There is zero chance Apple will open up OS X unless they are forced to by a court, which is extremely unlikely, so that's not even really an issue. The only possibility is that Apple would be rendered powerless to stop companies from selling computers running OS X on unsupported hardware. Apple would almost certainly not be forced to provide support for those computers, meaning driver issues would be working against Pystar, not Apple. That plus fact that the computers are running hacked OSes will probably limit their appeal significantly, so OS X market share wouldn't change much, limiting any changes in the number of viruses on the OS. The only significant effect it would have on Apple would be to hurt their sales and possibly force them to start selling some low priced hardware to compete, or to spend more time locking down OS X to foil Pystar's efforts.
Is it bad that I see your conclusions as a good thing? And the only way to truely lock down the software, is to use hardware in your computers that no one else can replicate. Hmmm... PA Semi?
But they aren't doing that yet... and I don't know why! If they had some special hardware that increased performance, but they had the patent to so no one else could replicate, then I'd consider an Apple again.
When Apple decided to switch to the Intel CPU platform... did they not see this coming? Surely, they had more foresight than this.
I was one of those that didn't buy a Mac until the switch because I wanted a laptop and I had always heard that the G3/G4 laptops were underpowered compared to Intel x86 equivalent laptops and that is one of the reasons Apple made the switch.
But I also understand and accept their business model.
I was initially confused by this headline. I thought it said,
"Apple's Motion to include Snow Leopard in a Psystar case, denied!"
My initial irrational thought was, " There's a rumor that Motion is now going to be sold bundled with the OS loaded on a clone box, and it's been proven false? No big surprise! Who comes up with these rumors?"
OSX86 and Psystar both are the bad guys. What rational person would agree that violating the EULA to hack the system to work on non-Apple compliant hardware puts you in the position of good guy?
I agree that Apple has the right to its own opinion and point of view. But do they possess regulatory powers over how customers use their products... for example the standalone OS, which at least notionally, is a "product" and not an "upgrade"...
Apple could have avoided this whole THING by calling every copy of OSX an "upgrade" that is only valid with preexisting OSX, which all Macs were born with. But.... TMK..... they neglected to do that. Psystar noticed and pounced before Apple wised up. At this point Apple would love to make OSX "upgrade only" as I just mentioned but AAPL is evidently horrified that Psystar would howl and maybe even win an antitrust settlement against Apple, in that scenario. Still, it may be the best option to make OSX upgrade-only. That would shut down Psystar. It would be obvious they had no source of OSX licenses for their machines.
As it stands now, the murky issue is that Psystar claims they ARE buying legit OSX licenses... and in my view they're right...
Apple could have sealed this up tight... but they screwed up. At the very least this is serious bother... at worst, it's going to turn into a nightmare.
When Apple decided to switch to the Intel CPU platform... did they not see this coming? Surely, they had more foresight than this.
I was one of those that didn't buy a Mac until the switch because I wanted a laptop and I had always heard that the G3/G4 laptops were underpowered compared to Intel x86 equivalent laptops and that is one of the reasons Apple made the switch.
But I also understand and accept their business model.
I believe that you may think this is true due to the CPU's Apple was using at the time were lower clock speeds than those of the Intel line.
Apple's contention was always that the real speed came from the considerably shorter "data pipe" that the G3/G4 PPC chips used more than made up the difference. But this argument has been bandied about for a long, long time.
But, then again, having some experience in developing 3rd party accelerator boards, I tend to believe Apple's position in that argument.
I agree that Apple has the right to its own opinion and point of view. But do they possess regulatory powers over how customers use their products. ...
This has been covered a bazillion times, but Apple doesn't stop anyone from using the products as they see fit. They have no interest at all in "stopping people" from doing these kinds of things.
The only thing they are arguing here is that a *business* cannot make money off of their backs by doing this hackintosh crap and re-selling the OS as their own. It's not about controlling what people do with their stuff at all, it's about stopping a fly-by-night business from ripping off Apple's IP.
This has been covered a bazillion times, but Apple doesn't stop anyone from using the products as they see fit. They have no interest at all in "stopping people" from doing these kinds of things.
