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
They will contract with nVidia or ATI to make them a proprietary card and make a driver only they have. Apple will always be in control. Can't you see that they are like Vegas? They make the rules to the game but let outsiders think they have a real chance just to rob them blind, spin them round and shove them out the back door.
Robert said:
That's more like, Honda says you can drive this car on roads made by non civil engineers because Honda can't control/guarantee how the car will operate on poorly built roads.
Agreed.
one thing if you make cars and all of a sudden ford engines are all in your cars with out them allowing you to put them there and sell it. then yes you have a problem.
a good example would be the nintendo wii. they have the capability to play dvd's but they wont put it in. nor do they tell you that they can. why? because they dont have the license for playing dvd's.
They are just one of the few companies that refuses to ship a PC with the option of any Windows flavors pre-installed in addition to their OS of choice.
1. I am not a fanboy, thank you.
2. It's your first statement that makes the rest of what you said wrong. You did NOT buy the software. You bought a disk with the right to use the software because you accepted the licensing terms and conditions.
3. End of discussion on my part.
I have mixed feelings here.
On the one hand, Apple's control as the designer of both the hardware and the software is one of the most important elements contributing to their high quality user experience. Losing that control would be a catastrophe. I remember thinking it was a tragedy when the first IBM PC clones came out and nothing has changed my mind since. A lot of good integrated systems (everyone other than Apple by this point) were killed off by Microsoft's business model.
On the other hand, a low end desktop Mac with PCI slots sure would be nice. Maybe this will convince Apple to finally make one?
As a practical matter, I don't see how this can succeed regardless of the legal issues. Can't Apple simply refuse to support such systems? Since it obviously violates their EULA, they could block software updates, come out with updates that break on the clone hardware, refuse tech support for machines that don't have an Apple serial number in the hardware, make no effort to ensure anything works on such machines, and probably many other tactics. Might Apple even be able to pressure critical hardware vendors to not supply key, unique components to the cloners?
On the one hand, Apple's control as the designer of both the hardware and the software is one of the most important elements contributing to their high quality user experience. Losing that control would be a catastrophe. I remember thinking it was a tragedy when the first IBM PC clones came out and nothing has changed my mind since. A lot of good integrated systems (everyone other than Apple by this point) were killed off by Microsoft's business model.
On the other hand, a low end desktop Mac with PCI slots sure would be nice. Maybe this will convince Apple to finally make one?
As a practical matter, I don't see how this can succeed regardless of the legal issues. Can't Apple simply refuse to support such systems? Since it obviously violates their EULA, they could block software updates, come out with updates that break on the clone hardware, refuse tech support for machines that don't have an Apple serial number in the hardware, make no effort to ensure anything works on such machines, and probably many other tactics. Might Apple even be able to pressure critical hardware vendors to not supply key, unique components to the cloners?
looking back it was a terrible analogy, the point that i forgot to make is i can then sell that car and there is nothing that the automaker can do i bought it.
I sold it.
All apple warranty is void. but i am running a cheaper computer.
Iknow this is a mac forum but it just irritates me that people can't look at the big picture. And yes nintendo could get away with telling everybody it plays dvds look at apex as they are from china and do not pay the mpeg2 licensing fee and are still sold at walmart.
Big questions here and you talk as if these are settled issues. For example
- Is the EULA a valid contract. Many experts say "no"
- Is the EULA a valid contract in every country in the world?
- Did you actually agree to the contract?
I don't think any legal system would uphold a contract if only one party ever agreed to it. It would be silly to allow for unilateral contracts. One could argue the typical EULA is unilateral in that an end user does not have the option is disagree and return the product for a refund.
dumb
Oh yes... This would be so great!! (sarcasm). And then, Mac OS users would have the same stupid issues that a lot of Windows users have: software driver issues. Part of what makes that Mac so easy to service is that the driver issue is almost non-existent. I guess I'm a snob but, I don't want Mac OS X running on some dirt cheap PC let alone a f***ing Dell!
