Psystar Releases 'Rebel EFI' Software to Enable Installation of Snow Leopard on PCs

[Mal]

OK, thats what I figured. At that point I suppose the million dollar question is what rights does owning a copy grant you (again outside of licenses presumed to be valid)?

Really... not much. Owning that copy doesn't grant you the right to make another copy (even to install), outside of a licensing agreement. Thus, you can do whatever you want with the copy on the disk, so long as you don't make another copy of it except for archival purposes. Some might argue that installing is covered under copyright law, but I don't believe that's been proven yet in this or any other thread I've seen covering the subject. Thus, you could make a copy of the install disk and put that away somewhere for archival purposes, or you can boot from it and use it without copying it to the drive (though it's pretty much useless like that), but nothing else.

jW

 

[pdjudd]

<redacted earlier post as irrelevant>

 

[pdjudd]

Really... not much. Owning that copy doesn't grant you the right to make another copy (even to install), outside of a licensing agreement. Thus, you can do whatever you want with the copy on the disk, so long as you don't make another copy of it except for archival purposes. Some might argue that installing is covered under copyright law, but I don't believe that's been proven yet in this or any other thread I've seen covering the subject. Thus, you could make a copy of the install disk and put that away somewhere for archival purposes, or you can boot from it and use it without copying it to the drive (though it's pretty much useless like that), but nothing else.

jW

Right. Outside of fair use principals (like archiving), there doesn't seem to be that much a person that wants to make a hackinstosh that wouldn't run afoul of copyright. Any fair use principles (which it seems is all that is granted) are pretty useless.

The biggest gray area would be covering the actual installation of OSX. Now I would imagine thats where Apple has an advantage since Allsup seems to agree with Apple's licensing requirements - and the licence has to be agreed to before you can install. So even if installs are excluded from copyright, the license still can't be ignored if it is invalid. Apple could argue that it's irrelevant how they got OSX copied - it got copied and they had to be aware of the license by admission. In the end - Apple would argue that the software is a copy (derivative or not) that they did not approve.

 

[nullx86]

does this work with Pentium 4 chips? Im trying this on my PC. I downloaded the trial edition and not **** is happening. Leopard disk is in. File is downloaded and im clicking on it and nothing really is going on.

I think the trail is locked. Ill work on it, see what I come up with. As for P4's running OSX, socket 478 or LGA775? most say 478 running OSX is only possible runnin Tiger, but I have my 3GHz P4 running Retail Server PM for details.

 

[Dae]

Apple has the right to price their products however they wants based on what the market will bear. Are you going to argue that its alright to rip off people from money that they earned because you do not believe they should be so greedy?

When the prices for a product are abnormously high and the product is somewhat unique there usually appears a black market, in our case it's called piracy. Piracy will counterbalance Apple's pricing policy.

For me, as an end customer of Apple production (and I don't use Hackintoshes), this is indeed a good news.

For Apple — I guess not.

Is it fair? Why should I care? The whole life's not fair

 

[pdjudd]

When the prices for a product are abnormously high and the product is somewhat unique there usually appears a black market, in our case it's called piracy. Piracy will counterbalance Apple's pricing policy.

For me, as an end customer of Apple production (and I don't use Hackintoshes), this is indeed a good news.

For Apple — I guess not.

Is it fair? Why should I care? The whole life's not fair

So? doesn't make the black market any more legal or not. Thats is just indiciticve of deamnd and low morals. The fact that people rob banks doesn't mean that Banks are being greedy - thats the robbers fault. Not to mention that the size of the illegal market doesn't mean anything either. Just becasue teh mafia operated huge murder rings and delat in huge levels of crime does;t mean we should be re-evaluating how we structure society.

Face it, Macs are not a necessity item and as long as Apple is running their business legally, you do not have the right to stop them by using an illegal action. YOu cannot excape your actions by saying "society is unfair" when they did nothing wrong.

Apple is free to charge expensive proves just like BMW is allowed to sell expensive cars. You cannot argue that. The only defense is legal competition. That is not happening here.

 

[skye12]

Apple legal will suck them dry! They have all the money and time there is.

 

[Cave Man]

Is this "Rebel EFI" just software, or does it include some kind of hardware?

