I know there are problems with new software/hardware... but how often do updates make things worse?
This is one area where Apple's secrecy and lack of communication drives me nuts. If they said "we are aware of the problem and are working on it" i'd be appeased and confident in my purchasing power.
The zero discussion and track record of Apple just up and dropping support on it's customers, only acting when they lose a class action law suit, is not a good way to conduct business in my mind.
If Apple acted this way 10 years ago... this site would be called linuxinsider, and we would be fidgeting with the SonyTouch.
Thank John Sculley for this - he made the deal licensing some of Apple technologies to MS...
Well, sort of, maybe. Bill Gates insisted on Apple licensing some elements of the Mac GUI to Microsoft, under pain of Microsoft not continuing developing Mac software. Since Microsoft was just about the only major developer of Mac software at the time, this was a pretty substantial threat. Apple thought this license only extended to the version of Windows Microsoft was developing at the time (2.0) but later a court ruled that it also applied to Windows 3.0. This all came to light when Apple sued Microsoft in the "look and feel" case. The suit was dismissed in part because of the license, but we don't know if it would have succeeded without it.
Now that the courts have confirmed that Apple owns OS X, hopefully they will feel more comfortable investing large sums of money in it, if and when required. This is a good ruling for anyone who makes their living from their intellectual creations.
Hear, hear.
This isn't just a win for Apple, it's a win for the principles of IP law, and for vendors who depend on the integrity of the EULA.
No one, but NO ONE, selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA.
To even think Psystar was going to get away with this is insane. Most of us have been waiting for them to get buried - we knew it was going to happen, it was all a foregone conclusion, but it's happened faster than expected, which is a real bonus. It also sends a clear message to other Psystar copycats.
This is all very encouraging news. The integrity of OS X, which depends on large part to its tie-in with Apple hardware, will be maintained. And those who depend on the integrity of IP law are also strengthened somewhat in their position. The EULA is not a joke.
Well, sort of, maybe. Bill Gates insisted on Apple licensing some elements of the Mac GUI to Microsoft, under pain of Microsoft not continuing developing Mac software.
Regardless, it was under Sculley's watch that the fox crept into the hen house.
If Steve Jobs had still been around at that time, do you honestly think he would been snookered into giving away the crown jewels? And so carelessly?
I have very mixed feelings about this. Good to see Apple get a win (let's face it, we're all fanboys here). But, I am concerned about any piece of legal precedent which serves to strengthen the DMCA. This law was conceived and written by the movie and music industry, and is a horrific law. The people that conceived it are also behind the ACTA treaty which would give the intellectual property police the ability to terminate your internet access wih only the allegation of infringement (EFF.org). Getting back to the Apple v. Psystar case, all I can say is that this is good for Apple, but I'm having a hard time finding the pro-consumer angle to this.
I have very mixed feelings about this. Good to see Apple get a win (let's face it, we're all fanboys here). But, I am concerned about any piece of legal precedent which serves to strengthen the DMCA. This law was conceived and written by the movie and music industry, and is a horrific law. The people that conceived it are also behind the ACTA treaty which would give the intellectual property police the ability to terminate your internet access wih only the allegation of infringement (EFF.org). Getting back to the Apple v. Psystar case, all I can say is that this is good for Apple, but I'm having a hard time finding the pro-consumer angle to this.
I agree that the DMCA is horrible law. However, I do think a company (Apple) should be able to control its own product. Apple chooses to sell computers with a specialized os. It does not sell a standalone OS - only updates to computers it produced. No one should be able to dictate what the product is - individuals or governments. There ARE decent choices out there in the market place.
My 8800gt video card just fried a few days go, leaving me scrambling. It was BTO in my 2008 Mac Pro. It's still under Apple care, but non the less, left me screwed as I didn't have a replacement kicking around and have to wait a week for one ordered in.
I thought i'd upgrade the video and keep the (refurbished i bet) 8800gt as a backup. I looked at the best video card for the Pro on the market right now and it's the evga nVidea 285.
