It's not different. It's just what Apple calls it. The difference in systems is that MAC uses EFI whereas PC's use BIOS. EFI is more efficient...
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 to Challenge Mac OS X EULA?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's not different. It's just what Apple calls it. The difference in systems is that MAC uses EFI whereas PC's use BIOS. EFI is more efficient...
OpenMac has a very good point...
The disclosure about "you can not use this operating system in an non mac computer" does not affectem them, it affect the person who own the system (the user) not the company who is building the hardware.
That is a very good point and Apple can not do anything about that except for suit the users who instal Mac OSX on that platform.
The disclosure about "you can not use this operating system in an non mac computer" does not affectem them, it affect the person who own the system (the user) not the company who is building the hardware.
That is a very good point and Apple can not do anything about that except for suit the users who instal Mac OSX on that platform.
so basically there is no difference.. BIOS/EFI is minor in the bigger picture..
think its more OSX uses EFI and Windows BIOS.. so basicaly when MS makes Vista MKII , this will use EFI as well.. and the differences get even smaller.
So your point is everyone is wrong, everything found on Google is false but you won't tell us what's right?
love the analogy, its like saying, " I know nothing, I am going to lose in court" maybe he should have said that. Either way, if they are in direct violation of the EULA and the EULA has legal standing in the courts, then their really is no way to win.
In any case, the fact that these comps arent guarenteed to work past updates, and that you might have more of headache getting them to work well then u will spending an extra couple $800 for a higher end monitor/Mac, makes me wanna go buy another mac.
In any case, the fact that these comps arent guarenteed to work past updates, and that you might have more of headache getting them to work well then u will spending an extra couple $800 for a higher end monitor/Mac, makes me wanna go buy another mac.
I guess my point, which I tried to make in the original thread yesterday morning, is that we don't know what anything means. None of these EULA's have really been tested in court. On top of that, you can find just as many legal authorities advocating for their legality as against.
That just leaves us with guessing what Apple "wants" to do. I don't know what they want to do. No one here does. And, if they do, and they post, it's probably not the smartest thing.
And yes, we should be allowed to debate as we wish. But, for people to get so passionate and angry about naive conjecture...it's just funny.
I dunno...am I way off base here?
to cover their butt, all they need to do is sell the computer by itself. Don't advertise anything about Mac OSX. People will learn through word of mouth that it can run OSX.
The problem is when they advertise it works with OSX or worse yet, they preinstall OSX on it.
If they never mention the Mac/Apple name, they will be fine.
Instead they could say, "open computer works with "other" operating systems, not just Windows"
The problem is when they advertise it works with OSX or worse yet, they preinstall OSX on it.
If they never mention the Mac/Apple name, they will be fine.
Instead they could say, "open computer works with "other" operating systems, not just Windows"
What do you know of "People, or what people want."
You don't know me and I would love to be able to put together a sweet ride and run whatever OS I want.
one could build a Mac clone for Half of what Apple sells there tower for. That would be bad for who? Oh, the stockholder, boo-fricking-hoo.
Big difference between not speaking negatively in any way of Apple, and coming on an Apple forum solely to post negatively about Apple, and in some cases actively promoting other companies. What brought you back here today after a 6 month absence?
No , but i think most people posting on here arent arguing necessarily whats right and wrong within the law, but whats just more right / wrong , fair/unfair for the consumer.... ie ourselves..
EULA's are completely valid and legal as long as the user has the opportunity to reject it / accept it BEFORE they install it.
In the legal field, this is referred to as a "click-wrap" agreement if it's when you click and install or a "shrink-wrap" agreement when it's on the package and you have to get through the agreement to open the package.
In short, anything in the EULA is enforceable and will take a court to overrule and amend.
I'm not an expert but I am a law student.
I'm scared of what the end result will be. At first I thought Apple charged a premium for its awesome OS, then I realized that wasnt the case, they were charging high prices for the innovative and top quality hardware.
But I always thought Apple could make a killing by releasing an older version of OS X for standard PCs. They could keep the latest versions exlusive to Apple hardware. But this....since its not Apple, could really hurt Apple. One positive thing I could think of though, if Pystar wins, is that perhaps Apple will reduce their premium prices.
But I always thought Apple could make a killing by releasing an older version of OS X for standard PCs. They could keep the latest versions exlusive to Apple hardware. But this....since its not Apple, could really hurt Apple. One positive thing I could think of though, if Pystar wins, is that perhaps Apple will reduce their premium prices.
