Even though I'm happy with my MBP, I applaud Psystar. You can't just put what you like in an EULA and assume that that makes it legal. What if Microsoft had stated in their EULA that you had to accept IE as the default browser? They're making the product -- they have the right to determine what's in it and control the experience. You have the option to buy it and agree to the EULA, or not buy it and go get something else.
Apple's defense of their EULA is a standard of practice in law - EULAs have been routinely upheld since Microsoft brought the concept into personal computing. So we are clear - it is clearly and unequivocally stated you are purchasing media upon which a LICENSED COPY of intellectual property has been placed. When you install the licensed software you are asked to agree to comply with the EULA - which states that you are allowed to use the software (under such terms as are listed in the EULA). YOU DO NOT OWN the IP, you are using a licensed copy of it - the only thing you own is the media upon which it was copied. It has been clearly stated time and again - it is a fact of law and a standard of practice for a couple of decades now. Psystar's defense is simply a silly, idiotic populist defense which only the uninformed would actually support, not something to applaud. I'm sure counsel told them they needed to keep up the "Jack the Giantkiller" routine to try and capture some sympathetic mindshare. There is tons of free, unlicensed software to be had without EULA. The laws are specific frugality about what is and is not allowed in a EULA - bad EULA's have been struck down in court just as standard and acceptable EULAs have been upheld. Use unlicensed and free software if you do not like the EULA concept and standard - or better yet grab a free, unlicensed copy of the Mach kernel and write yourself something BETTER than MacOSX and offer it free to the world without EULA. There's nothing so satisfying as spending all those long work-hours refining and honing an operating system and then offering it for free to everyone. The warm fuzzies alone should keep you blissed and rolling in dough - oh wait - well at least blissed.
It isn't the same principle though. MS was making sure you had no choice at all, from anyone, for a browser to use. Before they tried that stunt there was competition for market share amongst browser companies. MS killed them all. And to keep them from coming back, they tied IE into Windows so it couldn't be uninstalled.
Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?
Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.
Apple's defense of their EULA is a standard of practice in law - EULAs have been routinely upheld since Microsoft brought the concept into personal computing. So we are clear - it is clearly and unequivocally stated you are purchasing media upon which a LICENSED COPY of intellectual property has been placed. When you install the licensed software you are asked to agree to comply with the EULA - which states that you are allowed to use the software (under such terms as are listed in the EULA). YOU DO NOT OWN the IP, you are using a licensed copy of it - the only thing you own is the media upon which it was copied. It has been clearly stated time and again - it is a fact of law and a standard of practice for a couple of decades now. Psystar's defense is simply a silly, idiotic populist defense which only the uninformed would actually support. There is tons of free, unlicensed software to be had without EULA. The laws are specific frugality about what is and is not allowed in a EULA - bad EULA's have been struck down in court just as standard and acceptable EULAs have been upheld. Use unlicensed and free software if you do not like the EULA concept and standard - or better yet grab a free, unlicensed copy of the Mach kernel and write yourself something BETTER than MacOSX and offer it free to the world without EULA. There's nothing so satisfying as spending all those long work-hours refining and honing an operating system and then offering it for free to everyone. The warm fuzzies alone should keep you blissed and rolling in dough - oh wait - well at least blissed.
Just a minor point (nice post by the way), even Linux is under license, but it is not licensed as proprietary software, and the license grants far more freedoms.
Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?
Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.
Again, no, unless you could prove that Apple was using anti-competitive practices. There are any number of OS's that these vendors could put on their hardware besides OS X, including Unix, Linux, Windows, etc. Unless you can prove that Apple's actions put competing software companies at a disadvantage by Apple's actions, according to your example, then they would have no case. There are simply too many OS's out there that they can use. A monopoly isn't illegal. It's only when you use that monopoly to unfair advantage that it becomes illegal.
"A publisher cannot forbid you from reading a book in the bathroom or listening to a music disc while riding your bicycle. There should be no difference in the software realm, no matter how much money Apple or anyone else throws at it. That is the real issue here and what we have always been fighting for."
that statement translated to psystar would be accurate...if the book you're reading in the bathroom...is in someone else's bathroom you're illegally occupying...and the bicycle you're riding while you listen to music...is actually a bike you've stolen...
Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?
Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.
One minor point in your example. If Apple did have market dominance, and then pulled their OS and they also started building the only hardware that could run OS X after establishing OS X as the dominant OS, that would be anti-competitive.
Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?
Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.
Apple did in fact license earlier OS's to 3rd parties, and it did not work out so well. Jobs put an end to that when they went from OS7 to OS8. From then on you were never allowed to do it. The limitations of being on PPC made it so most people weren't interested in even using OS X. Now that you can theoretically, you would assume it's ok. But it's been this way since the mid 90's. The box retail version is an upgrade license, not a retail one.
Just a minor point (nice post by the way), even Linux is under license, but it is not licensed as proprietary software, and the license grants far more freedoms.
Thank-you! I have a friend who hates (and I do mean hates) licensed operating systems. He writes his own code for use on older models of x86 and Motorola (early Apple Macs) chipsets that runs like a cheetah on crack on these older machines. Hardly a discernible pause as things move on the screen. Very impressive. He shares his concepts in a couple forums I think but keeps the code largely to himself. He is trying to build the next great hot OS to release to the world for free. He supports himself as a high school science teacher and complains bitterly that the job keeps getting in the way of building his universal OS for the masses. I sympathize, but I only pointed out once that while his goal was highly altruistic, it was his "job" that kept him in his house and gave him the means to write his code. That prompted a blow-up of monumental proportion - and banned me from his house for a month or two. So yeah he is a tad eccentric. But brilliant in his own unique way. Even he recognizes EULAs for what they are (and aren't). However, Psystar are a bunch of opportunist parasitic wannabes, with delusions of piles of money being made on someone else's' efforts. They copped the code off of x86 group and reverse engineering their own copy of it (after using it without permission of the original creator), and then advanced this lamerz crap about how they "bought the software (MacOSX) at the store and therefore "own it"" Then after failing in their attempts to defend the indefensible, they declared bankruptcy to avoid paying their original legal team and took their case to a different team. I just don't get how anyone with a shred of commonsense could support such a complete steaming mound of fraudulent behavior. It boggles the mind.
Hunh? The computer is part of the Mac line (unless it were say an Xserve) regardless of what OS it is running. The OS also has "Mac" in the name. Just because you associate Mac with the OS doesn't mean that the computers aren't also Macs. I mean, taking your logic nobody should have a ThinkPad or a Vaio, etc. but rather a Lenovo (or IBM) or Sony PC, etc. The Mac is the computer first, it's Mac OSX because it was designed to be used on Macs.
Right, a Mac was a Mac awhile ago because the hardware and the processor was different than what's on the PC.
Mac's had PPC processors, larger capacity interfaces like Firewire, stereo in/out and a their own version of a graphics card. Even sporting things first like cd drives and so on to create music cds. Mac's were for the graphics and creative markets, who needed the extra horsepower and ease of use, stereo for recordings etc. Also they had better font control and higher resolution of type for the desktop publishing market Apple founded.
PC's had Intel processors (or like Intel), mono in and out for dictation/answering phone and office use. They didn't have or need Firewire and a floppy disk was good enough for them for quite some time.
So they were at one time, two different machines for two different markets. One business and one creative.
So at that time a Mac was a Mac and a PC was a PC.
Now of course PC's come with stereo, run creative software like Abode and Quark, cd/dvd drives and USB 2 which is about as fast as Firewire 400.
Mac's have adopted Intel's processors and hardware speaking are really no different than PC's, Mac's use the same parts from the same suppliers as PC's. Apple is even slowly dropping Firewire support and is now incorporating SD slots in their computers, just like PC's!
So essentially Mac's are no longer "Mac's" they are Apple PC's with Apple's operating system installed by default.
Apple keeps pretending and marketing their PC's as Mac's, because of the history.
But in actuality, anyone can install Windows, Linux or Unix on a Apple PC and that' makes it a PC.
