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.
Convenient how you missed out emphasising the part I have made red, which completely goes against your point.
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:
Installing a software, which is considered copying by the way, is protected under the copyright law. This is the center of the problem. Once you install the software you can use it in anyway you want.
Even if Apple relelased a Netbook for $700 as opposed to Windows $400 I think it would be classy and the public would have supported it. But Apple apparently thinks that margin is not enough or those machines aren't powerful enough to back them . The public however has proven Apple wrong. Netbooks are everywhere.
Not $700 netbooks... they don't seem to be "everywhere" at all.
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.
So go and buy your 350g Windows PC, and STFU complaining that it can't LEGALLY run OS X. You make your choice, you deal with the consequences.
Apparently we need to post this again - how software is used or operated (same thing) is not a protection of Copyright:
No, but the actual copying of it -- i.e., installation -- is covered. If it is legally installed, you can use it as you wish, but if the copy you make violates your license, the right to use legally made copies as you wish is irrelevant, since the copy itself was made in violation of the license.
Even if Apple relelased a Netbook for $700 as opposed to Windows $400 I think it would be classy and the public would have supported it. But Apple apparently thinks that margin is not enough or those machines aren't powerful enough to back them . The public however has proven Apple wrong. Netbooks are everywhere.
Welcome back from your banning.
The public hasn't proven Apple wrong at all. As the margins on Netbooks are still pathetically low, as Apple said.
Marketshare has nothing to do with the amount of profit from a unit sale whatsoever.
I don't know if anyone is expecting Apple to sell one for $300. It seems they can make one for $500 and wipe out that market. I do get the demand, it's not an ideal machine, but really, nothing is. There is a gulf between the 3.5" and 13" screens, I can picture a lot of uses that can be comfortably served somewhere roughly halfway between.
TOTALLY AGREE!
If Apple did a MacBook Mini with an 11.6" Screen sporting the 16:9 ratio, the new Pineville CPU with integrated CPU/GPU running one of their special cell batteries and sold it at $699 they'd have a winner. Hands down winner. Doesn't need ethernet. Just APX, BT, and 2 USB ports with a MiniDisplayPort to boot. Running OS X the 9 Cell battery powered MSI would go over 9 hours (roughly the train ride down to Charleston from DC). But Apple's engineers and the new platform could easily take it to double. Cost would be less than half. Your buying the OS, iApp's and support on a well designed state of the art machine with a 12+ hour battery. Winner, the end.
The public hasn't proven Apple wrong at all. As the margins on Netbooks are still pathetically low, as Apple said.
Marketshare has nothing to do with the amount of profit from a unit sale whatsoever.
Margins suck because it's the SAME Hardware/OS combo where ever you go, IE: Price war. Apple is NOT the same. OS X, iApps and design more than make up for similar hardware. A trouble free LONG LIFE netbook that runs OS X, worth every penny of the $700.
Apple's problem then would be keeping them in stock.
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.
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.
I can't buy a new BMW for $15,000, either. Therefore, Hyundai should be allowed to copy the BMW and put a BMW logo on it and sell it to me for $15,000.
No, but the actual copying of it -- i.e., installation -- is covered. If it is legally installed, you can use it as you wish, but if the copy you make violates your license, the right to use legally made copies as you wish is irrelevant, since the copy itself was made in violation of the license.
Apple doesn't have sued the German company which sells Hackintoshes, does it?
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.
No, but razor blade designs are patented.
Copyright does not protect the use of the work. It simply protects the market value of work by preventing imitators from profiting from the original work. That's what makes Psystar guilty of copyright violation and Hackintoshers not.
The EULA is a supplementary document, which is only valid so long as it doesn't violate the rights of the end-user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trboyden
How much is that in Rupees again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson
I'm not saying anybody is stealing. I'm saying it costs Apple, Dell, or whoever money. And you cannot deny that.
Then accessing the eligibility of a support request is a cost that must be covered by any company with a support line. That doesn't make the one who calls the support line wrong for doing so!
deliberate "laziness." as in, it isn't part of apple's business model. For a reason.
Call it stupid then, if you prefer...
Remember the infamous and now obsolete unibody Macbook without FW? I think it was sheer laziness not to implement FW on this otherwise highly attractive model. But at least they fixed it with the 13" Pro and finally turned it into a major hit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
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.