The only thing they are arguing here is that a *business* cannot make money off of their backs by doing this hackintosh crap and re-selling the OS as their own. It's not about controlling what people do with their stuff at all, it's about stopping a fly-by-night business from ripping off Apple's IP.
Save your breath. The cretinous idiots you are trying to convince don't think logically. They have been raised in a degenerate and debased culture which encourages the mindset that if you want something you just take it and then make up some rationale to quell your conscience. Ethical behavior is anathema to such people. The concept of copyrights and intellectual property rights are just obstacles to be overcome in the quest to get what they want. It's why they support Psystar. They think they are entitled to something and want the object of their ire, namely Apple, Inc., to be forced to provide it to them. They call it "choice" or "competition".
Save your breath. The cretinous idiots you are trying to convince don't think logically. They have been raised in a degenerate and debased culture which encourages the mindset that if you want something you just take it and then make up some rationale to quell your conscience. Ethical behavior is anathema to such people. The concept of copyrights and intellectual property rights are just obstacles to be overcome in the quest to get what they want. It's why they support Psystar. They think they are entitled to something and want the object of their ire, namely Apple, Inc., to be forced to provide it to them. They call it "choice" or "competition".
Wow, that was not worth reading and I can't believe I actually read the whole thing. Some of us degenerates can read, and just have a different point of view than your holiness.
If Apple were to lose, or, more importantly, forced to sell copies of their OS as non-upgrades, much like Windows, we would be free to install it on hardware we already probably own. I do not support Psystar, but I am interested in copies of OS X that I could install on hardware I build. It would be easier to get my family interested in OS X than to convince them to spend so much on an iMac. Forget about a MacPro.
My point is, I wouldn't mind seeing a full license version of OS X for $299 or so, rather than "Upgrade" versions. I do not, however, like the idea of stealing someone's IP.
With that said, how else could change happen other than company X challenging Apple's EULA?
My point is, I wouldn't mind seeing a full license version of OS X for $299 or so, rather than "Upgrade" versions.
That's great, but it is Apple's property and they have the right to stipulate the terms of the licenses under which it is used. They obviously believe that it's more valuable to them as a means of selling hardware -- you want OS X, you buy Apple hardware. Why should anyone be able to force them to sell it standalone, harming their business model, their shareholders, and their bottom line? (Note: I'm not interested in anyone's theories about how this would help Apple's profits -- that's just speculation from people who don't have the knowledge, experience, and track record that Apple's corporate officers do.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by technohermit
I do not, however, like the idea of stealing someone's IP.
With that said, how else could change happen other than company X challenging Apple's EULA?
Apple could decide that they wanted to explore selling the OS licensed for as a standalone product for use on non-Apple hardware. If Apple doesn't want to do that, why should anyone be able to force them to do that?
Let's look at it a different way: Suppose that Ferrari was selling replacement engines with a contract that specified that they would only be installed in Ferrari branded automobiles. Does that mean that I should be able to go out, buy the engines, and install them in tarted up Kias that I sell for profit? Should I be able to buy the engines under that contract, disregard the terms of the contract, and then sue Ferrari? Really, that's what we're talking about here.
It makes no difference. It's a technicality. Things will get sorted out at the trial, at which time Psystar will lose. I'd love to see them try to come up with payment of costs, never mind any damages.
Wow, that was not worth reading and I can't believe I actually read the whole thing. Some of us degenerates can read, and just have a different point of view than your holiness.
If Apple were to lose, or, more importantly, forced to sell copies of their OS as non-upgrades, much like Windows, we would be free to install it on hardware we already probably own. I do not support Psystar, but I am interested in copies of OS X that I could install on hardware I build. It would be easier to get my family interested in OS X than to convince them to spend so much on an iMac. Forget about a MacPro.
My point is, I wouldn't mind seeing a full license version of OS X for $299 or so, rather than "Upgrade" versions. I do not, however, like the idea of stealing someone's IP.
With that said, how else could change happen other than company X challenging Apple's EULA?
Your whole scenario defeats the purpose of using OS X in the first place. If Apple did what you wanted it would not only kill their Mac business, it would render OS X into a Windows clone. Apple's entire Mac business model, and the whole point of using OS X in thr first place, rests on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. It's just that simple.