So essentially Mac's are no longer "Mac's" they are Apple PC's with Apple's operating system installed by default.
Apple keeps pretending and marketing their PC's as Mac's, because of the history.
But in actuality, anyone can install Windows, Linux or Unix on a Apple PC and that' makes it a PC.
Yes and no. All Apple computers are PC's, just as IBM's were. The term PC is all too often misused. The Apple brand hasn't changed though. Just the hardware. It doesn't matter if it's a PPC or an Intel processor. It's still an Apple Mac which also happens to be a Personal Computer.
Apple could start selling Mac's tomorrow with Windows with identical hardware to Dell's, yet it would still be a Mac (and a PC). I think part of the reason for this is simply because Microsoft wanted people to associate Windows as a 'PC' since they don't actually sell PC hardware. I can see the advantages of people always thinking of Windows when they think of a personal computer.
Your right of course and not defending Pystar but...
Computers from the earliest days, were machines that people ran different programs on. In fact there wasn't even a operating system. You wanted to run a program you stuck the 5 1/4 " floppy in or the spools of tape and turned the machine on.
Later operating systems came along to make the application coders job more easier. Still different operating systems came and went, but you could still use the same hardware pretty much.
Even today you can take a PC and put Windows, Linux, Unix or various other operating systems on it.
Apple comes along as says "you can't use our OS on anything but our machines".
Well that just smacks in the face of everything a geek learns in school and how the computing world works.
Sure it was easy before because Mac's used the PPC processor so that gave them a hardware lock so OS X wouldn't run on the rest of the computers in the world.
But now that's gone and Mac's ARE PC's in every way. One can even run Windows, Linux, Unix and all the other PC operating systems on Apple branded computers.
Apple should change their ad campaign from "Get a Mac" to "Get a Apple", like "Get a Dell".
With the release of Bootcamp, allowing Windows and Linux to be the native boot OS of a Apple computer, is it a "Mac" anymore? Of course not, it's a Apple branded PC.
So Apple should call their computers PC's with the choice of operating systems, either OS X, Linux or Windows and be done with it. Triple their sales volume too boot.
Ok, I'm done playing devils advocate. Just wanted people to know what the other side thinks.
It's only another PC in that it uses many similar internal hardware components. Apple had developed a great deal of software and innovated many hardware aspects every PC user enjoys. Don't give me this, Apple's just another PC with a different OS crap. Apple pretty much invented the entire personal computing market as we know it today. I realize they borrowed many ideas, but that's the nature of innovation. Innovation is not being wildly original, it's designing some that make huge improvements for the end user experience, whether in hardware or software. All the PC geeks out there who love their Windows or their Linux, or their track pads, or their tablet computers, or their PDAs, or their smart phones, or their web-browsers, or their USB, or their Firewire, or their GUIs, or their laptop palm rests, etc., etc., etc... owe Apple a tremendous amount of thanks. If you learn anything about computing history it doesn't take long to discover Apple has paved the way in nearly every common place computing technology we enjoy. So if Apple wants to tie their OS to their hardware they have that right. They've invested tens of millions to make the experience excellent, and they have the right to protect that experience. The law allows them to.
Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?
Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.
As it?s been stated?though repeating because you don?t seem to understand?having a monopoly is not inherently illegal. MS abused their monopoly position as the anti-trusts cases have found.
Consider these scenarios: Apple has a monopoly on the PMP market. You can DL all their iPod OS and iPhone OS firmware online. Should Psystar (or anyone) be able to circumvent the software locks Apple included by installing and selling it on their own HW? I doubt you?d say yes to that, but it?s the same situation. Charging $29 for a consumer upgrade does not change the fact that Apple doesn?t license their OS to other HW vendors. If I can make iPhone OS for the Touch run on a Zune Apple won?t come after me unless I try to sell their unlicensed OS as my own.
Here is another scenario: Cisco has a dominate place in the router market. There IOS is freely available online. Do you think I?m allowed to use their IOS IP to make my own routers? Of course not. Do you nog see at all why in a healthy free market a company is allowed to choose who they license their intellectual property to and why a company wouldn?t want just anyone representing them?