These glorious Apple sales numbers will tell you absolutely nothing about the netbook consumer and their behaviour, simply because Apple doesn't offer any netbooks! Who knows, despite growing sales they might have lost tons of sales from potential Apple netbook users who went Hackintosh or even Windows instead.
I certainly was shocked when I saw a the result of a poll (with over 3000 responses) on a MSI Wind forum about a year ago. There were more users with OSX on their netbooks than XP! Sadly Linux came in last, but there were also a great numbers of multi-boot systems. Unfortunately the poll didn't ask about the systems being used on these configurations, but my guess is the majority was OSX/XP.
Just check out some netbook user forums and compare the numbers of posts in the different OS categories.
These netbook forum post numbers indicate a huge OSX installation base on certain netbook models that are easily hackable. At some time Realtek even offered an OSX driver for a popular netbook WiFi card. They certainly wouldn't do this just for a handful of hackintosh users...
Think about how much better these Apple sales figures (and profits) could look, even if they had a rather expensive $700 10"or 11" netbook in their program.
Netbooks are seldom being used as main computers. They are simply 2nd or even 3rd computers to complement your desktop and/or large screen laptop. These small things are great for traveling, especially now when luggage size becomes more restricted and more expensive.
Therefore PC netbooks won't hurt Apple sales at all, but if Mac versions were available could boost their figures immensely.
But Apple seems to think it is good business NOT selling us a third computer. LOL, not even with a hefty 300$ profit margin?
Of course I would never switch to Win 7 on my perfect Mac Pro, but for basic on the road computing I could probably live with Win 7.
Regarding that rumored tablet thing: I won't believe it until I finally see it. And in case this will just be another portable video/gaming device with iPhone OS: No thanks.
Watching Bluray discs on a large screen projector and listening to multichannel sound has spoiled my appetite for toy screen video once and for all.
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.
True, but that wouldn't qualify as personal use either. A public display is a commercial act, regardless of whether you charge attendees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
In fact, your entire premise is wrong. 'Fair Use' specifically spells out the conditions required to use a copyrighted work:
No, your understanding of Fair Use is wrong. Fair Use sets out guidelines on how a copyrighted work can be used within another work. For example, you can't take a story written by someone else, add a couple of lines to it, and republish it as if it was yours. This is pretty clear on the first line of the text you linked to:
Quote:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords.
Also Fair Use spells out the difference in the very first doctrine where the rights of Copyright don't apply, again from your link:
Quote:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
Personal use has been ruled on many occasions to fall under the non-profit, educational purpose clause. Plus all I would have to say is "I tried to install OS X on my netbook to see if it would work" and that would qualify as educational research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Again, you're wrong. Apple doesn't need to show harm to enforce its copyrights...
True, if it was a copyright infringement, which this is not. It's a violation of their EULA, which is a contract, that comes under civil law in which they do need to show harm. A Copyright violation would be a criminal offense prosecuted by the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
You're also wrong that they couldn't show damages simply because the infringer paid $30...
What the user paid for the license has nothing to do with any damages claimed by Apple. The importance of the fact that the user paid a sum (any sum) for the use of the software has more to do with which party is acting in bad faith. The user paid to use the software - thus acting in good faith. Apple trying to restrict how that software is then used can be interpreted as acting in bad faith. No jury would support Ford if they had a EULA that said you can only make left turns with their cars.
Apple doesn't have sued the German company which sells Hackintoshes, does it?
Not yet, that I am aware of, but PearC and Psystar are unambiguously in violation of copyright law, since the EULA doesn't even apply to them -- i.e., since they are not end-users, they have no license whatsoever for what they are doing, not even one with possibly contestable points.
Sorry, but you CAN NOT buy a legal copy of OS X unless you buy a Mac! That "copy" you're talking about is a Legal UPGRADE of the OS X installed on your Mac.
Why for the love of Dawg, can't people understand that?
As for "buying a LEGAL copy of OS X", I've personally stated at USD 699,00, with no Apple support on any system but Apple's... could be "doable"... and "why not? No one would "BUY" it anyway (I don't think), but it would also take care of that same babble regarding the "Apple Tax" on Apple hardware.