So in other words, people like you, not only look for excuses to circumvent Apple's IP rights (or have other companies do it for you), but also want to compromise (perhaps unwittingly) MY computing experience in the process.
Compromise OS X and the whole reason for using Macs just because YOU and those like you want to be cheap? Hell no.
This guys sounds like a typical thief, pirate, dishonest criminal type. Dont leave your wallet/car keys/kids around this guy.
Wow, talk about a leap in logic
It is not like Psystar is not paying Apple the full retail price for the copies of OS X, they are. They are paying what Apple has established OS X to be worth.
Oh I can hear you say that Apple defrays the cost of OS X in the selling price of the hardware. If that is the case, then Apple is just gouging customers for something that was paid for when they bought the equipment, they should just give all OS X versions away to everyone that owns a Mac. Of course that whole argument is ridiculous because Apple charges what OS X is worth in order to cover the cost of development.
Ah but is an upgrade you say, not a full release of an operating system. That argument is bs as well since you can install 10.6, using the retail disk, on an Intel Mac without a prior copy of OS X being in place. If this is the argument, then it is a purely semantic one that leads back to greed on Apple's part.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see Apple lose this case, actually. I am not so sure about the argument that Pystar is actually breaking the law. An EULA is not the same as a contract, after all, and tends to be less enforceable. If they do lose, Apple will probably just step up their efforts to lock OS X to Macs, possibly by adding some sort of hardware authentication chip to their computers.
At the very worst, they could be forced to *gasp* compete with Pystar on low-priced hardware, and I think we can all guess who would come out on top there.
I don't think Apple will lose the case though i do think they dropped the ball on the legal handling of Snow Leopard. Remember that in Dec 2008 Apple charged Psystar with violation of the DMCA and that charge is still on the docket. Also Psystar has made statements that put the in serious trouble with the IRS.
As for cheap hardware the old adage of getting what you pay for applies. Part of the stability of MacOS X is dependent on a limited set of hardware. Getting it to run on Frankenstein computer is one think but to keep it stable is another issue.
Ah but is an upgrade you say, not a full release of an operating system. That argument is bs as well since you can install 10.6, using the retail disk, on an Intel Mac without a prior copy of OS X being in place. If this is the argument, then it is a purely semantic one that leads back to greed on Apple's part.
"Can be installed on an Intel Mac without a prior installation of OSX" - No mac comes without a prior installation of Mac OS X. All Macs come with it preloaded. Therefore, its impossible NOT to have a previous installation having occurred. Whether or not that installation is still in place is immaterial.
This is simple.
Apple chooses to sell the full OS ONLY with the hardware in a bundled package.
You buy upgrade disks. You only buy a full licence with the actual mac itself. You NEVER pay for OS X in a disk form.
That is Apple's choice - Greed or not, they are a business and have that right. You have the choice to purchase or not purchase.
Just because you don't like their business practices doesn't make stealing from them right.
Semantic? No. Its plain. You can't buy a CD licence of Mac OS X. You can only buy an upgrade licence only. That does not allow installation on a device that it wasn't previously installed on in an earlier version. If you only buy an upgrade, you are ONLY buying the upgrade licence. That is not a full licence. You don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't steal and then whine that you didn't get it available in the way you liked.
Your whole scenario defeats the purpose of using OS X in the first place.
In your opinion. That's nice, for what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
(...) Apple's entire Mac business model, and the whole point of using OS X in thr first place, rests on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. It's just that simple.
They should have thought of that before selling (selling!) new client licenses of OS X. Why do it?... They could give every machine a Mac OS ID number. If it's not on the list then OSX should not install.
As it is now, there are still some copies of OS X floating about. Those... in my opinion... make any machine a legitimate, fully paid-for OS X client. Which can be sold, if you wish, as a used computer.
I can't help it but to think that Apple intentionally did that. Wouldn't the Florida case be dismissed if Psystar lose the California case because they are both based on the same reasoning and logic?
Think Apple should work out a deal with these guys. It will boost the Mac market share if they have an affordable Mac line.
