Apple rumored to disable Atom support with Mac OS X 10.6.2 - Page 4

I hate to say it, but entitlement is precisely what it sounds like. You feel that you should be allowed to use Apple's OS independent of buying an Apple computer simply because you've deemed it's EULA unethical and it's the OS you've chosen to use. No offense, but it's not really up to you to determine what's within Apple's rights as a business and what isn't. What is within your right as a consumer is to buy something else if you don't agree with what the corporation in question does or stands for. But no amount of debate will change either of our minds one way or the other so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Convenient how you missed out emphasising the part I have made red, which completely goes against your point.

Installing a software, which is considered copying by the way, is protected under the copyright law. This is the center of the problem. Once you install the software you can use it in anyway you want.

Not $700 netbooks... they don't seem to be "everywhere" at all.

So go and buy your 350g Windows PC, and STFU complaining that it can't LEGALLY run OS X. You make your choice, you deal with the consequences.

No, but the actual copying of it -- i.e., installation -- is covered. If it is legally installed, you can use it as you wish, but if the copy you make violates your license, the right to use legally made copies as you wish is irrelevant, since the copy itself was made in violation of the license.

Welcome back from your banning.

The public hasn't proven Apple wrong at all. As the margins on Netbooks are still pathetically low, as Apple said.

Marketshare has nothing to do with the amount of profit from a unit sale whatsoever.

TOTALLY AGREE!


If Apple did a MacBook Mini with an 11.6" Screen sporting the 16:9 ratio, the new Pineville CPU with integrated CPU/GPU running one of their special cell batteries and sold it at $699 they'd have a winner. Hands down winner. Doesn't need ethernet. Just APX, BT, and 2 USB ports with a MiniDisplayPort to boot. Running OS X the 9 Cell battery powered MSI would go over 9 hours (roughly the train ride down to Charleston from DC). But Apple's engineers and the new platform could easily take it to double. Cost would be less than half. Your buying the OS, iApp's and support on a well designed state of the art machine with a 12+ hour battery. Winner, the end.

Margins suck because it's the SAME Hardware/OS combo where ever you go, IE: Price war. Apple is NOT the same. OS X, iApps and design more than make up for similar hardware. A trouble free LONG LIFE netbook that runs OS X, worth every penny of the $700.

Apple's problem then would be keeping them in stock.

What point is that exactly?

Simple: don't upgrade to 10.6.2.

Chances are you're more worried about the bugs you're experiencing from running OSX on a PC than the 150 bug fixes that come with the update.

I can't buy a new BMW for $15,000, either. Therefore, Hyundai should be allowed to copy the BMW and put a BMW logo on it and sell it to me for $15,000.

Problem is, people are very stupid! Only about 5% of the population are capable of rational decisions IMO.

Thank god 'the people' dont decide the fate of Apple's products, what hideous creations they would be, devoid of vision, style and foresight.

Apple doesn't have sued the German company which sells Hackintoshes, does it?

No, but razor blade designs are patented.

Copyright does not protect the use of the work. It simply protects the market value of work by preventing imitators from profiting from the original work. That's what makes Psystar guilty of copyright violation and Hackintoshers not.

The EULA is a supplementary document, which is only valid so long as it doesn't violate the rights of the end-user.





Then accessing the eligibility of a support request is a cost that must be covered by any company with a support line. That doesn't make the one who calls the support line wrong for doing so!

hahaha, how ridiculous...

Call it stupid then, if you prefer...
Remember the infamous and now obsolete unibody Macbook without FW? I think it was sheer laziness not to implement FW on this otherwise highly attractive model. But at least they fixed it with the 13" Pro and finally turned it into a major hit.


These glorious Apple sales numbers will tell you absolutely nothing about the netbook consumer and their behaviour, simply because Apple doesn't offer any netbooks! Who knows, despite growing sales they might have lost tons of sales from potential Apple netbook users who went Hackintosh or even Windows instead.

I certainly was shocked when I saw a the result of a poll (with over 3000 responses) on a MSI Wind forum about a year ago. There were more users with OSX on their netbooks than XP! Sadly Linux came in last, but there were also a great numbers of multi-boot systems. Unfortunately the poll didn't ask about the systems being used on these configurations, but my guess is the majority was OSX/XP.

Just check out some netbook user forums and compare the numbers of posts in the different OS categories.
For example http://www.s10lenovo.com/
Linux: 882 posts
Windows: 1566 posts
OSX: 6857 posts

These netbook forum post numbers indicate a huge OSX installation base on certain netbook models that are easily hackable. At some time Realtek even offered an OSX driver for a popular netbook WiFi card. They certainly wouldn't do this just for a handful of hackintosh users...

Think about how much better these Apple sales figures (and profits) could look, even if they had a rather expensive $700 10"or 11" netbook in their program.
Netbooks are seldom being used as main computers. They are simply 2nd or even 3rd computers to complement your desktop and/or large screen laptop. These small things are great for traveling, especially now when luggage size becomes more restricted and more expensive.
Therefore PC netbooks won't hurt Apple sales at all, but if Mac versions were available could boost their figures immensely.

