Actually you are essentially wrong (but somewhat right). It was IBM that wasn't updating the PowerPC (although Moto wasn't either). The G5 was IBM remember?
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
Actually you are essentially wrong (but somewhat right). It was IBM that wasn't updating the PowerPC (although Moto wasn't either). The G5 was IBM remember?
Actually, they did learn something from it. Allowing the clones didn't sell more copies of the OS, but rather, took business away from Apple, actually lowering sales while having no effect whatsoever on market share or the installed base.
Why should they want to repeat that mistake?
For all of those who have no concept in finance or business,
For all of those who have no concept in finance or business,
Mac cost = Hardware + software + iLife + more
The $129 = Upgrade License, NOT a new install License (because you bought a license when you bought your mac).
A more fair assessment of OS X value is to see what else is on the market. Vista Premium is $400 and Leopard is superior than Vista Premium. Thus a new license for Leopard, which has full features, will be somewhere around the neighborhood of $400 or more (because it's superior than Vista).
---
Add:
Of course, some might say, it's not a upgrade license, or some other excuse.
But the fact is clear. It's designed to be used on a Mac (of which part of the purchase price of the Mac subsidizes OS X). If OS X is used on a non-mac, it would have cost more like $400 for OSX.
For all of those who have no concept in finance or business,
Mac cost = Hardware + software + iLife + more
The $129 = Upgrade License, NOT a new install License (because you bought a license when you bought your mac).
A more fair assessment of OS X value is to see what else is on the market. Vista Premium is $400 and Leopard is superior than Vista Premium. Thus a new license for Leopard, which has full features, will be somewhere around the neighborhood of $400 or more (because it's superior than Vista).
---
Add:
Of course, some might say, it's not a upgrade license, or some other excuse.
But the fact is clear. It's designed to be used on a Mac (of which part of the purchase price of the Mac subsidizes OS X). If OS X is used on a non-mac, it would have cost more like $400 for OSX.
Essentially, they are selling a bong. It's what the user does with it -- that's the issue.
Competition is always healthy -- even if they have no legal grounds. It proves there's a demand for Mac, but at a lower price point.
The thing to do would be to issue a barebones version of the Mini and make it 499. I'd pay the extra 100 to have some piece of mind.
Competition is always healthy -- even if they have no legal grounds. It proves there's a demand for Mac, but at a lower price point.
The thing to do would be to issue a barebones version of the Mini and make it 499. I'd pay the extra 100 to have some piece of mind.
well they advertise it with it that you can install it on multiple computers and i'm pretty sure it is also written on the box as well which means it's part of the "contract" at the point of sale
the EULA still doesn't matter in that case
and installing a software on 2 private computers isn't copyright infringement since
1. you are not copying the disc
2. you still have _the right_ for private copies (unless you circumvent copy protection ... which when installing normally with an original disc you don't)
for companies it's a whole different matter but until today there has been not a single case in austria where a company even tried to sue somebody because of any EULA .. partly because the chances of winning are considered next to zero
still Psystart is screwed for other reasons
Sorry, they were all MacBook Pros (2 1st generation MBPs, one more recent 17", and one 15" Core 2 Duo MBP; between them they had 3 batteries replaced in the battery recall - random shutdowns; 2 "bulging batteries" which lifted the front of the MBP off the desk, 2 power supplies stopped charging, 1 power cable melted through the insulation, one Magsafe somehow lost magnetic adhesion!, machines frequently failed to shutdown, or more recently they won't wake after being left idle so have to be force-shutdown and restarted, one requires frequent zapping of the PRAM to correct the colour palette being all messed up). Pity, as I'm a Mac-aholic, but this was my first Mac laptop and I wasn't impressed - apart from the speed. Yowza.)
While I'd love if Apple were able to co-exist with clones in a viable way - choice is good - I don't think that it'd work for them. I can't see the EULA being overturned. How can a court oblige Apple to sell part of their product separately?
"Hi, I'd like to buy the engine of that brand new Ford Focus. No, not the car, just the engine, thanks. No? See you in court!"?
This is just my 2p:
I eventually got fed up with incompatibilities and crashes that were a part of my PC life. I moved to Apple because I didn't want to be worrying about those things. In my experience, my Macbook and OS X has been solid as a rock in comparison.
I personally don't want to jeopardise that situation now by using non-Apple branded parts. Stability drew me to this platform, and now I'm here I wouldn't dream of going 'backwards'.
I knew a fair bit about going 'under the hood' in Windows to tinker with things, and nothing with OS X. Because I don't need to. That took a bit of adjusting, but my productivity now has soared as a result.
To avoid me donning my flame-suit, I should stress this is just my personal experience though.