You do understand that the point of this whole game is that Apple wants and currently has the right to restrict the hardware used with their software. for purposes of easier development, support etc.
if they go for a 'clone' program they lose that control. if they have a massive boom in market share they lose the right to restrict because the small share is what keep the tying from being abusive under anti-trust laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead
And thus reward a dirtbag company that exists only because of its parasitic business model? I think NOT.
Pystar didn't win. Apple screwed up on this one, plain and simple.
they sure did. they should have asked for a judgment that Snow Leopard be viewed for what it is, a variant of the Mac OS and thus included in the original case, thus dismissing this new case outright
then again, when the court sides with Apple on Leopard it will be an easy win to prove that Snow Leopard is essentially the same thing and thus the same rules apply. double win, double bad for Psystar.
Anti-trust was the only thing Psystar had going for it. And they lost the toss on the issue of the existence of a Macintosh Market and whether tying was abusive (non-abusive tying is in fact totally legal under current law) the EULA issue is bogus cause all that agreement does is codify Apple's already validated right to control the hardware used. That Apple might not have the right to say 'no resellers can buy this' doesn't matter cause even without the EULA the reseller doesn't have the right to put the software on whatever hardware he chooses.
Psystar is just rearranging deck chairs hoping to make Apple look like total dicks when in fact they are just making themselves look stupid. Their deposition questions, which were not answered because they were not material to the issue at hand, is just one more example of how desperate and dumb they are. If they had any sense they would drop this and move on
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zweben
possibly by adding some sort of hardware authentication chip to their computers.
there already is. which Psystar hacked to make it work on their setups. an action which is a violation of the DCMA should this be deemed a copyright issue. and that will put Psystar in even more trouble since there's no requirement to have monetarily profited. Just the fact that Psystar announced they could make a hackintosh is enough to get them in a world of hurt. the world only gets bigger if real money is involved (which might be why Psystar is claiming to lack records of their sales)
Comments
Florida stands to make a bundle from this case.
Apple should have released Snow Leopard before it was ready--not.
There is zero chance Apple will open up OS X unless they are forced to by a court, which is extremely unlikely, so that's not even really an issue. The only possibility is that Apple would be rendered powerless to stop companies from selling computers running OS X on unsupported hardware. Apple would almost certainly not be forced to provide support for those computers, meaning driver issues would be working against Pystar, not Apple. That plus fact that the computers are running hacked OSes will probably limit their appeal significantly, so OS X market share wouldn't change much, limiting any changes in the number of viruses on the OS. The only significant effect it would have on Apple would be to hurt their sales and possibly force them to start selling some low priced hardware to compete, or to spend more time locking down OS X to foil Pystar's efforts.
Is it bad that I see your conclusions as a good thing? And the only way to truely lock down the software, is to use hardware in your computers that no one else can replicate. Hmmm... PA Semi?
But they aren't doing that yet... and I don't know why! If they had some special hardware that increased performance, but they had the patent to so no one else could replicate, then I'd consider an Apple again.
I was one of those that didn't buy a Mac until the switch because I wanted a laptop and I had always heard that the G3/G4 laptops were underpowered compared to Intel x86 equivalent laptops and that is one of the reasons Apple made the switch.
But I also understand and accept their business model.
"Apple's Motion to include Snow Leopard in a Psystar case, denied!"
My initial irrational thought was, " There's a rumor that Motion is now going to be sold bundled with the OS loaded on a clone box, and it's been proven false? No big surprise! Who comes up with these rumors?"
OSX86 and Psystar both are the bad guys. What rational person would agree that violating the EULA to hack the system to work on non-Apple compliant hardware puts you in the position of good guy?
I agree that Apple has the right to its own opinion and point of view. But do they possess regulatory powers over how customers use their products... for example the standalone OS, which at least notionally, is a "product" and not an "upgrade"...
Apple could have avoided this whole THING by calling every copy of OSX an "upgrade" that is only valid with preexisting OSX, which all Macs were born with. But.... TMK..... they neglected to do that. Psystar noticed and pounced before Apple wised up. At this point Apple would love to make OSX "upgrade only" as I just mentioned but AAPL is evidently horrified that Psystar would howl and maybe even win an antitrust settlement against Apple, in that scenario. Still, it may be the best option to make OSX upgrade-only. That would shut down Psystar. It would be obvious they had no source of OSX licenses for their machines.