 

[Maximara]

There is a difference though. When you are a holder of copyright via intellectual property AND you are a business, the law obligates you to be defensive. Apple has to. The law mandates that you either defend your IP or you risk loosing it. You may consider it “entitlement” but the industry sees it very differently. They see it as the effect of having to deal with creative works. THey also see it as a legal requirement of doing business. They don;t defend their property, their shareholders get real angry.

You are confusing copyright with trademark; you can never lose copyright by not defending it as is the case with a trademark. However delays in going after a potential violator can make collecting damages problematic.

 

[pdjudd]

You are confusing copyright with trademark; you can never lose copyright by not defending it as is the case with a trademark. However delays in going after a potential violator can make collecting damages problematic.

Whoops! Wrong terminology. But the point still stands - When a business starts going around infringing your copyrights, they are almost obligated to go after them if not for collecting damages, but for asserting their rights. A company would be stupid to let that go.

Case in point, Apple is almost certain to not get much from Psystar given their debt, but Apple is still going after on copyright infringement just to drill the point home to Psystar. Apple's motives are to control their copyright.

 

[Fastshutter]

Nobody has a right to a Mac.

In the United States every child has the right to a free education, which includes fair & equal access to the computer resources at the school they attend. If a school uses Macs, then the students have a right to them. It's the only case that I can think of where someone 'has a right' to use a mac.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves with Apple. They're huge in the education market, but don't want to compete in the budget sector where low income families can afford Apple's hardware to compliment a child's education at home. My children attend schools that use Macs. If any of the applications and assignments only run on Apple computers, they're S.O.L. I have no desire to pay for Apple hardware ever again. OSX did not live up the hype for my family and I, I'm only tied to it because I care about my children's education.

 

[pdjudd]

In the United States every child has the right to a free education, which includes fair & equal access to the computer resources at the school they attend. If a school uses Macs, then the students have a right to them. It's the only case that I can think of where someone 'has a right' to use a mac.

If the school chooses Mac's then that is their choice subject to the budgeting requirements of the school. That's not a right - at that point it's a luxury since schools are not legally required to have computers. I wager than outside of a library computer, many schools have no computer lab.

Having an education is a right, but that cannot even be equated to being able to have Mac OSX available to them. The two are miles apart and have nothing to do with one another. Totally incorrect reasoning.

This is perhaps one of the silliest and most irrelevant distractions on this discussion regarding Psystar that I have run across after "Apple is an anti-competitive monopoly in the Mac market" and "All EULA's are invalid"

 

[CQd44]

When the prices for a product are abnormously high and the product is somewhat unique there usually appears a black market, in our case it's called piracy. Piracy will counterbalance Apple's pricing policy.

For me, as an end customer of Apple production (and I don't use Hackintoshes), this is indeed a good news.

For Apple — I guess not.

Is it fair? Why should I care? The whole life's not fair

I do not agree with piracy because you don't want to pay.

What next? I deserve the right to steal a car because I can't afford it?

 

[Zaap]

I did not mean licensed copy. I am talking about ownership of the copy that is burned onto the DVD purchased at retail.

This copy is sold, based on what its advertised to do; install an OS. Are you of the belief a company can charge money for something and not deliver on the promised use of the product? So can Ford sell you a car that doesn't run unless you agree to only buy the tires from it from Ford? Consumer rights, begin at the point of sale.

Like I've said before, all of the arguments counter to this miss the fact that Apple DOES sell a retail copy of thier OS to consumers. Therefore, there are consumer protection laws that come into play. All the rules and laws don't just exist to protect the manufacturer only. If OSX were completely proprietary, this would be different.

As I've stated many times, contract law makes a contract (license) legally binding. If you are claiming that one of the provisions is not binding, you would have to prove that the provision is illegal.

I don't have to prove anything is illegal. I'm not even claiming anything is illegal. Again, that term 'illegal' so often thrown around in this debate with out any merit. There's a huge gulf between me saying Apple's hardware requirement isn't a LEGAL requirement and saying "it's illegal."

Apple would have to prove that my (or anyone else's) installation of a consumer product they sold me on hardware other than what is desired by thier company is illegal in order to sue me for it.

This is soft of like me saying, "If you click SUBMIT REPLY in response to this post, you owe me $50.

That's it. We've got a contract.

What? You disagree? Well, gee, you have to prove it's illegal, until then, you owe me $50 if you click that SUBMIY REPLY button. So go ahead.

