I don't understand the need for people to constantly whine that Apple doesn't create this or that (insert cheap hardware/software combo here) in X market. Nothing you say here will affect them in any way. I'm sure they've done all sorts of feasibility studies and if they could do so and make a good profit with a quality product, they would have done it by now.
Apple is making an incredible profit, with a strong upward trend, even during a recession. You don't fix what isn't broken.
You're exactly right. Moreover, it is far better to compete at a higher price level and have the option of going down in prices, rather than hope for the reverse. Once you're in the $300 market with your product, it's difficult to crawl back into the $1000+ segment.
I feel very badly for the PC-makers who've got into this pricing hole. Oblivion is what's staring at them in the next few years, at the rate their margins are going.
Well, all the more reason that Apple will have to increasingly restrict the use of OS X through more restrictive means.
Hackintosh users have a cavalier atttiude about it because they know they can get away with it, and when enough of them do for long enough, they've convinced themselves over time that their *particular* form of infringement is legitimate. Although one wonders what else they're doing along the same lines.
They're breaking software license agreements. It's just that simple. Software license agreements are fundamental to the sale, purchase, and use of software. Simply because the legal consquences can't be meted out all the time and in every case does not make them any less valid, and in fact companies are within their rights to enforce them any time they please. In this case, Apple isn't even bringing any legal consequences to bear on hackintosh users! Just making it a bit harder for them. And they respond by crying foul??
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.
Why not buy the full version with iLife and iWork?! If you want to do it right then do it right. Buying the upgrade version to perform installation from non Leopard OS is still legally pirating. Even MS consider using Windows 7 upgrade DVD to perform clean install pirating.
Apple is doing the right thing by addressing this issue now before it gets out of hand. I prefer the current model where I can install my legally purchased of Mac OS on my purchased Apple Mac without the activation hassle.
PS. The reason I referenced MS is because they are the only other commercial OS builders.
How do you know Apple is "actively targeting the hackintosh community"?
The community doesn't even matter, apart from its continued (and unfettered) existence making Apple look hypocritical when going after Psystar.
Not surprising that at some point Apple would in principle send out a clear message to the hackintosh community as well. Apple is not going after them legally, but simply making it a bit harder for them on a particular unsupported platform.
Hackintoshers would be ineligible for support. The $30 is pure revenue.
The problem is "having a hackintosh" could only be established by fielding and responding to a call, thereby costing Apple money even if they don't resolve the issue.
Apple rumored to disable Atom support with Mac OS X 10.6.2
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a "security alert" attached to this update as to scare people.
All this cloning and hackintosh business is the inevitable result of Apple making Mac's more like PC's.
Given Apple and processor history, it really couldn't be helped.
Apple needs to make their hardware different again in such a way that OS X can't run on anything else.
If this means installing a special function chip on the logic board, then do so. Not many will hack a entire OS and all applications that call on this special function in order to operate.
This 10.6.2 not running on Atom processors, it's most likely a easy hack to fix and won't deter anyone for long.
Hackintosh users have a cavalier atttiude about it because they know they can get away with it, and when enough of them do for long enough, they've convinced themselves over time that their *particular* form of infringement is legitimate. ... And they respond by crying foul??
Yeah, 'thieves' was kinda for effect, but you know it's wrong (least you should do). And if everyone behaved as many of you do here, Apple would have to make changes to the way they work.
The Apple that I assume you love (by the fact that you are going to the trouble of installing it on a substandard pile of crap), would not exist in it's present form, the model would become more like microsoft's and suck for the same reasons.
On an individual basis I dont care what you get up to, im not exactly completely innocent myself. But my point is, for the future of the platform, I would prefer Appleinsider did not put their seal of approval on this activity.
That's awfully convenient. It's like saying, "I don't like their rules, so I'll ignore them and make up my own". You have the opinion that Apple's SL EULA violates your right as a consumer and to that your are entitled. But despite your protestations, Apple's EULA still stands as valid and legal (until and if it's proven otherwise) and you are still violating it (even with the $30 upgrade or $169 box).
Yet I don't deny violating it, nor deny what I am doing is "legally" wrong. If Apple sues me for breach of EULA, I am guilty, and I admit it. What's your point? That neither makes Apple ethically right or me morally wrong. Legal rights and wrongs do not always equal ethical rights and wrongs.
It's not entitlement, either. I am NOT a big business demonizer. I don't whine and moan and act victimized by corporations. There are just things that are within Apple's rights as a business and things that are not. Controlling the method of use of my copy of the OS should not be one. I bought the license to install OS X. That's all they need to care about.
