I want to be recognized for saying these Psystar guys have a perfectly good case here, for many months now. And most of all, they are not idiots. It is not idiotic to take a gamble that may pay off huge.
Just because nobody is doing something, doesn't mean it is a legally impossible thing to do. Maybe everybody else is dumb. Maybe Apple clones are perfectly legal. It will be decided in court, not on these boards.
My prediction is Psystar will be a success story and get an increasing amount of press. In time, the front page of the New York Times may take notice, because it is a relatively neat story. We all assumed Apple clones are illegal, but inside the word "assume" is "ASS," "U" and "ME."
But it is very true. I get sick of this argument that Apple's hardware is superior to everyone else.
Apple may use their own custom designed motherboards but this is something that everybody does to when standard motherboard sizes will not fit into their design of case or shell. What you are really saying is that Apple have cut a motherboard to fit the shape of a MBP's insides. Big deal. It is still a standard PC motherboard, the same standard motherboard that PC vendors have been using for years. Every other component of an Apple computer is shared with the PC world, they are all made in factories in the far East, you crack open a MBP and you will find components that are shared with everyone else windows PC's.
Wrong.
Go buy a LGA771 socket board from Intel. Now open up the Mac Pro LGA771 socket motherboard and compare.
What's that? You don't own a Mac Pro and don't have a standard Intel LGA771 socket motherboard around?
Not my problem. Prove they are the same or keep minimizing yourself that your word is fact when it's just opinion.
Errr, Yes, Yes and Yes. If the two trackpads are actually the same, if the LCD panels are exactly the same and if the processor is just an off the shelf processor the same as you will find in a Dell.
OSX does not integrate with the components anymore than windows does. The whole thing is nonsense, In what way do you think that it does?
A Drill is a Drill. However, a $49 Ryobi drill from HomeDepot is not a $200 Milwaukee, is not a $200 DeWalt, is not a $200 Makita yet they all attemt to address the same tasks.
They all look very similar, claim to be 18V litihium rechargeable portable drills yet the Ryobi is a POS and I'd be a f'n moron if I used one on any job and wanted to be a respected GC in both the commerical and residential Construction Industry.
But you go ahead and keep claiming that a trackpad is a trackpad is a trackpad. That a laptop is a laptop is a laptop but the difference is one is more stylish than the other one.
I want to be recognized for saying these Psystar guys have a perfectly good case here, for many months now. And most of all, they are not idiots. It is not idiotic to take a gamble that may pay off huge.
Just because nobody is doing something, doesn't mean it is a legally impossible thing to do. Maybe everybody else is dumb. Maybe Apple clones are perfectly legal. It will be decided in court, not on these boards.
My prediction is Psystar will be a success story and get an increasing amount of press. In time, the front page of the New York Times may take notice, because it is a relatively neat story. We all assumed Apple clones are illegal, but inside the word "assume" is "ASS," "U" and "ME."
What good would it be for anyone if Psystar win the case and Apple decided not to sell retail copies of Mac OS anymore?! Apple can choose another delivery system or sale strategy to stop Mac clones from getting their hands on legal copies of Mac OS DVDs in bulk quantities. Then we are back to where we started.
So so basically you're saying that record companies should be forced to compete with people making music avaiable online for free. And movie studios should priced their DVD's to complete with those black market movies you find at a flea market. Rather than have the right to enforce copyright laws to protect their IP from being stolen in the first place. Do you really think that any company that invested a lot money to develop their IP can make the same amount of profit as those that choose to steal that IP and sell it for less? And how does the consumers benifit when companies calls it quit and stop making CD's, DVD's and new drugs because there's nothing in place to protect that they can even recover the cost it takes to do so? Everyone would just sit around and wait for some else to spend the money to develop something new and then just steal that idea for their own use.
You can't tell a drug company to invest the billions of dollars it takes in R&D to develop an inhalable insulin. And when they do, turn around and tell them they no longer have the any rights to the drug and let any company market that product. If they knew that in the first place they wouldn't have even invested a dime into the R&D to develop it.
If it weren't for the protection of copyright laws, OSX would not even exist today. What company in their right mind would spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it take to develop an OS just so that others, that have incurred no developement cost, gets to use it for next to nothing? (Let's not forget that the relative low price of the retail OSX is to reward those that already invested in a Mac. And now Psystar wants to try to screw that up by claiming they have the same rights as a user that already purchased a Mac.)
This conversation isn't going to get anywhere. He's just like every other western european snob I've ever met (and I love Europe): simply can't understand why he isn't allowed to do anything he wants with absolutely anything he sees. I'd imagine he's from The Hague, where they have public urinals on the sidewalk. I don't mean to hate on Europe, but since he keeps using European legal thought as the basis for his arguments, I find it hard not to.
Quite honestly, he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. He simply wants to run OS X on cheap hardware and can't stand that Apple won't provide him with such, all the while going on and on about something he has already hacked other computers to do. After all, he apparently finds Apple giving its own press conferences to be monopolistic.
So so basically you're saying that record companies should be forced to compete with people making music avaiable online for free. And movie studios should priced their DVD's to complete with those black market movies you find at a flea market. Rather than have the right to enforce copyright laws to protect their IP from being stolen in the first place. Do you really think that any company that invested a lot money to develop their IP can make the same amount of profit as those that choose to steal that IP and sell it for less? And how does the consumers benifit when companies calls it quit and stop making CD's, DVD's and new drugs because there's nothing in place to protect that they can even recover the cost it takes to do so? Everyone would just sit around and wait for some else to spend the money to develop something new and then just steal that idea for their own use.
You can't tell a drug company to invest the billions of dollars it takes in R&D to develop an inhalable insulin. And when they do, turn around and tell them they no longer have the any rights to the drug and let any company market that product. If they knew that in the first place they wouldn't have even invested a dime into the R&D to develop it.
If it weren't for the protection of copyright laws, OSX would not even exist today. What company in their right mind would spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it take to develop an OS just so that others, that have incurred no developement cost, gets to use it for next to nothing? (Let's not forget that the relative low price of the retail OSX is to reward those that already invested in a Mac. And now Psystar wants to try to screw that up by claiming they have the same rights as a user that already purchased a Mac.)