But Apple seems to think it is good business NOT selling us a third computer. LOL, not even with a hefty 300$ profit margin?

Of course I would never switch to Win 7 on my perfect Mac Pro, but for basic on the road computing I could probably live with Win 7.

Regarding that rumored tablet thing: I won't believe it until I finally see it. And in case this will just be another portable video/gaming device with iPhone OS: No thanks.
Watching Bluray discs on a large screen projector and listening to multichannel sound has spoiled my appetite for toy screen video once and for all.

True, but that wouldn't qualify as personal use either. A public display is a commercial act, regardless of whether you charge attendees.


No, your understanding of Fair Use is wrong. Fair Use sets out guidelines on how a copyrighted work can be used within another work. For example, you can't take a story written by someone else, add a couple of lines to it, and republish it as if it was yours. This is pretty clear on the first line of the text you linked to:


Also Fair Use spells out the difference in the very first doctrine where the rights of Copyright don't apply, again from your link:


Personal use has been ruled on many occasions to fall under the non-profit, educational purpose clause. Plus all I would have to say is "I tried to install OS X on my netbook to see if it would work" and that would qualify as educational research.



True, if it was a copyright infringement, which this is not. It's a violation of their EULA, which is a contract, that comes under civil law in which they do need to show harm. A Copyright violation would be a criminal offense prosecuted by the government.


What the user paid for the license has nothing to do with any damages claimed by Apple. The importance of the fact that the user paid a sum (any sum) for the use of the software has more to do with which party is acting in bad faith. The user paid to use the software - thus acting in good faith. Apple trying to restrict how that software is then used can be interpreted as acting in bad faith. No jury would support Ford if they had a EULA that said you can only make left turns with their cars.

Not yet, that I am aware of, but PearC and Psystar are unambiguously in violation of copyright law, since the EULA doesn't even apply to them -- i.e., since they are not end-users, they have no license whatsoever for what they are doing, not even one with possibly contestable points.

Sorry, but you CAN NOT buy a legal copy of OS X unless you buy a Mac! That "copy" you're talking about is a Legal UPGRADE of the OS X installed on your Mac.

Why for the love of Dawg, can't people understand that?

As for "buying a LEGAL copy of OS X", I've personally stated at USD 699,00, with no Apple support on any system but Apple's... could be "doable"... and "why not? No one would "BUY" it anyway (I don't think), but it would also take care of that same babble regarding the "Apple Tax" on Apple hardware.

It's not a TAX... it's the cost of developing OS X and iLife! Considering the reputation, and even articles from PC Mag as the "Best Operating System ever written", why would anyone expect it to be free is beyond me

I hacked my RAZR so I could put my own ringtones on it. And by "my own," I actually mean music that I created, not copyrighted music that I copied from my iTunes library.

I also purchased Vista, yet proceeded to install the hacked and modified "Vista Black" because I didn't want MS breathing down my neck with all the "Genuine Windows" and authentication BS.

And, of course, I purchased OS X but installed it on my own a hardware profile which better fit my needs as a user.

Am I legally wrong? Yes.

Am I ethically wrong?

It's not a matter of entitlement. I fully acknowledge that I am not in compliance with the various EULAs in these scenarios. They are just completely unnecessary to the good operation of the product. As long as I am not truly abusing the use of or damaging the market value of these products, I honestly don't see the ethical problem with breaking their EULA.

This is not equivalent to believing I deserve for Apple to grant me free reign with their software, i.e.: entitlement.

I concur. It does seem out of form to purposely disable Atom like this. Regardless, Im certain the hackintosh community will be able to make builds of future version os DL with the Atom support from 10.6.1 inside.

Ooops! There's one guy that would pay US$699,00...no? Really? Why not? Cheaper to by the Mac and then the upgrade disc? Thought so.

Copyright law is inexorably bound up in contract law since the licenses granted by copyright holders, licenses that govern the right to make copies and for what purposes, are in fact a kind of contract. So, to say that a violation of a EULA is a license contract violation, it to admit that it is a violation of copyright law. Under United States law, there are both civil and criminal penalties applicable to copyright violations.

Tomatoe, tomatta. Sure, make up your own rules as you go along. Do you also find it ok to rip DVD rentals from Netflix so you can watch the movies you've rented on your terms. Hey, you did pay the rental fee after all. It kinda reminds me of what Adam Savage from Mythbusters said, "I reject your reality and substitute my own".

Would you care to explain how operating software is an expression of anything? What kind of nonsense argument is that?

Patents and copyrights are two different things. Patents protect designs, methods, and other aspects and does not effect the end user. On the other hand, copyrights protect the original work (the software in the DVD/CD, the text in the book, the images on websites.. etc) and does affect the end user rights to such work.

The EULA is not supplementary document. EULA it is legal agreement between you and the software developer, which you agree to when you purchased and installed the software. Legally you have the right to return the software (Operating systems included) if you don't agree to the terms even if you opened the package.

Love Mythbusters, especially that quote.