It's not a TAX... it's the cost of developing OS X and iLife! Considering the reputation, and even articles from PC Mag as the "Best Operating System ever written", why would anyone expect it to be free is beyond me
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.
I hacked my RAZR so I could put my own ringtones on it. And by "my own," I actually mean music that I created, not copyrighted music that I copied from my iTunes library.
I also purchased Vista, yet proceeded to install the hacked and modified "Vista Black" because I didn't want MS breathing down my neck with all the "Genuine Windows" and authentication BS.
And, of course, I purchased OS X but installed it on my own a hardware profile which better fit my needs as a user.
Am I legally wrong? Yes.
Am I ethically wrong?
It's not a matter of entitlement. I fully acknowledge that I am not in compliance with the various EULAs in these scenarios. They are just completely unnecessary to the good operation of the product. As long as I am not truly abusing the use of or damaging the market value of these products, I honestly don't see the ethical problem with breaking their EULA.
This is not equivalent to believing I deserve for Apple to grant me free reign with their software, i.e.: entitlement.
Not supporting non-Mac OS X installs is one thing and I support going after third parties trying to make money off selling OS X like Psystar, but actively targeting the hackintosh community doesn't seem a good choice. Tinkerers can often be the best supporter of a platform, especially through word of mouth, and the fact that OS X can run so flawlessly on netbooks can only be positive publicity. Whereas, actively thwarting the hackintosh community, who aren't really making money doing it, really only makes negative press. Given that Apple's target market is those looking for ease of use (ie. not tinkerers) and OS X market share is continuing to grow, it's doubtful that the hackintosh community is making a huge dent on Apple's bottom line.
I concur. It does seem out of form to purposely disable Atom like this. Regardless, I?m certain the hackintosh community will be able to make builds of future version os DL with the Atom support from 10.6.1 inside.
Comments
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.
Convenient how you missed out emphasising the part I have made red, which completely goes against your point.
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:
Installing a software, which is considered copying by the way, is protected under the copyright law. This is the center of the problem. Once you install the software you can use it in anyway you want.
Even if Apple relelased a Netbook for $700 as opposed to Windows $400 I think it would be classy and the public would have supported it. But Apple apparently thinks that margin is not enough or those machines aren't powerful enough to back them . The public however has proven Apple wrong. Netbooks are everywhere.
Not $700 netbooks... they don't seem to be "everywhere" at all.
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.
So go and buy your 350g Windows PC, and STFU complaining that it can't LEGALLY run OS X. You make your choice, you deal with the consequences.
Apparently we need to post this again - how software is used or operated (same thing) is not a protection of Copyright:
No, but the actual copying of it -- i.e., installation -- is covered. If it is legally installed, you can use it as you wish, but if the copy you make violates your license, the right to use legally made copies as you wish is irrelevant, since the copy itself was made in violation of the license.
Even if Apple relelased a Netbook for $700 as opposed to Windows $400 I think it would be classy and the public would have supported it. But Apple apparently thinks that margin is not enough or those machines aren't powerful enough to back them . The public however has proven Apple wrong. Netbooks are everywhere.
Welcome back from your banning.
The public hasn't proven Apple wrong at all. As the margins on Netbooks are still pathetically low, as Apple said.
Marketshare has nothing to do with the amount of profit from a unit sale whatsoever.
I don't know if anyone is expecting Apple to sell one for $300. It seems they can make one for $500 and wipe out that market. I do get the demand, it's not an ideal machine, but really, nothing is. There is a gulf between the 3.5" and 13" screens, I can picture a lot of uses that can be comfortably served somewhere roughly halfway between.
TOTALLY AGREE!
If Apple did a MacBook Mini with an 11.6" Screen sporting the 16:9 ratio, the new Pineville CPU with integrated CPU/GPU running one of their special cell batteries and sold it at $699 they'd have a winner. Hands down winner. Doesn't need ethernet. Just APX, BT, and 2 USB ports with a MiniDisplayPort to boot. Running OS X the 9 Cell battery powered MSI would go over 9 hours (roughly the train ride down to Charleston from DC). But Apple's engineers and the new platform could easily take it to double. Cost would be less than half. Your buying the OS, iApp's and support on a well designed state of the art machine with a 12+ hour battery. Winner, the end.
