No need for hyberboles like this, especially since they're incorrect. Mac clones did sell. And apparently in enough numbers to concern Apple.
Yes, exactly.
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 Winding Down Business as Web Site Goes Dark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Here is a real example: Apple creates a hardware device that enables you to to call for free to anywhere in the world. The tap is picked up by the phone companies without their knowledge. They sell this device for $120 (1972).
I think that is much worse than hackintoshes.
Too bad. I was hoping they'd be around long enough to coax Apple into making a mid range tower. Apple just didn't get it apparently. Oh well, I can always build a hackintosh. I'm not paying $3,000 for a tower. If Apple doesn't change it's ways, they've lost me as a desktop customer. I will not be coerced into paying that much money, when it's obvious from Psystar that I don't have to.
See, this is what I was talking about. Both the mid-range tower thing, and the apple is arrogant thing.
Well, to be fair, it wasn't Apple that was selling that.
Fair enough. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak then.
Does their settlement agreement hold in light of the injunction? (Can't remember the terms of the agreement). If so, then the amount of the agreement was likely far above any profits they made (if any). Does their settlement agreement hold in light of the injunction? (Can't remember the terms of the agreement). If so, then the amount of the agreement was likely far above any profits they made (if any).Buzz Bumble said:YIPPEE!!
Ding dong, the greedy scum have gone!!
It's time to celebrate!!
Apple should also have been awarded every cent of profit that greedy Psystar ever made out of the products ... and the Psystar scum never allowed to run any business ever again. Of course, the so-called "justice" system is a joke and always wimps out with the "slap on the wrist with a wet paper towel" sentencing.
Sorry, I meant in addition to any settlement Apple have already been awarded.
The settlement money is from Psystar breaking the licensing agreement which should be paid separately, and they should then not be allowed to keep any profit they made selling machines. Psystar should also have to pay all of Apple's legal bills for this on-going stupidity, again separate from the other amounts. How the greedy Psystar scum come up with all that money is their problem, and it should make other equally greedy scum think twice before trying it again.
On a purely legal level, Psystar should also have to hand over their customer addresses so that Apple could go around and destroy the clone machines ... on a common sense level, of course, Apple would not actually do that (at the very least it would be a PR disaster, unless Apple exchanged them for real Macs using Psystar's payments).
Not wanting to pay $3000 for a desktop when you don't have to is not arrogant. It's sensible. If Apple were smart, they'd learn a lesson from this. But they won't. And that's a mistake.
I didn't accuse you of arrogance. I accused you of accusing Apple of arrogance for not giving you the machine to which you feel you are entitled, thus providing you with justification for your decision to violate Apple's EULA.
There was a long stream of messages in this thread about how people seem to feel they are entitled to whatever computer they want, running whatever OS they want, even if Apple doesn't choose to sell it.
Commitment in what way? Showing up on time, doing your work? Or commitment in promising to work for them for 10 years?
No employer ever does me a 'favor'. It's a mutual exchange. They pay me money, I provide knowledge and man power which benefits their organization.
Trying to get promoted within a company is often an inefficient way of moving up. A few years ago I interned at a large insurance company, and all but 1 of our top execs had only been at the company for a few years. If they're taking outside applicants for their best positions, what hope does anybody down at the bottom have for moving up?
If companies don't address their customers needs, they lose them. That's how it works. It's just business.
Agreed. If you don't like what Apple chooses to sell, and you can get what you need elsewhere, you should buy it elsewhere. But that's different than using Apple's decision not to sell you what you need to justify violating their EULA and intellectual property rights. You are perfectly free to build or buy a computer with a wide range of operating systems, but if it's not an Apple computer, than Mac OS X is not a legitimate OS choice.
this is bullsh*t!
if you BUY a piece of software you OWN that particular piece of software! just like when you buy a car: you own the car, you can mod the car, you can resell the car and so on... but you don't have the right to replicate the car and sell it (in case you are some crazy billionare and have the means to do it)
all this idiocy with "licensing" doesn't have much legal ground... it's just an idiotic and abusive concept invented by overly greedy software companies...