Retails for $450 and is %2 better then the 8800gt because Snow Leopard is a disaster when it comes to GPU's. (bearfeats.com)
The best cards you can buy Snow Leopard are running 30% slower then they do in Leopard. 10.6.2 even made things worse... so Apple is going in the wrong direction. (although they did fix a bug that made Maya unusable)
So what do you do? Wait for the next Pro's to find out they changed the chipset completely leaving everyone with a new Pro now, screwed with crap, and putting the Mac 3 years behind Windows users, or pray that they keep the same chipset and someone actually writes decent drivers for the new cards?
It's pretty obvious that Apple no longer has any love for the consumer base that kept them alive as a company in the 90's and early 00's (graphic design, printing, advertising). I would actually go as far as to say they fucking hate us. Where are our matt screens, video cards that don't completely suck?
Part of me wanted Pystar to win, so it gave me an option from having to switch to windoze. The complete contempt apple is showing to it's diehard loyal fan base is of concern, and while the soccer mom consumer market is gobbling up iMac's and iPhones... the creative industry is being completely hung out to dry.
I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base.
In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.
I want decent hardware too.
The only thing going down the toilet here are all you whiny, delusional, myopic, full-of-yourselves, "calling-yourselves-creatives" who get all caught up in your technical complexities.
You belong with Windoze where you can tinker a putter to your heart's content.
If you'd been with Apple over the long term you may recall that there have been numerous transitional phases like the current one in its (you need to learn how to spell "its" like these WITHOUT the apostrophe) history.
True creatives who love Apple products find ways to weather these "storms" and just keep working. The problems get sorted out.
The "Snow Leopard"-class transition is about the move to multi-cores to further satisfy the ever-growing need for more power. There seems to be a "back and forth" between hardware and software, too. The 8-core Pro's have been hobbled by 32-bit software, limiting apps to 4GB RAM. Now that SL is 64-bit, it's up to Adobe, et al, to upgrade to 64-bit and perhaps further optimize for Grand Central.
In the mean time, hardware is making its strides.
It all takes time and patience.
This is no time for Apple to relent and open its systems to tinkerers--especially in light of its current struggles with jackals like Pisstar and others.
I'm personally for simply staying the course and using available Apple systems to the best of my ability to make money and be ready for future upgrades, to both hardware and software.
I don't think "physicality" has anything to do with it. Copyrights don't have to do with physicality, they have to do with content. Is a novel physical? No, just the medium it is conveyed upon. The content is copyrighted, not the medium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oxygenhose
That argument is a loser as well. But I've seen people actually use it... denying the physics of the medium they're using to make their point = clueless.
Just because code is really, really small or impossible to see with the naked eye doesn't mean it's "not real physical property". Even if were just light it is still a real 'physical' matter. It's just another example of writing. Copying someone else's novel onto different paper is still theft.
I've seen this argument thrown around as well. Again, as in most matters dealing with online 'copyright' opinion... just more fantasy illogic to try and defend or facilitate theft. Usually by useless parasites like Psystar, only jealous of others' ability to create.
Apple licensing Mac OS only for its machines has largely been its business model for the past 25 years. As we saw when Apple attempted to license clone machines is when the company nearly went out of business.
The "Pro" label is really a marketing tool with no true definition. Anyone who uses a computer as apart of their job is a professional computer user.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain
I agree.
I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base.
In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.
Dummies. They should have just sold the computers along with the necessary apps to install the bootloader, kexts and drivers, then let the consumer buy and install the OS. Apple wouldn't have been able to touch them since they wouldn't have been the ones violating the EULA. As difficult as it is to build a perfectly working Hackintosh, lots of people would pay for hardware that runs OS X flawlessly (and I don't mean genuine Macs).
That would have still violated the DMCA:
"Psystar has used decryption software to obtain access to Mac OS X and to circumvent Apple's technological measure when modifying Mac OS X in its production process," Alsup said. "This is a violation of the Section 1201 anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA."
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.?
(1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. [...[
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that?
