or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple serves DMCA notice to OSx86 Project
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple serves DMCA notice to OSx86 Project

post #1 of 146
Thread Starter 
Apple is moving to prevent further discussion of running its Mac OS X operating system on generic Intel-based machines, reports MacNN.

Apple's legal team this week notified the OSx86 Project -- a site dedicated to enabling Mac OS X to run on non-Apple-branded machines -- that it is in violation of the United States DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), forcing the site to close down its user forms and post notice.

"We're sorry to report that despite our best efforts, the OSx86 Project has been served with a DMCA violation notice," reads a note on the OSx86 Project Web site. "The forum will be unavailable while we evaluate its contents to remove any violations present. We thank you for your patience in this matter."

Apple has gone through extensive efforts to develop and install technology to prevent users from running Mac OS X on computers other than Macs; however, hackers have been able to successfully work around many of the security mechanisms in the operating system and recently posted instructions and discussion of how to alter Mac OS X 10.4.4 to run on generic Intel-based machines.

Earlier this week, the OSx86 wesite uncovered a secret poem embedded by Apple in the code of Mac OS X for Intel, urging hackers not to work around Mac OS X security mechanisms.

The poem reads: "Your karma check for today: There once was a user that whined/his existing OS was so blind/he'd do better to pirate/an OS that ran great/but found his hardware declined./Please don't steal Mac OS!/Really, that's way uncool./(C) Apple Computer, Inc."

Apple also put in a separate hidden message, "Don't Steal Mac OS X.kext," in another spot for would-be hackers.

"We can confirm that this text is built into our products," Apple said in a statement to the Associated Press. "Hopefully it, and many other legal warnings, will remind people that they should not steal Mac OS X."
post #2 of 146
This wouldnt be a problem if people could GIVE APPLE MONEY to run it on their perfectly good non-Apple hardware...that asside

Why is it illegal to run software on unintended hardware???? If you own an Intel Mac (or buy Tiger retail UB when availible) , then you own a license to use OSx, and because you are not presented with and made to agree to the EULA before the software is opened and un-returnable, then I dont see how it is legaly binding, any front pourch lawyers (or real ones) want to tackle that?.

To give an annalogy: If I buy a body kit intended for a Honda Civic and modify it to work on a Ford Focus, that is perfectly legal, but if I BUY osx which is intended for Apple hardware and run it on a dell, HP, or Gateway, I am a criminal??? what gives?


I DO NOT support the people who were DLing the image, they were breaking the law and should be punished as such, but if you buy it, it is yours.

Running software that you bought on hardware you own isnt "stealing"...GROW UP APPLE!
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #3 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Running software that you bought on hardware you own isnt "stealing"...GROW UP APPLE!

Absolutely true. Besides, the tremendous exposure of Mac OS X on any PC out there would be great to expand Mac OS X market share from 3% to 50%. Apple is missing a historic opportunity because once Windows and Linux people use Mac OS X many millions of them will not go back and purchase Macs!
post #4 of 146
Nonetheless its part of the agreement when you install the OS: You agree to only use it on a mac.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #5 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Nonetheless its part of the agreement when you install the OS: You agree to only use it on a mac.

BUT: in the eyes of the law, you cant know that before buying the software: and you cannot return an opened softeare packege to (insert store here) because you disagree with the eula
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #6 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
....

Why is it illegal to run software on unintended hardware???? If you own an Intel Mac (or buy Tiger retail UB when availible) , then you own a license to use OSx, and because you are not presented with and made to agree to the EULA before the software is opened and un-returnable, then I dont see how it is legaly binding, any front pourch lawyers (or real ones) want to tackle that?.

....

Actually, this is not quite right. Apple owns the software and sets the terms and conditions for its use. You purchased a license to use the software on Apple hardware, a condition of your your license. The EULA is printed on the shrinkwrap box, which you agree to when you open the box. This is not at all like an automobile which you own as taxable property.

Rather than violating the terms of your EULA, the proper thing to do is to take it to court. You may be able to get the courts to declare that software is purchased when a user and vendor exchange money for its use.
post #7 of 146
I had been wondering where those legal guys/gals had been hiding...

That's too bad, it was a fun site to watch...
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #8 of 146
If you can't understand why Apple is doing this, then you are retarded. Do you really want Mac OS X Install Disc and Upgrades to have all the anti-piracy serial numbers and online verification that Windows has??? Because if they don't stop people from installing illegal copies of Mac OS on PC's they will lose large amounts of money and become nothing but an MP3 Player company.