A EULA is a contract so one would think contract law applies, at least on its face. The thing about contracts is that you can't sign away rights granted to you by other laws (this part can vary by state) or the constitution. For example, I could not sign myself into slavery. A more concrete example is if Apple put in their EULA that I must give them my first born child to slave labor in China to help build MBPs with each purchase of OS X. Even if I signed it, it wouldn't hold up in court.
The other problem is how one agrees to a EULA. You don't actually ever sign anything. Is simply using the software enough to say you agree to the EULA? Additionally this agreement typically happens after the purchase is complete, which could be likened to coercion (which contracts aren't allowed to be signed under).
I'm excited that someone is finally challenging EULAs. It will be interesting to see what if any clauses hold up and which ones don't. My only fear is that this little company won't have enough money to take the EULA challenge to its completion. Apple will work hard to just drown them in paperwork
*EDIT*
Went and read the cases for the 'click-wrap' agreements L3X mentioned above. These have tended to hold up, although they do not appear to have been aggressively tested yet.
The other problem is how one agrees to a EULA. You don't actually ever sign anything. Is simply using the software enough to say you agree to the EULA? Additionally this agreement typically happens after the purchase is complete, which could be likened to coercion (which contracts aren't allowed to be signed under).
I'm excited that someone is finally challenging EULAs. It will be interesting to see what if any clauses hold up and which ones don't. My only fear is that this little company won't have enough money to take the EULA challenge to its completion. Apple will work hard to just drown them in paperwork
*EDIT*
Went and read the cases for the 'click-wrap' agreements L3X mentioned above. These have tended to hold up, although they do not appear to have been aggressively tested yet.
oh you know.. bored at work, havent brought a multi-billion company to the edge of bankruptsy for while... the usual.........
lol.. all aboard.. where shes stops nobody knows... scream if you want to go faster...
You don't have to sign a contract for it to be legally binding (see implied consent)
There's no coercion because the license gives you the right to return the software for a refund if you don't agree with it.
I can't quite see what the fuss is here or for that matter why Apple are perceived as being in the wrong. Apple would argue that their product of specific hardware and supporting OS is a single product. It's not unreasonable for them to define the terms by which they sell their product as long as they are reasonable. Defining the hardware that can be used surely isn't unreasonable.
Microsoft and others choose a non-proprietary route which again is perfectly reasonable. Apple are not attempting to stop a competing manufacturer from developing their own platform but rather don't want their platform to be cloned. They would argue they haven't spent billions of dollars building up their brand and developing products only for another manufacturer to simply cash in.
If a rival car manufacturer were to build an exact clone of a Porsche Boxster down to including the same system software, how long do we all think it would be before Porsche were calling in the lawyers?
If Apple were 90% of the market then there would be anti-competitive issues but given that Apple are at most around 7% of the total PC market it can't really be argued that consumers do not have a choice. The argument being offered here is that consumers should have the right to buy every product in any format that suits them. This clearly isn't reasonable, a manufacturer still has the right to define a reasonable set of conditions by which it sells a product.
Microsoft and others choose a non-proprietary route which again is perfectly reasonable. Apple are not attempting to stop a competing manufacturer from developing their own platform but rather don't want their platform to be cloned. They would argue they haven't spent billions of dollars building up their brand and developing products only for another manufacturer to simply cash in.
If a rival car manufacturer were to build an exact clone of a Porsche Boxster down to including the same system software, how long do we all think it would be before Porsche were calling in the lawyers?
If Apple were 90% of the market then there would be anti-competitive issues but given that Apple are at most around 7% of the total PC market it can't really be argued that consumers do not have a choice. The argument being offered here is that consumers should have the right to buy every product in any format that suits them. This clearly isn't reasonable, a manufacturer still has the right to define a reasonable set of conditions by which it sells a product.
You are correct as long they do not install OSX on their open computers.EULA is End User Licence Agreement... Psystar is not end user so in my point of view they have nothing to do with EULA and EULA has nothing to do with them...
Its still a horrible point. Maybe you've never installed any software before. Because if you have you would remember the words "Do you accept the terms and conditions". That's when that prompt box comes up and you can click yes or no. That's where the EULA is. So once again your trash can hypothetical is pointless.
You can't compare the rights you have with printed media and software. They are two entirely different products and as such, should have different rights. Software is licensed to customers. Regardless of what Apple or M$ wants to call it, its a license. The OS is still and will always be the intellectual property of those companies. You are NOT free to do whatever you want with them. Don't like it, buy Linux or something else. But wait, they have EULA's too which dictate the ways their products can be used also. This is nothing new people. And yes there are grey areas in there, but the part on what system OSX can be installed on is black and white.