As it stands now, the murky issue is that Psystar claims they ARE buying legit OSX licenses... and in my view they're right...
Apple could have sealed this up tight... but they screwed up. At the very least this is serious bother... at worst, it's going to turn into a nightmare.
When Apple decided to switch to the Intel CPU platform... did they not see this coming? Surely, they had more foresight than this.
I was one of those that didn't buy a Mac until the switch because I wanted a laptop and I had always heard that the G3/G4 laptops were underpowered compared to Intel x86 equivalent laptops and that is one of the reasons Apple made the switch.
But I also understand and accept their business model.
I believe that you may think this is true due to the CPU's Apple was using at the time were lower clock speeds than those of the Intel line.
Apple's contention was always that the real speed came from the considerably shorter "data pipe" that the G3/G4 PPC chips used more than made up the difference. But this argument has been bandied about for a long, long time.
But, then again, having some experience in developing 3rd party accelerator boards, I tend to believe Apple's position in that argument.
I agree that Apple has the right to its own opinion and point of view. But do they possess regulatory powers over how customers use their products. ...
This has been covered a bazillion times, but Apple doesn't stop anyone from using the products as they see fit. They have no interest at all in "stopping people" from doing these kinds of things.
The only thing they are arguing here is that a *business* cannot make money off of their backs by doing this hackintosh crap and re-selling the OS as their own. It's not about controlling what people do with their stuff at all, it's about stopping a fly-by-night business from ripping off Apple's IP.
This has been covered a bazillion times, but Apple doesn't stop anyone from using the products as they see fit. They have no interest at all in "stopping people" from doing these kinds of things.
The only thing they are arguing here is that a *business* cannot make money off of their backs by doing this hackintosh crap and re-selling the OS as their own. It's not about controlling what people do with their stuff at all, it's about stopping a fly-by-night business from ripping off Apple's IP.
Save your breath. The cretinous idiots you are trying to convince don't think logically. They have been raised in a degenerate and debased culture which encourages the mindset that if you want something you just take it and then make up some rationale to quell your conscience. Ethical behavior is anathema to such people. The concept of copyrights and intellectual property rights are just obstacles to be overcome in the quest to get what they want. It's why they support Psystar. They think they are entitled to something and want the object of their ire, namely Apple, Inc., to be forced to provide it to them. They call it "choice" or "competition".
I can only assume that you are not in a position where your income depends on the value of YOUR intellectual property.
Tying his income to the value of his intellectual output would be like paying a blind man based on how many miles he drives each year.
PSST! Intel demonstration running OS X on a HACKINTOSH!! Does this mean Apple may be releasing OS X separate from hardware soon?
This was posted in another thread but sure seems like it could be of interest here as well..
Link: http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/24/v...le-transferri/
Did Apple revise the EULA to specifically exclude Intel and perhaps nobody spotted it?
And if Apple doesn't actively pursue Intel for their blatant disregard of the EULA then why the double standard with Psystar?
Dave
Save your breath. The cretinous idiots you are trying to convince don't think logically. They have been raised in a degenerate and debased culture which encourages the mindset that if you want something you just take it and then make up some rationale to quell your conscience. Ethical behavior is anathema to such people. The concept of copyrights and intellectual property rights are just obstacles to be overcome in the quest to get what they want. It's why they support Psystar. They think they are entitled to something and want the object of their ire, namely Apple, Inc., to be forced to provide it to them. They call it "choice" or "competition".
Wow, that was not worth reading and I can't believe I actually read the whole thing. Some of us degenerates can read, and just have a different point of view than your holiness.
If Apple were to lose, or, more importantly, forced to sell copies of their OS as non-upgrades, much like Windows, we would be free to install it on hardware we already probably own. I do not support Psystar, but I am interested in copies of OS X that I could install on hardware I build. It would be easier to get my family interested in OS X than to convince them to spend so much on an iMac. Forget about a MacPro.