The problem is "having a hackintosh" could only be established by fielding and responding to a call, thereby costing Apple money even if they don't resolve the issue.
So what happens when I call Dell support when I don't own a Dell?
Am I thieving from Dell by costing them 20 seconds of support time for them to determine that I am not a Dell user?
I think "thieves" is probably not the correct term.
We have to consider that it is Apple's choice to subsidize the price of OS X. If Gillette subsidizes the price of their shaver with the increased cost of the blades (which they do) would it be "theft" for someone to purchase a shaver from Gillette and choose a 3rd-party supplier for the blades? No, it would not. If Gillette subsidized the shaver to the point at which it seriously compromised their profits, that would simply be a bad business decision.
..
But... Does Apple really have the legal right to stop me from using their blade, for which I paid the sticker price?
Or... is it, perhaps, Apple who is out of bounds for having such an EULA?
-Clive
You totally missed the point because razor blades are not copyrighted material. Software, including OS, are copyrighted materials and therefore the owner of the software (Apple) is given rights to govern how their software is used. The EULA agreement is legal as shown in lawsuits before. However, the challenges are usually to specifics in the EULA.
Totally agree. You can use a copyrighted work in any way you want personally and it is covered by the Fair Use laws. Start using it or selling it in a commercial manner and you are in violation.
That is absolutely incorrect. For example, if you have a party with 1,000 guests and show a copy of the DVD you purchased at Best Buy, that would be a violation of copyright. Use of a copyrighted work for public display is not permitted. Admittedly, it's not likely to be prosecuted, but that doesn't change the legality.
In fact, your entire premise is wrong. 'Fair Use' specifically spells out the conditions required to use a copyrighted work:
You can't say "anything is legal unless prohibited." Rather, any use of copyrighted material is prohibited unless authorized either by license or Fair Use rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden
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.
Again, you're wrong. Apple doesn't need to show harm to enforce its copyrights. All they need to do is show that the copyrights have been infringed and that is sufficient to get an injunction against the infringer. They WOULD have to show damages in order to collect damages, but that's pretty obvious - and there's no indication that they want to do that, anyway.
You're also wrong that they couldn't show damages simply because the infringer paid $30. First, the $30 price is clearly labeled as an upgrade. The courts have consistently upheld the ability of software vendors to sell upgrades at lower price and enforce that. So, even if you ignore the EULA issue, the purchaser of a $30 SL package and using it on non-Apple equipment is violating Apple's rights. There is also harm - the appearance of crippled systems running OS X could confuse some consumers and make them think that Apple makes crappy systems.
You totally missed the point because razor blades are not copyrighted material. Software, including OS, are copyrighted materials and therefore the owner of the software (Apple) is given rights to govern how their software is used. The EULA agreement is legal as shown in lawsuits before. However, the challenges are usually to specifics in the EULA.
Umm, no. Why try to take his post out of context when he was simply making an analogy on the business case being used by Gillette vs. Apple? His argument had nothing to do with the Copyright issue.
Apparently we need to post this again - how software is used or operated (same thing) is not a protection of Copyright:
Quote:
What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.
Yes, and dozens of PC manufacturers have taken over offering amazing replacements. The shame with Mac is that you have no choice. You cannot buy a full Mac that is 350 g, yet you can buy a full PC Windows that is 350 g. THAT IS THE POINT.
Yet I don't deny violating it, nor deny what I am doing is "legally" wrong. If Apple sues me for breach of EULA, I am guilty, and I admit it. What's your point? That neither makes Apple ethically right or me morally wrong. Legal rights and wrongs do not always equal ethical rights and wrongs.
It's not entitlement, either. I am NOT a big business demonizer. I don't whine and moan and act victimized by corporations. There are just things that are within Apple's rights as a business and things that are not. Controlling the method of use of my copy of the OS should not be one. I bought the license to install OS X. That's all they need to care about.
-Clive
I hate to say it, but entitlement is precisely what it sounds like. You feel that you should be allowed to use Apple's OS independent of buying an Apple computer simply because you've deemed it's EULA unethical and it's the OS you've chosen to use. No offense, but it's not really up to you to determine what's within Apple's rights as a business and what isn't. What is within your right as a consumer is to buy something else if you don't agree with what the corporation in question does or stands for. But no amount of debate will change either of our minds one way or the other so we'll have to agree to disagree.
Comments
I don't understand the need for people to constantly whine that Apple doesn't create this or that (insert cheap hardware/software combo here) in X market. Nothing you say here will affect them in any way. I'm sure they've done all sorts of feasibility studies and if they could do so and make a good profit with a quality product, they would have done it by now.
Apple is making an incredible profit, with a strong upward trend, even during a recession. You don't fix what isn't broken.