Oh yes... This would be so great!! (sarcasm). And then, Mac OS users would have the same stupid issues that a lot of Windows users have: software driver issues. Part of what makes that Mac so easy to service is that the driver issue is almost non-existent. I guess I'm a snob but, I don't want Mac OS X running on some dirt cheap PC let alone a f***ing Dell!
And exactly how are they doing that.
With a gun to your head?
And what makes you think you have rights over what Apple does?
Apple are selling a product.
It is called a Mac.
It comes with built in OS.
They don't work independently for all the good reasons posted already, and no law in the universe says they should.
You don't like it, buy a Windows or Linux box.
Just as in older times one could put a Chevy motor in pretty much any chassis. Nowadays the integration of all the systems in a chassis and motor are so complex that this can no longer be achieved without sacrificing many of those systems...or dumbing them down ...... á la Windows.
Virtually every end-user product (let alone software) has a EULA. Check it out next time you buy something (except groceries). And it is a contract. Ever seen the words "Do you accept the terms and conditions"? You can click no and not install the software. People get confused when talking about OS's. You haven't purchased the OS. You cannot do with it as you please. You have purchased a DVD with an installation of the OS on it. There's a difference. Regardless of what Apple says about what you can or cannot do with their OS, you have the final and most important say in the matter. Buy it or don't buy it.
F1rst P0st!!
Let's say the EULA said, "by purchasing this software you agree to let Apple take your first-born child." Would Apple then be able to legally do so? You bought it, so you agreed, right?
I imagine that Apple is not within their legal rights (I hope...) to take any of your children just because their EULA that you agreed to said they could especially if the EULA is inside the box when you purchase it rather than something you can read on the outside.
How this relates to the discussion is that so many people are ranting about how the contract is valid if you and apple both agree to it, but that's not necessarily the case. The agreement has to be reasonable. I'm not saying that what they put in their EULA is not legally binding; that's for the courts to decide. But what Arn and many of the seemingly more level-headed people are saying is that the topic isn't so black-and-white...
Personally I think I should be able to install software I purchase on whatever I want**if I can get it to work myself. The software company has no obligation to give me technical support, but I feel I should have that right, just as I should have the right to modify the code of any software I buy, as long as I don't resell the "improved" version as my own.
In addition, I'm just wondering what you guys think I'm within my rights to do if I find a copy of OSX on the street or in a trashcan. I haven't purchased it, so technically I wouldn't be bound to the EULA (if it is legal). But I can still install it. Or maybe I can't (legally)? I don't know. I would think that since the product has an infinite lifespan (it's not something that is revoked after a year of purchase unless you renew it), then I would be able to install it. Maybe not though.
Let's say the EULA said, "by purchasing this software you agree to let Apple take your first-born child." Would Apple then be able to legally do so? You bought it, so you agreed, right?
I imagine that Apple is not within their legal rights (I hope...) to take any of your children just because their EULA that you agreed to said they could especially if the EULA is inside the box when you purchase it rather than something you can read on the outside.
How this relates to the discussion is that so many people are ranting about how the contract is valid if you and apple both agree to it, but that's not necessarily the case. The agreement has to be reasonable. I'm not saying that what they put in their EULA is not legally binding; that's for the courts to decide. But what Arn and many of the seemingly more level-headed people are saying is that the topic isn't so black-and-white...
Personally I think I should be able to install software I purchase on whatever I want**if I can get it to work myself. The software company has no obligation to give me technical support, but I feel I should have that right, just as I should have the right to modify the code of any software I buy, as long as I don't resell the "improved" version as my own.
In addition, I'm just wondering what you guys think I'm within my rights to do if I find a copy of OSX on the street or in a trashcan. I haven't purchased it, so technically I wouldn't be bound to the EULA (if it is legal). But I can still install it. Or maybe I can't (legally)? I don't know. I would think that since the product has an infinite lifespan (it's not something that is revoked after a year of purchase unless you renew it), then I would be able to install it. Maybe not though.
