in sales for Macs and 3B in sales for iPods.
Seeing how our assumption is very baseless (iPod average revenu per unit is probably much less than 299$, and Mac average revenue per unit is probably higher than 999$), we can safely assume Apple derives more revenue from Macs than iPods.
I'm even willing to speculate the Mac is responsible for more revenue than the iPod + iPhone combined.
Yes, it's different. They don't allow clone computers running Mac OS anymore. It almost killed them last time. It would kill their Mac business this time too. Their product sells well because of the combination of the hardware and OS X. Remove any of either advantage, and the business would collapse like it did last time (this is based on historical facts, and as such not baseless).
How long do you think Apple can survive as a iPod only shop ? How much jobs would be lost if the Mac business went belly up ? All because of a few kids that feel a sense of entitlement.
Interesting. I can't say forsure, but it looks like this is based on Linux...
I booted it up in VMware, but I can't really see anything that indicates it is Linux other than the names of two of the files listed above; initrd and osxlinuz. initrd is the "initial ramdisk" which is just a temporary filesystem used during boot, and the Linux kernel is often called "vmlinuz", though it can be named anything the user chooses. So, I don't have any proof, but it is suspicious.
When you boot it, it brings up a boot loader, and prompts you to insert your OS X disc. I haven't tried going past there yet.
Code:
prometheus:~ pygmy$ ls /Volumes/RebelEFI/
RebelEFI.pkg initrd osxlinuzI booted it up in VMware, but I can't really see anything that indicates it is Linux other than the names of two of the files listed above; initrd and osxlinuz. initrd is the "initial ramdisk" which is just a temporary filesystem used during boot, and the Linux kernel is often called "vmlinuz", though it can be named anything the user chooses. So, I don't have any proof, but it is suspicious.
When you boot it, it brings up a boot loader, and prompts you to insert your OS X disc. I haven't tried going past there yet.
My brother, who is a lawyer, is laughing so I think you're talking out of your ass. Maybe law in our country is very different, I don't know, so please point me to a reliable source that supports your ludicrous interpretation of copyright law. I can already save you the time of checking out Wikipedia, because the articles I found there definitely do not support your idea.
To me it looks like Psystar have created an easy to use EFI emulation, which is perfectly legal.
No, like I explained earlier and in my many posts, monopolies are not so much about market share but about market control. Of course, you can't control the market with a half and half share, but you can with less than 100%. Intel is very much in control of the market. If Intel tomorrow decided to threaten OEMs by forcing them to sell only their products or only AMD products, many OEMs would just drop AMD flat.
Watch the review here:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10372246-1.html
What a piece of crap. Then again, you may need serial and parallel ports!
I pay extra for my Macs not only for the superb OS, but for the build quality....in the long run, it is very cost effective.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10372246-1.html
What a piece of crap. Then again, you may need serial and parallel ports!
I pay extra for my Macs not only for the superb OS, but for the build quality....in the long run, it is very cost effective.
Will I be compensated for my time, i.e. inconvenience?
That's precisely what is at issue.
I think lawyers can say what they want and try to bully people. That doesn't make it lawful, which is precisely what Pystar is trying to show.
Hence why the Pystar case is in courts and debating this issue. Until the official ruling, the matter is open. You or others can say you think the judge should rule in favor of EULA's and that's certainly fine. But to become emotional and start calling those people thieves, or whatever else is premature. I'll tell you why I think the EULAs should be ignored, and that is based not on what is currently the case with the law, but with the way it ought to be. As I said for something to be fair it must be prior to the exchange, anything else is favoring one side and thus biased.
Possibly, though I doubt it, since I believe even their previous effort was stolen from the OSx86 project.
I'm not sure how you can get anything from the directory listing though, other than the filenames appear similar to Linux filenames.
Actually, the Psystar case is not about contract law issues or EULAs, it's about 2 things :
1- Distribution. They are selling you OS X installed on a computer. They are thus distributing OS X, but aren't licensed to do so. This is copyright infringment.
2- Circumvention. They are providing a tool or method that circumvents Apple's protection that prevent you to use their products in an unauthorised way. This is against provisions of the DMCA. Provisions that have been found valid and upheld in courts before (DVD Jon vs the DVD consortium, DeCSS case).
Unfortunately, some people here don't care about that. They just want to see their hobbies turned into everyone else's reality. No thanks.
Let's say Apple has two products.
MacBook 999$
iPod 299$
The iPod costs Apple 90$ to make. The MacBook costs them 400$ to make. (Those are figures I have in my head from iSupply).
This means in the iPods case 70% of the sale is revenue. In the MacBook case 40%.
70% of 299$ = 210$ * 10 mil = 2.1bil
40% of 999$ = 400$ * 3 mil = 1.2bil
The numbers are not the most realistic, yes. But given the fact that Apple sells iPods, iPhones, Music and Apps, among other things, next to a few computers... It is highly likely that Apples computer business doesn't lead on the revenue charts.
Especially considering the countersuit Psystar filed specifically against the EULA and Apple's "anti-competitive" practices was dismissed by the court in November 2008 meaning the judge didn't quite see it their way.
These people still harping on and on about the EULA this and Anti-trust that don't quite seem to understand that part of the case has already been decided and Psystar lost.