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
Lets see: The US legal system of late has been dominated by the DMCA, a piece of legislation that utterly destroys consumer rights and basically means that any US citizen owning anything, made by any company doesn't necessarily have any say over what they can do with the thing that they own.
Sounds sensible to me.
What I find the most interesting is that a majority of the high end technical people I know (and I include myself among them) eventually evolved from building our own computers to using Macs.
Dealing with clones is not a new thing with Apple, remember that they once had a small clone business, which they shut down without any problems.
Dealing with clones is not a new thing with Apple, remember that they once had a small clone business, which they shut down without any problems.
Not at all, but the US system reeks of corruption in a way only small, 3rd world dictatorships can manage otherwise.
Here's an interesting one on the DMCA, actually:
http://www.freesklyarov.org/
Actually, by clicking "I Agree" before even installing or using the software in the first place, you have agreed to the contract. It's not Apple's fault if you don't read it first.
Almost our entire development office moved to MacBooks from PCs (though given the quality problems we've had, most of us will probably be moving back once they're replaced!)
Quite a different scenario, given those clones had a license, this company doesn't. They don't inspire any confidence, but in the unlikely event they succeed in overturning Apple's EULA, it'd be open season on Apple. A very different - and dangerous - proposition for them.
Failure to see a stop sign does not waive your requirement to stop.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse to disregard it.
This is going to go where? Nowhere.
I bet Arn likes it! The increasing posts on this issue is amazing and just how many newbies have registered here so they can chime in?
In the USA, ignorance of the law is rarely a good defense. FYI, if you ever end up in court
That has nothing to do with "ignorance of the law", that has to do with "little people like you and me cannot possibly understand a contract set up by a huge corporation". It is about consumer protection. And in European countries, it is _the law_ that as a consumer, you are protected against unfair consequences of a contract written by a company, when you had no opportunity to negotiate the contract.
An end user who is accused of breach of a EULA who defends himself by saying he didn't understand it isn't claiming "ignorance of the law". He is claiming that according to the law, terms in a contract that he couldn't be expected to understand cannot be enforced. (And again, that is where PsyStar falls down: They are a company, they are expected to hire lawyers if they don't understand the terms).
If Apple lose, then they end up with the problems that Microsoft has, and who's going to deal with all of the complaints regarding stability issues???
If they have to spend time getting the OS to work on third-party computers, then they really will become the next Microsoft.
Applesoft..... No thanks!
I didn't click it. A friend was over and he offered to click it and did, so HE agreed, I did not.
Contracts are only enforceable insofar as they do not infringe on an individuals legal rights. You cannot sign away your rights.
For example, a company could make a EULA that said "By clicking OK, you agree to sell your first born child into slavery to said company."
You could click ok all day long, but they'd never actually be able to collect. Restrictive EULA's have not been tested in court. Opponents of draconian EULA's contend they attempt to strip the user of their legal rights and thus are invalid.
I've seen mention that no large company has taken Apple to task on their EULA. This could be due to a myriad of reasons from the relative fringe market that they represent (e.g. the pay off of winning the challenge my not be worth it), to an unwillingness to enter a patent war.
It very well may take a company just like this to thoroughly test Apple's EULA: One that has no potentially patent infringing product of their own and that stands to profit greatly from a win (relatively).
Frankly, I'd like to see Apple turn into a mainly-software company. OS X is a genuine work of art, which if made available to more people, would vastly improve everybody's productivity and experience with computers in general, and before you lot start harping on about Apple's OS being made for the hardware and that's why it works so well, I say bollox. I've been running OS X on non-Apple hardware for years now, and there have been trials and tribulations, but a fairly wide range of hardware is perfectly supported out of the box. I'd guess about 90% of Intel boxes on the market today would run OS X just fine.
There was a genuine difference between Apple hardware until the Intel switch. Whether that was a positive advantage, performance wise, or just a difference depends on the time frame you're looking at. People bought Apple hardware because there was a reason to. Now, they're just over-priced PCs, like any other. You don't get a proper GPU in basic models, as you used to, and they're not even particularly reliable to justify the cost difference, looking back at all the recent known defects. They've made some nice machines over the years, which when introduced were genuinely something different - the 12" PowerBook, for example, set a precedent for decently specced ultraportables which were priced lower than the more functional, and larger equivalents, completely throwing on end the practice of companies like Sony who had been throwing out dozens of crappily-specced ultraportable machines, with a massive price tag, extra-cost options for external optical drives, and annoying proprietary RAM and hard drive upgrades. The MacBook Air highlights Apple's return to the very marketing practices they challenged. Now, there's a wealth of 12" notebooks that are smaller, as functional and usually cheaper than the 'normal' MacBook and no 'higher specced' ultraportable model with, say, a dedicated graphics chip to compensate.
Also, Apple's practice has become increasingly monopolistic in recent years and frankly, they're worse than Microsoft today. I suspect the only reason nobody's done anything about it is that they represent a far smaller target and example to be made.
There was a genuine difference between Apple hardware until the Intel switch. Whether that was a positive advantage, performance wise, or just a difference depends on the time frame you're looking at. People bought Apple hardware because there was a reason to. Now, they're just over-priced PCs, like any other. You don't get a proper GPU in basic models, as you used to, and they're not even particularly reliable to justify the cost difference, looking back at all the recent known defects. They've made some nice machines over the years, which when introduced were genuinely something different - the 12" PowerBook, for example, set a precedent for decently specced ultraportables which were priced lower than the more functional, and larger equivalents, completely throwing on end the practice of companies like Sony who had been throwing out dozens of crappily-specced ultraportable machines, with a massive price tag, extra-cost options for external optical drives, and annoying proprietary RAM and hard drive upgrades. The MacBook Air highlights Apple's return to the very marketing practices they challenged. Now, there's a wealth of 12" notebooks that are smaller, as functional and usually cheaper than the 'normal' MacBook and no 'higher specced' ultraportable model with, say, a dedicated graphics chip to compensate.