 

[hitekalex]

This copy is sold, based on what its advertised to do; install an OS. Are you of the belief a company can charge money for something and not deliver on the promised use of the product? So can Ford sell you a car that doesn't run unless you agree to only buy the tires from it from Ford? Consumer rights, begin at the point of sale.

You keep comparing consumption of durable goods (like cars and razor blades) to consumption of intellectual property (software in this case). The two are governed by different sets of rules.

I have been involved in custom software licensing for my company, and there are all soft of "artificial" restrictions that most of software licenses impose on an end user. For example, my company recently bought a license for a piece of software that limits us to installing it on our servers in Europe.. but not Asia or Americas. I guess using your car analogy, I should be able to drive it anywhere I choose, so why shouldn't I just break the license and install a copy on my US server?

The only difference here is that Apple (and other retail Software sellers) doesn't make you agree to a license contract at a PoS, which would not be practical. Instead they make you do it at the start of the Installation process. As long as you have a recourse to return the Software for a full refund if you don't agree with the T&C's - that is a perfectly acceptable practice.

And you still haven't answered my repeated questions about what's stopping you from installing say SL Family Pack on 10 computers and not 5, if you believe you can cherry pick what parts of EULA you decide to honor, and what parts you choose to ignore.

 

[r.j.s]

This is soft of like me saying, "If you click SUBMIT REPLY in response to this post, you owe me $50.

That's it. We've got a contract.

What? You disagree? Well, gee, you have to prove it's illegal, until then, you owe me $50 if you click that SUBMIY REPLY button. So go ahead.

Except, in this case, you have no legal rights to make that contract.

If arn were to say that, and have the means to enforce it, then it would become a proposed contract that I could either agree to and post (after I've paid) or not agree to and go somewhere else.

There is no "I'm going to post anyway because I don't want to play by the owner's rules."

 

[Beric]

Except, in this case, you have no legal rights to make that contract.

If arn were to say that, and have the means to enforce it, then it would become a proposed contract that I could either agree to and post (after I've paid) or not agree to and go somewhere else.

There is no "I'm going to post anyway because I don't want to play by the owner's rules."

QFT. I'm learning about contract law in my business law class right now.

 

[BaldiMac]

This copy is sold, based on what its advertised to do; install an OS. Are you of the belief a company can charge money for something and not deliver on the promised use of the product?

It is advertised to run on a Mac. The box lists installation requirements of a Mac. The SLA specifies that it runs on a Mac. Judge Alsup said Apple customers purchase OS X knowing that in can only be used on a Mac. Where are you becoming confused about the promised use of the product?

So can Ford sell you a car that doesn't run unless you agree to only buy the tires from it from Ford? Consumer rights, begin at the point of sale.

Cars are not subject to copyright laws.

Like I've said before, all of the arguments counter to this miss the fact that Apple DOES sell a retail copy of thier OS to consumers. Therefore, there are consumer protection laws that come into play. All the rules and laws don't just exist to protect the manufacturer only.

What consumer protection laws prevent Apple from tying OS X to Macs?

If OSX were completely proprietary, this would be different.

OS X is completely proprietary.

I don't have to prove anything is illegal. I'm not even claiming anything is illegal. Again, that term 'illegal' so often thrown around in this debate with out any merit. There's a huge gulf between me saying Apple's hardware requirement isn't a LEGAL requirement and saying "it's illegal."

If you want to void a clause of a contract, you must prove it is illegal. How much clearer can I be?

Apple would have to prove that my (or anyone else's) installation of a consumer product they sold me on hardware other than what is desired by thier company is illegal in order to sue me for it.

They would not sue you for installing OS X on a non-Mac. They would sue you for breaking the contract that you agreed to.

 

[Fastshutter]

Having an education is a right, but that cannot even be equated to being able to have Mac OSX available to them. The two are miles apart and have nothing to do with one another. Totally incorrect reasoning.

Yikes. You couldn't be more wrong. If the school has a technology curriculm that includes time in a computer lab, then the school is required by law to give every child equal access to that education. There is no justification for excluding students.

The gap that I'm referring to is from school to home. The cost of entry to a mac is purposely prohibitive for many low income families. They can't afford to compliment their childs education with similar computers at home. How does a student who misses school be able to make-up lost time from the computer lab without the resources at home?

At one time Steve Jobs even offered OSX free for the OLPC project, but was turned down because the OLPC project wanted an open source platform. It's a shame Steve can't be so generous towards students in America.