Welcome back from your banning.
The public hasn't proven Apple wrong at all. As the margins on Netbooks are still pathetically low, as Apple said.
Marketshare has nothing to do with the amount of profit from a unit sale whatsoever.
Margins suck because it's the SAME Hardware/OS combo where ever you go, IE: Price war. Apple is NOT the same. OS X, iApps and design more than make up for similar hardware. A trouble free LONG LIFE netbook that runs OS X, worth every penny of the $700.
Apple's problem then would be keeping them in stock.
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.
What point is that exactly?
Chances are you're more worried about the bugs you're experiencing from running OSX on a PC than the 150 bug fixes that come with the update.
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.
I can't buy a new BMW for $15,000, either. Therefore, Hyundai should be allowed to copy the BMW and put a BMW logo on it and sell it to me for $15,000.
Personally I think thats pretty messed up, they should let the peopel decide!
Problem is, people are very stupid! Only about 5% of the population are capable of rational decisions IMO.
Thank god 'the people' dont decide the fate of Apple's products, what hideous creations they would be, devoid of vision, style and foresight.
No, but the actual copying of it -- i.e., installation -- is covered. If it is legally installed, you can use it as you wish, but if the copy you make violates your license, the right to use legally made copies as you wish is irrelevant, since the copy itself was made in violation of the license.
Apple doesn't have sued the German company which sells Hackintoshes, does it?
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.
No, but razor blade designs are patented.
Copyright does not protect the use of the work. It simply protects the market value of work by preventing imitators from profiting from the original work. That's what makes Psystar guilty of copyright violation and Hackintoshers not.
The EULA is a supplementary document, which is only valid so long as it doesn't violate the rights of the end-user.
How much is that in Rupees again?
I'm not saying anybody is stealing. I'm saying it costs Apple, Dell, or whoever money. And you cannot deny that.
Then accessing the eligibility of a support request is a cost that must be covered by any company with a support line. That doesn't make the one who calls the support line wrong for doing so!
hahaha, how ridiculous...
deliberate "laziness." as in, it isn't part of apple's business model. For a reason.
Call it stupid then, if you prefer...
Remember the infamous and now obsolete unibody Macbook without FW? I think it was sheer laziness not to implement FW on this otherwise highly attractive model. But at least they fixed it with the 13" Pro and finally turned it into a major hit.
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.
These glorious Apple sales numbers will tell you absolutely nothing about the netbook consumer and their behaviour, simply because Apple doesn't offer any netbooks! Who knows, despite growing sales they might have lost tons of sales from potential Apple netbook users who went Hackintosh or even Windows instead.
I certainly was shocked when I saw a the result of a poll (with over 3000 responses) on a MSI Wind forum about a year ago. There were more users with OSX on their netbooks than XP! Sadly Linux came in last, but there were also a great numbers of multi-boot systems. Unfortunately the poll didn't ask about the systems being used on these configurations, but my guess is the majority was OSX/XP.
Just check out some netbook user forums and compare the numbers of posts in the different OS categories.
For example http://www.s10lenovo.com/
Linux: 882 posts
Windows: 1566 posts
OSX: 6857 posts
These netbook forum post numbers indicate a huge OSX installation base on certain netbook models that are easily hackable. At some time Realtek even offered an OSX driver for a popular netbook WiFi card. They certainly wouldn't do this just for a handful of hackintosh users...
Think about how much better these Apple sales figures (and profits) could look, even if they had a rather expensive $700 10"or 11" netbook in their program.
Netbooks are seldom being used as main computers. They are simply 2nd or even 3rd computers to complement your desktop and/or large screen laptop. These small things are great for traveling, especially now when luggage size becomes more restricted and more expensive.
Therefore PC netbooks won't hurt Apple sales at all, but if Mac versions were available could boost their figures immensely.
But Apple seems to think it is good business NOT selling us a third computer. LOL, not even with a hefty 300$ profit margin?
Of course I would never switch to Win 7 on my perfect Mac Pro, but for basic on the road computing I could probably live with Win 7.
Regarding that rumored tablet thing: I won't believe it until I finally see it. And in case this will just be another portable video/gaming device with iPhone OS: No thanks.
