Exactly. If you want to know what the full retail cost of an operating system is (neither an upgrade nor bundled with a hardware sale) you only need to look at Windows.
Just because there's very little stopping you installing a Snow Leopard upgrade on non-Apple hardware that doesn't mean you aren't still infringing copyright.
Copyright isn't at issue here unless the codebase of OS X has been modified and redistributed without permission of its authors. Copyright is based on authorship and in the case of software, the creation of code.
Even at that, with most of OS X based on Open Source BSD, including the kernel, Apple is not the copyright owner of the code, the BSD community is. Apple is the copyright owner of the GUI and other proprietary, closed source parts of OS X.
At most, what is in violation here is civil contract dispute between Apple and the person who has broken the terms of the Apple OS X EULA. Apple would need to show material harm from such a contractual violation and if the user has paid for the license, that will be difficult to claim on the part of Apple because they have profited from the sale of the license. Such a case would most likely be settled with the user giving up their right of use of OS X in return for a refund of the cost of the license.
These issues are exactly why Microsoft keeps Windows proprietary and why OS X is both Apple's greatest success and greatest liability.
Apple should make a small and pocketable full Mac, like the OQO or the Vaio P. 350 g would be awesome. No more than 600 g. Video-out and USB 2 ports for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations from NATIVE files. Thus, an Intel Atom is required instead of the ARM processor.
AI members should show where they live or what their native language is. That would forestall statements like the above. Please let us know where you're coming from. When registering, there is a way to show this. AppleInsider, why not make this a requirement.
This is a slippery slope. If this is just the start, their Paranoia could end up disabling their own computers by accidents. Not that they'd care, you'd just be expected to buy a new one.
i don't think you can call someone a thief, who takes the effort to figure it out how to run his favorite os on a computer model category apple is obviously too lazy to offer!
deliberate "laziness." as in, it isn't part of apple's business model. For a reason.
no matter how thin the mba is, a 13" screen notebook is not a netbook.
ok.
apple thinks they know what people want, but the exploding number of netbook hackintoshs proof them wrong!
not quite the "expoloding" number of hackintoshes. They don't even make an infinitesimal dent in the market. Apple treated netbooks (which *are* on the market in abundance) as if they didn't exist, and didn't even flinch. What did consumers do in response? They bought *more* macs.
what exactly were you saying about apple not knowing what people want? Looks like apple knows better than the consumers themselves know!
there is only one effective hackintosh prevention: Bring that damn small footprint netbook/tablet people are waiting for, or shut up! If you don't deliver, people will fix that problem for themselves.
ok. And apple can go right ahead and not bring that "damn small footprint netbook" and lose nothing whatsoever. The tablet is a different story. It's on the way. But it aint no netbook.
you have no idea how many times i've been tempted to buy a netbook and put osx on the damn thing.
you're in the minority, it would seem. But good luck in the future. Sorry, i'm not sure what else to say to this.
with win 7 looking not too bad at all, my patience and apple loyalty stands on its last leg.
if you choose to switch, i wish you the best of luck.
and this is coming from someone who has never owned a windows machine before, and even dares to say her 8-core mac pro is worth every penny.
there was a time when i owned a windows machine for the first time, too. Guess what happened?
That depends, would you rather sell 3 million highly profitable $1000+ computers per quarter and make a lot of money. OR would you prefer to sell 9 million dirt cheap $300 netbooks and make nothing?
I would rather have a deeper penetration of OSX used by larger numbers of the public which would increase market share and spur on sales of the more expensive machines as well once the OS is ingrained in the public's consciousness- especially young students. Alas it's like 2 years too late.
I would rather have a deeper penetration of OSX used by larger numbers of the public which would increase market share and spur on sales of the more expensive machines as well once the OS is ingrained in the public's consciousness- especially young students. Alas it's like 2 years too late.
They aren't having a problem selling machines as it stands.
Does anyone even understand this question, let alone the grammar used to ask it?
Sorry, I'm not an English speaker, I've never learned English in a formal way, only through reading a lot of books, surfing Internet and watching movies and series. So my grammar skills are weak.
Its reasons like this that I will never buy an Apple product again (and sold all my Apple computers) until Apple realizes they are just being immature.