I eventually got fed up with incompatibilities and crashes that were a part of my PC life. I moved to Apple because I didn't want to be worrying about those things. In my experience, my Macbook and OS X has been solid as a rock in comparison.
I personally don't want to jeopardise that situation now by using non-Apple branded parts. Stability drew me to this platform, and now I'm here I wouldn't dream of going 'backwards'.
I knew a fair bit about going 'under the hood' in Windows to tinker with things, and nothing with OS X. Because I don't need to. That took a bit of adjusting, but my productivity now has soared as a result.
To avoid me donning my flame-suit, I should stress this is just my personal experience though.
Okay so your statement suggests that people are stupid, point blank.
"The EULA does state that Mac OS X can only be installed on Apple hardware."
Is that too hard for the end user to understand? Just because there's a whole lot more text surrounding the agreement doesn't waive the end user's breach because he was being too lazy to read.
Maybe you should spend your time trying to understand the issue at hand here and not proofreading my posts. The bold typeface is to highlight the main point. I think exclamation marks would be used to if I were trying to shout. But it's clear that you don't understand the issue. And where in any of my posts was I, "drawing the conclusion that to own something is to have the rights to copy and distribute and sell it"? The book example as I said before was bad. Apple isn't saying that you can only use OSX at a certain times. And even if they did, if you install it, you're bound by those terms. They say that you are to only install OSX on Apple branded machines. And if you have successfully installed OSX, you have agreed to those terms in the EULA. This issue is Psystar branding a machine to run with versions of OSX that they have purchased and are reselling and pre-installing for you. But I love how you quote someone who's "brother" said after "passing the bar exam" (as if people's credentials matter in this type of forum) that "a contract isn't a contract until a judge says it's a contract". So Apple's lawyers and the federal government are wrong for allowing EULA's as a a valid contractual agreement? This means that every time you purchase something you should sign a contract for that product in front of a judge, lawyer, or notary public. My local Best Buy would have ridiculously long lines. LOL
Think of it as a Reese's peanut butter cup...I can go out and buy chocolate and peanut butter separately and make my own or I could buy them together as a Reese's. However, I can't just go and demand that Reese's provide THEIR peanut butter in case I want to use someone else's cheaper chocolate. At the same token, I can't resell Reese's recipe for peanut butter to use with another brand of chocolate. And now I'm done with this analogy and will never speak of it again
This is an excellent analogy, except that you're wrong.
The point you're leaving out is that Reese's would already be selling their peanut butter and chocolate together, and their peanut butter separately for use with previously purchased left over chocolate.
If you were to purchase the peanut butter they were selling individually and use generic chocolate to make peanut butter cups, how could they stop you? Even if they asked you not to, you're just using a product they're providing that you legally purchased to make something.
Having to enter into a contract to buy a piece of software is stupid in the first place. What part of that do you not understand?
Using your analogy , having to click an "I agree" box every time I buy a cup of coffee would produce the same long lines.
What if? There's a doubt?
Can I request that there be no more car/road, Reese's/peanut butter, Honda/road analogies of any kind...any more....ever?Unless, wait. A Mac is like a Honda, without an audio input jack, fitted with a Vette engine. And the EULA is like a pizza -- with anchovies. Would you want Apple to force you to put that smelly pizza in your car? I wouldn't.
Um, I found the post in less than two seconds using the "Search This Thread" tool. Wasn't difficult at all.
This is simply untrue, and I wish people would stop repeating it. $129 is the price of a single user retail copy of 10.5. It is not an "Upgrade Licence", whatever that may be. It is a full licence to install one copy of 10.5 on one Mac. You may have "bought your licence" when you bought your Mac (but what if it was a secondhand Mac?) but that was a licence for the copy which came with your Mac.
When will everyone realize that analogies in the computer world usually don't hold up. The physical and software world's just aren't the same.
You may hate EULA's but until someone challenges them (my guess is that they have already) we're stuck with them.
You may hate EULA's but until someone challenges them (my guess is that they have already) we're stuck with them.
By the time you add theOS, FireWire, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth to the base model, it will cost more than a Mac Mini! Wouldn't it?
*****************
The "Open Computer" with options:
Case Color: Black
Super Drive (standard)
Intel Processor: Core2Duo/2.2GHz
Hard Drive: 250GB 7200RPM SATA
Graphics Processor: GeForce 8600GT 256MB (+ $110.00)
Firewire: 3 x IEEE 1394 (+ $50.00)
OS X Leopard: Installed (+ $155.00)
Memory: 2GB DDR2
Total: $714.99
I love my Mac Mini and Intel iMac - I would hope that Apple will bump up the features for both models and keep them at a desirable price point. I don't need a smaller form factor for my desktop - I would prefer a computer that doesn't nickel and dime me to death after I buy it (i.e.) more RAM/Larger HDD, etc and so on.
