Some company is selling upgrade / restore DVD's as full OS installations, for the intent purpose of breaking end user licence agreement.
If I sell a program to someone, and say "those who have paid can get a $10 upgrade, the rest have to pay the full price." then thats fair. But upgrade OS DVD's are just that. Upgrades.
People who buy Leopard in a box aren't buying the OS, and their EULA says so. They're buying an upgrade to their previous version of OS X.
So when do people pay for licensing the entire OS? When they buy a mac. That's their time of purchase. Quite simply, you can never buy a licence to the OS without buying a Mac. These people are re-engineering the OS and selling it as the full OS.
Is this wrong? Hell yes! Apple can choose when and how they distribute the full OS licensing.
No, it's not. It's to satisfy a demand. Repeating garbage you hear on the internet doesn't make you intelligent.
How can it be? A business is a business, not a person. If a business was a person they would be called a businessman, who very well could make friends and play on the swing set. As it is, it's impossible for a non-physical entity to do physical activities.
That's the point. You can't pay twice as much for the same thing from Apple because half of those things they don't offer!
Really? Does demand in the absence of profit keep multinational corporations running? Would investors give a crap about demand if it didn't make them money? Do you expect to pay your employees with demand?
The market might demand a $10 iPod, but no one's gonna make it without turning a profit. Supply and demand is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. I don't need the internet to spell out common sense for me.
Moving on, are you daft? The point of that comment was to point out that businesses seek to profit from customers, not satisfy their every need, no matter how financially unsound that may be. The only relationship you're attempting to form with the customer is one of loyalty (in order to make continued profit). Do you take everything so literally?
Again, if Apple doesn't offer what you want, then go buy a Windows computer that will satisfy your needs. See, if enough people do that, eventually Apple will realize the market is shifting towards midtowers and adjust their line-up accordingly. Hackintoshing is just a childish and unproductive way of flicking the company off.
People who buy Leopard in a box aren't buying the OS, and their EULA says so. They're buying an upgrade to their previous version of OS X.
So when do people pay for licensing the entire OS? When they buy a mac. That's their time of purchase. Quite simply, you can never buy a licence to the OS without buying a Mac. These people are re-engineering the OS and selling it as the full OS.
With the SL upgrades being only $29, I wonder how this will play out.
With all do respect, you bought an upgrade pack and compiled it to work as if it were a standard universal installation pack. Apple charges $129 for Leopard because it is an upgrade. Were it not, it would sit around the $300-$400 Vista Ultimate usually sells for. Leopard's price is subsidized by by the hardware you're buying. So, yes, you did steal it. And yes, you did violate the EULA, which has been upheld in U.S. and Japanese courts several times. Please don't even bring up the European Union, I could not care less to hear about the opinions of a legal body whose rulings never stand up in courts other than its own.
Huh? It's no more an upgrade pack than Vista Ultimate is an upgrade pack. Microsoft charges $400 for VU because they can. There's also versions of Vista that cost less than Leopard--are you saying they are "upgrade licenses"?
And do not tell me EULAs have been held up in court. There are a LOT of ways to argue against EULAs, and as somebody who has written a fair amount of software, I've heard several of them. Here's a fun one: have an 8 year old install software, then convince a judge that an 8 year old just entered into a legally binding contract with your company by clicking on "Agree". That kid has just as much of a binding contract with you as his dog.
The fact is, the legality of EULAs has been very much up in the air for ages. Courts have struck down several EULAs that they defined as having "unreasonable" clauses. What's unreasonable? It's up to the courts. Perhaps the restriction you cannot run Mac OS X on any computer not made by Apple is unreasonable. No court has decided on it yet. (Also BTW just because you don't like the EU doesn't make your opinion of their laws any more or less correct then my opinion of US laws.)
Quote:
Your sense of entitlement is sickening. If you want a midtower, then buy a Windows computer.
Thing is, I don't have to buy a Windows computer to get a midtower. I can build a midtower, and install Windows on it. Which I did. And I installed OS X on it. And Linux.
Quote:
When you bought that copy of Leopard, you purchased a license, not the source code. The same way when you buy a Bob Dylan song, you're buying a copy of it, not the rights to the original work. So, quite literally, you have absolutely no legal right to do what you do. Just because Apple hasn't personally sued you for it, doesn't change that fact.
And I assume you have not ripped a single DVD? Your iPod/iPhone doesn't have any videos except those purchased from the Apple Store? The MPAA argues that the DVDs you purchased are for viewing in DVD players only. Not on iPhones. They use the same argument (which I happen to disagree with)--that you purchased only a license to watch their movie, not the movie itself.
But it seems, from what Apple's said, that Snow Leopard installation disks will be upgrade-only from Leopard.
If you have Tiger, you need to buy the full installation with the box set, they're saying.
So maybe Apple's starting to deal with this in this way. Personally, I hope not. When I upgrade to a new OS, I like to clean install the OS.
I hope I can, but this seems to suggest otherwise.
I am in denial on this one. I?m hoping that the upgrade-only for Leopard users will still let you do a full format and re-install but that it uses the honour system like it does with single and family pack licensing.
One of the beautiful things about Mac OS X installs is simplified OS upgrades without all the caveats that Windows has due the different business models.