If the whole netbook market was something they never went after, and Apple sales have been increasing even with Hackintoshes around, then why pull a silly move like this? Its like going up to the weakest kid in school and beating them [why is there no gender neutral word in English for this case?] up just to show you can.
Anyhow, as one who has three Atom based computers at home (two netbooks, one desktop) news like this makes me sad. I don't have OS X installed on any of them, but I guess if I wanted to install SL, then I'm pretty much out of luck.
Also, I encourage all Hackintosh builders to buy their Mac OS X disks. Don't pirate, don't download. Just go to the Apple store and forfeit 30 bucks to their empire and be done with them.
Lastly: I think this signals that we won't be seeing the Atom in the tablet, and therefore, I doubt we'll see full running OS X. To me this screams FAIL. (Think, THREE platforms for devs to work on? I'm sure they'll be happy about that!)
I see Netbooks everywhere. Apple are missing a trick by not selling an official OSX Atom based netbook.
Could it be that one reason Apple is steering clear of this low margin business is that the excellent customer service and support that is an important component of the Apple brand reputation costs money and without higher margins there's no way Apple can offer the same service and support to netbook customers thus ruining a brand reputation that took years and billions to establish?
Could it be that one reason Apple is steering clear of this low margin business is that the excellent customer service and support that is an important component of the Apple brand reputation costs money and without higher margins there's no way Apple can offer the same service and support to netbook customers thus ruining a brand reputation that took years and billions to establish?
So, sell an Atom based netbook for 600 bucks. Margins kept in hand
Could it be that one reason Apple is steering clear of this low margin business is that the excellent customer service and support that is an important component of the Apple brand reputation costs money and without higher margins there's no way Apple can offer the same service and support to netbook customers thus ruining a brand reputation that took years and billions to establish?
Yes, Apple doesn't need to sell low margin netbooks or, even, it can be worse as you have said.
Also, I encourage all Hackintosh builders to buy their Mac OS X disks. Don't pirate, don't download. Just go to the Apple store and forfeit 30 bucks to their empire and be done with them.
They'll have to do more than buy the $30 upgrade and then they'd still be breaking the EULA.
They aren't having a problem selling machines as it stands.
True- but they could have made a lot more and more importantly penetrated the OS deeper. It will be a lot harder now that Windows 7 has a lot of support behind it - more than Vista. I may just be buying my first Windows 7 PC for $500 after seeing all those Best Buy models in yesterdays flier. There are some pretty good deals out there now.
Arguably, Apple has a much weaker case against consumers who buy a legal copy of OSX, and then put it on a Hackintosh. The consumer, however, must be doing it for non-commercial purposes. Psystar's problem is it is actually trying to make a buck off of infringing Apple's copyright.
However, for most users to buy a legal copy of OSX they must buy the $169 copy if they don't already own a Mac. Most Hackintosh people will tell you what they are doing is OK because they paid Apple $29 for the OS. Problem is that Apple specifically states that that is an update version for people switching from Leopard. The $169 version is the full install version. So, if you paid Apple $169 for the OS, you have a much stronger case for what you are doing is reasonable.
There seems to be some confusion here about the term "legal copy". In one sense, any copy of Mac OS X you buy is a legal copy, yet, the license you receive for payment for that copy does not allow you to legally install it on anything but Apple hardware. The $169 version is an upgrade for users on Mac OS versions prior to Leopard. It's not a copy that can legally be used without restriction.
Comments
Thieves?
You know...the same people who download movies and music. They're all evil doers.
Exactly. If you want to know what the full retail cost of an operating system is (neither an upgrade nor bundled with a hardware sale) you only need to look at Windows.
Just because there's very little stopping you installing a Snow Leopard upgrade on non-Apple hardware that doesn't mean you aren't still infringing copyright.
Copyright isn't at issue here unless the codebase of OS X has been modified and redistributed without permission of its authors. Copyright is based on authorship and in the case of software, the creation of code.
Even at that, with most of OS X based on Open Source BSD, including the kernel, Apple is not the copyright owner of the code, the BSD community is. Apple is the copyright owner of the GUI and other proprietary, closed source parts of OS X.
At most, what is in violation here is civil contract dispute between Apple and the person who has broken the terms of the Apple OS X EULA. Apple would need to show material harm from such a contractual violation and if the user has paid for the license, that will be difficult to claim on the part of Apple because they have profited from the sale of the license. Such a case would most likely be settled with the user giving up their right of use of OS X in return for a refund of the cost of the license.