Yes and no. All Apple computers are PC's, just as IBM's were. The term PC is all too often misused. The Apple brand hasn't changed though. Just the hardware. It doesn't matter if it's a PPC or an Intel processor. It's still an Apple Mac which also happens to be a Personal Computer.
A PC is called a PC (by name) because of the IBM PC and it's clones, which IBM sued and failed to stop the cloners.
Mac's were called "Mac's" back then (or "Macintoshes") and not PC's (by name) although they fell in that general personal computer category.
I have to check, but I believe the name or reference "PC" didn't come around until IBM coined it.
A PC is called a PC (by name) because of the IBM PC and it's clones, which IBM sued and failed to stop the cloners.
Mac's were called "Mac's" back then (or "Macintoshes") and not PC's (by name) although they fell in that general personal computer category.
I have to check, but I believe the name or reference "PC" didn't come around until IBM coined it.
Not even close. IBM was the first to refer to PC in their product name but personal computer predated the IBM PC by many years, possibly decades. The fact is, Macs were always personal computers. It was Apple that made a point to separate itself from the non-GUI machines after the Mac launched. It was a smart marketing move but now it seems to have backfired as some don?t think that a Mac are personal computers. \
It's only another PC in that it uses many similar internal hardware components. Apple had developed a great deal of software and innovated many hardware aspects every PC user enjoys. Don't give me this, Apple's just another PC with a different OS crap. Apple pretty much invented the entire personal computing market as we know it today. I realize they borrowed many ideas, but that's the nature of innovation. Innovation is not being wildly original, it's designing some that make huge improvements for the end user experience, whether in hardware or software. All the PC geeks out there who love their Windows or their Linux, or their track pads, or their tablet computers, or their PDAs, or their smart phones, or their web-browsers, or their USB, or their Firewire, or their GUIs, or their laptop palm rests, etc., etc., etc... owe Apple a tremendous amount of thanks. If you learn anything about computing history it doesn't take long to discover Apple has paved the way in nearly every common place computing technology we enjoy. So if Apple wants to tie their OS to their hardware they have that right. They've invested tens of millions to make the experience excellent, and they have the right to protect that experience. The law allows them to.
Don't get your fanboy panties in a knot now, I've been a MacHead since day one and never bought a PC in my life.
I know quite well it's Apple hardware and software integration and attention to detail that makes the Mac experience unique and special.
But technically speaking, a Mac isn't a Mac anymore, it's a (IBM like) PC like all the others.
I'm not suggesting Apple allow OS X for PC's, not at all. That will kill it's hardware sales, in fact it's killing them now from the hackintoshes.
Because Apple switched to common Intel processors, like in PC's, is why they have a problem from cloners, hackintoshes and the likes of Pystar.
Obviously they didn't have any choice about processors, but they could have made some hardware changes or extras that OS X wouldn't run without it without a great deal of time and effort recoding.
Don't get your fanboy panties in a knot now, I've been a MacHead since day one and never bought a PC in my life.
But technically speaking, a Mac isn't a Mac anymore, it's a (IBM like) PC like all the others.
1) Nope, you?ve been a PC user. Macs are personal computers. Always have been.
2) x86 has nothing to do with being a personal computer. MS could have made Windows run on PPC architecture if they wanted. Wait, they did, but not for personal computing but for their game console line. You see the difference?
(To use the same bad grammar), a publisher *can* "forbid you from" putting a new cover on that book and re-selling it as your own product however.
If I paid for their product, I can resell it in any condition I choose, bundled in any configuration I want, for any price I want. There is no legal restriction preventing such a transaction.
Not even close. IBM was the first to refer to PC in their product name but personal computer predated the IBM PC by many years, possibly decades. The fact is, Macs were always personal computers. It was Apple that made a point to separate itself from the non-GUI machines after the Mac launched. It was a smart marketing move but now it seems to have backfired as some don?t think that a Mac are personal computers. \
Well you basically just said what I said then.
Mac's are PC's and now they are clones of PC's to boot.