US court says software is owned, not licensed
OUT-LAW News, 05/10/2009
Software company Autodesk has failed in its bid to prevent the second-hand sale of its software. In a long-running legal battle it has not been able to convince a court that its software is merely licensed and not sold.
Like many software publishers Autodesk claims that it sells only licences to use its software and that those who pay for it do not necessarily have the right to sell it on. It sued Timothy Vernor, who was selling legitimate copies of Autodesk software on eBay, for copyright infringement.
The US District Court for the Western District of Washington has backed Vernor, though, in his claim that he owned the software and had the right to sell it on.
http://www.out-law.com/default.aspx?page=10421
last year, in the same case, another court gave the same verdict:
Software was sold, not licensed, says US court
OUT-LAW News, 28/05/2008
A Seattle man is free to sell second-hand software on eBay, a US court has said. It found that the maker of the software, Autodesk, could not stop the resale by claiming that its software is licensed rather than sold.
Software companies have long claimed that software is not sold to users but licensed, and many software licences forbid the resale of the software. A Seattle District Court has found, though, that the packages of software in question were sold, not licensed, and that the licence is not binding on subsequent buyers.
The software industry relies on categorising what consumers often think of as software sales as software licensing agreements. If followed by other courts, the Autodesk ruling could affect the ability of software publishers to restrict the transfer of their technology in that way.
http://www.out-law.com/page-9151
first, there's the lack of any statement when you buy the software (you only find out later that there's an areement)
then, there are false and abusive statements in the EULA... for example apple claims that you can only transfer your so-called license once... or this is false as proved by the above articles... and there were and still are many EULA's with all kinds of interdictons that have absolutley no legal base... the users ar actully fooled that certain things are illegal when in fact they're perfectly legal...
there all kinds of limitations, can't return anything you want, anytime you want..
First of all, the first sale doctrine has nothing to do with this. The Apple EULA doesn't say you cannot sell your Mac with its OS. The case you cite talks specifically about the first sale doctrine. And when they says "software is owned" they are talking about the DISK. Adobe was trying to prevent the resale of the DISK (which happened to contain the software bits, of course). The court said, nope, when you buy the DISK you own it, and you can resell it. That's called the "first sale doctrine." Of course, as the Psystar case shows, this doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with the BITS. Psystar was free to buy mac os disks and resell them to end users, but it was not free to copy the bits on those disks, modify the bits on those disks, etc.
There is no fraud, as there is no false statement. There is an EULA, and you haven't explained what these "restrictions" are that prevent you from returning the software to Apple. There is no harm to the "buyer" (no detriment) when they buy the disk, so there is detrimental reliance on a false statement even if there was a false statement. You are accusing Apple of fraud, which is a very serious charge, when all Apple does is provide a EULA which, the courts have said, is completely legal and enforceable. If anything, you are committing trade libel by calling Apple fraudulent.
There is no fraud, as there is no false statement. There is an EULA, and you haven't explained what these "restrictions" are that prevent you from returning the software to Apple. There is no harm to the "buyer" (no detriment) when they buy the disk, so there is detrimental reliance on a false statement even if there was a false statement. You are accusing Apple of fraud, which is a very serious charge, when all Apple does is provide a EULA which, the courts have said, is completely legal and enforceable. If anything, you are committing trade libel by calling Apple fraudulent.
I own few Macs, Apple IIe, 9600, Cube, color iMac, G5, Mac Pro and the Latest one just got it yesterday.
I also build a hackintosh myself just for fun and it runs well in fact.
However, and I think most of people here bought Mac not only because the nicely design hardware and powerful software but also the outstanding customer service. And in the even that my machine should fail, I know I can always get the best support from Apple and that is priceless.
I also build a hackintosh myself just for fun and it runs well in fact.
However, and I think most of people here bought Mac not only because the nicely design hardware and powerful software but also the outstanding customer service. And in the even that my machine should fail, I know I can always get the best support from Apple and that is priceless.
You can't compare physical property and intellectual property. When you buy a music CD, you don't own the music, you own the physical CD. You are limited in what you can do with it too (you can't broadcast it or even copy it).