.
This quote is from Lawrence Lessig's site - one of the founders of the "creative commons" project:
"I'm very concerned that some forms of IP law have lost that balance. The example on which I have worked most is drug patent law. When drug companies create a drug that reduces pain or cures disease, they of course deserve a fair return. But drug patents should not last forever, and they should not be extended through legal manipulation. Unfortunately, many drug manufacturers routinely try to block legitimate competition from generic drugs by making meritless patent claims just as their real patent protection is expiring. After hearing about these problems firsthand in the Senate Health Committee, I helped write legislation to prevent these abuses and to make sure that lower-cost generic drugs reach the market without improper delays. A version of that bill is one of the few good parts of the prescription drug benefit now being negotiated.
Concern about excessive patent protection goes beyond prescription drugs. The Federal Trade Commission just issued a provocative study recommending substantial changes in the way our patent system works."
DavidW wrote: "If it weren't for the protection of copyright laws, OSX would not even exist today."
Oh, don't be so dramatic. Of course OSX would exist today - even without their molopolistic, OSX can be installed on Apple hardware ONLY, non-compete clause in their EULA. They probably would have to charge more for it (as Microsoft does), but I'd have no problems with that in the slightest. I'd be very willing to pay at least double what OSX's base retail price is right now. I just don't want them purposely crippling, or limiting my use of my retail copy of OSX after I purchased it - to Apple ONLY hardware - unless they happen to be the best machines on the market for OSX installed. If Apple wants to sell their hardware without anyone copying or infringing on their designs and custom features - all the power to them. And if they really are the machines that people want, or like best, or are the best value for the consumer to run OSX, then Apple will sell their hardware very competitively, or even dominate- without having to resort to Apple ONLY restictions . If they are not, then LET competition offer an alternative hardware option.
This quote is from Lawrence Lessig's site - one of the founders of the "creative commons" project:
"I'm very concerned that some forms of IP law have lost that balance. The example on which I have worked most is drug patent law. When drug companies create a drug that reduces pain or cures disease, they of course deserve a fair return. But drug patents should not last forever, and they should not be extended through legal manipulation. Unfortunately, many drug manufacturers routinely try to block legitimate competition from generic drugs by making meritless patent claims just as their real patent protection is expiring. After hearing about these problems firsthand in the Senate Health Committee, I helped write legislation to prevent these abuses and to make sure that lower-cost generic drugs reach the market without improper delays. A version of that bill is one of the few good parts of the prescription drug benefit now being negotiated.
Concern about excessive patent protection goes beyond prescription drugs. The Federal Trade Commission just issued a provocative study recommending substantial changes in the way our patent system works."
Oh, don't be so dramatic. Of course OSX would exist today - even without their molopolistic, OSX on Apple hardware ONLY, non-compete clause in their EULA. They probably would have to charge more for it (as Microsoft does), but I'd have no problems with that at all. I'd be very willing to pay at least doublewhat OSX's base retail price is right now, I just don't want them purposely crippling, or limiting my use of OSX to Apple ONLY hardware - unless they happen to be the best machine for my needs, and at the best price offered - to run it on. If Apple wants to sell their hardware without anyone copying their designs and features - all the power to them - but trust that if they really are the machines that people want and like best, then they will sell very well. If they are not, then LET competition offer an alternative option.
What good would it be for anyone if Psystar win the case and Apple decided not to sell retail copies of Mac OS anymore?! Apple can choose another delivery system or sale strategy to stop Mac clones from getting their hands on legal copies of Mac OS DVDs in bulk quantities. Then we are back to where we started.
This is a good point and I have no clue as to the answer. I hope Apple makes lots of money because I am a fan and a shareholder. That said ---- on its face, I feel Apple is wrong in its claims of immunity from hardware competition. It is an odd claim they are making. Their logic is getting more tortured and awkward all the time. It is a nightmarish scenario because even with $100 million worth of lawyers, Apple is forced to deal with some ghastly issues that threaten to drain billions out of the company. Who was powerful enough to do this? One or two guys, a garage and a cheap lawyer. This isn't Microsoft engaging in petty harrassment. This is a couple poor guys with a fairly fundamental point about law. For the FBI to come in and physically shut Psystar down, Apple would need to crest some extremely high legal barriers. The burden of proof is on Apple. This is the genius of the Psystar plan.
1. I don't want to live in a world where if I license my work to someone, they feel like they can do with it whatever they want, irregardless of how it damages my rights and future money making potential.
2. Apple does not prevent you from customizing how you interact with the OS. They ARE however, protecting you from modifying their code and then using these modifications to make money at their expense. I'm a photographer. I license my work to my clients. That does not give them the right to use or modify my photography in ways not specified by the usage agreement. Also, it does not give them the right to do whatever they want to my work and make a profit from my work. Doing so would harm the integrity of my work and hurt my business. This is how it should be.
3. Apple does not prevent this. However, you run the risk of voiding your warranty if you choose to do so. This is how every business in the industry works. Again, this is how it should be.
4. Not an issue.
5. Improvements according to whom and after these "improvements" are made, who is expected to support the changes? If you don't want to abide by Apple's licensing agreement, don't buy the product. If you want to be able to freely modify the code of an OS, pick an open source OS such as Linux.
6. You have a choice. You don't like the options, choose a different phone and carrier. Do you also complain about not being able to play Playstation games on your XBox? Would you support forcing MS or Sony to support competing platforms? What kind of world would it be if you can't invent something without having your competitive advantage taken away from you?
Seriously, you must live in your own little world where you get everything you want without having to work for it and without having to give credit to those who do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
Seriously folks; people need to wake up here and realize they are defending a really ugly practices on Apples part here. It is a practice that if upheld will undermine years of freedoms we as individuals have had with respect to copyright law.
Ask yourself some of these questions and then look at what Apple is trying to do.
1.
Do you want to live in a society where you don't have the legal right to resell items you have legally purchased?
