I'm afraid you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The hardware doesn't come with a license, friend. The software does. Apple doesn't have you sign an End User License Agreement for the hardware. It doesn't tell you not to install another OS on the machine. Speaking of which...according to your logic, since the the Mac can also run Windows, you're actually buying a license to use Windows too.
It was also my understanding that Psystar was buying copies of OS X at retail. They weren't upgrade discs.
Actually it does come with a EULA, when you get your new mac, it has the agreement in the box with the software. ALL copies of OS X that you buy in the store are upgrades since you can only install them on Mac hardware, and you always get a license for OS X on every new Mac.
As to Psystar, they could never actually produce any receipts for OS X from what I recall. Did that change over the course of the trial?
Actually it does come with a EULA, when you get your new mac, it has the agreement in the box with the software.
Yes, and its the software that the license is for...not the hardware. This is why you have to agree to the terms when installing Mac OS upgrades or even upgrades for iTunes, etc. You don't buy a license to use the hardware...you buy the hardware itself.
Quote:
ALL copies of OS X that you buy in the store are upgrades since you can only install them on Mac hardware,
That's ridiculous. It's a full version of OS X. Where it can be installed has nothing to do with the term "upgrade." It would only be an upgrade if you were required to own a previous copy of OS X for it to work. As it stands, you could have a hard drive or Mac with no OS on it. You could buy OS X and install it, clean. In fact, I do it all the time. That's what a clean install is.
Quote:
and you always get a license for OS X on every new Mac.
Well...yes, but that really has nothing to do with the discussion. It's more pricing/marketing. Macs come with OS X, which is really more of a license to use OS X (as I think you stated). However, since the Mac can run other OSes, Apple doesn't have to sell it that way...they just choose to (and for good reason). In other words, you're really buying two products. Apple is just pricing them together.
And, as I've mentioned before, don't forget that Macs can run Windows. Does Apple grant you a license to use Windows? Of course not. Does Microsoft prevent you from running Windows on your Mac? No. Therein lies the problem for Apple. When you buy Windows, you can install it on any machine capable of running it. When you buy OS X, you are only allowed to install it on a Mac. You can't even build your own machine.
Quote:
As to Psystar, they could never actually produce any receipts for OS X from what I recall. Did that change over the course of the trial?
I hadn't heard. I don't think it matters either way. They were still re-selling Apple products and infringing on trademarks. As I said, if they sold the machines as merely being capable of running Mac OS X, that might be different.
That's ridiculous. It's a full version of OS X. Where it can be installed has nothing to do with the term "upgrade." It would only be an upgrade if you were required to own a previous copy of OS X for it to work. As it stands, you could have a hard drive or Mac with no OS on it. You could buy OS X and install it, clean. In fact, I do it all the time. That's what a clean install is.
You seem to be missing the point. You cannot buy a Mac without buying OSX. Therefore, any subsequent version of OSX that you buy is by definition an upgrade to a version which came installed on your Mac. The fact that you are able to install it on a hard drive which you have wiped is of no consequence. The fact that the installer does not check for a previous version is also of no consequence. It is still an upgrade.
You seem to be missing the point. You cannot buy a Mac without buying OSX.
So what? The two are not one in the same. You can run other OSes on the Mac. It's just that Apple chooses to include it.
Quote:
Therefore, any subsequent version of OSX that you buy is by definition an upgrade to a version which came installed on your Mac.
Yes, but it's not "just" an upgrade. Before intel, you could upgrade an OS9 machine too. That's because it's a full version.
Quote:
The fact that you are able to install it on a hard drive which you have wiped is of no consequence. The fact that the installer does not check for a previous version is also of no consequence. It is still an upgrade.
No, it's not. You are buying a copy of OS X and the license to use it. Let's put it this way: I'm upgrading if I change my car's tires, seat covers, stereo, etc. I'm not upgrading if I buy a new car. The new one functions completely independent of the previous one. Same with OS X.
So what? The two are not one in the same. You can run other OSes on the Mac. It's just that Apple chooses to include it.
No, a Mac is the hardware together with the OSX. Neither alone is a Mac. Is this not obvious? You are mistaking what is possible for what you are permitted to do under the license. Your car analogy simply does not fit the situation.
BTW, please do not try to deconstruct my arguments. I wrote four, short sentences, all on the same subject, supporting the same point. Surely you can respond to it as such.