 

[pdjudd]

Yikes. You couldn't be more wrong. If the school has a technology curriculum that includes time in a computer lab, then the school is required by law to give every child equal access to that education. There is no justification for excluding students.

But you assume that said school must use Macs. I have never seen a law that requires that. Nor have I seen any laws that computers must be included. If a school want's to use the Macintosh platform, they do so by choice. Furthermore, I have not seen any law ever that states that family's must own the same computer that is used at the school. Heck, I have heard that schools give laptops (on loan) to students. There is no requirement that these be Macintoshes nor does that mean that The OS must be made on available on generic hardware. Apple has maintained their business strategy for years and have maintained an educational presence. No requirements anywhere that Apple change its business strategy. Not to mention that you ignore that Apple does provide discounts to education.

Show me a law that states must choose Apple computers. Please. You just state "equal access". That does not predicate or require any platform. If a school does not or cannot afford the mac platform, there are alternatives. You are confusing "must" with "like". You would like the entire world to run on Apple, so you say it must be that way. It doesn't. Nothing in your so called "requirement" dictates the necessity of any particular platform. Provide me with a cite that says that everybody must have a computer at home if they go to school. Plus state the law that says that schools must have enough computers to provide all day access to computers. I can tell you right now, I have never attended a school that has computers in every classroom. At best, they offer 1 or two labs that are available from the time that schools start until they close. My high school all used Macs too - and there was little that I couldn't do at home on my PC that I couldn't do at school. The exception being software specific stuff that was not available to students. Not even in College was I required to have a computer - I was allowed to and most did - but you had to get that on your own - and that was a Windows based network!

I don't think anybody could successfully pass a law that would require any family to purchase something on the level of a computer for basic k-12 education (which is all that is required in the US). Not everybody has a computer or even has access to the same software at home that they do in school.

The gap that I'm referring to is from school to home. The cost of entry to a mac is purposely prohibitive for many low income families. They can't afford to compliment their child's education with similar computers at home. How does a student who misses school be able to make-up lost time from the computer lab without the resources at home?

The flaws in your assumption is that the law requires that home users have the same technology as they do at school (there is no such law). that all students are required to have a computer at home (no they don't), that all schools use macs (they don't), and that the Mac is a critical component to education (it isn't).

Any kind of system that requires a student to have a computer at home is going to be using it for purposes that are either cross platform (like being on the web or using software that is cross platform) or it's PC Windows based anyway. Again, if technology is that critical, the school can provide it for the students if the school has the funding. If they don't, that's not Apple's fault that fault lies in the state for investing in technology that they could not afford.

And all of this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You are asking for companies to be charities based upon some loose concept of "equal access". It's a distraction. I agree that everybody should have an equal shot at technology - I feel that way about things like transportation. That doesn't mean that I am going to demand that BMW provide me with a sports car if all I can afford is a Toyota - even if my neighbor has one.

At one time Steve Jobs even offered OSX free for the OLPC project, but was turned down because the OLPC project wanted an open source platform. It's a shame Steve can't be so generous towards students in America.

That's irrelevant. Apple offers discounts to students like every other software company. If people do not choose that platform, that is not the fault of anybody but the person making said choice. Steve made an offer that was rejected. That happens all the time. There is no obligation for any company to provide any of their wares at anything but what the market will bear. Should Adobe be required to lower their prices for Photoshop (which is several hundred dollars) so it is more accessible. No. They offer a discount for students, and thats it.

Again, there is no requirement out there to utilize open technology in any school. None. Governments may provide incentives, but they would be optional.

If educational system or any institute wants to use Apple technology, it would be by their own choice. Apple does not have to offer anything. I call bull on your claims. At the very least they are a gross exaggeration of reality and at best are a distraction to make a political statement that is irrelevant to the issue of IP ownership.

 

[Fastshutter]

But you assume that said school must use Macs.

No I don't. I never said they must use macs. The windows platform has a much cheaper cost of entry, and is more accessbile to low income families. The cheapest Mac cost $697 (mini w/keyboard and mouse) w/o a monitor, and without any productivity software. Not very accessible to families that are barely scraping by.

I have never seen a law that requires that. Nor have I seen any laws that computers must be included. If a school want's to use the Macintosh platform, they do so by choice.