These issues are exactly why Microsoft keeps Windows proprietary and why OS X is both Apple's greatest success and greatest liability.
Apple should make a small and pocketable full Mac, like the OQO or the Vaio P. 350 g would be awesome. No more than 600 g. Video-out and USB 2 ports for Keynote and PowerPoint presentations from NATIVE files. Thus, an Intel Atom is required instead of the ARM processor.
Isn't OQO dead?
AI members should show where they live or what their native language is. That would forestall statements like the above. Please let us know where you're coming from. When registering, there is a way to show this. AppleInsider, why not make this a requirement.
Gwydion did.
PremiÃ* de Mar, Spain
Rather than making OSX crash with Atom is used, why not focus on making OSX not crash when I use my normal MBP?
Or how about fixing the SATA II issue with third-party HDDs and SSDs on the June '09 13" and 15" MacBook Pros.
i don't think you can call someone a thief, who takes the effort to figure it out how to run his favorite os on a computer model category apple is obviously too lazy to offer!
deliberate "laziness." as in, it isn't part of apple's business model. For a reason.
no matter how thin the mba is, a 13" screen notebook is not a netbook.
ok.
apple thinks they know what people want, but the exploding number of netbook hackintoshs proof them wrong!
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/earningsq409/
http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/ar...fit/1255985794
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ence_call.html
http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/21/tra...ing-apple.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...56005c7997.dtl
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/19/...-quarter-ever/
not quite the "expoloding" number of hackintoshes. They don't even make an infinitesimal dent in the market. Apple treated netbooks (which *are* on the market in abundance) as if they didn't exist, and didn't even flinch. What did consumers do in response? They bought *more* macs.
and then we move on to the following:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10019711-37.html
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...g-industry.ars
http://digg.com/apple/apple_leads_20...faction_survey
http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/08/....no..1.on.csi/
http://theappleblog.com/2009/05/06/a...he-experience/
http://blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2007/...s-customerbase
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...stomer_sa.html
http://www.cultofmac.com/apple-posts...ion-index/2553
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/we...omments/22467/
http://bindapple.com/apple-satisfaction-2009-report/
http://www.macnn.com/news/25971
http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/14/...action-survey/
http://www.ipodobserver.com/ipo/arti...ff_the_charts/
http://www.theiphoneblog.com/2009/08...-satisfaction/
http://www.mactivist.com/2009/06/iph...kings-in-japan
http://www.9to5mac.com/jobs-satisfation-rate-high
http://www.jdpower.com/business/rati...tphone-ratings
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2248040/...ps-top-billing
http://www.eweek.com/prestitial.php?...453807%2f&ref=
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2352796,00.asp
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2006/08/5002.ars
http://www.osnews.com/story/15553
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1689554/posts
http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/.../t-224872.html
what exactly were you saying about apple not knowing what people want? Looks like apple knows better than the consumers themselves know!
there is only one effective hackintosh prevention: Bring that damn small footprint netbook/tablet people are waiting for, or shut up! If you don't deliver, people will fix that problem for themselves.
ok. And apple can go right ahead and not bring that "damn small footprint netbook" and lose nothing whatsoever. The tablet is a different story. It's on the way. But it aint no netbook.
you have no idea how many times i've been tempted to buy a netbook and put osx on the damn thing.
you're in the minority, it would seem. But good luck in the future. Sorry, i'm not sure what else to say to this.
with win 7 looking not too bad at all, my patience and apple loyalty stands on its last leg.
if you choose to switch, i wish you the best of luck.
and this is coming from someone who has never owned a windows machine before, and even dares to say her 8-core mac pro is worth every penny.
there was a time when i owned a windows machine for the first time, too. Guess what happened?
That depends, would you rather sell 3 million highly profitable $1000+ computers per quarter and make a lot of money. OR would you prefer to sell 9 million dirt cheap $300 netbooks and make nothing?
I would rather have a deeper penetration of OSX used by larger numbers of the public which would increase market share and spur on sales of the more expensive machines as well once the OS is ingrained in the public's consciousness- especially young students. Alas it's like 2 years too late.