Honestly, what percentage of Mac users are still on Tiger, anyway. And don?t forget that you can?t count any of the PPC Tiger users as they won?t be able to upgrade to SL anyway. It seems like a waste to go through all that trouble for what I assume is very small percentage of Intel Tiger users.
edit: This is sounding a bit odd. You can either get SL for $29 or if you are Tiger user you can?t just pay the $129 for SL, you have to pay $169 for SL, iWork and iLife. iWork works with Tiger, so that might already be on some machines, but iLife 09 requires v10.5.6 or later to be installed.
Huh? It's no more an upgrade pack than Vista Ultimate is an upgrade pack. Microsoft charges $400 for VU because they can. There's also versions of Vista that cost less than Leopard--are you saying they are "upgrade licenses"?
And do not tell me EULAs have been held up in court. There are a LOT of ways to argue against EULAs, and as somebody who has written a fair amount of software, I've heard several of them. Here's a fun one: have an 8 year old install software, then convince a judge that an 8 year old just entered into a legally binding contract with your company by clicking on "Agree". That kid has just as much of a binding contract with you as his dog.
The fact is, the legality of EULAs has been very much up in the air for ages. Courts have struck down several EULAs that they defined as having "unreasonable" clauses. What's unreasonable? It's up to the courts. Perhaps the restriction you cannot run Mac OS X on any computer not made by Apple is unreasonable. No court has decided on it yet. (Also BTW just because you don't like the EU doesn't make your opinion of their laws any more or less correct then my opinion of US laws.)
Thing is, I don't have to buy a Windows computer to get a midtower. I can build a midtower, and install Windows on it. Which I did. And I installed OS X on it. And Linux.
And I assume you have not ripped a single DVD? Your iPod/iPhone doesn't have any videos except those purchased from the Apple Store? The MPAA argues that the DVDs you purchased are for viewing in DVD players only. Not on iPhones. They use the same argument (which I happen to disagree with)--that you purchased only a license to watch their movie, not the movie itself.
The version of Vista I'm talking about is the full direct install version of Ultimate. Microsoft specifically sells upgrade versions of Windows to people who already have another version of the operating system. If you buy Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade and hack it to work as a full install, you just committed a crime, the same way as installing OS X on non-Apple hardware.
Companies price different versions of different operating systems differently because they serve different purposes. If Apple specifically markets and prices its software as an upgrade, subsidized by its hardware and you hack it, you have committed a crime. I don't care what jurisdiction you argue that in, you will be found guilty.
And as to your comment about EULAs, can an eight year old scan his debit card and buy one? Do not several companies require you be a certain age to even purchase software with an applicable EULA?
As to what content I own, it has no bearing here, but no, I don't have any ripped DVDs or movies downloaded from torrents. As annoying as I find the idea of not ripping DVDs to be, I can understand it: there really is nothing stopping me from making copies and distributing them to my friends/family. So, again, whether you agree with the law or not on ripping DVDs, you are violating it in doing so.
Now, to my own point, my problem with the European Union is that it violates the principles of a good governmental body. It doesn't make policies that help protect its citizens, it interferes entirely too much with the free market. Businesses live or die on the merits of their products and strategies. A reasonable government intervenes only if a company abuses its rights, not simply because, for instance, Opera thinks its unfair that its browser can't ship with every copy of Microsoft's operating system.
Seriously, don't just take my opinion, how many top software companies do you know of that have headquarters in the European Union? The EU has no respect for intellectual property, the U.S. and Japan do. Disguising that lack of respect as anti-competitive laws doesn't make it any less apparent.
And as someone who writes software, you should appreciate Intellectual Property law since it exists to protect your right to fair compensation and usage. I've said this before, if an artist opens an exhibit of a painter's most famous works covered in excrement, the painter has every right to have that exhibit shut done because its misusing his/her IP. And Bob Dylan has every right to sue a man who decides it's okay to do an album of covers of his songs without first receiving his permission.
Apple's EULA is a tangible benefit to its customers and it is well known and can be easily viewed before the time of purchase. Arguing against something on the grounds of not liking it will get you nowhere with any legal body.
And the thing is, legally speaking, if you believe in property rights of any sort, then yes, to get a midtower of the sort you speak of, you have to buy Windows because it's the only OS that will realistically have the drivers and software to take advantage of that power right now. One last thing, though, hell fucking no a Core i7 is not better than a Xeon. The entire point of the Xeon line is reliability. They are tested to a rigorous standard that off the shelf i7s simply never go through. The same is true of the RAM being used in conjunction with them.
Right, but Apple is saying it is not a free market and that Mac OS X license owners do not have the freedom to use that OS on a Psystar machine. Nor does that company even have the freedom to sell its machines. So, we will see how free this market really is.
No, Apple is saying it's a free market. Their right under a free market is to offer Mac OS X bundled to Apple hardware.
A free market allows the consumer to make their own decisions on what they purchase from manufacturers offerings.
OS X on non-Apple hardware is NOT one of Apple's offerings, and therefore isn't a choice open to you. But it is still all free market.
so what i got from this thread is that someone posted that the psystar computer was far cheaper than an "equivalent" mac pro and was proven worng in the first reply. So he shifted his argument to he doesn't need the hardware apple has in the mac pro, so the psystar was a better deal to him and apple is somehow in the wrong for not catering to his needs. Even more pointless than i expected this thread to be.