I'm not debating that, but if the school makes the choice, then they are bound to equally provide that education to all students. Period.

Furthermore, I have not seen any law ever that states that family's must own the same computer that is used at teh school. Heck, I have heard that schools give laptops (on loan) to students. There is no requirement that these be Macintoshes nor does that mean that The OS must be made on available on generic hardware. Apple has maintained their business strategy for years and have maintained an educational presence. No requirements anywhere that Apple change its business strategy. Not to mention that you ignore that Apple does provide discounts to education.

I never said there was. I'm talking about the disparity that Apple creates between home and school. You keep changing my argument.

Show me a law that states must choose Apple computers. Please.

I never said there was.

You just state "equal access". That does not predicate or require any platform.

Yes it does. If the curriculm calls for the students to complete assignments that can only be done on Mac computers using Mac software, then they are required to give all students access to those resources at the school. This creates a disparity if the student falls behind or needs extra time to learn.

If a school does not or cannot afford the mac platform, there are alternatives. You are confusing "must" with "like". You would like the entire world to run on Apple, so you say it must be that way.

Far from it. I would 'like' schools to use the most prevelant operating system. It doesn't make sense to teach children using a niche platform that isn't accessible to everyone at home.

Nothing in your so called "requirement" dictates the necessity of any particular platform.

Never said it does.

Provide me with a cite that says that everybody must have a computer at home if they go to school.

There is no law to offer a citation. There is a learning disparity if the student doesn't have access to these resources.

Plus state the law that says that schools must have enough computers to provide all day access to computers.

I never made that argument, or anything close to it.

I can tell you right now, I have never attended a school that has computers in every classroom.

I volunteer for our state's poorest school district. They have macs in every classroom. YMMV.

At best, they offer 1 or two labs that are available from the time that schools start until they close.

Would you dare offer a citation to back that up? I'll give you a hint, look up ratio's between students and computers in America. Be prepared to admit you are wrong

The flaws in your assumption is that the law requires that home users have the same technology as they do at school (there is no such law).

Your flaw is that you make up arguments for me. Please stop.

that all students are required to have a computer at home (no they don't), that all schools use macs (they don't), and that the Mac is a critical component to education (it isn't).

All arguments I have never made. I will say, if a school makes technology part of it's curriculm, it is critical that they offer it equally to all students.

Any kind of system that requires a student to have a computer at home is going to be using it for purposes that are either cross platform (like being on the web or using software that is cross platform) or it's PC Windows based anyway.

I never said anyone is required to have PC at home, but there is a disparity in education when they don't. Apple increases this gap by not making affordable PC's to low income families.

Again, if technology is that critical, the school can provide it for the students if the school has the funding. If they don't, that's not Apple's fault that fault lies in the state for investing in technology that they could not afford.

The problem is Schools can afford this technology but low income families cannot. It is better, in my opinion, that schools invested in technology that is accessible to everyone, not just the privledged few.

And all of this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

You make very long reply's to irrelevant discussion.

You are asking for companies to be charities based upon some loose concept of "equal access".

I'm asking Apple to realize they are contributing to a widening education gap, and to do something about it. The affordability of a hackintosh can fix this problem. That is why I think it is relevant.

It's a distraction. I agree that everybody should have an equal shot at technology - I feel that way about things like transportation. That doesn't mean that I am going to demand that BMW provide me with a sports car if all I can afford is a Toyota - even if my neighbor has one.

In my state, you can't choose what school district you belong too. If the school uses Macs, then it enhances my children's education to have the same resources at home. Unless that technology is not affordable.

That's irrelevant. Apple offers discounts to students like every other software company.

Even with discounts applied the cost of entry is double that of Windows computers.

If people do not choose that platform, that is not the fault of anybody but the person making said choice.

The school district made the choice for everyone. I cannot demand the school move to a windows platform.

If educational system or any institute wants to use Apple technology, it would be by their own choice. Apple does not have to offer anything.

And as long as Apple does not offer a low cost PC, they contribute to the education gap in america. Students with affluent parents can afford to have technology in their homes and more resources at their disposal. Low income families will have to suffer through when their children fall behind. No law prevents that, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[BaldiMac]

Far from it. I would 'like' schools to use the most prevelant operating system. It doesn't make sense to teach children using a niche platform that isn't accessible to everyone at home.