2.
Do you want to give up the right to tinker with or configure an item to your liking?
3.
Do you want to give up the right to repair an item yourself or have a third party do so?
4.
Do you want to be exposed to the possibility that if a manufacture goes belly up your item of interest becomes unrepairable, servicesable or tradeable? ( as a side note this is a big question on many minds right now with respect to the auto industry)
5.
Do you want to live in a world where the only possible improvements to an item come from the manufacture?
6.
Do you think lock ins, like those that Apple has with AT&T are a good thing for consumers?
The list could go on but people need to realize just what Apples success here would pervert. It simply isn't rational to support Apple 100% here as it would have a vast over reaching impact on how an individual could conduct his life. Many want to make Pystar out to be the bad guy here but they really aren't doing anything that would be considered abnormal outside the computer industry.
Think about it; does the guy making and selling ball bearings get upset if they get resold in a machine that competes with another. Or get resold as spare parts by a machine manufacture. Do they have legal recourse? Not really as that bearing has made a profit for them on that first sale. Further more it is just a component just like an OS is a component that makes up a machine we call a PC.
Frankly, you can like Pystar or not, what is hard to dismiss here is that Apple is engaged in some very discusting practices. Hiding behind the copyright law just to prevent free trade in your product is just one issue. Oh yes Mac OS/X is a product and has been for a very long time.
Apple went out of their way to brick people's phones.
People spent HUGE money on their little piece of technology, and when they wanted to do fun and interesting things with that purchase, Apple pushed the self-destruct button on them.
It was... punishment.
OBEY OR DIE
You can throw around all the "security" & "legal" bullshit you want, it doesn't make the bricking code right, or in the best interest of the consumer. They could have simply just stated that they won't support a modified phone, and let people do what they want with them. Instead, they punished people like an angry alcoholic parent.
And yes, they did intentionally brick the phone.
Apple has gone out of their way to make 1984 more of a reality then any other company in some ironic twist.
I agree with a previous poster... Apple is acting more evil then Microsoft ever did. For Apple's sake, I hope Pystar wins. \
They also entered into the agreement knowing the terms, decided they didn't like the terms after purchase and took action to circumvent the terms, knowing that Apple would not support them. By doing what they did, they (as a group) diminished Apple's right to profit from their invention, then cried foul when Apple said "no, we're not going to let you."
There was a choice when people spent their money on the iPhone. If you don't want to live with your choice, you can't blame Apple but rather, your own stupidity. Apple did not hold a gun to these people's head and forced them to dish out hundreds of dollars for their phone.
You sound like a spoiled brat who doesn't care how your actions hurt others as long as you get what YOU want.
What incentive would a company have to create innovative products if they lose their rights once the product enters the market?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain
Apple went out of their way to brick people's phones.
People spent HUGE money on their little piece of technology, and when they wanted to do fun and interesting things with that purchase, Apple pushed the self-destruct button on them.
It was... punishment.
OBEY OR DIE
You can throw around all the "security" & "legal" bullshit you want, it doesn't make the bricking code right, or in the best interest of the consumer. They could have simply just stated that they won't support a modified phone, and let people do what they want with them. Instead, they punished people like an angry alcoholic parent.
And yes, they did intentionally brick the phone.
Apple has gone out of their way to make 1984 more of a reality then any other company in some ironic twist.
I agree with a previous poster... Apple is acting more evil then Microsoft ever did. For Apple's sake, I hope Pystar wins. \
Apple went out of their way to brick people's phones.
People spent HUGE money on their little piece of technology, and when they wanted to do fun and interesting things with that purchase, Apple pushed the self-destruct button on them.
It was... punishment.
OBEY OR DIE
You can throw around all the "security" & "legal" bullshit you want, it doesn't make the bricking code right, or in the best interest of the consumer. They could have simply just stated that they won't support a modified phone, and let people do what they want with them. Instead, they punished people like an angry alcoholic parent.
And yes, they did intentionally brick the phone.
Apple has gone out of their way to make 1984 more of a reality then any other company in some ironic twist.
I agree with a previous poster... Apple is acting more evil then Microsoft ever did. For Apple's sake, I hope Pystar wins. \
Apple receive alot of revenue from the app store, that was one of the drives for them to make the iPhone. If everyone could easily jailbreak an iPhone and get that software for free then they (and the app developer) are going to lose money and at the end of the day they are a company and thats what they do. At the end of the day its cracking apples software, its illegal!
This quote is from Lawrence Lessig's site - one of the founders of the "creative commons" project:
"I'm very concerned that some forms of IP law have lost that balance. The example on which I have worked most is drug patent law. When drug companies create a drug that reduces pain or cures disease, they of course deserve a fair return. But drug patents should not last forever, and they should not be extended through legal manipulation. Unfortunately, many drug manufacturers routinely try to block legitimate competition from generic drugs by making meritless patent claims just as their real patent protection is expiring. After hearing about these problems firsthand in the Senate Health Committee, I helped write legislation to prevent these abuses and to make sure that lower-cost generic drugs reach the market without improper delays. A version of that bill is one of the few good parts of the prescription drug benefit now being negotiated.
Concern about excessive patent protection goes beyond prescription drugs. The Federal Trade Commission just issued a provocative study recommending substantial changes in the way our patent system works."
DavidW wrote: "If it weren't for the protection of copyright laws, OSX would not even exist today."
Oh, don't be so dramatic. Of course OSX would exist today - even without their molopolistic, OSX can be installed on Apple hardware ONLY, non-compete clause in their EULA. They probably would have to charge more for it (as Microsoft does), but I'd have no problems with that in the slightest. I'd be very willing to pay at least double what OSX's base retail price is right now. I just don't want them purposely crippling, or limiting my use of my retail copy of OSX after I purchased it - to Apple ONLY hardware - unless they happen to be the best machines on the market - to run the OS on. If Apple wants to sell their hardware without anyone copying their designs and features - all the power to them - but if they really are the machines that people want, or like best, or are the best value for the consumer to run OSX, then Apple will sell their hardware very competitively. If they are not, then LET competition offer an alternative hardware option.