I thought of something like that but the problem is Apple's installed base of equipment. If the new verion of Mac OS X only worked on custom cards then no one who owns a Mac today could buy the new verson of Mac OS X.
Apple will hve to support the current hardware for a long time. ANyone selling a "hacintosh" would only have to make it look like a crrent Apple product.
It would take Apple 10 or more years to go the custom hardware route and even then people will complain loudly if their 10 year old hardware quits working. but look where that got them with the PPC. Apple is so small that whatever Apple was paying for all those G4 and G5 chips was not enough to fund the research and development so they fell way behind Intel. Same with custom graphics. Nvidia would not make enough from Apple be able to do much.
Hey, can anyone help me? I've got this great HD-DVD player, but whenever I try playing this Blu-ray disc on it, it won't work! I don't understand! Why can't Sony just make it so I can play Blu-ray discs on my awesome HD-DVD player? It's ridiculous that I can only play them on a Blu-ray player....
No, the GPL depends solely on Copyright law. You haven't bought anything, and so you don't have a right to copy GPL software. Unless you accept the GPL, then you can make copies of it.
Actually, it's the other way around - if you buy a Honda fuel filter, you're prohibited from using it in a Toyota. Whether that's a good idea or not is a separate issue.
That's fine unless they *sell* it to you. You've exchanged your hard-earned money for their hard work. What did you get for your $129? Some would say the right to do whatever you want with what you bought, so long as you're not breaking further laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softman_v._Adobe
Ha, ha, you're being coy about the MacOS ROM in OldWorld machines, right?
Apple ditched proprietary architecture and went with cheap (price, not quality) hardware to make more money. We're now seeing the flip side of the coin. It remains to see if Apple wants to have its pie and eat it too.
I suppose you're one of those people that think owning a CD is reason to do what the hell you want with it including making unlimited copies and giving them to your mates!
Like it or not you are buying a license and that is that.
And that applies to Microsoft as well....whatever they might call it today
No one is forcing you to do so.
And please read a dictionary and a few pages of a law book to understand the true legal meaning of a Monopoly.
Aloha from another fanboy
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/legal-services-litigation/5917877-1.html
they signed the license agreement they just have not payed. and they owe a crapload of money. nintendo is much bigger then apex. they would not be able to get away with that.
and to your car analogy.
if you bought 500 engines somehow from ford but did not tell them your repackaging them in a new car. then created a car company to sell these new cars. also telling people they have a new mustang cobra engine in them. maybe i am wrong but i dont think that is leagal
bah. i am probably wrong.
Ok, but... so? If I want a car that can do 250mph, I have probably only one choice... the million-dollar Bugatti. If I want to get from CA to FL in less than 10 hours, I have to buy a plane ticket. If I want an appreciating piece of property, I have to put 10% down and qualify for the mortgage payments. Each of these things is a "barrier to entry".
I'm not trying to be an ass, and I'm certainly not disagreeing that there's a barrier to entry in the Mac world... there absolutely is. But I don't think it's related to Apple being a "monopoly". And I don't think the barrier to entry justifies or damns them from their business model that they've chosen. I get why people are pissed that they can't afford Apple's best stuff. I'm in that camp too. But I'd rather have Apple be in the best position possible to make the best products possible. Forcing Apple to sell whatever to whoever limits Apple's best work in a big way. Finally I don't think the barrier to entry is all that unreasonable, based on what you get. Heck my dad's first Apple was over $2500 in the early 80s!
Just my opinion.
Yet another nonsense argument. The EULA deals with the product you have purchased and nothing else. Apple owns OSX, you don't. Bottom line. You just have the right to install it on your computer. But by no means do you own OSX. And I love your find it in a trash can analogy. LOL. The EULA comes up once you run the DVD in your computer. How does finding it in a trash can get you out of accepting the EULA? (rhetorical question, please don't answer)
Nice analogy.
You deserve to use a Windows box
Well said! I discarded a three paragraph reply to that one.