You get $50 off instantly, so the price starts at $1,317. Then to be nice i?ll knock another $80 off the price since that goes to Global Fund to help prepare African babies to get adopted by Hollywood celebrities or something, so the price is now $1237.
You're being extremely generous, but even so the XPS is still more money for less computer. I'm wondering what happened to the "Apple tax" theorists.
You're being extremely generous, but even so the XPS is still more money for less computer. I'm wondering what happened to the "Apple tax" theorists.
The Apple Tax will compare a Mac to a single machine, not the average machine. What is funny is that they will compare, say, a 15? 2? notebook and only compare the rudimentary components and claim victory in proving their Apple Tax theory, but they?ll completely ignore, from the same manufacturer that used to show the Apple Tax, the much thinner notebook that more directly competes with Apple?s offerings that is about the same and sometimes considerably more than Apple?s notebook line. Their argument then is that you don?t need to have such a thin computer, which is true, but of course they ignore the fact that higher-grade components and engineering cost more. It?s never ending.
The Apple Tax will compare a Mac to a single machine, not the average machine. What is funny is that they will compare, say, a 15? 2? notebook and only compare the rudimentary components and claim victory in proving their Apple Tax theory, but they?ll completely ignore, from the same manufacturer that used to show the Apple Tax, the much thinner notebook that more directly competes with Apple?s offerings that is about the same and sometimes considerably more than Apple?s notebook line. Their argument then is that you don?t need to have such a thin computer, which is true, but of course they ignore the fact that higher-grade components and engineering cost more. It?s never ending.
What it always comes down to is that Apple must make a Mac to compete with every product offered by every Windows PC manufacturer.
I honestly don't how people can get their panties in a wad about "Apple's IP". If Psystar bought Mac OS X off the shelf and installed it onto a hackintosh, they are stealing nothing (I'm not saying that's what they are doing, but they very well could be).
I made a hackintosh last year. It was a fun project, and saved me close to $1000 when I was done. I also had a Mac that was better than any iMac out there, and maybe better than the Mac Pros. I paid around $1300 to build a Core i7 iMac, which is still faster than any iMac out there (it also has a ridiculous amount of RAM and a WAYYY better video card in it which will buy more processing power in the long run anyway). But my point is--I stole nothing. I bought a family pack of Leopard when it came out, so I installed it in my hackintosh. Against the EULA for sure, but nobody has every proven that EULAs are enforceable. So I stole no Apple IP as far as I am concerned, and Psystar may (not) be either.
Also I hope everybody whining about Apple's IP always pays for every MP3, DVD and piece of software they own--amazing how many Mac fans I've met who pirate the sh*t out of DVDs but still swear it's a sin to build a hackintosh. That includes ripping DVDs, even ones you already own, which is a big no-no.
Well said, but Bro - they are not interested in what we say, they are just interested in repeating the same bs they read over the net. Basically, the issue comes down to this: is Apple "law" the law of the land? Now, if Psystar are breaking the law of the land, then they should burn. If not, scr*w apple and their EULA.
Anyway, I have decided not to purchase a Mac, until apple introduces something that I actually want and for a decent price. Hackintosh... here I come!
The original Bondi Blue iMac came out in 1998. The only tray load G3 iMac. Gateway released something in the AOI category in 1999. It is unfortunate, speaking of tray load, that all Macs, less the Pro, use slot load optical drives. While it is way clear why, it also means no 3 inch media can be used. Apple has been trying to fix this about as long as the Resolution Independence thing. I suppose Psystar uses tray load. Strangely enough, the Open (3) looks almost identical to my old slimline HP. If these guys were smart, they would sell their machines as "Mac OS Ready" but not include the OS. Wouldn't that keep them out of trouble?
Well said, but Bro - they are not interested in what we say, they are just interested in repeating the same bs they read over the net. Basically, the issue comes down to this: is Apple "law" the law of the land? Now, if Psystar are breaking the law of the land, then they should burn. If not, scr*w apple and their EULA.
Fatal error, end program.
It's not about the EULA. The laws of the land which Apple contends have been broken by Psystar are copyright, patent and trademark protections. The law is all on Apple's side. I have never seen a serious, informed person argue otherwise.
[QUOTE=Halvri;1444226]The version of Vista I'm talking about is the full direct install version of Ultimate. Microsoft specifically sells upgrade versions of Windows to people who already have another version of the operating system. If you buy Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade and hack it to work as a full install, you just committed a crime, the same way as installing OS X on non-Apple hardware.
Companies price different versions of different operating systems differently because they serve different purposes. If Apple specifically markets and prices its software as an upgrade, subsidized by its hardware and you hack it, you have committed a crime. I don't care what jurisdiction you argue that in, you will be found guilty.
Quote:
And as to your comment about EULAs, can an eight year old scan his debit card and buy one? Do not several companies require you be a certain age to even purchase software with an applicable EULA?
No, no company has age limits on purchasing software. How can they--do they require ID at the Apple store? I saw a very young high school aged girl buy an iPod Shuffle. She'll probably be the one to install it. It was only $60, she paid cash. I doubt in any court she could be held to the terms of the EULA. With click-wrap EULAs (like Mac OS X), the license agreement is not binding until the "End User" clicks agree because you cannot view the agreement until you install the software. In this case no contract can even be enforced until the user sits down at the computer and clicks Agree, in which case Mom can buy the software and little Johnny can install it.