If Apple loses big in their hardware sales, then we all as Mac users lose. Apple is mainly a Hardware company, always has and always been, except for those few years under Gil Amelio. And if anyone remembers, under Gil's bright ideas Apple's stock reached a 12 year low.

If people bought Mac OS X for the sole purpose of installing it on a PC without buying Mac Hardware, you can bet that the price for the Mac OS would at least double, if not triple. And I for one don't want to have to enter a serial number everytime I install or upgrade the OS or have the system call back to Apple through the internet to make sure I am the sole user of my license.
post #9 of 146
What I would like to know is WHY people would want to instal OSX on non Mac Hardware. Ok, I'm not completly naive, there are defiently reasons to do it, however, the great thing about Macs and OSX is everything is made to work perfectly. Part of the reason behind the shittiness of Windows is that there are so many computer manucactuers that Windows has to be made to work on that an incredible number of drivers and different settings have to be created to be able to work on as many computers as possible. So when you instal windows, it takes forever to get everything set up correctly (if you even can at all) and it's still going to be unstabel because of all this bullshit. Part of the reason I switched was to get away from all this.

Not to mention the face that Apple hardware is superior to most other PC hardware and it looks beautiful.
post #10 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by JohnnySmith
If you can't understand why Apple is doing this, then you are retarded. Do you really want Mac OS X Install Disc and Upgrades to have all the anti-piracy serial numbers and online verification that Windows has???

If it meant that I could run OSX on my non-apple boxes with Apples blessing, then it would be just fine with me.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #11 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by Sekio
What I would like to know is WHY people would want to instal OSX on non Mac Hardware.

Apple hardware is beautifull, but I can build a very capable PC for less than half of an equal power mac.

And as for looks: Anteck makes some nice looking cases too...
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #12 of 146
It's time to move the website off shore... simple as that!
post #13 of 146
I'm sorry but EULA is not law.

Besides , all they have to do is move forums to a server thats overseas. DMCA tactics have fallen flat and is laughed at overseas.

Nothing against Apple , this had to be expected. They simply dont want us to install it on our PCs. Tough luck though , it gonna be running on non-mac hardware one way or another but nobody will use it as standard OS. It's gonna be pain in the azz to keep up with crashes / fixes /unsuported hardware / and also Apple introducing some kind of obstacle with every update.
post #14 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by skatman
It's time to move the website off shore... simple as that!

No, that won't work, the American government is having a hard time trying to realise where their borders end when it comes to the internet. I think they're working on the fact if it can be reached by someone in the US then it has to abide by the US law. Have you seen how the adult content website bill affects sites not hosted in the US? They have to do the exact same thing as American websites.
Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they've got me posting at a bulletin board
Reply
Here I am, brain the size of a planet and they've got me posting at a bulletin board
Reply
post #15 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
This wouldnt be a problem if people could GIVE APPLE MONEY to run it on their perfectly good non-Apple hardware...[AND SO ON...]

Please! Will you stop whining and buy a Mac already!? Seriously. How many times do we have to hear this? In order to run Mac OS X you have to buy a Mac. It's that simple. Really!
post #16 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Why is it illegal to run software on unintended hardware???? If you own an Intel Mac (or buy Tiger retail UB when availible) , then you own a license to use OSx, and because you are not presented with and made to agree to the EULA before the software is opened and un-returnable, then I dont see how it is legaly binding, any front pourch lawyers (or real ones) want to tackle that?.



You purchase a license. You are provided with written information regarding that license. Your use of the product associated with that license is affirmation of your acceptance of the terms - whether you choose to read the license or not.

Quote:

Running software that you bought on hardware you own isnt "stealing"...GROW UP APPLE!

You haven't "bought" the software, you bought a license.

I'm not saying you "shouldn't" be allowed to do it, but if the license prohibits it, it would be illegal.
post #17 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Running software that you bought on hardware you own isnt "stealing"...GROW UP APPLE!

Well, you know the system disks you receive with a PC? Your not allowed to install those on any other machines either, so you can forget trying to blame Apple. They are merely preventing people from bastardizing their OS.
post #18 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleInsider
"Hopefully it, and many other legal warnings, will remind people that they should not steal Mac OS X."

Dear Apple,

Please explain to my how using your OS, which I paid for in a manner different from which you intended is "stealing" .

Last I checked, this was the definition of "theft" in the dictionary:

* To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I'd like to know how using your product, which I paid for and now own, according to the doctrine of first sale, in a manner that you don't approve of make that product not really mine.