Comments
By the way, I don't remember anyone putting a gun to my head and forcing me to buy a Mac, do you?!
Apparently they put the gun to your head after you buy the Mac nowadays.
Even though I'm happy with my MBP, I applaud Psystar. You can't just put what you like in an EULA and assume that that makes it legal. What if Microsoft had stated in their EULA that you had to accept IE as the default browser? They're making the product -- they have the right to determine what's in it and control the experience. You have the option to buy it and agree to the EULA, or not buy it and go get something else.
Apple's defense of their EULA is a standard of practice in law - EULAs have been routinely upheld since Microsoft brought the concept into personal computing. So we are clear - it is clearly and unequivocally stated you are purchasing media upon which a LICENSED COPY of intellectual property has been placed. When you install the licensed software you are asked to agree to comply with the EULA - which states that you are allowed to use the software (under such terms as are listed in the EULA). YOU DO NOT OWN the IP, you are using a licensed copy of it - the only thing you own is the media upon which it was copied. It has been clearly stated time and again - it is a fact of law and a standard of practice for a couple of decades now. Psystar's defense is simply a silly, idiotic populist defense which only the uninformed would actually support, not something to applaud. I'm sure counsel told them they needed to keep up the "Jack the Giantkiller" routine to try and capture some sympathetic mindshare. There is tons of free, unlicensed software to be had without EULA. The laws are specific frugality about what is and is not allowed in a EULA - bad EULA's have been struck down in court just as standard and acceptable EULAs have been upheld. Use unlicensed and free software if you do not like the EULA concept and standard - or better yet grab a free, unlicensed copy of the Mach kernel and write yourself something BETTER than MacOSX and offer it free to the world without EULA. There's nothing so satisfying as spending all those long work-hours refining and honing an operating system and then offering it for free to everyone. The warm fuzzies alone should keep you blissed and rolling in dough - oh wait - well at least blissed.
Apparently they put the gun to your head after you buy the Mac nowadays.
LOL ^_^
Too true!
It isn't the same principle though. MS was making sure you had no choice at all, from anyone, for a browser to use. Before they tried that stunt there was competition for market share amongst browser companies. MS killed them all. And to keep them from coming back, they tied IE into Windows so it couldn't be uninstalled.
Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?
Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.
Apple's defense of their EULA is a standard of practice in law - EULAs have been routinely upheld since Microsoft brought the concept into personal computing. So we are clear - it is clearly and unequivocally stated you are purchasing media upon which a LICENSED COPY of intellectual property has been placed. When you install the licensed software you are asked to agree to comply with the EULA - which states that you are allowed to use the software (under such terms as are listed in the EULA). YOU DO NOT OWN the IP, you are using a licensed copy of it - the only thing you own is the media upon which it was copied. It has been clearly stated time and again - it is a fact of law and a standard of practice for a couple of decades now. Psystar's defense is simply a silly, idiotic populist defense which only the uninformed would actually support. There is tons of free, unlicensed software to be had without EULA. The laws are specific frugality about what is and is not allowed in a EULA - bad EULA's have been struck down in court just as standard and acceptable EULAs have been upheld. Use unlicensed and free software if you do not like the EULA concept and standard - or better yet grab a free, unlicensed copy of the Mach kernel and write yourself something BETTER than MacOSX and offer it free to the world without EULA. There's nothing so satisfying as spending all those long work-hours refining and honing an operating system and then offering it for free to everyone. The warm fuzzies alone should keep you blissed and rolling in dough - oh wait - well at least blissed.
Just a minor point (nice post by the way), even Linux is under license, but it is not licensed as proprietary software, and the license grants far more freedoms.
Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?
Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.
Again, no, unless you could prove that Apple was using anti-competitive practices. There are any number of OS's that these vendors could put on their hardware besides OS X, including Unix, Linux, Windows, etc. Unless you can prove that Apple's actions put competing software companies at a disadvantage by Apple's actions, according to your example, then they would have no case. There are simply too many OS's out there that they can use. A monopoly isn't illegal. It's only when you use that monopoly to unfair advantage that it becomes illegal.
that statement translated to psystar would be accurate...if the book you're reading in the bathroom...is in someone else's bathroom you're illegally occupying...and the bicycle you're riding while you listen to music...is actually a bike you've stolen...
Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?
Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.
One minor point in your example. If Apple did have market dominance, and then pulled their OS and they also started building the only hardware that could run OS X after establishing OS X as the dominant OS, that would be anti-competitive.
Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?
Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.
Apple did in fact license earlier OS's to 3rd parties, and it did not work out so well. Jobs put an end to that when they went from OS7 to OS8. From then on you were never allowed to do it. The limitations of being on PPC made it so most people weren't interested in even using OS X. Now that you can theoretically, you would assume it's ok. But it's been this way since the mid 90's. The box retail version is an upgrade license, not a retail one.
Just a minor point (nice post by the way), even Linux is under license, but it is not licensed as proprietary software, and the license grants far more freedoms.
Thank-you! I have a friend who hates (and I do mean hates) licensed operating systems. He writes his own code for use on older models of x86 and Motorola (early Apple Macs) chipsets that runs like a cheetah on crack on these older machines. Hardly a discernible pause as things move on the screen. Very impressive. He shares his concepts in a couple forums I think but keeps the code largely to himself. He is trying to build the next great hot OS to release to the world for free. He supports himself as a high school science teacher and complains bitterly that the job keeps getting in the way of building his universal OS for the masses. I sympathize, but I only pointed out once that while his goal was highly altruistic, it was his "job" that kept him in his house and gave him the means to write his code. That prompted a blow-up of monumental proportion - and banned me from his house for a month or two. So yeah he is a tad eccentric. But brilliant in his own unique way. Even he recognizes EULAs for what they are (and aren't).
Hunh? The computer is part of the Mac line (unless it were say an Xserve) regardless of what OS it is running. The OS also has "Mac" in the name. Just because you associate Mac with the OS doesn't mean that the computers aren't also Macs. I mean, taking your logic nobody should have a ThinkPad or a Vaio, etc. but rather a Lenovo (or IBM) or Sony PC, etc. The Mac is the computer first, it's Mac OSX because it was designed to be used on Macs.
Right, a Mac was a Mac awhile ago because the hardware and the processor was different than what's on the PC.
Mac's had PPC processors, larger capacity interfaces like Firewire, stereo in/out and a their own version of a graphics card. Even sporting things first like cd drives and so on to create music cds. Mac's were for the graphics and creative markets, who needed the extra horsepower and ease of use, stereo for recordings etc. Also they had better font control and higher resolution of type for the desktop publishing market Apple founded.
PC's had Intel processors (or like Intel), mono in and out for dictation/answering phone and office use. They didn't have or need Firewire and a floppy disk was good enough for them for quite some time.
So they were at one time, two different machines for two different markets. One business and one creative.
So at that time a Mac was a Mac and a PC was a PC.
Now of course PC's come with stereo, run creative software like Abode and Quark, cd/dvd drives and USB 2 which is about as fast as Firewire 400.
Mac's have adopted Intel's processors and hardware speaking are really no different than PC's, Mac's use the same parts from the same suppliers as PC's. Apple is even slowly dropping Firewire support and is now incorporating SD slots in their computers, just like PC's!
So essentially Mac's are no longer "Mac's" they are Apple PC's with Apple's operating system installed by default.
Apple keeps pretending and marketing their PC's as Mac's, because of the history.
But in actuality, anyone can install Windows, Linux or Unix on a Apple PC and that' makes it a PC.
So essentially Mac's are no longer "Mac's" they are Apple PC's with Apple's operating system installed by default.
Apple keeps pretending and marketing their PC's as Mac's, because of the history.
But in actuality, anyone can install Windows, Linux or Unix on a Apple PC and that' makes it a PC.
Yes and no. All Apple computers are PC's, just as IBM's were. The term PC is all too often misused. The Apple brand hasn't changed though. Just the hardware. It doesn't matter if it's a PPC or an Intel processor. It's still an Apple Mac which also happens to be a Personal Computer.