Quote:
As to what content I own, it has no bearing here, but no, I don't have any ripped DVDs or movies downloaded from torrents. As annoying as I find the idea of not ripping DVDs to be, I can understand it: there really is nothing stopping me from making copies and distributing them to my friends/family. So, again, whether you agree with the law or not on ripping DVDs, you are violating it in doing so.
There's nothing stopping people from making copies and distributing MP3 purchased from the Apple Store, now that there's no DRM. So that argument from the MPAA is moot.
Quote:
Seriously, don't just take my opinion, how many top software companies do you know of that have headquarters in the European Union? The EU has no respect for intellectual property, the U.S. and Japan do. Disguising that lack of respect as anti-competitive laws doesn't make it any less apparent.
Headquarters have no legal bearing. As long as you sell your products in the EU you are bound by their copyright and IP laws. Which is why the iPhone is required to be sold unlocked in France.
And don't talk about the US' "respect" for intellectual property. You have no clue how much "respect" US citizens actually have for IP until you go to a college campus and find the 8TB drives RAID'ed together full of ripped movies. A law is only as good if most people agree with it, and many people happen to disagree with this government's stance on IP. I know that doesn't make it legal or in some cases right, but it does show that many people disagree with the philosophy that they don't own the content they purchase.
Quote:
And as someone who writes software, you should appreciate Intellectual Property law since it exists to protect your right to fair compensation and usage. I've said this before, if an artist opens an exhibit of a painter's most famous works covered in excrement, the painter has every right to have that exhibit shut done because its misusing his/her IP. And Bob Dylan has every right to sue a man who decides it's okay to do an album of covers of his songs without first receiving his permission.
I do have a problem with people pirating software. However that's not what is at issue here. The issue is whether people have the right to use the software as they see fit. What if I put in my EULA a line that said you can only install the software on pink computers with polka dots? Unless you read every line of the EULA, which includes the EULAs that may come down AFTER you installed the software, you (and not me) could be held liable for damages done by "the software" when it is run on computers without polka dots. You don't find that incredulous? Yet it's legal, until a court says it's not. And you thought we were a litigious society now, wait until the courts have to approve every EULA.
Quote:
And the thing is, legally speaking, if you believe in property rights of any sort, then yes, to get a midtower of the sort you speak of, you have to buy Windows because it's the only OS that will realistically have the drivers and software to take advantage of that power right now.
Buzz. Wrong. My hackintosh has the proper drives thanks mostly to Apple, thanks some to open source. I have the same video card, high end, that was in the Mac Pros--in my "iMac" replacement. The drivers were part of 10.5. It's just that Apple only had them available for Mac Pros, and only as a ridiculously priced add on. The iMacs were (are) stuck with a 2006-era video card.
Quote:
One last thing, though, hell fucking no a Core i7 is not better than a Xeon. The entire point of the Xeon line is reliability. They are tested to a rigorous standard that off the shelf i7s simply never go through. The same is true of the RAM being used in conjunction with them.
Never said it was. It is WAY better though then the Penryn Apple is currently putting into the iMacs. Even the newest iMacs get smoked by my 8 month old computer. You are comparing my $1300 late 2008 Hackintosh to a mid 2009 Xeon Mac Pro that costs $3000 when you add in the 6GB RAM, video card and extra USB ports I have. You don't find that funny? And you know what: for tasks that only use 4 CPUs (which is basically EVERYTHING I do) I'd bet my computer gives the Xeon Mac Pros a run for their money, all $3000 of it.
Never said it was. It is WAY better though then the Penryn Apple is currently putting into the iMacs. Even the newest iMacs get smoked by my 8 month old computer. You are comparing my $1300 late 2008 Hackintosh to a mid 2009 Xeon Mac Pro that costs $3000 when you add in the 6GB RAM, video card and extra USB ports I have. You don't find that funny?
You don?t find it funny that you are comparing desktop components to mobile components in an AIO?
You earlier posts suggest that because Apple doesn?t offer the exact product you want that Psystar is allowed to bypass any right that Apple has for licensing their copyrighted material, simply because they bought a copy of the OS. You don?t find that funny?
Comments
Some company is selling upgrade / restore DVD's as full OS installations, for the intent purpose of breaking end user licence agreement.
If I sell a program to someone, and say "those who have paid can get a $10 upgrade, the rest have to pay the full price." then thats fair. But upgrade OS DVD's are just that. Upgrades.
People who buy Leopard in a box aren't buying the OS, and their EULA says so. They're buying an upgrade to their previous version of OS X.
So when do people pay for licensing the entire OS? When they buy a mac. That's their time of purchase. Quite simply, you can never buy a licence to the OS without buying a Mac. These people are re-engineering the OS and selling it as the full OS.
Is this wrong? Hell yes! Apple can choose when and how they distribute the full OS licensing.
No, it's not. It's to satisfy a demand. Repeating garbage you hear on the internet doesn't make you intelligent.
How can it be? A business is a business, not a person. If a business was a person they would be called a businessman, who very well could make friends and play on the swing set. As it is, it's impossible for a non-physical entity to do physical activities.