Oh, you licensed it to me, ok, fine. If my physical copy of the CD gets broken, that means you'll replace it free of charge, right? I mean, you wouldn't try to structure this arrangement in a way in which you get all the advantages of a physical sale (if I break mine I need to buy a new one), and a licensing deal (the license constricts me from doing what I want with the physical copy).

(To be fair, Apple doesn't include copy protection in their installer DVDs.)

So, Apple, please don't pervert the English language and call it "stealing". It's nothing more than "license violation".

kthxbye
post #19 of 146
i see it this way


aslong as MAc OSX software are ran on macs we wont have to deal with the stupid crap windows does. on top of that apple wont have to be sneaky and place malicious crap like sony did to prevent us from stealing software.



enough already.
post #20 of 146
Would it be illegal to take my HD out of my intel Mac and attach it to my regular PC and then try and get it working?

This is a slightly different arrangement compared to illicit installs and disk images and the like.
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #21 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Dear Apple,

Please explain to my how using your OS, which I paid for in a manner different from which you intended is "stealing" .

Last I checked, this was the definition of "theft" in the dictionary:

* To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I'd like to know how using your product, which I paid for and now own, according to the doctrine of first sale, is not really mine.

Oh, you licensed to me, ok, fine. If my physical copy of the CD gets broken, that means you'll replace it free of charge, right? I mean, you wouldn't try to structure this arrangement in a way in which you get all the advantages of a physical sale (if I break mine I need to buy a new one), and a licensing deal (the license constricts me from doing what I want with the physical copy).

(To be fair, Apple doesn't include copy protection in their installer DVDs.)

So, Apple, please don't pervert the English language and call it "stealing". It's nothing more than "license violation".

kthxbye

Sometimes, my friend, there are rules and laws.

Sometimes, you can't just buy an airplane and fly it anywhere. There are air laws that you have to follow.

Sometimes, you can't just buy a car and drive it over 60mph or 100km/h in North America. Because there are laws.

Sometimes, you can't smash someone's face in while playing basketball because there are rules.

Sometimes...

Sometimes, a company wants you to run their software efficiently and as trouble-free as possible by requiring that you run it on their hardware.

Sometimes you'll go to jail for breaking laws, sometimes you'll just get fined. When rules aren't enforced, you won't be fined or go to jail but you'll be shunned by society.

And that's what's going on, JavaCowboy. What these people are doing is wrong according to a lot of people...it doesn't matter if you think these people are wrong...because these people = many and you = 1. Sowwy.

...

My take? I don't care if they pirate OS X or acquire it legally but install it on a PC and break the EULA just as long as the contribute to OS X by developing and porting software. If they're just in for the ride, however, and pirating other software such as FCP, Logic, Aperture, iLife and iWork, they can rot in hell.
post #22 of 146
It would be ncie if everyone on the project would converge and concentrate on getting Wine working.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #23 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Dear Apple,

Please explain to my how using your OS, which I paid for in a manner different from which you intended is "stealing" .

Last I checked, this was the definition of "theft" in the dictionary:

* To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I'd like to know how using your product, which I paid for and now own, according to the doctrine of first sale, in a manner that you don't approve of make that product not really mine.

Oh, you licensed it to me, ok, fine. If my physical copy of the CD gets broken, that means you'll replace it free of charge, right? I mean, you wouldn't try to structure this arrangement in a way in which you get all the advantages of a physical sale (if I break mine I need to buy a new one), and a licensing deal (the license constricts me from doing what I want with the physical copy).

(To be fair, Apple doesn't include copy protection in their installer DVDs.)

So, Apple, please don't pervert the English language and call it "stealing". It's nothing more than "license violation".

kthxbye

Dear Java,

There are several things regarding your recent letter to us that should not be overlooked as they require correction. I think the most important issue was that not only were the individuals in the article linked attempting to "install" software in a manner which violated the terms of the licensing agreement with us into which they voluntarily entered - they were also altering significant portions of code in order to do so.

Secondly, I'm not sure which dictionary you used, however we use the California penal code, which says:

Quote:
Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry,
lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall
fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or
her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or
fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of
money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures
others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character
and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby
fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or
obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft

Additionally, your arguement regarding the license vs physical sale makes no sense. We license you a particular piece of our intellectual property for a very specific use. Certainly, if the physical media on which that property was conveyed to you becomes damaged, we will replace it within the terms of the licensing agreement for a cost equal to that of replacing the physical media. This however does not confer any new, or additional rights or licenses.
post #24 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
Well, you know the system disks you receive with a PC? Your not allowed to install those on any other machines either, so you can forget trying to blame Apple. They are merely preventing people from bastardizing their OS.