I don't rip Netflix, but I do rip my own DVDs to my aforementioned Atom-based Cube upgrade, even though that is technically illegal. If I had the commitment to delete the image of a ripped Netflix movie after a single viewing, I, again, wouldn't see an ethical problem, but it would be something unenforceable by Netflix and would undoubtedly be abused by others should it be made "legal" to do so.

Abuse of the "honor system" is the reason for these EULAs, but for those who don't abuse or damage the market value of the product, they're an unnecessary inconvenience.

That seems the most likely reasoning to me.

Apple doesnt compete with netbooks and they have allowed the OSx86 Project go on unabated this long so doing this now makes no sense with the given information.

You can copy something for personal use and that is a valid form of Fair Use. If I copy a magazine article to read later at my house, that is a fair use. If I copy it and then send it to a bunch of people, that is not. Through my purchase, I have gained the license to use the software. Apple then telling me how I can use that copy personally is infringing on my Fair Use rights.

What seems to be complicating this issue perhaps is that many Hackintoshers have not come by their copies legally. I do not support that. But I am a believer in strong Fair Use rights. The constitution grants rights to individuals - not corporations. Your views may vary and I respect that, but it doesn't make either of our views more right than the other's. That's something for a court and a jury to decide.

yup. not a big market for tiny netbooks with a $3000 price tag.

In fact, according to US copyright law, 17 USC 117, copies made as an essential step in running a piece of software on a computer system, are specifically mentioned as not being violations. Which is to say, if you have legal possession of a copy of a piece of software, where a 'copy' can be interpreted as a physical embodiment such as a CD or DVD, then installing that software, even without the copyright holder's consent, does not constitute copyright infringement, if such installation is an essential step in running the software.

The same exception goes on to say, though, that you cannot transfer any such made copies over to anybody else's ownership without the copyright holder's permission. But, if you also include the original media as part of the transfer, and either include all other copies you made, or else destroy them, then again, you don't need to seek the copyright holder's permission.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#117

Which puts us back in the domain of EULA violations being purely violations of contract, not copyright.

I recently spent time travelling in Europe and had my Dell mini 9 running Leopard with me. It fit into my coat pocket which meant I could bring it anywhere w/o even thinking about it, pull it out at a cafe in Oslo or Paris and type so much faster than I can on an iPhone even after 3+ years of iPhone ownership. I could also upload and manage my photos easily and do so much else that's not possible to do, or to do as easily, on my iPhone.

If this rumor is true then it's the final confirmation that Apple plans their own "netbook/tablet" as the netbook hackintosh community is so small and it hasn't cost Apple a dime yet as there's not a single hackintosher that would have bought a macbook instead of a netbook.

I will keep my netbook running Leopard as I have for nearly a year. the only difference is that now I'm going to add F&*K Y*U on to the lid where I currently just have the Apple sticker covering the Dell logo. I'd been thinking about getting rid of my iPhone as the ATT network covers my area great except for my home. It looks like I'll be moving to the Droid.

Apple really is becoming more and more like the Evil Empire all the time

Yeah but they sure do make tasty Kool-aid.

False. There is no stipulation in Copyright or Patent law that allows an individual or corporation to extend further the rights given them through the Copyright and Patent laws. That would be like saying "Ok, the second amendment gives me the right to own a gun, so I'm going to write this contract that says I can shoot you with it." If we could all go around making up our own laws willy nilly, this country would be a lot more messed up than it is already.


This is true, however it is also not concrete. There have been many EULAs that have been overturned based on the terms of the license violating the rights given to the individual by our country's laws. A contract is not valid if there are laws that contradict it. There have been many cases where the validity of EULAs have been called into question because you can't see the terms before you open the package of software - an act that prevents the software from being returned and thus preventing you from exercising your rights of return granted by the EULA.

EULAs are a very gray area of the legal arena and why there is so much controversy surrounding them.

Well, at least we agree on one thing.

wow, what a rebel!

why not run linux then? granted - it doesn't come with apple stickers, but it seems that's your only way out of supporting evil empires - unless you count google and their 'surveillance' model of business.

It's a start...

Out of curiosity, where do you stand on ripping DVDs you've purchased?

Actually, it says:

"... provided that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner ..."

Given that all copies of OS X are sold either already on an Apple computer, or as an upgrade to an existing installation, this would hardly allow someone to legally obtain a license for some other purpose -- i.e., not an upgrade to an existing installation.

This was a reply to the original poster who stated that it is a supplemental document, which I understood as it has no legal standing. We all know that every contract is limited by the law


I already stated that. Refer to my earlier post. However, I don't see how Apple saying that "our software on our hardware only" is a violation of any law. As far as I know there is no constitutional law that say everyone have the right to install Mac OS on any computer

The exception doesn't say anything about the purposes for which the original copy was distributed or obtained. It only places conditions on the purpose for which the additional copy will be produced.

So the fact that the original copy from which you're making your installation, the DVD, was labelled as an "upgrade", is irrelevant for this statute.

The whole point is that unless you're creating redistributions (or violating other exclusive rights not covered by 117), a license to make use of a piece of software is not needed to satisfy copyright.

The license is still a potentially valid contract issue, to be sure. But not copyright.