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;"
This would of course mean the OSx86 project and the EFIx to get MacOS X to run on non-Apple software are also illegal
I know there are problems with new software/hardware... but how often do updates make things worse?
This is one area where Apple's secrecy and lack of communication drives me nuts. If they said "we are aware of the problem and are working on it" i'd be appeased and confident in my purchasing power.
The zero discussion and track record of Apple just up and dropping support on it's customers, only acting when they lose a class action law suit, is not a good way to conduct business in my mind.
If Apple acted this way 10 years ago... this site would be called linuxinsider, and we would be fidgeting with the SonyTouch.
Updates always make some things worse. Products are too complex these days. I remember when OS's and programs had NO bugs. But that was in the mid '70's. It's just gone downhill since.
Now that the courts have confirmed that Apple owns OS X, hopefully they will feel more comfortable investing large sums of money in it, if and when required.
So they have been wary/uncomfortable investing large amounts of money (actually, betting the whole company on it) with the 8 versions (and numerous updates) of OS X they have produced to date?
Regardless, it was under Sculley's watch that the fox crept into the hen house.
If Steve Jobs had still been around at that time, do you honestly think he would been snookered into giving away the crown jewels? And so carelessly?
Yes, he would have.
Because the deal with Ms was not that they could use windows layering in their OS, but that they could use it to develop software for the Mac. It's very likely that Jobs WAS involved in that deal from the beginning.
I remember that case very well. The error was with the way the contracts and licenses were written. It was a loophole that allowed MS to do what they did. This was a fault with the legal team, not Jobs or Sculley.
Comments
I know there are problems with new software/hardware... but how often do updates make things worse?
This is one area where Apple's secrecy and lack of communication drives me nuts. If they said "we are aware of the problem and are working on it" i'd be appeased and confident in my purchasing power.
The zero discussion and track record of Apple just up and dropping support on it's customers, only acting when they lose a class action law suit, is not a good way to conduct business in my mind.
If Apple acted this way 10 years ago... this site would be called linuxinsider, and we would be fidgeting with the SonyTouch.
Thank John Sculley for this - he made the deal licensing some of Apple technologies to MS...
Well, sort of, maybe. Bill Gates insisted on Apple licensing some elements of the Mac GUI to Microsoft, under pain of Microsoft not continuing developing Mac software. Since Microsoft was just about the only major developer of Mac software at the time, this was a pretty substantial threat. Apple thought this license only extended to the version of Windows Microsoft was developing at the time (2.0) but later a court ruled that it also applied to Windows 3.0. This all came to light when Apple sued Microsoft in the "look and feel" case. The suit was dismissed in part because of the license, but we don't know if it would have succeeded without it.
a company that generates huge profits for US investors, employs many thousands of US citizens, run by one of the industries richest men...
wins a case in its homestate against a no name company
in a country where presidents can steal elections....
hmm..... where's the news here?
I wish that this case had been in Europe..
I hope Psystar burns. But Apple also has to worry about more hackintosh sellers.
If anything, Apple doesn't have to worry about this as much, given the outcome of the Psystar case.
Now that the courts have confirmed that Apple owns OS X, hopefully they will feel more comfortable investing large sums of money in it, if and when required. This is a good ruling for anyone who makes their living from their intellectual creations.
Hear, hear.
This isn't just a win for Apple, it's a win for the principles of IP law, and for vendors who depend on the integrity of the EULA.
No one, but NO ONE, selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a legal precedent set that blows a hole in the principle of the EULA.
To even think Psystar was going to get away with this is insane. Most of us have been waiting for them to get buried - we knew it was going to happen, it was all a foregone conclusion, but it's happened faster than expected, which is a real bonus. It also sends a clear message to other Psystar copycats.
This is all very encouraging news. The integrity of OS X, which depends on large part to its tie-in with Apple hardware, will be maintained. And those who depend on the integrity of IP law are also strengthened somewhat in their position. The EULA is not a joke.
Well, sort of, maybe. Bill Gates insisted on Apple licensing some elements of the Mac GUI to Microsoft, under pain of Microsoft not continuing developing Mac software.