Watching Bluray discs on a large screen projector and listening to multichannel sound has spoiled my appetite for toy screen video once and for all.
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.
True, but that wouldn't qualify as personal use either. A public display is a commercial act, regardless of whether you charge attendees.
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
No, your understanding of Fair Use is wrong. Fair Use sets out guidelines on how a copyrighted work can be used within another work. For example, you can't take a story written by someone else, add a couple of lines to it, and republish it as if it was yours. This is pretty clear on the first line of the text you linked to:
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords.
Also Fair Use spells out the difference in the very first doctrine where the rights of Copyright don't apply, again from your link:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
Personal use has been ruled on many occasions to fall under the non-profit, educational purpose clause. Plus all I would have to say is "I tried to install OS X on my netbook to see if it would work" and that would qualify as educational research.
Again, you're wrong. Apple doesn't need to show harm to enforce its copyrights...
True, if it was a copyright infringement, which this is not. It's a violation of their EULA, which is a contract, that comes under civil law in which they do need to show harm. A Copyright violation would be a criminal offense prosecuted by the government.
You're also wrong that they couldn't show damages simply because the infringer paid $30...
What the user paid for the license has nothing to do with any damages claimed by Apple. The importance of the fact that the user paid a sum (any sum) for the use of the software has more to do with which party is acting in bad faith. The user paid to use the software - thus acting in good faith. Apple trying to restrict how that software is then used can be interpreted as acting in bad faith. No jury would support Ford if they had a EULA that said you can only make left turns with their cars.
Apple doesn't have sued the German company which sells Hackintoshes, does it?
Not yet, that I am aware of, but PearC and Psystar are unambiguously in violation of copyright law, since the EULA doesn't even apply to them -- i.e., since they are not end-users, they have no license whatsoever for what they are doing, not even one with possibly contestable points.
...consumers who buy a legal copy of OSX....
Sorry, but you CAN NOT buy a legal copy of OS X unless you buy a Mac! That "copy" you're talking about is a Legal UPGRADE of the OS X installed on your Mac.
Why for the love of Dawg, can't people understand that?
As for "buying a LEGAL copy of OS X", I've personally stated at USD 699,00, with no Apple support on any system but Apple's... could be "doable"... and "why not? No one would "BUY" it anyway (I don't think), but it would also take care of that same babble regarding the "Apple Tax" on Apple hardware.
It's not a TAX... it's the cost of developing OS X and iLife! Considering the reputation, and even articles from PC Mag as the "Best Operating System ever written", why would anyone expect it to be free is beyond me
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.
I hacked my RAZR so I could put my own ringtones on it. And by "my own," I actually mean music that I created, not copyrighted music that I copied from my iTunes library.
I also purchased Vista, yet proceeded to install the hacked and modified "Vista Black" because I didn't want MS breathing down my neck with all the "Genuine Windows" and authentication BS.
And, of course, I purchased OS X but installed it on my own a hardware profile which better fit my needs as a user.
Am I legally wrong? Yes.
Am I ethically wrong?
It's not a matter of entitlement. I fully acknowledge that I am not in compliance with the various EULAs in these scenarios. They are just completely unnecessary to the good operation of the product. As long as I am not truly abusing the use of or damaging the market value of these products, I honestly don't see the ethical problem with breaking their EULA.
This is not equivalent to believing I deserve for Apple to grant me free reign with their software, i.e.: entitlement.
Not supporting non-Mac OS X installs is one thing and I support going after third parties trying to make money off selling OS X like Psystar, but actively targeting the hackintosh community doesn't seem a good choice. Tinkerers can often be the best supporter of a platform, especially through word of mouth, and the fact that OS X can run so flawlessly on netbooks can only be positive publicity. Whereas, actively thwarting the hackintosh community, who aren't really making money doing it, really only makes negative press. Given that Apple's target market is those looking for ease of use (ie. not tinkerers) and OS X market share is continuing to grow, it's doubtful that the hackintosh community is making a huge dent on Apple's bottom line.
I concur. It does seem out of form to purposely disable Atom like this. Regardless, I?m certain the hackintosh community will be able to make builds of future version os DL with the Atom support from 10.6.1 inside.