Apple will survive quite well - even if they lose to Psystar (remote but possible). Ya'll are just worried about your Apple share prices...
Would you please stop spewing garbage and answer the question we're all getting at: if OS X is open to multiple vendors then what ultimately makes it any different than Windows? Sure, it will still be coded better, but customer service, by definition, will cease to be anywhere near good, especially since these new vendors will have absolutely no experience whatsoever with the operating system. Innovation will be stifled because now a myriad of different hardware components will have to be coded for, and now that the system is open to anyone, it will automatically be put on machines with specs to low to handle it and filled with adware to bring down the price. And my nature of being fully mass market, it will, while better handling them, soon be plagued with a number of viruses that will then require resource consuming anti-virus. Being a minority is, in and of itself, sometimes a strategy.
Again, this is why we all left Windows: it was a terrible experience precisely because there was no control. Other than your own desire to use cheap hardware, what exact difference do you see being resultant from such a change? All things being equal, people would buy Windows, not OS X because they're more familiar with it. Why do you like OS X? Answer that and let's see where this conversation goes.
Apple receive alot of revenue from the app store, that was one of the drives for them to make the iPhone. If everyone could easily jailbreak an iPhone and get that software for free then they (and the app developer) are going to lose money and at the end of the day they are a company and thats what they do. At the end of the day its cracking apples software, its illegal!
It's not even simply revenue, it's also that by circumventing the OS, things that AT&T doesn't want taxing its network become fair game. And under that auspice why should it partner with Apple in the first place if one party isn't going to stick to its agreed terms. I have to agree with the other poster, most of you sound like spoiled brats.
Man, this is the best debate ever on these forums.
Awesome comments and points made by both sides.
This judge is going to be deliberating until 2012. Or siding with whoever buys him out first.
Personally, I like the software/hardware strategy of Apple. It's what distinguishes Apple from Microsoft. It's what makes Apple great.
It's also why Apple was decimated by Microsoft.
It's also why Apple still sucks the big sweaty nut sack in the sky in some ways.
My dual 2ghz G5 3rd generation, blew up on me 3 weeks after the Applecare ran out on it. Apple's reply was "too f***ing bad.. ha ha, sucker".
After paying $200 for 'Certified Apple Diagnostics', the solution was $1100 for a processor that may or may not be the problem, or $980 for a new logic board that may or may not be the problem.
And Apple's policy is, they don't allow returns on parts. So it was like playing black/red split on a roulette table at the casino.
$2100 to fix a machine 3 weeks out of extended warranty that I paid $400 for.
(oh, and i love how apple made it so that you need an 'Apple certified allen key' to access the processors)
So now i'm kinda in the camp of "gee... wish I could have picked up a part for 1/9th the cost tha t Apple wanted to rape me on, yet don't want to lose the synergy they have with their products.
I do feel stifled by having to use Apple Hardware. Like when I had to pay $740 for the ATI X800 video card for my G5 thats now dead, when the EXACT SAME CARD for PC was $120.
I've had way too many of their products fail on me lately.
So for the purpose of brand loyalty, I guess Apple needs Pystar to win, it could be the best thing for them in the long run.
Bricking is just wrong... on so many many levels. It's so very anti-Apple and everything we, as a community fought against for so long.
It also shows that Apple is afraid it can't innovate enough to stay ahead.
They seem to be following the Sony model of the 90's, with the stores, proprietary equipment, software. Look where they are now.
I guess my wish would be that Apple stops raping people like it's a big freak'n orgy. If it takes Pystar winning the lawsuit to make Apple focused on quality and innovation again... I guess i'm all for it.
Anyone else miss 'Happy Mac'?
That lil dude represented a different corporate attitude.
What exactly is the point your trying to make? I'm sorry about your G5, but my local Apple Store has replaced plenty of stuff for me out of warranty over the years. And Apple isn't exactly in control of the prices IBM and AMD charge for replacement parts. Again, I'm sorry they're expensive, but you're ultimately blaming the wrong company. Apple certifies and installs the parts, but it doesn't make them. And it's not the exact same card: one is running OpenGL and the other is likely on DirectX 9 and there are a few hardware differences and software differences inherent in that. One question, though: how exactly did you procure a PowerMac G5 for $400 (or did you mean $4,000)?
And I disagree with your Sony comparison. Sony had, and still very much has, the habit of always creating a competing format standard in order to reap royalty fees. It always does this in adversity to already popular standards such as DVD and HD-DVD. Sony has never once offered the consumer any real benefit (beyond minor storage space) from these separate standards. Apple does and in some cases, such as Fairplay, had to adopt these standards because of external pressure from media studios. And, by the way, Sony had more problems than simply pushing too many standards on people, it also suffers from a fractured development staff that provides the overall company with an incomplete and incoherent vision. Now, what is this bricking is always wrong nonsense? How on earth are you so provide a retail space for business partners when the entire ecosystem can be usurped without anyone contesting it.
Last question: how old is this Mac hardware whose failure rate you complain about?
Man, this is the best debate ever on these forums.
Awesome comments and points made by both sides.
This judge is going to be deliberating until 2012. Or siding with whoever buys him out first.
Personally, I like the software/hardware strategy of Apple. It's what distinguishes Apple from Microsoft. It's what makes Apple great.
It's also why Apple was decimated by Microsoft.
It's also why Apple still sucks the big sweaty nut sack in the sky in some ways.
My dual 2ghz G5 3rd generation, blew up on me 3 weeks after the Applecare ran out on it. Apple's reply was "too f***ing bad.. ha ha, sucker".
After paying $200 for 'Certified Apple Diagnostics', the solution was $1100 for a processor that may or may not be the problem, or $980 for a new logic board that may or may not be the problem.
And Apple's policy is, they don't allow returns on parts. So it was like playing black/red split on a roulette table at the casino.
$2100 to fix a machine 3 weeks out of extended warranty that I paid $400 for.