That's the point. You can't pay twice as much for the same thing from Apple because half of those things they don't offer!
Really? Does demand in the absence of profit keep multinational corporations running? Would investors give a crap about demand if it didn't make them money? Do you expect to pay your employees with demand?
The market might demand a $10 iPod, but no one's gonna make it without turning a profit. Supply and demand is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. I don't need the internet to spell out common sense for me.
Moving on, are you daft? The point of that comment was to point out that businesses seek to profit from customers, not satisfy their every need, no matter how financially unsound that may be. The only relationship you're attempting to form with the customer is one of loyalty (in order to make continued profit). Do you take everything so literally?
Again, if Apple doesn't offer what you want, then go buy a Windows computer that will satisfy your needs. See, if enough people do that, eventually Apple will realize the market is shifting towards midtowers and adjust their line-up accordingly. Hackintoshing is just a childish and unproductive way of flicking the company off.
People who buy Leopard in a box aren't buying the OS, and their EULA says so. They're buying an upgrade to their previous version of OS X.
So when do people pay for licensing the entire OS? When they buy a mac. That's their time of purchase. Quite simply, you can never buy a licence to the OS without buying a Mac. These people are re-engineering the OS and selling it as the full OS.
With the SL upgrades being only $29, I wonder how this will play out.
With all do respect, you bought an upgrade pack and compiled it to work as if it were a standard universal installation pack. Apple charges $129 for Leopard because it is an upgrade. Were it not, it would sit around the $300-$400 Vista Ultimate usually sells for. Leopard's price is subsidized by by the hardware you're buying. So, yes, you did steal it. And yes, you did violate the EULA, which has been upheld in U.S. and Japanese courts several times. Please don't even bring up the European Union, I could not care less to hear about the opinions of a legal body whose rulings never stand up in courts other than its own.
Huh? It's no more an upgrade pack than Vista Ultimate is an upgrade pack. Microsoft charges $400 for VU because they can. There's also versions of Vista that cost less than Leopard--are you saying they are "upgrade licenses"?
And do not tell me EULAs have been held up in court. There are a LOT of ways to argue against EULAs, and as somebody who has written a fair amount of software, I've heard several of them. Here's a fun one: have an 8 year old install software, then convince a judge that an 8 year old just entered into a legally binding contract with your company by clicking on "Agree". That kid has just as much of a binding contract with you as his dog.
The fact is, the legality of EULAs has been very much up in the air for ages. Courts have struck down several EULAs that they defined as having "unreasonable" clauses. What's unreasonable? It's up to the courts. Perhaps the restriction you cannot run Mac OS X on any computer not made by Apple is unreasonable. No court has decided on it yet. (Also BTW just because you don't like the EU doesn't make your opinion of their laws any more or less correct then my opinion of US laws.)
Your sense of entitlement is sickening. If you want a midtower, then buy a Windows computer.
Thing is, I don't have to buy a Windows computer to get a midtower. I can build a midtower, and install Windows on it. Which I did. And I installed OS X on it. And Linux.
When you bought that copy of Leopard, you purchased a license, not the source code. The same way when you buy a Bob Dylan song, you're buying a copy of it, not the rights to the original work. So, quite literally, you have absolutely no legal right to do what you do. Just because Apple hasn't personally sued you for it, doesn't change that fact.
And I assume you have not ripped a single DVD? Your iPod/iPhone doesn't have any videos except those purchased from the Apple Store? The MPAA argues that the DVDs you purchased are for viewing in DVD players only. Not on iPhones. They use the same argument (which I happen to disagree with)--that you purchased only a license to watch their movie, not the movie itself.
With the SL upgrades being only $29, I wonder how this will play out.
Yes, I agree.
But it seems, from what Apple's said, that Snow Leopard installation disks will be upgrade-only from Leopard.
If you have Tiger, you need to buy the full installation with the box set, they're saying.
So maybe Apple's starting to deal with this in this way. Personally, I hope not. When I upgrade to a new OS, I like to clean install the OS.
I hope I can, but this seems to suggest otherwise.
Yes, I agree.
But it seems, from what Apple's said, that Snow Leopard installation disks will be upgrade-only from Leopard.
If you have Tiger, you need to buy the full installation with the box set, they're saying.
So maybe Apple's starting to deal with this in this way. Personally, I hope not. When I upgrade to a new OS, I like to clean install the OS.
I hope I can, but this seems to suggest otherwise.
I am in denial on this one. I?m hoping that the upgrade-only for Leopard users will still let you do a full format and re-install but that it uses the honour system like it does with single and family pack licensing.
One of the beautiful things about Mac OS X installs is simplified OS upgrades without all the caveats that Windows has due the different business models.
Honestly, what percentage of Mac users are still on Tiger, anyway. And don?t forget that you can?t count any of the PPC Tiger users as they won?t be able to upgrade to SL anyway. It seems like a waste to go through all that trouble for what I assume is very small percentage of Intel Tiger users.
edit: This is sounding a bit odd. You can either get SL for $29 or if you are Tiger user you can?t just pay the $129 for SL, you have to pay $169 for SL, iWork and iLife. iWork works with Tiger, so that might already be on some machines, but iLife 09 requires v10.5.6 or later to be installed. edit2: According to NetApplications about 30% of Mac OS X users are on Tiger. They don?t list what percentage are PPC v. Intel.