No, a Mac is the hardware together with the OSX. Neither alone is a Mac. Is this not obvious? You are mistaking what is possible for what you are permitted to do under the license. Your car analogy simply does not fit the situation.
BTW, please do not try to deconstruct my arguments. I wrote four, short sentences, all on the same subject, supporting the same point. Surely you can respond to it as such.
Exactly. He assumes because that's teh way that Microsoft works, that all software must be the same, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Microsoft isn't a hardware manufacturer for PC's. They sell the OS, but they have no hardware for it in the PC market. They license the OS for resale from all sorts of vendors and manufacturer's. It is ALWAYS a separate product.
A Mac is a closed system, much like a Microwave, an MP3 player, or a TV. The software that makes it function comes with the hardware. You wouldn't buy a Microwave expecting that you would then have to go out and by the OS to make it actually function.
Honestly at this point, I don't even know what SDW is actually arguing for or against. He's all over the place from Hardware, to software, EULA's to marketing.
The simple fact, is that Apple can license the OS to whomever they choose, and they choose not to license it to anyone but Mac users. ALL OS X licenses sold in retail are upgrades. When you buy a Mac, you get OS X with it. Any subsequent license purchases of the OS would be upgrades to the existing OS. You cannot force a manufacturer to license their software to someone if they choose not to. If you happen to get their OS running on another piece of hardware, good for you, but don't expect they will suddenly start selling you licenses as a result, and you certainly can't force them to either. Apple sets the terms of the license, NOT the buyer. If you don't like the terms, don't buy it. Make no mistake though, you are not buying the software, you are buying a license to use the software within the terms of said license.
No, a Mac is the hardware together with the OSX. Neither alone is a Mac. Is this not obvious? You are mistaking what is possible for what you are permitted to do under the license. Your car analogy simply does not fit the situation.
BTW, please do not try to deconstruct my arguments. I wrote four, short sentences, all on the same subject, supporting the same point. Surely you can respond to it as such.
I'll respond as I deem appropriate. I didn't change your meaning.
I don't know that I agree about what a "Mac" is. I think that what can be done with it is very important. Since it's not tied to OS X completely, the two are somewhat separate.
Regardless, the point was in reference to OS X being an "upgrade" when purchased at retail. This is not true. The disc contains the full OS. There are options to upgrade or do a clean install. It's not an upgrade just because a "Mac" includes OS X to begin with.
I'll respond as I deem appropriate. I didn't change your meaning.
I don't know that I agree about what a "Mac" is. I think that what can be done with it is very important. Since it's not tied to OS X completely, the two are somewhat separate.
Regardless, the point was in reference to OS X being an "upgrade" when purchased at retail. This is not true. The disc contains the full OS. There are options to upgrade or do a clean install. It's not an upgrade just because a "Mac" includes OS X to begin with.
If the two are separate, then you could buy just the Mac without the OS from Apple. Obviously that isn't the case. Just because Microsoft's OS is not tied to the hardware, doesn't mean every manufacturer out there must follow the same business model. As to the upgrade argument, it's irrelevant. Psystar isn't licensed to use OS X on non-Mac hardware. They tried your argument, and lost in court.
upgrade
- 6 dictionary results
Upgrade
up⋅grade
/n. ˈʌpˌgreɪd; adj., adv. ˈʌpˈgreɪd; v. ʌpˈgreɪd, ˈʌpˌgreɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [n. uhp-greyd; adj., adv. uhp-greyd; v. uhp-greyd, uhp-greyd] Show IPA noun, adjective, adverb, verb, -grad⋅ed, -grad⋅ing.
Use upgrade in a Sentence
See web results for upgrade
See images of upgrade
–noun
1. \tan incline going up in the direction of movement.
2. \tan increase or improvement: an upgrade in the year's profit forecast.
3. \ta new version, improved model, etc.: The company is offering an upgrade of its sports sedan.
Doesn't seem to mention if the software is complete in and of itself.
If the two are separate, then you could buy just the Mac without the OS from Apple. Obviously that isn't the case. Just because Microsoft's OS is not tied to the hardware, doesn't mean every manufacturer out there must follow the same business model. As to the upgrade argument, it's irrelevant. Psystar isn't licensed to use OS X on non-Mac hardware. They tried your argument, and lost in court.
upgrade
- 6 dictionary results
Upgrade
up⋅grade
/n. ˈʌpˌgreɪd; adj., adv. ˈʌpˈgreɪd; v. ʌpˈgreɪd, ˈʌpˌgreɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [n. uhp-greyd; adj., adv. uhp-greyd; v. uhp-greyd, uhp-greyd] Show IPA noun, adjective, adverb, verb, -grad⋅ed, -grad⋅ing.