(oh, and i love how apple made it so that you need an 'Apple certified allen key' to access the processors)
So now i'm kinda in the camp of "gee... wish I could have picked up a part for 1/9th the cost tha t Apple wanted to rape me on, yet don't want to lose the synergy they have with their products.
I do feel stifled by having to use Apple Hardware. Like when I had to pay $740 for the ATI X800 video card for my G5 thats now dead, when the EXACT SAME CARD for PC was $120.
I've had way too many of their products fail on me lately.
So for the purpose of brand loyalty, I guess Apple needs Pystar to win, it could be the best thing for them in the long run.
Your numbers don't add up. A PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0 Ghz was introduced on October of 2005. If you purchased your Mac when it first became available and you got an extended AppleCare at the time you bought it, then you were covered under warranty till October 2008. That's less than 4 months ago. You can get a used PowerMac G5 Dual 2 Ghz for less than $800 on eBay right now. That includes ram, HD, drives, PS, Etc.. You can probably sell yours, as is, for $200.
And most people don't buy the extended AppleCare at the time they purchase the Mac. It already comes with a 1 year limited warranty. And you can purchase AppleCare anytime with in the year. So if you had waited until August of 2006 to purchase AppleCare for your Mac, your Mac would still be under warranty today.
And $400 for AppleCare on a Power Mac seems high. The most expensive AppleCare is usually on their expensive laptops. AppleCare for a MacBook Pro only cost $350, today. It only cost $250 for AppleCare on a MacPro. Which is now at least a $2800 Mac.
I'm not even going to ask how you manage to pay $740 for a graphic card that was nearly two years old when the PowerMac Dual 2 Ghz came out. And had a list price of $500.
I swear that some of you posting on this thread must really be "Apple Insiders" - the way that you are bleating on and on in defense of Apples's defenseless, anti-consumer, anti-choice and anti-trust market monopoly in regards to OSX compatible hardware. Do some of you have stock in Apple as well?
As a certified Apple Tech and freelance Consultant, I have bought and sold hundreds of thousands of dollars in Apple's hardware and software. I have no problems respecting Apple's right to protect their branded and designed products (software/hardware) from being illegally copied or patent compromised by another company without due compensation, or prior authorization from Apple.
What I am strongly objecting to - is Apple's position that only Apple can sell the hardware that can run it's software exclusively. And the fact that Apple is purposely writing code into it's OS that specifically locks the user of their software into using ONLY Apple's own proprietary hardware (closed loop business model), is precisely why the EU ( as well as other parts of the world outside the US ) will not legally recognize Apple's absurd monopoly as it now stands.
We all know what Apple is really afraid of here - real competition in the hardware market. Once Apple loses it's current stranglehold over the hardware that can run it's OS and applications, then the whole "we don't do $500 computers" arrogance is kaput overnight.
Apple has put out some great machines/hardware like the current model iMacs and the intel Mac Mini (badly in need of a upgrade), and they have also sold some really overpriced and overhyped stinkers- like the cheaply made, underspeced, recently discontinued, plastic Macbooks, or the bad logic board (ram slot failures) G4 Powerbooks and the whole G5 Powermac fiasco - especially the "Liquid Cooled" Dual processor models that sold for almost 3K and are now fancy doorstops or sculpture for many unlucky owners.
I know that there is a boatload of crappy PC hardware out there with just as many if not more issued concerning quality and performance - so there is no perfect alternative hardware for running OSX, but at least one should have the option (CHOICE) as a consumer in purchasing or building a computer that can run any OS that is sold in the retail market - especially when they all basically on on the very same hardware.
In this economy, Apple will not be able to continue forcing us OSX users/fans to purchase ONLY their "high-end" computers and other hardware without resistance. We WILL hack, modify, or reconfigure any and all products to suit our needs as an end user/owner. OSX can run as easily and efficiently on a generic $500 laptop or desktop, as well as a top-of-the-line Mac Pro. Apple knows this - that's why they are fighting so hard too keep the hardware loop closed by modifying OSX - purposely limiting it's compatibility to only Apple branded machines. OSX flies on an AMD quad core, and is quite respectable on a $399 Asus EEE PC.
Psystar might not win their battle against the Big Bad Apple and it's phalanx of lawyers, but they are another necessary chink in Apple's Anti-Competitive hardware armor that will eventually have to open up and liberate OSX from Apple only equipment.
OSX may be the best OS available right now and I'd be willing to pay more for it, but not if it's crippled and closed - opening it up will only make it better and more widely used, Apple's hardware revenue be damned.
I would like to see what would happen if someone came along and took your product, re-badged it and sold it on as their own and paid you nothing. You then started to recieve support calls and complaints as your product wasn't working as it should or and update to your product broke theirs.
How would you react??
Apple sells Mac's. Mac OSX is Apple OS for their Mac's. Mac OSX is sold separately as an UPGRADE for existing Mac owners. Whenever Apple talks about OSX sales they talk about the number of Mac owners who have 'Upgraded' to OSX 10.xx.
I hope that Apple withdraws all copies of Mac OSX from stores and forces all Mac owners to purchase the upgrade online by providing their Mac serial number. This will prevent companies like Psystar from buying the software and selling it on their machines. Then the only way they would be able to do this would be through piracy, which would be an end to them.
I would like to see what would happen if someone came along and took your product, re-badged it and sold it on as their own and paid you nothing. You then started to recieve support calls and complaints as your product wasn't working as it should or and update to your product broke theirs.
How would you react??
Apple sells Mac's. Mac OSX is Apple OS for their Mac's. Mac OSX is sold separately as an UPGRADE for existing Mac owners. Whenever Apple talks about OSX sales they talk about the number of Mac owners who have 'Upgraded' to OSX 10.xx.
I hope that Apple withdraws all copies of Mac OSX from stores and forces all Mac owners to purchase the upgrade online by providing their Mac serial number. This will prevent companies like Psystar from buying the software and selling it on their machines. Then the only way they would be able to do this would be through piracy, which would be an end to them.
Very drastic measures for something that is not a corporate crisis for Apple don't you think?
You first. I'm not the one trying to push anyone out the door who doesn't rubber stamp everything Apple does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_23
You have only yourself to blame for your issues with Apple.