Apple could start selling Mac's tomorrow with Windows with identical hardware to Dell's, yet it would still be a Mac (and a PC). I think part of the reason for this is simply because Microsoft wanted people to associate Windows as a 'PC' since they don't actually sell PC hardware. I can see the advantages of people always thinking of Windows when they think of a personal computer.
Your right of course and not defending Pystar but...
Computers from the earliest days, were machines that people ran different programs on. In fact there wasn't even a operating system. You wanted to run a program you stuck the 5 1/4 " floppy in or the spools of tape and turned the machine on.
Later operating systems came along to make the application coders job more easier. Still different operating systems came and went, but you could still use the same hardware pretty much.
Even today you can take a PC and put Windows, Linux, Unix or various other operating systems on it.
Apple comes along as says "you can't use our OS on anything but our machines".
Well that just smacks in the face of everything a geek learns in school and how the computing world works.
Sure it was easy before because Mac's used the PPC processor so that gave them a hardware lock so OS X wouldn't run on the rest of the computers in the world.
But now that's gone and Mac's ARE PC's in every way. One can even run Windows, Linux, Unix and all the other PC operating systems on Apple branded computers.
Apple should change their ad campaign from "Get a Mac" to "Get a Apple", like "Get a Dell".
With the release of Bootcamp, allowing Windows and Linux to be the native boot OS of a Apple computer, is it a "Mac" anymore? Of course not, it's a Apple branded PC.
So Apple should call their computers PC's with the choice of operating systems, either OS X, Linux or Windows and be done with it. Triple their sales volume too boot.
Ok, I'm done playing devils advocate. Just wanted people to know what the other side thinks.
It's only another PC in that it uses many similar internal hardware components. Apple had developed a great deal of software and innovated many hardware aspects every PC user enjoys. Don't give me this, Apple's just another PC with a different OS crap. Apple pretty much invented the entire personal computing market as we know it today. I realize they borrowed many ideas, but that's the nature of innovation. Innovation is not being wildly original, it's designing some that make huge improvements for the end user experience, whether in hardware or software. All the PC geeks out there who love their Windows or their Linux, or their track pads, or their tablet computers, or their PDAs, or their smart phones, or their web-browsers, or their USB, or their Firewire, or their GUIs, or their laptop palm rests, etc., etc., etc... owe Apple a tremendous amount of thanks. If you learn anything about computing history it doesn't take long to discover Apple has paved the way in nearly every common place computing technology we enjoy. So if Apple wants to tie their OS to their hardware they have that right. They've invested tens of millions to make the experience excellent, and they have the right to protect that experience. The law allows them to.
Right. So consider the following scenario: Let's say that Apple originally made only OS's and no hardware and sold to the Dells and HPs and Psystar, or made the OS's and hardware but also sold the OS to other hardware makers. Then they decided to pull it all in-house, change their EULA to say that it can only be run on their hardware. Would Psystar then have a case? Since they're still small compared to MS, would it be allowed?
Part of MS's problem is that the browser wasn't integrated, and then they wanted to integrate it. Had they originally designed Windows with a built-in browser, would they have had the problems that they had? They would have a monopoly, but it would always have been part of the OS, so no one would know any different.
As it?s been stated?though repeating because you don?t seem to understand?having a monopoly is not inherently illegal. MS abused their monopoly position as the anti-trusts cases have found.
Consider these scenarios: Apple has a monopoly on the PMP market. You can DL all their iPod OS and iPhone OS firmware online. Should Psystar (or anyone) be able to circumvent the software locks Apple included by installing and selling it on their own HW? I doubt you?d say yes to that, but it?s the same situation. Charging $29 for a consumer upgrade does not change the fact that Apple doesn?t license their OS to other HW vendors. If I can make iPhone OS for the Touch run on a Zune Apple won?t come after me unless I try to sell their unlicensed OS as my own.
Here is another scenario: Cisco has a dominate place in the router market. There IOS is freely available online. Do you think I?m allowed to use their IOS IP to make my own routers? Of course not. Do you nog see at all why in a healthy free market a company is allowed to choose who they license their intellectual property to and why a company wouldn?t want just anyone representing them?