Use upgrade in a Sentence
See web results for upgrade
See images of upgrade
–noun
1. \tan incline going up in the direction of movement.
2. \tan increase or improvement: an upgrade in the year's profit forecast.
3. \ta new version, improved model, etc.: The company is offering an upgrade of its sports sedan.
Doesn't seem to mention if the software is complete in and of itself.
If you mean upgrade as in "better features and functionality," then we don't disagree on that. But, that is not how you used it the first time. Now, you're just trying to win an argument.
If you mean upgrade as in "better features and functionality," then we don't disagree on that. But that is not how you used it the first time. Now, you're just trying to win an argument. That's really a waste of time.
Or perhaps the rest of us simply understand what an 'upgrade' means. What's included in the upgrade is irrelevant as long as it IS an upgrade.
From our standpoint, and the courts apparently, you're just being purposely obtuse.
If the two are separate, then you could buy just the Mac without the OS from Apple. Obviously that isn't the case. Just because Microsoft's OS is not tied to the hardware, doesn't mean every manufacturer out there must follow the same business model. As to the upgrade argument, it's irrelevant. Psystar isn't licensed to use OS X on non-Mac hardware. They tried your argument, and lost in court.
You get it, he doesn't. But then, a lot of people don't seem to get it. I'm not sure what people who don't get it expect, but it seems they expect either (1) Apple to adopt Microsoft's business model, or (2) some sort of restriction in the OSX installer that prevents them from doing what the software license already prohibits them from doing.
Of course (1) leads to the destruction of the Mac and Apple as we know it; and (2) creates a pain in the neck for all of us, just to satisfy those who think that if something is possible, they have permission to do it.
Apparently this debate must go on and on, even after Psystar got themselves completely thumped in court as their reward for testing both of these theories. Still, some are never going to get it.
Or perhaps the rest of us simply understand what an 'upgrade' means. What's included in the upgrade is irrelevant as long as it IS an upgrade.
From our standpoint, and the courts apparently, you're just being purposely obtuse.
No, you clearly don't understand what it means. And yes, it does matter if it's "just and upgrade" or an "upgrade to functionality and features." The former definition is what you used to argue that one cannot install OS X on certain hardware. But OS X as sold at retail does not meet that definition. It can be installed with or without a previous version of OS X. What's included is completely relevant. Some software does meet that definition. If you don't own the previous version, you can't purchase the upgrade. OS X is not at all like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
You get it, he doesn't. But then, a lot of people don't seem to get it. I'm not sure what people who don't get it expect, but it seems they expect either (1) Apple to adopt Microsoft's business model, or (2) some sort of restriction in the OSX installer that prevents them from doing what the software license already prohibits them from doing.
Of course (1) leads to the destruction of the Mac and Apple as we know it; and (2) creates a pain in the neck for all of us, just to satisfy those who think that if something is possible, they have permission to do it.
Apparently this debate must go on and on, even after Psystar got themselves completely thumped in court as their reward for testing both of these theories. Still, some are never going to get it.
I do get it. You simply refuse to read what I'm writing. You're also using a straw man. I don't want Apple to follow Microsoft's business model. Killing the clones was a good and necessary step. However, I disagree that Apple should be able to legally prevent you from modifying your machine to run the OS that you purchased. You don't have to agree with me. It's just my opinion.
I do get it. You simply refuse to read what I'm writing. You're also using a straw man. I don't want Apple to follow Microsoft's business model. Killing the clones was a good and necessary step. However, I disagree that Apple should be able to legally prevent you from modifying your machine to run the OS that you purchased. You don't have to agree with me. It's just my opinion.
I have read what you have written, including the above -- which is additional convincing evidence that you don't get it.
No, you clearly don't understand what it means. And yes, it does matter if it's "just and upgrade" or an "upgrade to functionality and features." The former definition is what you used to argue that one cannot install OS X on certain hardware. But OS X as sold at retail does not meet that definition. It can be installed with or without a previous version of OS X. What's included is completely relevant. Some software does meet that definition. If you don't own the previous version, you can't purchase the upgrade. OS X is not at all like that.