You're exactly right. Moreover, it is far better to compete at a higher price level and have the option of going down in prices, rather than hope for the reverse. Once you're in the $300 market with your product, it's difficult to crawl back into the $1000+ segment.
I feel very badly for the PC-makers who've got into this pricing hole. Oblivion is what's staring at them in the next few years, at the rate their margins are going.
Well, all the more reason that Apple will have to increasingly restrict the use of OS X through more restrictive means.
Hackintosh users have a cavalier atttiude about it because they know they can get away with it, and when enough of them do for long enough, they've convinced themselves over time that their *particular* form of infringement is legitimate. Although one wonders what else they're doing along the same lines.
They're breaking software license agreements. It's just that simple. Software license agreements are fundamental to the sale, purchase, and use of software. Simply because the legal consquences can't be meted out all the time and in every case does not make them any less valid, and in fact companies are within their rights to enforce them any time they please. In this case, Apple isn't even bringing any legal consequences to bear on hackintosh users! Just making it a bit harder for them. And they respond by crying foul??
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.
Why not buy the full version with iLife and iWork?! If you want to do it right then do it right. Buying the upgrade version to perform installation from non Leopard OS is still legally pirating. Even MS consider using Windows 7 upgrade DVD to perform clean install pirating.
Apple is doing the right thing by addressing this issue now before it gets out of hand. I prefer the current model where I can install my legally purchased of Mac OS on my purchased Apple Mac without the activation hassle.
PS. The reason I referenced MS is because they are the only other commercial OS builders.
but actively targeting the hackintosh community doesn't seem a good choice.
How do you know Apple is "actively targeting the hackintosh community"?
How do you know Apple is "actively targeting the hackintosh community"?
The community doesn't even matter, apart from its continued (and unfettered) existence making Apple look hypocritical when going after Psystar.
Not surprising that at some point Apple would in principle send out a clear message to the hackintosh community as well. Apple is not going after them legally, but simply making it a bit harder for them on a particular unsupported platform.
Hackintoshers would be ineligible for support. The $30 is pure revenue.
The problem is "having a hackintosh" could only be established by fielding and responding to a call, thereby costing Apple money even if they don't resolve the issue.
Apple would have to provide evidence that the user would of bought Apple hardware to have a material loss...
That might be a possible defense, but it's far from a slam dunk.
Apple rumored to disable Atom support with Mac OS X 10.6.2
I wouldn't be surprised if there is a "security alert" attached to this update as to scare people.
All this cloning and hackintosh business is the inevitable result of Apple making Mac's more like PC's.
Given Apple and processor history, it really couldn't be helped.
Apple needs to make their hardware different again in such a way that OS X can't run on anything else.
If this means installing a special function chip on the logic board, then do so. Not many will hack a entire OS and all applications that call on this special function in order to operate.
This 10.6.2 not running on Atom processors, it's most likely a easy hack to fix and won't deter anyone for long.
Hackintosh users have a cavalier atttiude about it because they know they can get away with it, and when enough of them do for long enough, they've convinced themselves over time that their *particular* form of infringement is legitimate. ... And they respond by crying foul??
I am certainly not crying foul.
The Apple that I assume you love (by the fact that you are going to the trouble of installing it on a substandard pile of crap), would not exist in it's present form, the model would become more like microsoft's and suck for the same reasons.
On an individual basis I dont care what you get up to, im not exactly completely innocent myself. But my point is, for the future of the platform, I would prefer Appleinsider did not put their seal of approval on this activity.
I am certainly not crying foul.
No no, I was agreeing with you.
That's awfully convenient. It's like saying, "I don't like their rules, so I'll ignore them and make up my own". You have the opinion that Apple's SL EULA violates your right as a consumer and to that your are entitled. But despite your protestations, Apple's EULA still stands as valid and legal (until and if it's proven otherwise) and you are still violating it (even with the $30 upgrade or $169 box).
Yet I don't deny violating it, nor deny what I am doing is "legally" wrong. If Apple sues me for breach of EULA, I am guilty, and I admit it. What's your point? That neither makes Apple ethically right or me morally wrong. Legal rights and wrongs do not always equal ethical rights and wrongs.
It's not entitlement, either. I am NOT a big business demonizer. I don't whine and moan and act victimized by corporations. There are just things that are within Apple's rights as a business and things that are not. Controlling the method of use of my copy of the OS should not be one. I bought the license to install OS X. That's all they need to care about.
-Clive
The problem is "having a hackintosh" could only be established by fielding and responding to a call, thereby costing Apple money even if they don't resolve the issue.
So what happens when I call Dell support when I don't own a Dell?