We live in a world where people can "own" intellectual property & sell that IP to whomever they wish. A lot of people & companies do this. Hence, consumers get to choose from a dizzying panoply of IP - art, computers, music, cars, houses, clothing, literature, &c, etc.
Your argument, more properly directed against yourself than Apple, becomes neutered when we recall that in in our world full of all kinds of IP to buy - we have choice. Choice to buy or not buy, use or not use. With choice comes responsibility. A responsibility to be aware of what we are getting ourselves into with our choice(s).
If I choose to cross the road against traffic & become struck by a car - whom do I blame, BenRoethig, myself or the driver? I believe you would blame the driver of the car. I would blame myself for making a poor, poor choice.
I see a lot of self-entitled consumeritis in your words. Get that checked out, or it can worsen over time.
Oh, by the way, you can transfer files on your Mac to an NTFS drive using a cool little program called Macfuse.
So, it is the fault of me and other professional Mac users that we haven't reduced our activities to conform with Apple's low end consumer focus? When did we switch from Apple building machines and software to make the user's life easier to the user doing everything they can to support the whims of Jobs and Ive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halvri
A semi useless lap-top on a stick? Wow, my iMac runs Aperture 2, Final Cut Express 4. Adobe Creative Suite 4, & acts as a server admin on a daily basis and works perfectly.
I have a similar setup, but a much different experience. I've had PC-like wireless connection problems from the start. iLife, iWeb, iPhoto, Garageband, and even mail have frequent slowdowns and I don't think its due to the software group. They know what they're doing. Why spend money on the next step up if iLife is this slow? When I want to relax I can't do a little gaming because the graphics chipset is so anemic that it has issues with three year old titles. Installing software or burning a CD/DVD takes forever with the notebook optical drive and I can't do anything with the camcorder DVDs my uncles send to me. The solution requires an expensive and less than reliable external drive. Hard drive filling up or if I want to use boot camp? I either have to disassemble the machine to replace the hard drive, get yet another external drive, or just replace my iMac with another because my meager uses were too extreme for the 320GB hard drive. TV tuner? External device. Card reader so you don't have to go fishing your camera cable? External device. Music interface? External device. Then I need an external hub for all these external devices.
It has never felt like an Apple product to me. It feels like a cheap PC running OSX. I'm used to expecting more and having the final product blow my expectations away, that's the kind of company Apple was. Now you get less in a prettier cases.
Quote:
The Mac Pro is for people who seriously need high end computing, that's why it's a workstation, not a simple computer. And Apple does not sell its OS to weak minded people, it simply a consumer oriented business, not an enterprise oriented one.
Yes, you either need a mid-2ghz range all in one on a mobile platform with a 4GB ram ceiling, a single hard drive that require disassembling the entire machine to get to, a slow notebook drive than can't use 3.5" optical disks, a lower mid-range graphics card that requires buying the most expensive model for even the option of an upgrade, no expansion ports (not even expresscard), and just three USB2.0 ports or you need a full blown $2300 twin socket quad core Xeon workstation with 16GB of RAM, 2 full size optical drives, 4 easily accessible hard drives, the most high end graphics options, expansion slot galore, and easily accessible front ports. Does anyone else see the insanity of this? Its either feast or famine there is no step in between. Despite what Apple PR may tell you, reality lives in between.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouroboros
What a tool you are. A semi - useless laptop o a stick? What amazing things are you doing in your advanced underground lair? Such tiresome trash - the Apple tax and all that.
I'm all too willing to pay the Apple tax, but I expect a superior product for it.
Quote:
The divide between Mac and PC prices has been getting slimmer and slimmer.
You're right about slimmer and slimmer, only its the physical forms of Apple's computers and their losing all the things that made them special in the process.
Quote:
I've had my iMac on for literally *months* at a time without a crash in my music studio, where I routinely run many plugins and haven't had any problems with it.
The OS has never been the problem. That group has continued to live up to the high standards of Apple.
Quote:
Go to PC land, feel good about your $500 Windows box or whatever you are boobing on about. Your sense of entitlement is silly.
Yes, everything not made by Apple is $500. I wish I could find a core i7 machine for $500. I also wish I could find an Apple product with one so I wouldn't be in this dilemma.
Quote:
Having used iLife since its inception, I don't think its all "flash and social considerations."
Like I said, the software side is not the problem, Ive's willingness to trade hardware features for a smaller case is.
Comments
Just because nobody is doing something, doesn't mean it is a legally impossible thing to do. Maybe everybody else is dumb. Maybe Apple clones are perfectly legal. It will be decided in court, not on these boards.
My prediction is Psystar will be a success story and get an increasing amount of press. In time, the front page of the New York Times may take notice, because it is a relatively neat story. We all assumed Apple clones are illegal, but inside the word "assume" is "ASS," "U" and "ME."
But it is very true. I get sick of this argument that Apple's hardware is superior to everyone else.
Apple may use their own custom designed motherboards but this is something that everybody does to when standard motherboard sizes will not fit into their design of case or shell. What you are really saying is that Apple have cut a motherboard to fit the shape of a MBP's insides. Big deal. It is still a standard PC motherboard, the same standard motherboard that PC vendors have been using for years. Every other component of an Apple computer is shared with the PC world, they are all made in factories in the far East, you crack open a MBP and you will find components that are shared with everyone else windows PC's.
Wrong.
Go buy a LGA771 socket board from Intel. Now open up the Mac Pro LGA771 socket motherboard and compare.
What's that? You don't own a Mac Pro and don't have a standard Intel LGA771 socket motherboard around?
Not my problem. Prove they are the same or keep minimizing yourself that your word is fact when it's just opinion.
Errr, Yes, Yes and Yes. If the two trackpads are actually the same, if the LCD panels are exactly the same and if the processor is just an off the shelf processor the same as you will find in a Dell.
OSX does not integrate with the components anymore than windows does. The whole thing is nonsense, In what way do you think that it does?