Please point out the official definition which supports you statement. something from Websters or a similar site? Please enlighten us as to the difference between 'just an upgrade' and an 'upgrade to functionality and features'. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
So Websters, the Courts, and Apple are all wrong and all this time they should have been following your legal advice, just like Psystar? Worked out great for Psystar by the way. Just because you dislike something, doesn't make it illegal, or mean that the dictionary will change it's definition to please you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
However, I disagree that Apple should be able to legally prevent you from modifying your machine to run the OS that you purchased. You don't have to agree with me. It's just my opinion.
Also, please enlighten us. Exactly how is Apple limiting your ability to install another OS's on a Mac? I'll help you out. They aren't. If your implying that Apple is limiting what you do with a non-Apple piece of hardware, they aren't there either. Modify to your hearts content. Don't confuse people modifying their PC hardware with violating the Apple license.
You seem to think that you have purchased OS X. You haven't. You purchased a license. Apple sets the terms of the license, not you. If you can't understand the basic premise of a license then nothing said here will enlighten you. It does not grant you all permissions of ownership. It grants you whatever rights the owner deigns to grant you. You don't dictate the terms of the license you purchased, the owner of those licenses does. In this case, they said you cannot just install it wherever you please. Don't like it? Then don't buy a license.
Do you understand the difference between buying something outright, and purchasing a license to use it?
I think it all boils down to this. Why buy a copy of OSX in the belief that you can do something with it that you know the license expressly forbids? It escapes me how anyone could feel as though their rights were being trodden on somehow, when they have the perfect right to simply decline to spend the money.
the definition: Precedent means deferring to a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which forms the basis in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. The requirement that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis.
Precedent means that the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases....
The term "precedent" doesn't apply in this type of legal action. This is an injunction against a particular company in a particular instance, preventing it from doing a particular thing. There is nothing to stop another company from stepping up and doing the exact same thing (although it would be stupid) or from psystar from coming up with a new way to do business without violating the court order.
Precedent applies in situations where the court is interpreting a law, and is only precedent in the circuit in which the case was heard. Besides, the doctrine of "separate but equal" was once considered precedent. The ability to change precedent at will is one reason everyone gets all uptight about appointing appellate judges.
That much I know; what I don't get is why Apple users consider clones a bad thing. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I just don't get that point of view.
That much I know; what I don't get is why Apple users consider clones a bad thing. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I just don't get that point of view.
Because it would destroy Apple and everything we appreciate about their product. Good enough reason?
BTW, thanks for the explanation of precedent. I've been saying much the same thing myself, but have limited knowledge in this area.
That much I know; what I don't get is why Apple users consider clones a bad thing. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I just don't get that point of view.
Welcome to the forum. I don?t many, if any, are opposed to clones. I?d say most of us are opposed to illegal clones. It has nothing to do with the option be available but supporting Apple?s right as company in a free market to choose who and how to license their OS.
Outside of that, Psystar winning would have done nothing but hamper the ease of use that is currently associated with owning a machine running Mac OS X. There is no way that Psystar could have won by winning.
I'm opposed to Mac clones on principle, if only because I doubt very much that a licensing scheme could be structured in a way that doesn't severely reduce Apple's profitability. A best, they would be creating competitors for their own products and competing with themselves. That's a bizarre business strategy with little chance of succeeding. Apple tried it once, and look where it got them. Palm tried it, and look where it got them.
Because it would destroy Apple and everything we appreciate about their product. Good enough reason?
BTW, thanks for the explanation of precedent. I've been saying much the same thing myself, but have limited knowledge in this area.
I certainly understand your view; I see it more like natural selection: competition invariably improves the species.
To me it's merely an academic exercise and an interesting conundrum that goes back to the question addressed above of what makes a mac a mac -- hardware, os, or the combination? To the unsophisticated user like me it's the os. That's why I like my mac. How it differs inside the box from a pc or a Commodore Pet is outside my area of expertise and not important to me. Others are free to disagree and shake their heads at my ignorance.
While most of us like the company the way it operates now, simply saying cloning will end Apple as we know it is not sufficient. The board of Apple has a fiduciary duty to stockholders to maximize profit. Odd as it seems, in the courtroom (and to some extent the marketplace) the needs of shareholders are more important than the wants of customers. The board must be able to demonstrate why its current business model is best for those shareholders or someone who isn't happy about his or her financial returns is gonna sue.
It's the Wall Street version of a nuisance slip-and-fall lawsuit and it happens every day.