I have had it out with others on that point too, when I see "includes windows XP _____ edition " I am purchasing as part of the price a license for that version of Windows thus so long as I remove Windows from that unit, I have one license to use on a differant unit - EG If I were to build my own rig to replace the PC I use now alongside my Mac, I already own WinXP home from the current unit, I can just re use it as long as I blow it off the first one-- I have a key on the side of the tower for Christ sake!

I would love to test this in a court of law, as I do not see how one can be legally held to the terms of a EULA that you are unable to read untill after purchase, and opening the packege and installing the item...

It would be like buying a new car and after putting 100 miles on it being told that you can only drive it on one of the three interstate highways that have on rramps in your city.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #25 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Sometimes, my friend, there are rules and laws.

Sometimes... blah blah blah...

You obviously misinterpreted what I said. I'm talking about people who legally acquired a copy of OS X for Intel.

You also chose to ignore my main point, that Apple's use of the term "stealing" is a perversion of the English language.

Personal attack deleted - JL.
post #26 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Dear Java,

There are several things regarding your recent letter to us that should not be overlooked as they require correction. I think the most important issue was that not only were the individuals in the article linked attempting to "install" software in a manner which violated the terms of the licensing agreement with us into which they voluntarily entered - they were also altering significant portions of code in order to do so.

Secondly, I'm not sure which dictionary you used, however we use the California penal code, which says:



Additionally, your arguement regarding the license vs physical sale makes no sense. We license you a particular piece of our intellectual property for a very specific use. Certainly, if the physical media on which that property was conveyed to you becomes damaged, we will replace it within the terms of the licensing agreement for a cost equal to that of replacing the physical media. This however does not confer any new, or additional rights or licenses.

Copyright violation is not theft. Copyright is not property. Copyright is a temporary right to copying the material that is the subject of the copyright for a limited period of time. It is a pact made with the people that in order to encourage the creation of such works (that will ultimately belong to the public), a temporary incentive will be provided. Upon expiration of the copyright, the material becomes part of the public domain, at which point it is 100% legal for anybody to copy it to their heart's content.

In the same vein, the term "intellectual property" is disingenuous, because it doesn't involve any real property of any sort. This is another eggegious perversion of the English language.

If I pirate an Apple CD or download an MP3, nobody loses anything. The cost of replicated the copyrighted work is 0. The only thing that is lost is the opportunity cost of the missed potential sale. I could have paid for an Apple CD, or bought that music track on iTunes. I violated the owner's copyright. I did not cause that entity to lose anything, only violated the right to replicate that work conferred upon them by the government.

I consider copyright infringement to be a huge problem for people who develop expensive content currently, such a video game manufacturers, software developers, and movie producers, because producing said content for current consumption is expensive and deserves to be compensated. However, it seems rather silly to me that I can download an MP3 from somebody who's been dead for 50 years, the costs of producing the work having been long paid off, and some immortal corporation can accuse me of "theft". (Note: I'm not accusing Apple per se of doing this, just presenting my argument in a general way.)

Besides, I don't live in California.
post #27 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
You obviously misinterpreted what I said. I'm talking about people who legally acquired a copy of OS X for Intel.

You also chose to ignore my main point, that Apple's use of the term "stealing" is a perversion of the English language.

I didn't misinterpret anything. A company that wants you to follow rules should be allowed to enforce them the way they want (within limits of the law)...just like sport associations can enforce rules, etc.

If you buy OS X legally but install it on a PC, you're breaking the rules and you're going to the penalty box...it's as simple as that. If you don't like it, stop playing the game, do not pass go, and do not get reimbursed 200 dollars.

Who cares if the term 'stealing' is a perversion of the English language. I speak French.
post #28 of 146
This was one of the Catch-22s of the transition. Before, it was impractical to just get a non-Apple computer to run OS X, because hacker punks couldn't just throw together a PPC system.

One thing to consider is that part of the cost of the computer is the operating system. The $129 price of Mac OS is basically an upgrade price because you can't get a Mac without OS X, and it wouldn't run on anything else. I would bet that the cost would be higher for non-Apple systems if it were ever sold separately to install on a bare system.

I have a few systems that I wouldn't mind installing OS X onto, and would pay the full legal licence fee.