Also, Apple's practice has become increasingly monopolistic in recent years and frankly, they're worse than Microsoft today. I suspect the only reason nobody's done anything about it is that they represent a far smaller target and example to be made.
Why would a development team use a consumer laptop? Wouldn't a MacBook Pro have been better? What type of problems did they have?
If Apple's EULA gets overturned it will be open season for anyone who wants to make a living as a developer.
Can't wait for the anti-American Company EU to chime in.
Actually, you're essentiallly wrong about why Apple switched to Intel architecture. It wasn't because it was "cheap," but rather because Motorola chose not to upgrade the PPC chip any longer, which forced Apple to find a new supplier just to remain relevant in the PC market. In case you haven't noticed, many of the decision makers at Motorola no longer work there.
That aside, Apple went out of its way to try to make the Mac a closed system for OS X even though the core UNIX OS (not Linux as one poster claimed) is open source and can run on any x86 platform. While UNIX is open, Apple's GUI isn't and as such can be restricted if they choose.
Get your head out of your butt.
There are issue's with OSX already stop pretending there isn't.
There are issue's with OSX already stop pretending there isn't.
If Apple lose, then they end up with the problems that Microsoft has, and who's going to deal with all of the complaints regarding stability issues???
If they have to spend time getting the OS to work on third-party computers, then they really will become the next Microsoft.
Applesoft..... No thanks!
Just because a license agreement/contract exists, doesn't necessarily mean it's defensible.
--
whooleytoo license agreement: By reading this message, you're agreeing to give 2/3 of your entire income to the MacRumors users whooleytoo. To opt out, don't read this message. Thank you.
The site's still up. I suspect Apple only actually threatened them on the basis of the 'OpenMac' name, which has now been changed. I think this will drag on for some time, and I honestly hope that it strikes a raw nerve in the software industry and brings about an end to the dozens of utterly baseless, illegal EULAs we see in software today.
I don't think Psystar has any doubt the meaning of the words of the EULA.
Why do you use the terms "huge corporation" and "little people"? You suggest that regular people are stupid and corporations are somehow immensely intelligent because they are "huge." Nice buzz words, but please leave them at home.
The opportunity to negotiate the my contract with Apple was given to me when I decided to purchase Leopard. Had I felt uncomfortable with the contract, there is always the alternative of some Linux variant. I was not forced to purchase a Mac. I was not forced to install Leopard. I had a choice.
That is maybe the funniest thing written in this thread yet.
Don't be so quick to lump us in with your crazy logic. If you're more interested in the exterior of a computer than how it works (and I guess 70% means you are) that's fine for you; you're entitled to that point of view, of course. But to assume everyone else is just like you smacks of desperation and wanting to believe you're not retarded for buying based on appearances.
The missing Mac?
As someone who's used Macs since the SE30 and the utterly brilliant IIci, I welcome Psystars initiative IF it kicks Apple into producing the Mac that so many seem to want (and I'm not talking about the 12" MBP that the chattering technorati seem to go on about ad nauseum). The Mac Pro Mini.
I don't want to have to renew my computer and screen every few years (which is the iMac option).
I don't want to have a video crippled computer (which the Mac Mini is).
I don't want to fork out huge amounts of dosh for the most powerful top-end desktop - gorgeous as it is.
I do want internal expandibility, a video card upgrade path and Apple quality.
I (probably) won't buy a Psystar Bag o' Bits, I like/need Apple's reliability too much.
I would like Messrs Jobs, Ive and Partners to think different.
And yes, I do want to play games on my computer - call me old fashioned.
Finally, I do want to buy Apple product. But, I wont if the product's not right, and, at the moment there's a chasm like gap that Apple aren't filling; which is where the likes of Psystar will step in. Not actually into the chasm (but you never know), just try to fill it with their product - and take some of Apple's dollar.
The grand or so's difference between the Mini and the Pro allows for a helluva lot of design/procurement fun and games to be crammed in, without affecting the MP sales.
Then again, I'm not a multi-millionaire computer marketing genius...
As someone who's used Macs since the SE30 and the utterly brilliant IIci, I welcome Psystars initiative IF it kicks Apple into producing the Mac that so many seem to want (and I'm not talking about the 12" MBP that the chattering technorati seem to go on about ad nauseum). The Mac Pro Mini.
I don't want to have to renew my computer and screen every few years (which is the iMac option).
I don't want to have a video crippled computer (which the Mac Mini is).
I don't want to fork out huge amounts of dosh for the most powerful top-end desktop - gorgeous as it is.
I do want internal expandibility, a video card upgrade path and Apple quality.
I (probably) won't buy a Psystar Bag o' Bits, I like/need Apple's reliability too much.
I would like Messrs Jobs, Ive and Partners to think different.
And yes, I do want to play games on my computer - call me old fashioned.
Finally, I do want to buy Apple product. But, I wont if the product's not right, and, at the moment there's a chasm like gap that Apple aren't filling; which is where the likes of Psystar will step in. Not actually into the chasm (but you never know)
, just try to fill it with their product - and take some of Apple's dollar.The grand or so's difference between the Mini and the Pro allows for a helluva lot of design/procurement fun and games to be crammed in, without affecting the MP sales.
Then again, I'm not a multi-millionaire computer marketing genius...