Comments
I'm afraid you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The hardware doesn't come with a license, friend. The software does. Apple doesn't have you sign an End User License Agreement for the hardware. It doesn't tell you not to install another OS on the machine. Speaking of which...according to your logic, since the the Mac can also run Windows, you're actually buying a license to use Windows too.
It was also my understanding that Psystar was buying copies of OS X at retail. They weren't upgrade discs.
Actually it does come with a EULA, when you get your new mac, it has the agreement in the box with the software. ALL copies of OS X that you buy in the store are upgrades since you can only install them on Mac hardware, and you always get a license for OS X on every new Mac.
As to Psystar, they could never actually produce any receipts for OS X from what I recall. Did that change over the course of the trial?
Actually it does come with a EULA, when you get your new mac, it has the agreement in the box with the software.
Yes, and its the software that the license is for...not the hardware. This is why you have to agree to the terms when installing Mac OS upgrades or even upgrades for iTunes, etc. You don't buy a license to use the hardware...you buy the hardware itself.
ALL copies of OS X that you buy in the store are upgrades since you can only install them on Mac hardware,
That's ridiculous. It's a full version of OS X. Where it can be installed has nothing to do with the term "upgrade." It would only be an upgrade if you were required to own a previous copy of OS X for it to work. As it stands, you could have a hard drive or Mac with no OS on it. You could buy OS X and install it, clean. In fact, I do it all the time. That's what a clean install is.
and you always get a license for OS X on every new Mac.
Well...yes, but that really has nothing to do with the discussion. It's more pricing/marketing. Macs come with OS X, which is really more of a license to use OS X (as I think you stated). However, since the Mac can run other OSes, Apple doesn't have to sell it that way...they just choose to (and for good reason). In other words, you're really buying two products. Apple is just pricing them together.
And, as I've mentioned before, don't forget that Macs can run Windows. Does Apple grant you a license to use Windows? Of course not. Does Microsoft prevent you from running Windows on your Mac? No. Therein lies the problem for Apple. When you buy Windows, you can install it on any machine capable of running it. When you buy OS X, you are only allowed to install it on a Mac. You can't even build your own machine.
As to Psystar, they could never actually produce any receipts for OS X from what I recall. Did that change over the course of the trial?
I hadn't heard. I don't think it matters either way. They were still re-selling Apple products and infringing on trademarks. As I said, if they sold the machines as merely being capable of running Mac OS X, that might be different.
That's ridiculous. It's a full version of OS X. Where it can be installed has nothing to do with the term "upgrade." It would only be an upgrade if you were required to own a previous copy of OS X for it to work. As it stands, you could have a hard drive or Mac with no OS on it. You could buy OS X and install it, clean. In fact, I do it all the time. That's what a clean install is.
You seem to be missing the point. You cannot buy a Mac without buying OSX. Therefore, any subsequent version of OSX that you buy is by definition an upgrade to a version which came installed on your Mac. The fact that you are able to install it on a hard drive which you have wiped is of no consequence. The fact that the installer does not check for a previous version is also of no consequence. It is still an upgrade.
You seem to be missing the point. You cannot buy a Mac without buying OSX.
So what? The two are not one in the same. You can run other OSes on the Mac. It's just that Apple chooses to include it.
Therefore, any subsequent version of OSX that you buy is by definition an upgrade to a version which came installed on your Mac.
Yes, but it's not "just" an upgrade. Before intel, you could upgrade an OS9 machine too. That's because it's a full version.
The fact that you are able to install it on a hard drive which you have wiped is of no consequence. The fact that the installer does not check for a previous version is also of no consequence. It is still an upgrade.
No, it's not. You are buying a copy of OS X and the license to use it. Let's put it this way: I'm upgrading if I change my car's tires, seat covers, stereo, etc. I'm not upgrading if I buy a new car. The new one functions completely independent of the previous one. Same with OS X.
So what? The two are not one in the same. You can run other OSes on the Mac. It's just that Apple chooses to include it.
No, a Mac is the hardware together with the OSX. Neither alone is a Mac. Is this not obvious? You are mistaking what is possible for what you are permitted to do under the license. Your car analogy simply does not fit the situation.
BTW, please do not try to deconstruct my arguments. I wrote four, short sentences, all on the same subject, supporting the same point. Surely you can respond to it as such.