Quote:
Originally posted by zunx
X on any PC out there would be great to expand Mac OS X market share from 3% to 50%.[/B]

BTW: OS X market share is about 5% now.
post #29 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
This was one of the Catch-22s of the transition. Before, it was impractical to just get a non-Apple computer to run OS X, because hacker punks couldn't just throw together a PPC system.

EXCUSE ME!!!!

Because I want to build my own system to meet my needs, no less and no more, and because I want control of every element of it, I am a "hacker punk"??

The fact is, I am an IT Professional who prefers to get what I need for the best price, and I have found OSX to be the best platform for my day-to-day home computing needs like email, basic document creation, music and media managment and so on, but I also use commodedy hardware for Windows and Linux, which I also use. This hardware is o a large extent identical to the components of the intel Macs, and I want to be able to use my _much_ more powerfull PC equipment to use the power and streight forwardness of OSX.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #30 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
If it meant that I could run OSX on my non-apple boxes with Apples blessing, then it would be just fine with me.

Would paying $599 for a copy of OS X be fine too? Who knows how much Apple would have to charge to make up for the lost hardware sales if they licensed the OS?

When Amelio listened to his "advisors" and licensed Mac OS 8 to Motorola, Power Computing, DayStar, etc., Steve Jobs said later (when he killed this nonsense) that each clone sold was costing Apple $200.

So Steve knows that you can build an AMD-64 box for $1500. He also knows that you want to run OS X. He also knows that if you can run OS X for $129 on the AMD, you won't buy a Mac. That is why he won't let you do it. They have Ph. Ds at Apple and you can be sure that they have compared the bottom lines in licensing and no-licensing.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #31 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by wgauvin
No, that won't work, the American government is having a hard time trying to realise where their borders end when it comes to the internet.

There's a vast difference between what the US government realize and reality. WMD's, anyone?

Quote:
I think they're working on the fact if it can be reached by someone in the US then it has to abide by the US law.

Eh? So if it can reach someone in, say, Uganda, it has to abide by Uganda law? Come on... Seriously. Overseas, we're all laughing...

Quote:
Have you seen how the adult content website bill affects sites not hosted in the US? They have to do the exact same thing as American websites.

I'm guessing cause they're doing business in the US. As far as I know OSX86 is a non-commercial site.

Sure, Apple could do a good bit of lobbying to make whichever country's hosting the (according to US law) illegal content contact the ISP in question and make them nullify the contract and remove the offending content. But still, that's a stretch... And by then, you've already switched ISP...
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
post #32 of 146
I love the idea of installing OS X on generic peecees. For one thing, there are a lot of nerds who love PCs for playing video games, but occasionally will get bored with that and dual boot Linux to play around. A Mac for them is simply ridiculous; it would be like buying an expensive DVD player when most of your TV use is playing PS2. Others, who don't care so much about their video games, hate Windows and build very cheap boxes for Linux, and many (at least those who are not Free Software idealists) would gladly try out OS X.

Personally, the idea of building a Mac out of used and salvaged parts is very appealing. Furthermore, I'd love an expandable, upgradable Mac for far less than the restrictive mini.

I wouldn't expect Apple to try to support any random configuration, but it would be nice if they turned a blind eye to hobbyists, who are willing (and even eager) to deal with the challenges of this sort of undertaking.
post #33 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by lundy
Would paying $599 for a copy of OS X be fine too? Who knows how much Apple would have to charge to make up for the lost hardware sales if they licensed the OS?

Did you sleep through Business 101?

Law of volume goes something like this : Selling 101 copies at $1 profit makes more than selling 1 copy at $100 profit.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #34 of 146
Quote:
I want to be able to use my _much_ more powerfull PC equipment to use the power and streight forwardness of OSX.

Yes, yes, we understand that's what YOU want, because it's cheaper for YOU.

It isn't what APPLE wants, because it loses money for Apple.

And since Apple owns the product, Apple gets to decide.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #35 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by aplnub
It would be ncie if everyone on the project would converge and concentrate on getting Wine working.

¬°Hear, hear!
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
post #36 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Did you sleep through Business 101?

Law of volume goes something like this : Selling 101 copies at $1 profit makes more than selling 1 copy at $100 profit.

You forgot the 101 lost hardware sales.

I'm a doctor; I didn't take Business classes.
--Johnny
Reply
--Johnny
Reply
post #37 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
I would love to test this in a court of law, as I do not see how one can be legally held to the terms of a EULA that you are unable to read untill after purchase, and opening the packege and installing the item...