My point is, I wouldn't mind seeing a full license version of OS X for $299 or so, rather than "Upgrade" versions. I do not, however, like the idea of stealing someone's IP.
With that said, how else could change happen other than company X challenging Apple's EULA?
My point is, I wouldn't mind seeing a full license version of OS X for $299 or so, rather than "Upgrade" versions.
That's great, but it is Apple's property and they have the right to stipulate the terms of the licenses under which it is used. They obviously believe that it's more valuable to them as a means of selling hardware -- you want OS X, you buy Apple hardware. Why should anyone be able to force them to sell it standalone, harming their business model, their shareholders, and their bottom line? (Note: I'm not interested in anyone's theories about how this would help Apple's profits -- that's just speculation from people who don't have the knowledge, experience, and track record that Apple's corporate officers do.)
I do not, however, like the idea of stealing someone's IP.
With that said, how else could change happen other than company X challenging Apple's EULA?
Apple could decide that they wanted to explore selling the OS licensed for as a standalone product for use on non-Apple hardware. If Apple doesn't want to do that, why should anyone be able to force them to do that?
Let's look at it a different way: Suppose that Ferrari was selling replacement engines with a contract that specified that they would only be installed in Ferrari branded automobiles. Does that mean that I should be able to go out, buy the engines, and install them in tarted up Kias that I sell for profit? Should I be able to buy the engines under that contract, disregard the terms of the contract, and then sue Ferrari? Really, that's what we're talking about here.
Wow, that was not worth reading and I can't believe I actually read the whole thing. Some of us degenerates can read, and just have a different point of view than your holiness.
If Apple were to lose, or, more importantly, forced to sell copies of their OS as non-upgrades, much like Windows, we would be free to install it on hardware we already probably own. I do not support Psystar, but I am interested in copies of OS X that I could install on hardware I build. It would be easier to get my family interested in OS X than to convince them to spend so much on an iMac. Forget about a MacPro.
My point is, I wouldn't mind seeing a full license version of OS X for $299 or so, rather than "Upgrade" versions. I do not, however, like the idea of stealing someone's IP.
With that said, how else could change happen other than company X challenging Apple's EULA?
Your whole scenario defeats the purpose of using OS X in the first place. If Apple did what you wanted it would not only kill their Mac business, it would render OS X into a Windows clone. Apple's entire Mac business model, and the whole point of using OS X in thr first place, rests on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. It's just that simple.
So in other words, people like you, not only look for excuses to circumvent Apple's IP rights (or have other companies do it for you), but also want to compromise (perhaps unwittingly) MY computing experience in the process.
Compromise OS X and the whole reason for using Macs just because YOU and those like you want to be cheap? Hell no.
This guys sounds like a typical thief, pirate, dishonest criminal type. Dont leave your wallet/car keys/kids around this guy.
Wow, talk about a leap in logic
It is not like Psystar is not paying Apple the full retail price for the copies of OS X, they are. They are paying what Apple has established OS X to be worth.
Oh I can hear you say that Apple defrays the cost of OS X in the selling price of the hardware. If that is the case, then Apple is just gouging customers for something that was paid for when they bought the equipment, they should just give all OS X versions away to everyone that owns a Mac. Of course that whole argument is ridiculous because Apple charges what OS X is worth in order to cover the cost of development.
Ah but is an upgrade you say, not a full release of an operating system. That argument is bs as well since you can install 10.6, using the retail disk, on an Intel Mac without a prior copy of OS X being in place. If this is the argument, then it is a purely semantic one that leads back to greed on Apple's part.
I wouldn't be too surprised to see Apple lose this case, actually. I am not so sure about the argument that Pystar is actually breaking the law. An EULA is not the same as a contract, after all, and tends to be less enforceable. If they do lose, Apple will probably just step up their efforts to lock OS X to Macs, possibly by adding some sort of hardware authentication chip to their computers.
At the very worst, they could be forced to *gasp* compete with Pystar on low-priced hardware, and I think we can all guess who would come out on top there.