No, a Mac is the hardware together with the OSX. Neither alone is a Mac. Is this not obvious? You are mistaking what is possible for what you are permitted to do under the license. Your car analogy simply does not fit the situation.
BTW, please do not try to deconstruct my arguments. I wrote four, short sentences, all on the same subject, supporting the same point. Surely you can respond to it as such.
Exactly. He assumes because that's teh way that Microsoft works, that all software must be the same, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Microsoft isn't a hardware manufacturer for PC's. They sell the OS, but they have no hardware for it in the PC market. They license the OS for resale from all sorts of vendors and manufacturer's. It is ALWAYS a separate product.
A Mac is a closed system, much like a Microwave, an MP3 player, or a TV. The software that makes it function comes with the hardware. You wouldn't buy a Microwave expecting that you would then have to go out and by the OS to make it actually function.
Honestly at this point, I don't even know what SDW is actually arguing for or against. He's all over the place from Hardware, to software, EULA's to marketing.
The simple fact, is that Apple can license the OS to whomever they choose, and they choose not to license it to anyone but Mac users. ALL OS X licenses sold in retail are upgrades. When you buy a Mac, you get OS X with it. Any subsequent license purchases of the OS would be upgrades to the existing OS. You cannot force a manufacturer to license their software to someone if they choose not to. If you happen to get their OS running on another piece of hardware, good for you, but don't expect they will suddenly start selling you licenses as a result, and you certainly can't force them to either. Apple sets the terms of the license, NOT the buyer. If you don't like the terms, don't buy it. Make no mistake though, you are not buying the software, you are buying a license to use the software within the terms of said license.
No, a Mac is the hardware together with the OSX. Neither alone is a Mac. Is this not obvious? You are mistaking what is possible for what you are permitted to do under the license. Your car analogy simply does not fit the situation.
BTW, please do not try to deconstruct my arguments. I wrote four, short sentences, all on the same subject, supporting the same point. Surely you can respond to it as such.
I'll respond as I deem appropriate. I didn't change your meaning.
I don't know that I agree about what a "Mac" is. I think that what can be done with it is very important. Since it's not tied to OS X completely, the two are somewhat separate.
Regardless, the point was in reference to OS X being an "upgrade" when purchased at retail. This is not true. The disc contains the full OS. There are options to upgrade or do a clean install. It's not an upgrade just because a "Mac" includes OS X to begin with.
I'll respond as I deem appropriate. I didn't change your meaning.
I don't know that I agree about what a "Mac" is. I think that what can be done with it is very important. Since it's not tied to OS X completely, the two are somewhat separate.
Regardless, the point was in reference to OS X being an "upgrade" when purchased at retail. This is not true. The disc contains the full OS. There are options to upgrade or do a clean install. It's not an upgrade just because a "Mac" includes OS X to begin with.
If the two are separate, then you could buy just the Mac without the OS from Apple. Obviously that isn't the case. Just because Microsoft's OS is not tied to the hardware, doesn't mean every manufacturer out there must follow the same business model. As to the upgrade argument, it's irrelevant. Psystar isn't licensed to use OS X on non-Mac hardware. They tried your argument, and lost in court.
upgrade
- 6 dictionary results
Upgrade
up⋅grade
/n. ˈʌpˌgreɪd; adj., adv. ˈʌpˈgreɪd; v. ʌpˈgreɪd, ˈʌpˌgreɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [n. uhp-greyd; adj., adv. uhp-greyd; v. uhp-greyd, uhp-greyd] Show IPA noun, adjective, adverb, verb, -grad⋅ed, -grad⋅ing.
Use upgrade in a Sentence
See web results for upgrade
See images of upgrade
–noun
1. \tan incline going up in the direction of movement.
2. \tan increase or improvement: an upgrade in the year's profit forecast.
3. \ta new version, improved model, etc.: The company is offering an upgrade of its sports sedan.
Doesn't seem to mention if the software is complete in and of itself.
If the two are separate, then you could buy just the Mac without the OS from Apple. Obviously that isn't the case. Just because Microsoft's OS is not tied to the hardware, doesn't mean every manufacturer out there must follow the same business model. As to the upgrade argument, it's irrelevant. Psystar isn't licensed to use OS X on non-Mac hardware. They tried your argument, and lost in court.
upgrade
- 6 dictionary results
Upgrade
up⋅grade
/n. ˈʌpˌgreɪd; adj., adv. ˈʌpˈgreɪd; v. ʌpˈgreɪd, ˈʌpˌgreɪd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [n. uhp-greyd; adj., adv. uhp-greyd; v. uhp-greyd, uhp-greyd] Show IPA noun, adjective, adverb, verb, -grad⋅ed, -grad⋅ing.