Regardless, it was under Sculley's watch that the fox crept into the hen house.
If Steve Jobs had still been around at that time, do you honestly think he would been snookered into giving away the crown jewels? And so carelessly?
so..
a company that generates huge profits for US investors, employs many thousands of US citizens, run by one of the industries richest men...
wins a case in its homestate against a no name company
in a country where presidents can steal elections....
hmm..... where's the news here?
I wish that this case had been in Europe..
The same result would have been reached I am sure. The facts don't change depending on where the case is tried.
Regardless, it was under Sculley's watch that the fox crept into the hen house.
If Steve Jobs had still been around at that time, do you honestly think he would been snookered into giving away the crown jewels? And so carelessly?
Nope, agreed, Sculley was a power mad, clueless MBA. Sculley's crown jewels should be on show in a large vat of Pepsi, sorry 'sugar water'.
In videogame terms, it's the equivalent of using up all your energy for a single, powerful shot, risking all (on part of the issues, or all of them.)
I think it's better to say, "blow their load".
I have very mixed feelings about this. Good to see Apple get a win (let's face it, we're all fanboys here). But, I am concerned about any piece of legal precedent which serves to strengthen the DMCA. This law was conceived and written by the movie and music industry, and is a horrific law. The people that conceived it are also behind the ACTA treaty which would give the intellectual property police the ability to terminate your internet access wih only the allegation of infringement (EFF.org). Getting back to the Apple v. Psystar case, all I can say is that this is good for Apple, but I'm having a hard time finding the pro-consumer angle to this.
I agree that the DMCA is horrible law. However, I do think a company (Apple) should be able to control its own product. Apple chooses to sell computers with a specialized os. It does not sell a standalone OS - only updates to computers it produced. No one should be able to dictate what the product is - individuals or governments. There ARE decent choices out there in the market place.
"The only way copyright can be overturned, rather than modified, is by a Constitutional Amendment "
I believe it takes a judge in a federal court to overturn a copyright law. Not a Constitutional Amendment.
See Article1 Section 8 Clause 8 of the consititution
I agree.
My 8800gt video card just fried a few days go, leaving me scrambling. It was BTO in my 2008 Mac Pro. It's still under Apple care, but non the less, left me screwed as I didn't have a replacement kicking around and have to wait a week for one ordered in.
I thought i'd upgrade the video and keep the (refurbished i bet) 8800gt as a backup. I looked at the best video card for the Pro on the market right now and it's the evga nVidea 285.
Retails for $450 and is %2 better then the 8800gt because Snow Leopard is a disaster when it comes to GPU's. (bearfeats.com)
The best cards you can buy Snow Leopard are running 30% slower then they do in Leopard. 10.6.2 even made things worse... so Apple is going in the wrong direction. (although they did fix a bug that made Maya unusable)
So what do you do? Wait for the next Pro's to find out they changed the chipset completely leaving everyone with a new Pro now, screwed with crap, and putting the Mac 3 years behind Windows users, or pray that they keep the same chipset and someone actually writes decent drivers for the new cards?
It's pretty obvious that Apple no longer has any love for the consumer base that kept them alive as a company in the 90's and early 00's (graphic design, printing, advertising). I would actually go as far as to say they fucking hate us. Where are our matt screens, video cards that don't completely suck?
Part of me wanted Pystar to win, so it gave me an option from having to switch to windoze. The complete contempt apple is showing to it's diehard loyal fan base is of concern, and while the soccer mom consumer market is gobbling up iMac's and iPhones... the creative industry is being completely hung out to dry.
I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base.
In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.
I want decent hardware too.
The only thing going down the toilet here are all you whiny, delusional, myopic, full-of-yourselves, "calling-yourselves-creatives" who get all caught up in your technical complexities.
You belong with Windoze where you can tinker a putter to your heart's content.
If you'd been with Apple over the long term you may recall that there have been numerous transitional phases like the current one in its (you need to learn how to spell "its" like these WITHOUT the apostrophe) history.