Huh? It's no more an upgrade pack than Vista Ultimate is an upgrade pack. Microsoft charges $400 for VU because they can. There's also versions of Vista that cost less than Leopard--are you saying they are "upgrade licenses"?
And do not tell me EULAs have been held up in court. There are a LOT of ways to argue against EULAs, and as somebody who has written a fair amount of software, I've heard several of them. Here's a fun one: have an 8 year old install software, then convince a judge that an 8 year old just entered into a legally binding contract with your company by clicking on "Agree". That kid has just as much of a binding contract with you as his dog.
The fact is, the legality of EULAs has been very much up in the air for ages. Courts have struck down several EULAs that they defined as having "unreasonable" clauses. What's unreasonable? It's up to the courts. Perhaps the restriction you cannot run Mac OS X on any computer not made by Apple is unreasonable. No court has decided on it yet. (Also BTW just because you don't like the EU doesn't make your opinion of their laws any more or less correct then my opinion of US laws.)
Thing is, I don't have to buy a Windows computer to get a midtower. I can build a midtower, and install Windows on it. Which I did. And I installed OS X on it. And Linux.
And I assume you have not ripped a single DVD? Your iPod/iPhone doesn't have any videos except those purchased from the Apple Store? The MPAA argues that the DVDs you purchased are for viewing in DVD players only. Not on iPhones. They use the same argument (which I happen to disagree with)--that you purchased only a license to watch their movie, not the movie itself.
The version of Vista I'm talking about is the full direct install version of Ultimate. Microsoft specifically sells upgrade versions of Windows to people who already have another version of the operating system. If you buy Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade and hack it to work as a full install, you just committed a crime, the same way as installing OS X on non-Apple hardware.
Companies price different versions of different operating systems differently because they serve different purposes. If Apple specifically markets and prices its software as an upgrade, subsidized by its hardware and you hack it, you have committed a crime. I don't care what jurisdiction you argue that in, you will be found guilty.
And as to your comment about EULAs, can an eight year old scan his debit card and buy one? Do not several companies require you be a certain age to even purchase software with an applicable EULA?
As to what content I own, it has no bearing here, but no, I don't have any ripped DVDs or movies downloaded from torrents. As annoying as I find the idea of not ripping DVDs to be, I can understand it: there really is nothing stopping me from making copies and distributing them to my friends/family. So, again, whether you agree with the law or not on ripping DVDs, you are violating it in doing so.
Now, to my own point, my problem with the European Union is that it violates the principles of a good governmental body. It doesn't make policies that help protect its citizens, it interferes entirely too much with the free market. Businesses live or die on the merits of their products and strategies. A reasonable government intervenes only if a company abuses its rights, not simply because, for instance, Opera thinks its unfair that its browser can't ship with every copy of Microsoft's operating system.
Seriously, don't just take my opinion, how many top software companies do you know of that have headquarters in the European Union? The EU has no respect for intellectual property, the U.S. and Japan do. Disguising that lack of respect as anti-competitive laws doesn't make it any less apparent.
And as someone who writes software, you should appreciate Intellectual Property law since it exists to protect your right to fair compensation and usage. I've said this before, if an artist opens an exhibit of a painter's most famous works covered in excrement, the painter has every right to have that exhibit shut done because its misusing his/her IP. And Bob Dylan has every right to sue a man who decides it's okay to do an album of covers of his songs without first receiving his permission.
Apple's EULA is a tangible benefit to its customers and it is well known and can be easily viewed before the time of purchase. Arguing against something on the grounds of not liking it will get you nowhere with any legal body.
And the thing is, legally speaking, if you believe in property rights of any sort, then yes, to get a midtower of the sort you speak of, you have to buy Windows because it's the only OS that will realistically have the drivers and software to take advantage of that power right now. One last thing, though, hell fucking no a Core i7 is not better than a Xeon. The entire point of the Xeon line is reliability. They are tested to a rigorous standard that off the shelf i7s simply never go through. The same is true of the RAM being used in conjunction with them.
Um ... Dell makes AOI machines ... Sony too. Why make such a silly comparison?
Yeah, about 3 years after Apple started.
Right, but Apple is saying it is not a free market and that Mac OS X license owners do not have the freedom to use that OS on a Psystar machine. Nor does that company even have the freedom to sell its machines. So, we will see how free this market really is.
No, Apple is saying it's a free market. Their right under a free market is to offer Mac OS X bundled to Apple hardware.
A free market allows the consumer to make their own decisions on what they purchase from manufacturers offerings.
OS X on non-Apple hardware is NOT one of Apple's offerings, and therefore isn't a choice open to you. But it is still all free market.
so what i got from this thread is that someone posted that the psystar computer was far cheaper than an "equivalent" mac pro and was proven worng in the first reply. So he shifted his argument to he doesn't need the hardware apple has in the mac pro, so the psystar was a better deal to him and apple is somehow in the wrong for not catering to his needs. Even more pointless than i expected this thread to be.
amen!!