Use upgrade in a Sentence
See web results for upgrade
See images of upgrade
–noun
1. \tan incline going up in the direction of movement.
2. \tan increase or improvement: an upgrade in the year's profit forecast.
3. \ta new version, improved model, etc.: The company is offering an upgrade of its sports sedan.
Doesn't seem to mention if the software is complete in and of itself.
If you mean upgrade as in "better features and functionality," then we don't disagree on that. But, that is not how you used it the first time. Now, you're just trying to win an argument.
If you mean upgrade as in "better features and functionality," then we don't disagree on that. But that is not how you used it the first time. Now, you're just trying to win an argument. That's really a waste of time.
Or perhaps the rest of us simply understand what an 'upgrade' means. What's included in the upgrade is irrelevant as long as it IS an upgrade.
From our standpoint, and the courts apparently, you're just being purposely obtuse.
If the two are separate, then you could buy just the Mac without the OS from Apple. Obviously that isn't the case. Just because Microsoft's OS is not tied to the hardware, doesn't mean every manufacturer out there must follow the same business model. As to the upgrade argument, it's irrelevant. Psystar isn't licensed to use OS X on non-Mac hardware. They tried your argument, and lost in court.
You get it, he doesn't. But then, a lot of people don't seem to get it. I'm not sure what people who don't get it expect, but it seems they expect either (1) Apple to adopt Microsoft's business model, or (2) some sort of restriction in the OSX installer that prevents them from doing what the software license already prohibits them from doing.
Of course (1) leads to the destruction of the Mac and Apple as we know it; and (2) creates a pain in the neck for all of us, just to satisfy those who think that if something is possible, they have permission to do it.
Apparently this debate must go on and on, even after Psystar got themselves completely thumped in court as their reward for testing both of these theories. Still, some are never going to get it.
Or perhaps the rest of us simply understand what an 'upgrade' means. What's included in the upgrade is irrelevant as long as it IS an upgrade.
From our standpoint, and the courts apparently, you're just being purposely obtuse.
No, you clearly don't understand what it means. And yes, it does matter if it's "just and upgrade" or an "upgrade to functionality and features." The former definition is what you used to argue that one cannot install OS X on certain hardware. But OS X as sold at retail does not meet that definition. It can be installed with or without a previous version of OS X. What's included is completely relevant. Some software does meet that definition. If you don't own the previous version, you can't purchase the upgrade. OS X is not at all like that.
You get it, he doesn't. But then, a lot of people don't seem to get it. I'm not sure what people who don't get it expect, but it seems they expect either (1) Apple to adopt Microsoft's business model, or (2) some sort of restriction in the OSX installer that prevents them from doing what the software license already prohibits them from doing.
Of course (1) leads to the destruction of the Mac and Apple as we know it; and (2) creates a pain in the neck for all of us, just to satisfy those who think that if something is possible, they have permission to do it.
Apparently this debate must go on and on, even after Psystar got themselves completely thumped in court as their reward for testing both of these theories. Still, some are never going to get it.
I do get it. You simply refuse to read what I'm writing. You're also using a straw man. I don't want Apple to follow Microsoft's business model. Killing the clones was a good and necessary step. However, I disagree that Apple should be able to legally prevent you from modifying your machine to run the OS that you purchased. You don't have to agree with me. It's just my opinion.
I do get it. You simply refuse to read what I'm writing. You're also using a straw man. I don't want Apple to follow Microsoft's business model. Killing the clones was a good and necessary step. However, I disagree that Apple should be able to legally prevent you from modifying your machine to run the OS that you purchased. You don't have to agree with me. It's just my opinion.
I have read what you have written, including the above -- which is additional convincing evidence that you don't get it.
No, you clearly don't understand what it means. And yes, it does matter if it's "just and upgrade" or an "upgrade to functionality and features." The former definition is what you used to argue that one cannot install OS X on certain hardware. But OS X as sold at retail does not meet that definition. It can be installed with or without a previous version of OS X. What's included is completely relevant. Some software does meet that definition. If you don't own the previous version, you can't purchase the upgrade. OS X is not at all like that.