True creatives who love Apple products find ways to weather these "storms" and just keep working. The problems get sorted out.
The "Snow Leopard"-class transition is about the move to multi-cores to further satisfy the ever-growing need for more power. There seems to be a "back and forth" between hardware and software, too. The 8-core Pro's have been hobbled by 32-bit software, limiting apps to 4GB RAM. Now that SL is 64-bit, it's up to Adobe, et al, to upgrade to 64-bit and perhaps further optimize for Grand Central.
In the mean time, hardware is making its strides.
It all takes time and patience.
This is no time for Apple to relent and open its systems to tinkerers--especially in light of its current struggles with jackals like Pisstar and others.
I'm personally for simply staying the course and using available Apple systems to the best of my ability to make money and be ready for future upgrades, to both hardware and software.
That argument is a loser as well. But I've seen people actually use it... denying the physics of the medium they're using to make their point = clueless.
Just because code is really, really small or impossible to see with the naked eye doesn't mean it's "not real physical property". Even if were just light it is still a real 'physical' matter. It's just another example of writing. Copying someone else's novel onto different paper is still theft.
I've seen this argument thrown around as well. Again, as in most matters dealing with online 'copyright' opinion... just more fantasy illogic to try and defend or facilitate theft. Usually by useless parasites like Psystar, only jealous of others' ability to create.
The "Pro" label is really a marketing tool with no true definition. Anyone who uses a computer as apart of their job is a professional computer user.
I agree.
I'm wondering if this decision today won't be looked at in 10 years as the day Apple went down the toilet as a computer manufacturer, and became another Sony with gizmo's and gadgets for the larger consumer base.
In my mind... this judgment just condemned the Pro user base.
Dummies. They should have just sold the computers along with the necessary apps to install the bootloader, kexts and drivers, then let the consumer buy and install the OS. Apple wouldn't have been able to touch them since they wouldn't have been the ones violating the EULA. As difficult as it is to build a perfectly working Hackintosh, lots of people would pay for hardware that runs OS X flawlessly (and I don't mean genuine Macs).
That would have still violated the DMCA:
"Psystar has used decryption software to obtain access to Mac OS X and to circumvent Apple's technological measure when modifying Mac OS X in its production process," Alsup said. "This is a violation of the Section 1201 anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA."
TITLE 17, CHAPTER 12, § 1201 is quite clear on this:
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.?
(1) (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. [...[
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that?
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;"
This would of course mean the OSx86 project and the EFIx to get MacOS X to run on non-Apple software are also illegal
@ Melgross
I know there are problems with new software/hardware... but how often do updates make things worse?
This is one area where Apple's secrecy and lack of communication drives me nuts. If they said "we are aware of the problem and are working on it" i'd be appeased and confident in my purchasing power.
The zero discussion and track record of Apple just up and dropping support on it's customers, only acting when they lose a class action law suit, is not a good way to conduct business in my mind.
If Apple acted this way 10 years ago... this site would be called linuxinsider, and we would be fidgeting with the SonyTouch.
Updates always make some things worse. Products are too complex these days. I remember when OS's and programs had NO bugs. But that was in the mid '70's. It's just gone downhill since.
Now that the courts have confirmed that Apple owns OS X, hopefully they will feel more comfortable investing large sums of money in it, if and when required.
So they have been wary/uncomfortable investing large amounts of money (actually, betting the whole company on it) with the 8 versions (and numerous updates) of OS X they have produced to date?
Regardless, it was under Sculley's watch that the fox crept into the hen house.
If Steve Jobs had still been around at that time, do you honestly think he would been snookered into giving away the crown jewels? And so carelessly?
Yes, he would have.
Because the deal with Ms was not that they could use windows layering in their OS, but that they could use it to develop software for the Mac. It's very likely that Jobs WAS involved in that deal from the beginning.
I remember that case very well. The error was with the way the contracts and licenses were written. It was a loophole that allowed MS to do what they did. This was a fault with the legal team, not Jobs or Sculley.