I'm not sure if you looked inside a Mac recently, but it is the same components that PC Makers use. So the Mac Tax is going to paying for the honor of using Mac OS X with a computer that has a Mac Logo? Lame. The configuration of the Open Computer model is even better than the Mac Mini, with some nice options that rival some of those "high end" Macs. They even have the OpenPro Computer for more power. I think Psystar will lose, but I hope this gives Apple a kick in the side about their prices being too high.
enough misinformed "monopolies" already...
Okay, I'm getting pretty tired of people who are throwing around the word "monopoly" without knowing what it means, what makes one, or even to which kind of monopoly they're probably referring.
Apple is not a horizontal monopoly. Microsoft came very close. From Beyond Monopoly Capitalism and Monopoly Socialism, a horizontal monopoly is defined as "when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."
Now at first you may say "well, Apple has complete control over OS X, and don't allow other companies access to it...Apple must be a monopoly!" But if you said that, you would be an idiot. "Product or service" here refers to the product of an operating system. It refers to the product of computer hardware. Is Apple the sole provider of an operating system? Of course not! There's Windows, which has a much great market share, rendering the claim even more ridiculous, and there's Linux. Is Apple the sole provider of computer hardware? Again, no.
The problem is that Apple is the sole provider of computer hardware that can run OS X. Again, this does not make a horizontal monopoly, though, because anyone can just as easily buy other computer hardware that can run other operating systems. The law does not refer to the product of OS X, but to the overall product of operating systems. Understand that. There is nothing Apple is doing to prevent anyone from buying another manufacturer's computer with another operating system.
However, this practice is called vertical integration, and it could be argued that Apple is a vertical monopoly. However, this is—to my knowledge—not illegal in the US. If it were, all the major oil companies would be out of business. Having a closed product is not illegal. How ethical it is is ultimately up to the buyer to decide. Personally, I think it's in any OS X-user's best interest that Apple keep a closed product. If people began buying these "Open Computers" instead of Macs, Apple's profits will suffer significantly. Apple makes their money on hardware, not the software—after all, why do you think one is so expensive and the other so inexpensive? If Apple's profit suffers, R&D suffers, and therefore OS X itself suffers. 10.6 won't be as good, and if Apple has to fight companies like this, they may be forced to add the same idiotic "activation" features that Windows users just love. I don't have a problem with hobbyists who build hackintoshes for fun. Neither does Apple. But if people buy alternatives to Macs on a large scale, OS X will suffer for it. It happened before with OS Classic, and it will happen again if it comes to this. Apple is in no position to license its OS to other hardware like Microsoft is. MS can get away with it because of their massive market share. Their dominance allows them to sell Windows for massive sums compared to Leopard. In short, Windows is in a position to make a profit off software. Apple is not. The only reason Apple can deliver its amazing software is because it can sell hardware. End of story.
Oh, and Microsoft's original bundling of IE with Windows is not the same as Apple bundling Safari with OS X. Why? Microsoft was forcing other companies to sell IE and Windows together. Computer manufacturers could only install OEM Windows on their computers (which they needed to do to remain competitive) if IE was also installed. The part that really made this illegal was that IE was made a fundamental part of Windows through Explorer, whose code was directly tied with IE. It was impossible to separate the two.
Originally, Microsoft was ordered to dissolve itself into two companies, but in appeals court this decision was overturned and MS came to a new agreement with the courts. The terms? MS made provisions that allowed other companies to remove access to IE in the default install, if desired, to make it possible for other applications to become the default browser, and to provide developments tools free-of-charge to developers to develop competing Windows applications.
Compare this to Apple. First of all, Apple isn't forcing anyone else to sell Safari along with OS X. Apple is selling it themselves. Secondly, even if they were, Safari is not tied into the OS and can be easily removed without harm. Lets look at the provisions that allowed Windows to get away with it: Ability to remove Safari if desired? Check. Able to set other browsers as default? Check. Free development tools to create competing applications? XCode! Doublecheck.
Yeah.
Okay, I'm getting pretty tired of people who are throwing around the word "monopoly" without knowing what it means, what makes one, or even to which kind of monopoly they're probably referring.
Apple is not a horizontal monopoly. Microsoft came very close. From Beyond Monopoly Capitalism and Monopoly Socialism, a horizontal monopoly is defined as "when a specific individual or enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it."
Now at first you may say "well, Apple has complete control over OS X, and don't allow other companies access to it...Apple must be a monopoly!" But if you said that, you would be an idiot. "Product or service" here refers to the product of an operating system. It refers to the product of computer hardware. Is Apple the sole provider of an operating system? Of course not! There's Windows, which has a much great market share, rendering the claim even more ridiculous, and there's Linux. Is Apple the sole provider of computer hardware? Again, no.