Please point out the official definition which supports you statement. something from Websters or a similar site? Please enlighten us as to the difference between 'just an upgrade' and an 'upgrade to functionality and features'. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?
So Websters, the Courts, and Apple are all wrong and all this time they should have been following your legal advice, just like Psystar? Worked out great for Psystar by the way. Just because you dislike something, doesn't make it illegal, or mean that the dictionary will change it's definition to please you.
However, I disagree that Apple should be able to legally prevent you from modifying your machine to run the OS that you purchased. You don't have to agree with me. It's just my opinion.
Also, please enlighten us. Exactly how is Apple limiting your ability to install another OS's on a Mac? I'll help you out. They aren't. If your implying that Apple is limiting what you do with a non-Apple piece of hardware, they aren't there either. Modify to your hearts content. Don't confuse people modifying their PC hardware with violating the Apple license.
You seem to think that you have purchased OS X. You haven't. You purchased a license. Apple sets the terms of the license, not you. If you can't understand the basic premise of a license then nothing said here will enlighten you. It does not grant you all permissions of ownership. It grants you whatever rights the owner deigns to grant you. You don't dictate the terms of the license you purchased, the owner of those licenses does. In this case, they said you cannot just install it wherever you please. Don't like it? Then don't buy a license.
Do you understand the difference between buying something outright, and purchasing a license to use it?
Don't like it? Then don't buy a license.
I think it all boils down to this. Why buy a copy of OSX in the belief that you can do something with it that you know the license expressly forbids? It escapes me how anyone could feel as though their rights were being trodden on somehow, when they have the perfect right to simply decline to spend the money.
That may be true. I'm not a lawyer. I just found this definition from this site and it looked good...
the site: http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/precedent/
the definition: Precedent means deferring to a prior reported opinion of an appeals court which forms the basis in the future on the same legal question decided in the prior judgment. The requirement that a lower court must follow a precedent is called stare decisis.
Precedent means that the principle announced by a higher court must be followed in later cases....
The term "precedent" doesn't apply in this type of legal action. This is an injunction against a particular company in a particular instance, preventing it from doing a particular thing. There is nothing to stop another company from stepping up and doing the exact same thing (although it would be stupid) or from psystar from coming up with a new way to do business without violating the court order.
Precedent applies in situations where the court is interpreting a law, and is only precedent in the circuit in which the case was heard. Besides, the doctrine of "separate but equal" was once considered precedent. The ability to change precedent at will is one reason everyone gets all uptight about appointing appellate judges.
That much I know; what I don't get is why Apple users consider clones a bad thing. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I just don't get that point of view.
That much I know; what I don't get is why Apple users consider clones a bad thing. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I just don't get that point of view.
Because it would destroy Apple and everything we appreciate about their product. Good enough reason?
BTW, thanks for the explanation of precedent. I've been saying much the same thing myself, but have limited knowledge in this area.
That much I know; what I don't get is why Apple users consider clones a bad thing. I'm not trying to provoke anyone, I just don't get that point of view.
Welcome to the forum. I don?t many, if any, are opposed to clones. I?d say most of us are opposed to illegal clones. It has nothing to do with the option be available but supporting Apple?s right as company in a free market to choose who and how to license their OS.
Outside of that, Psystar winning would have done nothing but hamper the ease of use that is currently associated with owning a machine running Mac OS X. There is no way that Psystar could have won by winning.
Because it would destroy Apple and everything we appreciate about their product. Good enough reason?
BTW, thanks for the explanation of precedent. I've been saying much the same thing myself, but have limited knowledge in this area.
I certainly understand your view; I see it more like natural selection: competition invariably improves the species.
To me it's merely an academic exercise and an interesting conundrum that goes back to the question addressed above of what makes a mac a mac -- hardware, os, or the combination? To the unsophisticated user like me it's the os. That's why I like my mac. How it differs inside the box from a pc or a Commodore Pet is outside my area of expertise and not important to me. Others are free to disagree and shake their heads at my ignorance.
While most of us like the company the way it operates now, simply saying cloning will end Apple as we know it is not sufficient. The board of Apple has a fiduciary duty to stockholders to maximize profit. Odd as it seems, in the courtroom (and to some extent the marketplace) the needs of shareholders are more important than the wants of customers. The board must be able to demonstrate why its current business model is best for those shareholders or someone who isn't happy about his or her financial returns is gonna sue.
It's the Wall Street version of a nuisance slip-and-fall lawsuit and it happens every day.