Yes and no. All Apple computers are PC's, just as IBM's were. The term PC is all too often misused. The Apple brand hasn't changed though. Just the hardware. It doesn't matter if it's a PPC or an Intel processor. It's still an Apple Mac which also happens to be a Personal Computer.
A PC is called a PC (by name) because of the IBM PC and it's clones, which IBM sued and failed to stop the cloners.
Mac's were called "Mac's" back then (or "Macintoshes") and not PC's (by name) although they fell in that general personal computer category.
I have to check, but I believe the name or reference "PC" didn't come around until IBM coined it.
A PC is called a PC (by name) because of the IBM PC and it's clones, which IBM sued and failed to stop the cloners.
Mac's were called "Mac's" back then (or "Macintoshes") and not PC's (by name) although they fell in that general personal computer category.
I have to check, but I believe the name or reference "PC" didn't come around until IBM coined it.
Not even close. IBM was the first to refer to PC in their product name but personal computer predated the IBM PC by many years, possibly decades. The fact is, Macs were always personal computers. It was Apple that made a point to separate itself from the non-GUI machines after the Mac launched. It was a smart marketing move but now it seems to have backfired as some don?t think that a Mac are personal computers.
It's only another PC in that it uses many similar internal hardware components. Apple had developed a great deal of software and innovated many hardware aspects every PC user enjoys. Don't give me this, Apple's just another PC with a different OS crap. Apple pretty much invented the entire personal computing market as we know it today. I realize they borrowed many ideas, but that's the nature of innovation. Innovation is not being wildly original, it's designing some that make huge improvements for the end user experience, whether in hardware or software. All the PC geeks out there who love their Windows or their Linux, or their track pads, or their tablet computers, or their PDAs, or their smart phones, or their web-browsers, or their USB, or their Firewire, or their GUIs, or their laptop palm rests, etc., etc., etc... owe Apple a tremendous amount of thanks. If you learn anything about computing history it doesn't take long to discover Apple has paved the way in nearly every common place computing technology we enjoy. So if Apple wants to tie their OS to their hardware they have that right. They've invested tens of millions to make the experience excellent, and they have the right to protect that experience. The law allows them to.
Don't get your fanboy panties in a knot now, I've been a MacHead since day one and never bought a PC in my life.
I know quite well it's Apple hardware and software integration and attention to detail that makes the Mac experience unique and special.
But technically speaking, a Mac isn't a Mac anymore, it's a (IBM like) PC like all the others.
I'm not suggesting Apple allow OS X for PC's, not at all. That will kill it's hardware sales, in fact it's killing them now from the hackintoshes.
Because Apple switched to common Intel processors, like in PC's, is why they have a problem from cloners, hackintoshes and the likes of Pystar.
Obviously they didn't have any choice about processors, but they could have made some hardware changes or extras that OS X wouldn't run without it without a great deal of time and effort recoding.
Don't get your fanboy panties in a knot now, I've been a MacHead since day one and never bought a PC in my life.
But technically speaking, a Mac isn't a Mac anymore, it's a (IBM like) PC like all the others.
1) Nope, you?ve been a PC user. Macs are personal computers. Always have been.
2) x86 has nothing to do with being a personal computer. MS could have made Windows run on PPC architecture if they wanted. Wait, they did, but not for personal computing but for their game console line. You see the difference?
(To use the same bad grammar), a publisher *can* "forbid you from" putting a new cover on that book and re-selling it as your own product however.
If I paid for their product, I can resell it in any condition I choose, bundled in any configuration I want, for any price I want. There is no legal restriction preventing such a transaction.
Not even close. IBM was the first to refer to PC in their product name but personal computer predated the IBM PC by many years, possibly decades. The fact is, Macs were always personal computers. It was Apple that made a point to separate itself from the non-GUI machines after the Mac launched. It was a smart marketing move but now it seems to have backfired as some don?t think that a Mac are personal computers.
Well you basically just said what I said then.
Mac's are PC's and now they are clones of PC's to boot.
Good night.