Am I thieving from Dell by costing them 20 seconds of support time for them to determine that I am not a Dell user?
I think "thieves" is probably not the correct term.
We have to consider that it is Apple's choice to subsidize the price of OS X. If Gillette subsidizes the price of their shaver with the increased cost of the blades (which they do) would it be "theft" for someone to purchase a shaver from Gillette and choose a 3rd-party supplier for the blades? No, it would not. If Gillette subsidized the shaver to the point at which it seriously compromised their profits, that would simply be a bad business decision.
..
But... Does Apple really have the legal right to stop me from using their blade, for which I paid the sticker price?
Or... is it, perhaps, Apple who is out of bounds for having such an EULA?
-Clive
You totally missed the point because razor blades are not copyrighted material. Software, including OS, are copyrighted materials and therefore the owner of the software (Apple) is given rights to govern how their software is used. The EULA agreement is legal as shown in lawsuits before. However, the challenges are usually to specifics in the EULA.
So what happens when I call Dell support when I don't own a Dell?
Am I thieving from Dell by costing them 20 seconds of support time for them to determine that I am not a Dell user?
How much is that in Rupees again?
So what happens when I call Dell support when I don't own a Dell?
Am I thieving from Dell by costing them 20 seconds of support time for them to determine that I am not a Dell user?
I'm not saying anybody is stealing. I'm saying it costs Apple, Dell, or whoever money. And you cannot deny that.
Totally agree. You can use a copyrighted work in any way you want personally and it is covered by the Fair Use laws. Start using it or selling it in a commercial manner and you are in violation.
That is absolutely incorrect. For example, if you have a party with 1,000 guests and show a copy of the DVD you purchased at Best Buy, that would be a violation of copyright. Use of a copyrighted work for public display is not permitted. Admittedly, it's not likely to be prosecuted, but that doesn't change the legality.
In fact, your entire premise is wrong. 'Fair Use' specifically spells out the conditions required to use a copyrighted work:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
You can't say "anything is legal unless prohibited." Rather, any use of copyrighted material is prohibited unless authorized either by license or Fair Use rules.
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.
Again, you're wrong. Apple doesn't need to show harm to enforce its copyrights. All they need to do is show that the copyrights have been infringed and that is sufficient to get an injunction against the infringer. They WOULD have to show damages in order to collect damages, but that's pretty obvious - and there's no indication that they want to do that, anyway.
You're also wrong that they couldn't show damages simply because the infringer paid $30. First, the $30 price is clearly labeled as an upgrade. The courts have consistently upheld the ability of software vendors to sell upgrades at lower price and enforce that. So, even if you ignore the EULA issue, the purchaser of a $30 SL package and using it on non-Apple equipment is violating Apple's rights. There is also harm - the appearance of crippled systems running OS X could confuse some consumers and make them think that Apple makes crappy systems.
You totally missed the point because razor blades are not copyrighted material. Software, including OS, are copyrighted materials and therefore the owner of the software (Apple) is given rights to govern how their software is used. The EULA agreement is legal as shown in lawsuits before. However, the challenges are usually to specifics in the EULA.
Umm, no. Why try to take his post out of context when he was simply making an analogy on the business case being used by Gillette vs. Apple? His argument had nothing to do with the Copyright issue.
Apparently we need to post this again - how software is used or operated (same thing) is not a protection of Copyright:
What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed.
Isn't OQO dead?
Yes, and dozens of PC manufacturers have taken over offering amazing replacements. The shame with Mac is that you have no choice. You cannot buy a full Mac that is 350 g, yet you can buy a full PC Windows that is 350 g. THAT IS THE POINT.
Yet I don't deny violating it, nor deny what I am doing is "legally" wrong. If Apple sues me for breach of EULA, I am guilty, and I admit it. What's your point? That neither makes Apple ethically right or me morally wrong. Legal rights and wrongs do not always equal ethical rights and wrongs.
It's not entitlement, either. I am NOT a big business demonizer. I don't whine and moan and act victimized by corporations. There are just things that are within Apple's rights as a business and things that are not. Controlling the method of use of my copy of the OS should not be one. I bought the license to install OS X. That's all they need to care about.
-Clive
I hate to say it, but entitlement is precisely what it sounds like. You feel that you should be allowed to use Apple's OS independent of buying an Apple computer simply because you've deemed it's EULA unethical and it's the OS you've chosen to use. No offense, but it's not really up to you to determine what's within Apple's rights as a business and what isn't. What is within your right as a consumer is to buy something else if you don't agree with what the corporation in question does or stands for. But no amount of debate will change either of our minds one way or the other so we'll have to agree to disagree.