I disagree with you here. I don't think our schools should be teaching our kids how to use a proprietary product whether it is from Apple or Microsoft or even an open source product like Ubuntu. Since that is unavoidable with computers, they should make the students interact with a variety of OS's to teach them how to use a computer, rather than an individual OS or individual program.

Anyone with a basic computer education should not have any problems switching between the OS's that I mentioned. But since most people are only taught how to use Windows and how to use MS Office and how to use IE, they have no understanding of the concepts, just the menial step by step process of click here then click here then click there.

Your suggestion specifically just reinforces a monopoly controlled by a single corporation.

 

[Fastshutter]

I disagree with you here. I don't think our schools should be teaching our kids how to use a proprietary product whether it is from Apple or Microsoft or even an open source product like Ubuntu. Since that is unavoidable with computers, they should make the students interact with a variety of OS's to teach them how to use a computer, rather than an individual OS or individual program.

Anyone with a basic computer education should not have any problems switching between the OS's that I mentioned. But since most people are only taught how to use Windows and how to use MS Office and how to use IE, they have no understanding of the concepts, just the menial step by step process of click here then click here then click there.

Your suggestion specifically just reinforces a monopoly controlled by a single corporation.

You make an excellent point about basic skills, I 100% agree. What I see in the schools I volunteer with as well as my children's schools are mac specific software being used to teach Math & Reading, not just basic computer skills. It is these specific applications that are tied to one operating system that causes the very real digital divide that I am addressing here. The solution would then be to ensure the school uses Math & Reading software that is accessible across all platforms, not tied to a single one (I've checked, the software she uses at school is not available in Windows). Later this year, my daugter's curriculm calls for the use of Microsoft Powerpoint for Mac. While I have Powerpoint for Windows at home, I'm interested to see how well she will be able to master both, or if there will be a hinderence moving between both.

 

[Maximara]

No I don't. I never said they must use macs. The windows platform has a much cheaper cost of entry, and is more accessbile to low income families. The cheapest Mac cost $697 (mini w/keyboard and mouse) w/o a monitor, and without any productivity software. Not very accessible to families that are barely scraping by.

The "without any productivity software" is total garbage asiWorks is only 49.00 more and if you are that tight for money they perhaps you should be asking why you are getting a new computer in the first place.

The cheapest Mac (or PC for that matter) is some "obsolete" machine that they can get from their used computer store.

Let's race reality; new computers are expensive unless you are talking about netbook computers.

 

[pdjudd]

No I don't. I never said they must use macs. The windows platform has a much cheaper cost of entry, and is more accessbile to low income families. The cheapest Mac cost $697 (mini w/keyboard and mouse) w/o a monitor, and without any productivity software. Not very accessible to families that are barely scraping by.

Nobody said that all products have be to be accessible. BMW's are not very accessible to the common person but thats not BMW's problem.

I'm not debating that, but if the school makes the choice, then they are bound to equally provide that education to all students. Period.

I'm gonna require a cite, or I have to assume that this would only apply to the school and not at home unless you can show that every student that goes to school has a computer at home.

I never said there was. I'm talking about the disparity that Apple creates between home and school. You keep changing my argument.

That disparity is irrelevant since it's apple's choice that the market allows. Again, there is no law that everything must be affordable - only certain things.


I never said there was.

Yes you did, you implied it by saying that equal access laws state such and such and that applies to Apple. I want proof that they do. Your claims are baseless since nowhere do you cite anything.

Yes it does. If the curriculm calls for the students to complete assignments that can only be done on Mac computers using Mac software, then they are required to give all students access to those resources at the school. This creates a disparity if the student falls behind or needs extra time to learn.

Can you cite specific instances where this is happening where a school doesn't provide access provisions to Macs inside the school? Ive never seen a class requirement that says that they need a specific type of computer at home. At the very least, every shool that imposes technical computer requirements provides the resources both during and after school. If you can't you are just specualting on a hypothetical.

Far from it. I would 'like' schools to use the most prevelant operating system. It doesn't make sense to teach children using a niche platform that isn't accessible to everyone at home.

I would too. I wish that everyone could drive a BMW and have a pony. Those aren't valid arguments though. There are reasons for nice platform existence, but I dare say I never have seen them applied at k-12 level education levels where the necessary tools aren't available to students

Never said it does.