Also it's only ******** because you feel you are entitled to something different. Drop the sense of entitlement for a second and try to realise that the license model makes much more sense for intellectual property which as close to zero duplication costs and high production costs.
Have you even researched Verner vs Autodesk ? First, it wasn't about the validity of the software as a license model, it was about first sale doctrine. Also, in his decision, the judge basically said that higher courts (this is important) had already ruled that the software as a licensed good is legitimate and that as such, his decision went against the higher courts (including the 9th circuit district). Basically, he set the grounds for appeal.
But again, Verner vs Autodesk was about first sale doctrine, the right to resell software if you have no installed versions and no copies of it are kept by the seller. It wasn't about software as a license, which is just the defense autodesk tried to use to claim you can't resell a license.
Of course, now you'll probably ignore my post, just post something else about this all being BS.
If I prove you wrong with a picture, do you agree never to return to Macrumors ? Viewing the following picture means you are in agreement and will abide by the terms of this comment if it indeed proves that it is you who is full of BS :
I think you post are a great example of some of the things wrong with apple. The laptop hunter adds were great ads because the showed the huge holes in apple line up and the huge premium paid to get very basic things.
Apple lost me a long time ago for a desktop customer for many of the same reasons they are loosing you. I was not will to pay 3k+ for a computer could build a computer for 1500 that covered my needs. Now yes the 3k apple was more powerful but I had to pay for a lot of extra crap I did not want or need.
For the people who will try to count my point I was a tower that I could upgrade the graphic card and hell put a real graphic card in, be able to add extra internal hard drives.
Build it was 1500 including my needed software. Buy an apple over 3k at the time. It still has not change except now I can build my next computer for about 1k so I save over 2 grand
786 Psystar junk-boxes did not amount to concern.
Someone violating Apple's IP and then running a business behind it, however, WAS (and rightfully so) a concern.
No one cared about Psystar's junk. Apple only cared about clarifying its IP rights and setting an example.
All true.
Except in the case of Apple vs. Psystar. EULA upheld (after a long string of EULA's upheld.) Apple's stated rights upheld. Your post: negated.
Except for that little bit about Apple posting record Mac sales, record quarters, quarter after quarter, in a recession, and being called "recession proof." Apple actually sold MORE Macs while those Laptop Hunter ads were airing, and continues to sell MORE Macs in a recession, while MS posted a horrible quarter with the following quarter's results not much better. People keep buying more Macs, lining up and opening their wallets. No mass outcry. No sharp drops in sales. More money spent on more Macs in a horrible economy. It's as if the Laptop Hunter ads never aired in the first place, though I don't think they were actually targeting Macs anyway.
Oh, sorry. I thought you might be including the period of legitimate Mac clones that was in the '90s.
Except Apple already sold a mid-range tower. They sold one for about 25 years. Why do you think they suddenly dropped the mid-range tower ?
(hint, look at their laptop numbers vs desktop system numbers).
No, didn't mean that time. But I can't really comment on that anyway. To my mind, at least, we're living in different times, and Apple's mindhsare is of a different quality than it used to be. Demand for genuine Macs is at an all-time high.
And you completely miss the point of the ads. They showed clear huge holes in the line up. Apple sells still did well but who knows how many people they lost because of those ads. I bet they lost quite a few potential sells or people 2nd guess themselves on buying apple after seeing them. They did make you think
Well made you think as long as you are not a blind follower of apple
Wait, you needed those ads to tell you that there's a huge hole in the line up ? You think Steve Jobs sat there, watched the ad and said "OMG Ives, Schiller, in my office know! Did you guys know there's holes in our product line-up ?".
Of course there's holes in the line-up. Apple sells what sells for them. They sell in the premium end of the market and don't bother with the low-end. Steve knows this, Steve said this himself. Apple is happy being a niche player. A very profitable niche player.
The ads didn't tell us anything new unless you were completely blind, retarded and lived in a cave for the last 15 years.
So? Apple has said that there are markets that they will never cater to. Ill bet that there are tons of other companies that say the exact same thing too. That doesnt mean that you can rip off their work.