Just look at this:
Psystar Open 7 Workstation:
Core i7 Xeon 2.66GHz
6 GB DDR3 RAM
1 TB HD
GeForce 9500GT GTX 512MB
DVD-RW
802.11n (PCI-E 1x) (added)
FW 400 + 800 (added)
Mac OS X + iLife + iWork
================
$1,734
Apple Mac Pro, DEFAULT configuration:
Core i7 Xeon 2.66GHz
3 GB DDR3 RAM
640 GB HD
GeForce GT 120 512MB
DVD-RW
Mac OS X + iLife
NO WIRELESS
FW 800 ONLY
Mac OS X + iLife
================
$2,499
$765 more for the same computer!
F*ck Apple, what a sorry ass bunch of thieves. Now, who has the balls to tell me that the there is no apple tax?!
You forgot something:
Psystar Open 7 Workstation:
Core i7 Xeon 2.66GHz
6 GB DDR3 RAM
1 TB HD
GeForce 9500GT GTX 512MB
DVD-RW
802.11n (PCI-E 1x) (added)
FW 400 + 800 (added)
Mac OS X + iLife + iWork
+ Apple case + beauty 1000$
+ Apple quality components 500$ ( supposedly, But no one knows exactly what it is)
+ Apple has Xeon $700
==============================
= $3,934 ( $1,734 + $1,500 + $700)
What about now? Psystar wants $1500 more for the same computer!
You get $50 off instantly, so the price starts at $1,317. Then to be nice i?ll knock another $80 off the price since that goes to Global Fund to help prepare African babies to get adopted by Hollywood celebrities or something, so the price is now $1237.
You're being extremely generous, but even so the XPS is still more money for less computer. I'm wondering what happened to the "Apple tax" theorists.
You're being extremely generous, but even so the XPS is still more money for less computer. I'm wondering what happened to the "Apple tax" theorists.
The Apple Tax will compare a Mac to a single machine, not the average machine. What is funny is that they will compare, say, a 15? 2? notebook and only compare the rudimentary components and claim victory in proving their Apple Tax theory, but they?ll completely ignore, from the same manufacturer that used to show the Apple Tax, the much thinner notebook that more directly competes with Apple?s offerings that is about the same and sometimes considerably more than Apple?s notebook line. Their argument then is that you don?t need to have such a thin computer, which is true, but of course they ignore the fact that higher-grade components and engineering cost more. It?s never ending.
The Apple Tax will compare a Mac to a single machine, not the average machine. What is funny is that they will compare, say, a 15? 2? notebook and only compare the rudimentary components and claim victory in proving their Apple Tax theory, but they?ll completely ignore, from the same manufacturer that used to show the Apple Tax, the much thinner notebook that more directly competes with Apple?s offerings that is about the same and sometimes considerably more than Apple?s notebook line. Their argument then is that you don?t need to have such a thin computer, which is true, but of course they ignore the fact that higher-grade components and engineering cost more. It?s never ending.
What it always comes down to is that Apple must make a Mac to compete with every product offered by every Windows PC manufacturer.
I honestly don't how people can get their panties in a wad about "Apple's IP". If Psystar bought Mac OS X off the shelf and installed it onto a hackintosh, they are stealing nothing (I'm not saying that's what they are doing, but they very well could be).
I made a hackintosh last year. It was a fun project, and saved me close to $1000 when I was done. I also had a Mac that was better than any iMac out there, and maybe better than the Mac Pros. I paid around $1300 to build a Core i7 iMac, which is still faster than any iMac out there (it also has a ridiculous amount of RAM and a WAYYY better video card in it which will buy more processing power in the long run anyway). But my point is--I stole nothing. I bought a family pack of Leopard when it came out, so I installed it in my hackintosh. Against the EULA for sure, but nobody has every proven that EULAs are enforceable. So I stole no Apple IP as far as I am concerned, and Psystar may (not) be either.
Also I hope everybody whining about Apple's IP always pays for every MP3, DVD and piece of software they own--amazing how many Mac fans I've met who pirate the sh*t out of DVDs but still swear it's a sin to build a hackintosh. That includes ripping DVDs, even ones you already own, which is a big no-no.
Well said, but Bro - they are not interested in what we say, they are just interested in repeating the same bs they read over the net. Basically, the issue comes down to this: is Apple "law" the law of the land? Now, if Psystar are breaking the law of the land, then they should burn. If not, scr*w apple and their EULA.
Anyway, I have decided not to purchase a Mac, until apple introduces something that I actually want and for a decent price. Hackintosh... here I come!
Yeah, about 3 years after Apple started.
The original Bondi Blue iMac came out in 1998. The only tray load G3 iMac. Gateway released something in the AOI category in 1999. It is unfortunate, speaking of tray load, that all Macs, less the Pro, use slot load optical drives. While it is way clear why, it also means no 3 inch media can be used. Apple has been trying to fix this about as long as the Resolution Independence thing. I suppose Psystar uses tray load. Strangely enough, the Open (3) looks almost identical to my old slimline HP. If these guys were smart, they would sell their machines as "Mac OS Ready" but not include the OS. Wouldn't that keep them out of trouble?
If not, scr*w apple and their EULA.
So copyright and/or patents have no baring here.
If these guys were smart, they would sell their machines as "Mac OS Ready" but not include the OS. Wouldn't that keep them out of trouble?
I see nothing illegal with this maneuver, nor do I see anything illegal with EFI-X solution.
Well said, but Bro - they are not interested in what we say, they are just interested in repeating the same bs they read over the net. Basically, the issue comes down to this: is Apple "law" the law of the land? Now, if Psystar are breaking the law of the land, then they should burn. If not, scr*w apple and their EULA.