A Drill is a Drill. However, a $49 Ryobi drill from HomeDepot is not a $200 Milwaukee, is not a $200 DeWalt, is not a $200 Makita yet they all attemt to address the same tasks.
They all look very similar, claim to be 18V litihium rechargeable portable drills yet the Ryobi is a POS and I'd be a f'n moron if I used one on any job and wanted to be a respected GC in both the commerical and residential Construction Industry.
But you go ahead and keep claiming that a trackpad is a trackpad is a trackpad. That a laptop is a laptop is a laptop but the difference is one is more stylish than the other one.
I want to be recognized for saying these Psystar guys have a perfectly good case here, for many months now. And most of all, they are not idiots. It is not idiotic to take a gamble that may pay off huge.
Just because nobody is doing something, doesn't mean it is a legally impossible thing to do. Maybe everybody else is dumb. Maybe Apple clones are perfectly legal. It will be decided in court, not on these boards.
My prediction is Psystar will be a success story and get an increasing amount of press. In time, the front page of the New York Times may take notice, because it is a relatively neat story. We all assumed Apple clones are illegal, but inside the word "assume" is "ASS," "U" and "ME."
What good would it be for anyone if Psystar win the case and Apple decided not to sell retail copies of Mac OS anymore?! Apple can choose another delivery system or sale strategy to stop Mac clones from getting their hands on legal copies of Mac OS DVDs in bulk quantities. Then we are back to where we started.
So so basically you're saying that record companies should be forced to compete with people making music avaiable online for free. And movie studios should priced their DVD's to complete with those black market movies you find at a flea market. Rather than have the right to enforce copyright laws to protect their IP from being stolen in the first place. Do you really think that any company that invested a lot money to develop their IP can make the same amount of profit as those that choose to steal that IP and sell it for less? And how does the consumers benifit when companies calls it quit and stop making CD's, DVD's and new drugs because there's nothing in place to protect that they can even recover the cost it takes to do so? Everyone would just sit around and wait for some else to spend the money to develop something new and then just steal that idea for their own use.
You can't tell a drug company to invest the billions of dollars it takes in R&D to develop an inhalable insulin. And when they do, turn around and tell them they no longer have the any rights to the drug and let any company market that product. If they knew that in the first place they wouldn't have even invested a dime into the R&D to develop it.
If it weren't for the protection of copyright laws, OSX would not even exist today. What company in their right mind would spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it take to develop an OS just so that others, that have incurred no developement cost, gets to use it for next to nothing? (Let's not forget that the relative low price of the retail OSX is to reward those that already invested in a Mac. And now Psystar wants to try to screw that up by claiming they have the same rights as a user that already purchased a Mac.)
This conversation isn't going to get anywhere. He's just like every other western european snob I've ever met (and I love Europe): simply can't understand why he isn't allowed to do anything he wants with absolutely anything he sees. I'd imagine he's from The Hague, where they have public urinals on the sidewalk. I don't mean to hate on Europe, but since he keeps using European legal thought as the basis for his arguments, I find it hard not to.
Quite honestly, he clearly has no idea what he's talking about. He simply wants to run OS X on cheap hardware and can't stand that Apple won't provide him with such, all the while going on and on about something he has already hacked other computers to do. After all, he apparently finds Apple giving its own press conferences to be monopolistic.
So so basically you're saying that record companies should be forced to compete with people making music avaiable online for free. And movie studios should priced their DVD's to complete with those black market movies you find at a flea market. Rather than have the right to enforce copyright laws to protect their IP from being stolen in the first place. Do you really think that any company that invested a lot money to develop their IP can make the same amount of profit as those that choose to steal that IP and sell it for less? And how does the consumers benifit when companies calls it quit and stop making CD's, DVD's and new drugs because there's nothing in place to protect that they can even recover the cost it takes to do so? Everyone would just sit around and wait for some else to spend the money to develop something new and then just steal that idea for their own use.
You can't tell a drug company to invest the billions of dollars it takes in R&D to develop an inhalable insulin. And when they do, turn around and tell them they no longer have the any rights to the drug and let any company market that product. If they knew that in the first place they wouldn't have even invested a dime into the R&D to develop it.
If it weren't for the protection of copyright laws, OSX would not even exist today. What company in their right mind would spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it take to develop an OS just so that others, that have incurred no developement cost, gets to use it for next to nothing? (Let's not forget that the relative low price of the retail OSX is to reward those that already invested in a Mac. And now Psystar wants to try to screw that up by claiming they have the same rights as a user that already purchased a Mac.)
.
This quote is from Lawrence Lessig's site - one of the founders of the "creative commons" project:
"I'm very concerned that some forms of IP law have lost that balance. The example on which I have worked most is drug patent law. When drug companies create a drug that reduces pain or cures disease, they of course deserve a fair return. But drug patents should not last forever, and they should not be extended through legal manipulation. Unfortunately, many drug manufacturers routinely try to block legitimate competition from generic drugs by making meritless patent claims just as their real patent protection is expiring. After hearing about these problems firsthand in the Senate Health Committee, I helped write legislation to prevent these abuses and to make sure that lower-cost generic drugs reach the market without improper delays. A version of that bill is one of the few good parts of the prescription drug benefit now being negotiated.
Concern about excessive patent protection goes beyond prescription drugs. The Federal Trade Commission just issued a provocative study recommending substantial changes in the way our patent system works."
DavidW wrote: "If it weren't for the protection of copyright laws, OSX would not even exist today."
Oh, don't be so dramatic. Of course OSX would exist today - even without their molopolistic, OSX can be installed on Apple hardware ONLY, non-compete clause in their EULA. They probably would have to charge more for it (as Microsoft does), but I'd have no problems with that in the slightest. I'd be very willing to pay at least double what OSX's base retail price is right now. I just don't want them purposely crippling, or limiting my use of my retail copy of OSX after I purchased it - to Apple ONLY hardware - unless they happen to be the best machines on the market for OSX installed. If Apple wants to sell their hardware without anyone copying or infringing on their designs and custom features - all the power to them. And if they really are the machines that people want, or like best, or are the best value for the consumer to run OSX, then Apple will sell their hardware very competitively, or even dominate- without having to resort to Apple ONLY restictions . If they are not, then LET competition offer an alternative hardware option.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...?articleid=978
Apple will survive quite well - even if they lose to Psystar (remote but possible). Ya'll are just worried about your Apple share prices...