I would rather have a deeper penetration of OSX used by larger numbers of the public which would increase market share and spur on sales of the more expensive machines as well once the OS is ingrained in the public's consciousness- especially young students. Alas it's like 2 years too late.
They aren't having a problem selling machines as it stands.
Does anyone even understand this question, let alone the grammar used to ask it?
Sorry, I'm not an English speaker, I've never learned English in a formal way, only through reading a lot of books, surfing Internet and watching movies and series. So my grammar skills are weak.
I thank you your polite observation.
If the whole netbook market was something they never went after, and Apple sales have been increasing even with Hackintoshes around, then why pull a silly move like this? Its like going up to the weakest kid in school and beating them [why is there no gender neutral word in English for this case?] up just to show you can.
Anyhow, as one who has three Atom based computers at home (two netbooks, one desktop) news like this makes me sad. I don't have OS X installed on any of them, but I guess if I wanted to install SL, then I'm pretty much out of luck.
Also, I encourage all Hackintosh builders to buy their Mac OS X disks. Don't pirate, don't download. Just go to the Apple store and forfeit 30 bucks to their empire and be done with them.
Lastly: I think this signals that we won't be seeing the Atom in the tablet, and therefore, I doubt we'll see full running OS X. To me this screams FAIL. (Think, THREE platforms for devs to work on? I'm sure they'll be happy about that!)
I see Netbooks everywhere. Apple are missing a trick by not selling an official OSX Atom based netbook.
Could it be that one reason Apple is steering clear of this low margin business is that the excellent customer service and support that is an important component of the Apple brand reputation costs money and without higher margins there's no way Apple can offer the same service and support to netbook customers thus ruining a brand reputation that took years and billions to establish?
This means tablet OS is ready. It's rather Mac OS, not iPhone OS. And Tablet is not Atom-based device.
My bet is it is iPhone OS (on steroids) rather than Mac OS ... perhaps to be a category of its own. We already know it isn't Atom.
Could it be that one reason Apple is steering clear of this low margin business is that the excellent customer service and support that is an important component of the Apple brand reputation costs money and without higher margins there's no way Apple can offer the same service and support to netbook customers thus ruining a brand reputation that took years and billions to establish?
So, sell an Atom based netbook for 600 bucks. Margins kept in hand
Could it be that one reason Apple is steering clear of this low margin business is that the excellent customer service and support that is an important component of the Apple brand reputation costs money and without higher margins there's no way Apple can offer the same service and support to netbook customers thus ruining a brand reputation that took years and billions to establish?
Yes, Apple doesn't need to sell low margin netbooks or, even, it can be worse as you have said.
My bet it is iPhone OS on steroids rather than Mac OS ... perhaps to be a category of its own.
They then did their surgery on what both have in common
Also, I encourage all Hackintosh builders to buy their Mac OS X disks. Don't pirate, don't download. Just go to the Apple store and forfeit 30 bucks to their empire and be done with them.
They'll have to do more than buy the $30 upgrade and then they'd still be breaking the EULA.
They aren't having a problem selling machines as it stands.
True- but they could have made a lot more and more importantly penetrated the OS deeper. It will be a lot harder now that Windows 7 has a lot of support behind it - more than Vista. I may just be buying my first Windows 7 PC for $500 after seeing all those Best Buy models in yesterdays flier. There are some pretty good deals out there now.
Arguably, Apple has a much weaker case against consumers who buy a legal copy of OSX, and then put it on a Hackintosh. The consumer, however, must be doing it for non-commercial purposes. Psystar's problem is it is actually trying to make a buck off of infringing Apple's copyright.
However, for most users to buy a legal copy of OSX they must buy the $169 copy if they don't already own a Mac. Most Hackintosh people will tell you what they are doing is OK because they paid Apple $29 for the OS. Problem is that Apple specifically states that that is an update version for people switching from Leopard. The $169 version is the full install version. So, if you paid Apple $169 for the OS, you have a much stronger case for what you are doing is reasonable.
There seems to be some confusion here about the term "legal copy". In one sense, any copy of Mac OS X you buy is a legal copy, yet, the license you receive for payment for that copy does not allow you to legally install it on anything but Apple hardware. The $169 version is an upgrade for users on Mac OS versions prior to Leopard. It's not a copy that can legally be used without restriction.