Fatal error, end program.
It's not about the EULA. The laws of the land which Apple contends have been broken by Psystar are copyright, patent and trademark protections. The law is all on Apple's side. I have never seen a serious, informed person argue otherwise.
Companies price different versions of different operating systems differently because they serve different purposes. If Apple specifically markets and prices its software as an upgrade, subsidized by its hardware and you hack it, you have committed a crime. I don't care what jurisdiction you argue that in, you will be found guilty.
And as to your comment about EULAs, can an eight year old scan his debit card and buy one? Do not several companies require you be a certain age to even purchase software with an applicable EULA?
No, no company has age limits on purchasing software. How can they--do they require ID at the Apple store? I saw a very young high school aged girl buy an iPod Shuffle. She'll probably be the one to install it. It was only $60, she paid cash. I doubt in any court she could be held to the terms of the EULA. With click-wrap EULAs (like Mac OS X), the license agreement is not binding until the "End User" clicks agree because you cannot view the agreement until you install the software. In this case no contract can even be enforced until the user sits down at the computer and clicks Agree, in which case Mom can buy the software and little Johnny can install it.
As to what content I own, it has no bearing here, but no, I don't have any ripped DVDs or movies downloaded from torrents. As annoying as I find the idea of not ripping DVDs to be, I can understand it: there really is nothing stopping me from making copies and distributing them to my friends/family. So, again, whether you agree with the law or not on ripping DVDs, you are violating it in doing so.
There's nothing stopping people from making copies and distributing MP3 purchased from the Apple Store, now that there's no DRM. So that argument from the MPAA is moot.
Seriously, don't just take my opinion, how many top software companies do you know of that have headquarters in the European Union? The EU has no respect for intellectual property, the U.S. and Japan do. Disguising that lack of respect as anti-competitive laws doesn't make it any less apparent.
Headquarters have no legal bearing. As long as you sell your products in the EU you are bound by their copyright and IP laws. Which is why the iPhone is required to be sold unlocked in France.
And don't talk about the US' "respect" for intellectual property. You have no clue how much "respect" US citizens actually have for IP until you go to a college campus and find the 8TB drives RAID'ed together full of ripped movies. A law is only as good if most people agree with it, and many people happen to disagree with this government's stance on IP. I know that doesn't make it legal or in some cases right, but it does show that many people disagree with the philosophy that they don't own the content they purchase.
And as someone who writes software, you should appreciate Intellectual Property law since it exists to protect your right to fair compensation and usage. I've said this before, if an artist opens an exhibit of a painter's most famous works covered in excrement, the painter has every right to have that exhibit shut done because its misusing his/her IP. And Bob Dylan has every right to sue a man who decides it's okay to do an album of covers of his songs without first receiving his permission.
I do have a problem with people pirating software. However that's not what is at issue here. The issue is whether people have the right to use the software as they see fit. What if I put in my EULA a line that said you can only install the software on pink computers with polka dots? Unless you read every line of the EULA, which includes the EULAs that may come down AFTER you installed the software, you (and not me) could be held liable for damages done by "the software" when it is run on computers without polka dots. You don't find that incredulous? Yet it's legal, until a court says it's not. And you thought we were a litigious society now, wait until the courts have to approve every EULA.
And the thing is, legally speaking, if you believe in property rights of any sort, then yes, to get a midtower of the sort you speak of, you have to buy Windows because it's the only OS that will realistically have the drivers and software to take advantage of that power right now.
Buzz. Wrong. My hackintosh has the proper drives thanks mostly to Apple, thanks some to open source. I have the same video card, high end, that was in the Mac Pros--in my "iMac" replacement. The drivers were part of 10.5. It's just that Apple only had them available for Mac Pros, and only as a ridiculously priced add on. The iMacs were (are) stuck with a 2006-era video card.
One last thing, though, hell fucking no a Core i7 is not better than a Xeon. The entire point of the Xeon line is reliability. They are tested to a rigorous standard that off the shelf i7s simply never go through. The same is true of the RAM being used in conjunction with them.
Never said it was. It is WAY better though then the Penryn Apple is currently putting into the iMacs. Even the newest iMacs get smoked by my 8 month old computer. You are comparing my $1300 late 2008 Hackintosh to a mid 2009 Xeon Mac Pro that costs $3000 when you add in the 6GB RAM, video card and extra USB ports I have. You don't find that funny? And you know what: for tasks that only use 4 CPUs (which is basically EVERYTHING I do) I'd bet my computer gives the Xeon Mac Pros a run for their money, all $3000 of it.
Never said it was. It is WAY better though then the Penryn Apple is currently putting into the iMacs. Even the newest iMacs get smoked by my 8 month old computer. You are comparing my $1300 late 2008 Hackintosh to a mid 2009 Xeon Mac Pro that costs $3000 when you add in the 6GB RAM, video card and extra USB ports I have. You don't find that funny?
You don?t find it funny that you are comparing desktop components to mobile components in an AIO?
You earlier posts suggest that because Apple doesn?t offer the exact product you want that Psystar is allowed to bypass any right that Apple has for licensing their copyrighted material, simply because they bought a copy of the OS. You don?t find that funny?