I don't think Apple will lose the case though i do think they dropped the ball on the legal handling of Snow Leopard. Remember that in Dec 2008 Apple charged Psystar with violation of the DMCA and that charge is still on the docket. Also Psystar has made statements that put the in serious trouble with the IRS.
As for cheap hardware the old adage of getting what you pay for applies. Part of the stability of MacOS X is dependent on a limited set of hardware. Getting it to run on Frankenstein computer is one think but to keep it stable is another issue.
Ah but is an upgrade you say, not a full release of an operating system. That argument is bs as well since you can install 10.6, using the retail disk, on an Intel Mac without a prior copy of OS X being in place. If this is the argument, then it is a purely semantic one that leads back to greed on Apple's part.
"Can be installed on an Intel Mac without a prior installation of OSX" - No mac comes without a prior installation of Mac OS X. All Macs come with it preloaded. Therefore, its impossible NOT to have a previous installation having occurred. Whether or not that installation is still in place is immaterial.
This is simple.
Apple chooses to sell the full OS ONLY with the hardware in a bundled package.
You buy upgrade disks. You only buy a full licence with the actual mac itself. You NEVER pay for OS X in a disk form.
That is Apple's choice - Greed or not, they are a business and have that right. You have the choice to purchase or not purchase.
Just because you don't like their business practices doesn't make stealing from them right.
Semantic? No. Its plain. You can't buy a CD licence of Mac OS X. You can only buy an upgrade licence only. That does not allow installation on a device that it wasn't previously installed on in an earlier version. If you only buy an upgrade, you are ONLY buying the upgrade licence. That is not a full licence. You don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't steal and then whine that you didn't get it available in the way you liked.
Your whole scenario defeats the purpose of using OS X in the first place.
In your opinion. That's nice, for what it is.
(...) Apple's entire Mac business model, and the whole point of using OS X in thr first place, rests on OS X being tied to Apple hardware. It's just that simple.
They should have thought of that before selling (selling!) new client licenses of OS X. Why do it?... They could give every machine a Mac OS ID number. If it's not on the list then OSX should not install.
As it is now, there are still some copies of OS X floating about. Those... in my opinion... make any machine a legitimate, fully paid-for OS X client. Which can be sold, if you wish, as a used computer.
Think Apple should work out a deal with these guys. It will boost the Mac market share if they have an affordable Mac line.
You do understand that the point of this whole game is that Apple wants and currently has the right to restrict the hardware used with their software. for purposes of easier development, support etc.
if they go for a 'clone' program they lose that control. if they have a massive boom in market share they lose the right to restrict because the small share is what keep the tying from being abusive under anti-trust laws.
And thus reward a dirtbag company that exists only because of its parasitic business model? I think NOT.
Pystar didn't win. Apple screwed up on this one, plain and simple.
they sure did. they should have asked for a judgment that Snow Leopard be viewed for what it is, a variant of the Mac OS and thus included in the original case, thus dismissing this new case outright
then again, when the court sides with Apple on Leopard it will be an easy win to prove that Snow Leopard is essentially the same thing and thus the same rules apply. double win, double bad for Psystar.
Anti-trust was the only thing Psystar had going for it. And they lost the toss on the issue of the existence of a Macintosh Market and whether tying was abusive (non-abusive tying is in fact totally legal under current law) the EULA issue is bogus cause all that agreement does is codify Apple's already validated right to control the hardware used. That Apple might not have the right to say 'no resellers can buy this' doesn't matter cause even without the EULA the reseller doesn't have the right to put the software on whatever hardware he chooses.
Psystar is just rearranging deck chairs hoping to make Apple look like total dicks when in fact they are just making themselves look stupid. Their deposition questions, which were not answered because they were not material to the issue at hand, is just one more example of how desperate and dumb they are. If they had any sense they would drop this and move on
possibly by adding some sort of hardware authentication chip to their computers.
there already is. which Psystar hacked to make it work on their setups. an action which is a violation of the DCMA should this be deemed a copyright issue. and that will put Psystar in even more trouble since there's no requirement to have monetarily profited. Just the fact that Psystar announced they could make a hackintosh is enough to get them in a world of hurt. the world only gets bigger if real money is involved (which might be why Psystar is claiming to lack records of their sales)