If this was completely true you might have a point. But the plastic wrap on the CPU says don't open until you read the EULA, which is provided as a paper copy with the users manual package.

Since you can read the EULA before you ever plug the computer in and have the right to return the computer for a refund (as long as you don't rip open the plastic wrap on the CPU) you point is, well, incorrect.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #38 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I didn't misinterpret anything. A company that wants you to follow rules should be allowed to enforce them the way they want (within limits of the law)...just like sport associations can enforce rules, etc.

Except we're not talking about a physical contract written in plain English (or whichever language you happen to be dealing with) that's presented to you before you acquire the product. A EULA (End User License Agreement) is presented to you only after you acquire the product (in this case, a Mac). Therefore, if I disagree with the license terms, my only recourse is to decline the license and forfeit the money I spent on purchasing the product. I have absolutely zero leverage as a consumer to negotiate the terms of this agreement. This is not fair trade.

As for the law, if the EULA happens to break the law, what is my recourse? I don't make $200,000 a year, and lawyers are expensive. Chances are, the corporation that sold me the software with the illegal EULA has better and more expensive lawyers than I do. What's more, as a full time employee at my own company, showing up in court requires forfeiting my salary. The corporations' lawyers, however, are full-time litigators.

Let me be clear. I'm not attacking Apple. I'm just attacking your arguments

Quote:
If you buy OS X legally but install it on a PC, you're breaking the rules and you're going to the penalty box...it's as simple as that. If you don't like it, stop playing the game, do not pass go, and do not get reimbursed 200 dollars.

If I were to hypothetically attempt to install OS X on a commodity PC, I sure as hell wouldn't expect to be compensated by Apple.

Given the tenuous nature of EULA's, I wouldn't say the "going to the penalty box" analogy is fair.

Quote:

Who cares if the term 'stealing' is a perversion of the English language. I speak French.

Oui, mais t'es en train d'écrire en anglais

Apple is trying to defend their business model (which depends on hardware sales), pure and simple. I don't blame them for doing so. What aggrevates me to no end is the righteousness with which we're doing so. If they said "we're doing this simply to make money", I'd have much more respect for them.

For the record, I just spent an outrageous amount of money on a 20 inch Intel iMac and I'm happy as hell (aside from the occasional flakiness with Front Row and having to wait another week for an extra gig of RAM). I have no intention of running OS X on commodity hardware. Should Apple do something extreme and totally unexpected (like implementing the kind of DRM Vista will have), then I would install Linux or FreeBSD (not Darwin) on my iMac, but I doubt that it will come to that.
post #39 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
EXCUSE ME!!!!

Because I want to build my own system to meet my needs, no less and no more, and because I want control of every element of it, I am a "hacker punk"??

For one, I really don't consider screwing together a few parts "building", it never really was. I can do it, it's not that hard from a hardware perspective, I chose not to. I used to upgrade/reassemble my computer annually, but I don't really get a charge out of it any more.

Another, if you aren't hacking OSx86, then you probably aren't in that group I was referring to.
post #40 of 146
Quote:
Originally posted by rasnet
Personally, the idea of building a Mac out of used and salvaged parts is very appealing. Furthermore, I'd love an expandable, upgradable Mac for far less than the restrictive mini.

Another point that's been heavily discussed is the issue of branding. Sure, OS X on a PC would open up for a lot of exposure for people who would never else be introduced to OS X. But say it performs badly because it's a custom build, people would instead get a negative experience. And yes, that would be a Bad Thing for Apple...

But that's besides my real point, which is... What makes a Mac a Mac? It used to be that it's produced by Apple computer. Then, that it was a PPC computer, licensed by Apple (attack of the Clones). And now, suddenly, it's not so clear anymore. It's still produced by Apple, but uses the same hardware architecture as a PC. So what exactly makes it a Mac? Well, beautiful design, and the Apple brand. Say that suddenly Mac OS X gains another 20% of the user base, but on the PC. Would people then start referring to these computers as "Macs"?

"Hey, that's a nice computer, it's a Mac, right?"
"No, it's a PC, it just runs Mac OS X."
"Oh, so what's the difference between a Mac and a PC, then?"
"Well, practically, none!"

The Macintosh brand would be in for a total loss of identity. And branding is what Apple's all about, that's what makes their sales. If a "Mac" suddenly wasn't produced by Apple, then why should people buy Apple Macs?

But I digress...
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple serves DMCA notice to OSx86 Project