So what is the purpose of your arguemnt. If Apple doesn't doesn't have to supply its products openly than ehy should they? Either they have to (becasue of platform requirements from uncited laws that never specify platforms) or they do not.

There is no law to offer a citation. There is a learning disparity if the student doesn't have access to these resources.

Philosophical concepts and "wouldn't it be nice" statements are irrelevant and a distraction to the point at hand. It would be nive if I had a Pony. It's kinds pointless though since I have to earn one to get one.

I never made that argument, or anything close to it.

Than again I question the necessity of bringing up a wishful thinking exercise.

I volunteer for our state's poorest school district. They have macs in every classroom. YMMV.

Then said district can clearly afford them. Lucky them. So what?

Would you dare offer a citation to back that up? I'll give you a hint, look up ratio's between students and computers in America. Be prepared to admit you are wrong

Why? It doesn't matter anyway. You are making a claim in general that is irrelevant. The student -computer claim ration is irrelevant. Yes it is low. Do? That is a state funding problem, not an Apple problem. Stop distracting the case at hand. Unless you can quote specific legislation that provides for such a minimum and show where it is not met and where Macs would be required, any ratio over zero is gravy. This has nothing at all to do with Macs.

Look I wish that all schools had the best tools made available to every student both in school and out. That goes for everything they use. But that just isn't how things work and no company should be obligated to do anything about it.

Your flaw is that you make up arguments for me. Please stop.

Than stop making pointless arguments that have nothing to do with Apple v Psystar.

All arguments I have never made. I will say, if a school makes technology part of it's curriculm, it is critical that they offer it equally to all students.

Generally speaking, I agree. What technology they make available is not a concern of Apple or anybody else until bidding proposals are put forth. The probnlem is to what extent. You can't seriously propose that all students should have a mirror copy of everything they have at school. That's kinda impractical. If they have ample access to school resources that should be sufficient. That's not Apple or anybody's problem but the school and the state.

I never said anyone is required to have PC at home, but there is a disparity in education when they don't. Apple increases this gap by not making affordable PC's to low income families.

That's not the business of Apple or any buisness that is out to make a profit. At best you are trying to make an emotional plea where one is not needed. This case is based on fact. I urge you to stay on topic at hand and leave political and social issues to relevant threads. Please. We have already gotten way off topic.

The problem is Schools can afford this technology but low income families cannot. It is better, in my opinion, that schools invested in technology that is accessible to everyone, not just the privledged few.

Again, thats not Apple's or anybody else fault in business to make money. It's irrelevant to the case at hand.

You make very long reply's to irrelevant discussion.

And it will be my last. I will no loner waste my time with irrelevant, pointless, off topic, philosophical banter. If you wish to bring this up in a more related thread, I may debate it there. But this is getting us nowhere. It's off topic and pointless. If a Mod wishes to move or delete these postings, let them.

I'm asking Apple to realize they are contributing to a widening education gap, and to do something about it. The affordability of a hackintosh can fix this problem. That is why I think it is relevant.

Can you prove that? Show me a viable business plan that can be profitable. If it isn't profitable than it's rather pointless no?

In my state, you can't choose what school district you belong too. If the school uses Macs, then it enhances my children's education to have the same resources at home. Unless that technology is not affordable.

It enhances, it yes. I bet there are tons of resources that you can't have that enhance it too. You should plead your case to the relevant parties (the district) instead of blaming a company. For the last time. You Are Not Required To Get A Mac. It would be nice, but so are alot of things.

Even with discounts applied the cost of entry is double that of Windows computers.

So? Go with something competitive or blame the school system for forcing you to buy a Mac since you seem to think that they are doing so.

The school district made the choice for everyone. I cannot demand the school move to a windows platform.

Force, no. But you can get politically active so that your voice gets heard. I guarantee you that the school is not going to care that you say that you cannot afford a product that they surely provide access to in school.

And as long as Apple does not offer a low cost PC, they contribute to the education gap in america. Students with affluent parents can afford to have technology in their homes and more resources at their disposal. Low income families will have to suffer through when their children fall behind. No law prevents that, but that doesn't make it right.

Bull. Now you are back to the argument that Mac's are an absolute necessity. You might as well argue that the high prices of BMW's are contributing to the bankruptcy of the auto industry. Prove it. Your arguments are not based on the realities of business.

And since this is just a distraction, I urge that we refrain from this kind of discussion before we get modded. It's going waaay off topic.