The problem is that Apple is the sole provider of computer hardware that can run OS X. Again, this does not make a horizontal monopoly, though, because anyone can just as easily buy other computer hardware that can run other operating systems. The law does not refer to the product of OS X, but to the overall product of operating systems. Understand that. There is nothing Apple is doing to prevent anyone from buying another manufacturer's computer with another operating system.
However, this practice is called vertical integration, and it could be argued that Apple is a vertical monopoly. However, this is—to my knowledge—not illegal in the US. If it were, all the major oil companies would be out of business. Having a closed product is not illegal. How ethical it is is ultimately up to the buyer to decide. Personally, I think it's in any OS X-user's best interest that Apple keep a closed product. If people began buying these "Open Computers" instead of Macs, Apple's profits will suffer significantly. Apple makes their money on hardware, not the software—after all, why do you think one is so expensive and the other so inexpensive? If Apple's profit suffers, R&D suffers, and therefore OS X itself suffers. 10.6 won't be as good, and if Apple has to fight companies like this, they may be forced to add the same idiotic "activation" features that Windows users just love. I don't have a problem with hobbyists who build hackintoshes for fun. Neither does Apple. But if people buy alternatives to Macs on a large scale, OS X will suffer for it. It happened before with OS Classic, and it will happen again if it comes to this. Apple is in no position to license its OS to other hardware like Microsoft is. MS can get away with it because of their massive market share. Their dominance allows them to sell Windows for massive sums compared to Leopard. In short, Windows is in a position to make a profit off software. Apple is not. The only reason Apple can deliver its amazing software is because it can sell hardware. End of story.
Oh, and Microsoft's original bundling of IE with Windows is not the same as Apple bundling Safari with OS X. Why? Microsoft was forcing other companies to sell IE and Windows together. Computer manufacturers could only install OEM Windows on their computers (which they needed to do to remain competitive) if IE was also installed. The part that really made this illegal was that IE was made a fundamental part of Windows through Explorer, whose code was directly tied with IE. It was impossible to separate the two.
Originally, Microsoft was ordered to dissolve itself into two companies, but in appeals court this decision was overturned and MS came to a new agreement with the courts. The terms? MS made provisions that allowed other companies to remove access to IE in the default install, if desired, to make it possible for other applications to become the default browser, and to provide developments tools free-of-charge to developers to develop competing Windows applications.
Compare this to Apple. First of all, Apple isn't forcing anyone else to sell Safari along with OS X. Apple is selling it themselves. Secondly, even if they were, Safari is not tied into the OS and can be easily removed without harm. Lets look at the provisions that allowed Windows to get away with it: Ability to remove Safari if desired? Check. Able to set other browsers as default? Check. Free development tools to create competing applications? XCode! Doublecheck.
Yeah.
I kinda agree with you but when you buy an OSX disk you can do a clean install along with an upgrade. You can install OSX on a drive that had no previous OS on it. That should mean that if you can do a full install, the disk price should reflect more closely to the $400 price of Vista. Just a thought.
Saying its stupid is your opinion but it doesn't mean its not necessary. Its done by everyone to ensure their product isn't being exploited. Maybe you should read the EULA at the back of the booklet that you received with OSX. And as for your coffee analogy, that is stupid. People keep using unrelated products to compare this situation. Electronics and software are similar. Not food. I've never gone to Starbucks and seen a EULA on the back of a latte. Almost all electronics you purchase have some type of agreement. You just don't have to click "I agree" to accept those terms. By purchasing the product you have agreed to those terms whether you like it or not.
B
bikemonkey
Guest
Just because you buy a physical copy of something doesn't mean you haven't bought a licensed product and that you can do 'whatever you want with it'.
So let's continue with the driving analogy, seems fitting. For instance, here in the UK if I buy my driving license (and, yes I do have to pay for it), I get a nice plastic card with a photo on it. That doesn't mean I can legally exceed the speed limit, drive on the wrong side of the road etc... Yes, I own a plastic card, but this is no different to the OSX DVD I own and the roads and legalities are no different than the OS and it's usage limitations, for want of a better word.
Quite frankly, I do not want Psystar to win this battle. Apple already has problems with it's OS and I can't see a benefit towards supporting self-built machines. You don't buy Pro Tools to run it on a Creative SoundBlaster.
However, it would be nice to see Apple dropping their prices (although I personally don't think they're that unreasonable) just to stop things like this happening.
Also, as much as I hate big companies, if Apple built the OS around their hardware, then that's their business and the way they want to do things. They're not forcing you to buy a Mac. And to be fair, the reputation they have is mainly down to this link between hardware and software.