.
This quote is from Lawrence Lessig's site - one of the founders of the "creative commons" project:
"I'm very concerned that some forms of IP law have lost that balance. The example on which I have worked most is drug patent law. When drug companies create a drug that reduces pain or cures disease, they of course deserve a fair return. But drug patents should not last forever, and they should not be extended through legal manipulation. Unfortunately, many drug manufacturers routinely try to block legitimate competition from generic drugs by making meritless patent claims just as their real patent protection is expiring. After hearing about these problems firsthand in the Senate Health Committee, I helped write legislation to prevent these abuses and to make sure that lower-cost generic drugs reach the market without improper delays. A version of that bill is one of the few good parts of the prescription drug benefit now being negotiated.
Concern about excessive patent protection goes beyond prescription drugs. The Federal Trade Commission just issued a provocative study recommending substantial changes in the way our patent system works."
Oh, don't be so dramatic. Of course OSX would exist today - even without their molopolistic, OSX on Apple hardware ONLY, non-compete clause in their EULA. They probably would have to charge more for it (as Microsoft does), but I'd have no problems with that at all. I'd be very willing to pay at least doublewhat OSX's base retail price is right now, I just don't want them purposely crippling, or limiting my use of OSX to Apple ONLY hardware - unless they happen to be the best machine for my needs, and at the best price offered - to run it on. If Apple wants to sell their hardware without anyone copying their designs and features - all the power to them - but trust that if they really are the machines that people want and like best, then they will sell very well. If they are not, then LET competition offer an alternative option.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...?articleid=978
Apple will survive quite well - even if they lose to Psystar (remote but possible). Ya'll are just worried about your Apple share prices...
When Lessig actually produces goods and services, then I'd love to see him reevaluate his observation.
What good would it be for anyone if Psystar win the case and Apple decided not to sell retail copies of Mac OS anymore?! Apple can choose another delivery system or sale strategy to stop Mac clones from getting their hands on legal copies of Mac OS DVDs in bulk quantities. Then we are back to where we started.
This is a good point and I have no clue as to the answer. I hope Apple makes lots of money because I am a fan and a shareholder. That said ---- on its face, I feel Apple is wrong in its claims of immunity from hardware competition. It is an odd claim they are making. Their logic is getting more tortured and awkward all the time. It is a nightmarish scenario because even with $100 million worth of lawyers, Apple is forced to deal with some ghastly issues that threaten to drain billions out of the company. Who was powerful enough to do this? One or two guys, a garage and a cheap lawyer. This isn't Microsoft engaging in petty harrassment. This is a couple poor guys with a fairly fundamental point about law. For the FBI to come in and physically shut Psystar down, Apple would need to crest some extremely high legal barriers. The burden of proof is on Apple. This is the genius of the Psystar plan.
1. I don't want to live in a world where if I license my work to someone, they feel like they can do with it whatever they want, irregardless of how it damages my rights and future money making potential.
2. Apple does not prevent you from customizing how you interact with the OS. They ARE however, protecting you from modifying their code and then using these modifications to make money at their expense. I'm a photographer. I license my work to my clients. That does not give them the right to use or modify my photography in ways not specified by the usage agreement. Also, it does not give them the right to do whatever they want to my work and make a profit from my work. Doing so would harm the integrity of my work and hurt my business. This is how it should be.
3. Apple does not prevent this. However, you run the risk of voiding your warranty if you choose to do so. This is how every business in the industry works. Again, this is how it should be.
4. Not an issue.
5. Improvements according to whom and after these "improvements" are made, who is expected to support the changes? If you don't want to abide by Apple's licensing agreement, don't buy the product. If you want to be able to freely modify the code of an OS, pick an open source OS such as Linux.
6. You have a choice. You don't like the options, choose a different phone and carrier. Do you also complain about not being able to play Playstation games on your XBox? Would you support forcing MS or Sony to support competing platforms? What kind of world would it be if you can't invent something without having your competitive advantage taken away from you?
Seriously, you must live in your own little world where you get everything you want without having to work for it and without having to give credit to those who do.
Seriously folks; people need to wake up here and realize they are defending a really ugly practices on Apples part here. It is a practice that if upheld will undermine years of freedoms we as individuals have had with respect to copyright law.
Ask yourself some of these questions and then look at what Apple is trying to do.
1.
Do you want to live in a society where you don't have the legal right to resell items you have legally purchased?
2.
Do you want to give up the right to tinker with or configure an item to your liking?
3.
Do you want to give up the right to repair an item yourself or have a third party do so?
4.
Do you want to be exposed to the possibility that if a manufacture goes belly up your item of interest becomes unrepairable, servicesable or tradeable? ( as a side note this is a big question on many minds right now with respect to the auto industry)
5.
Do you want to live in a world where the only possible improvements to an item come from the manufacture?
6.
Do you think lock ins, like those that Apple has with AT&T are a good thing for consumers?
The list could go on but people need to realize just what Apples success here would pervert. It simply isn't rational to support Apple 100% here as it would have a vast over reaching impact on how an individual could conduct his life. Many want to make Pystar out to be the bad guy here but they really aren't doing anything that would be considered abnormal outside the computer industry.
Think about it; does the guy making and selling ball bearings get upset if they get resold in a machine that competes with another. Or get resold as spare parts by a machine manufacture. Do they have legal recourse? Not really as that bearing has made a profit for them on that first sale. Further more it is just a component just like an OS is a component that makes up a machine we call a PC.
Frankly, you can like Pystar or not, what is hard to dismiss here is that Apple is engaged in some very discusting practices. Hiding behind the copyright law just to prevent free trade in your product is just one issue. Oh yes Mac OS/X is a product and has been for a very long time.
Dave
People spent HUGE money on their little piece of technology, and when they wanted to do fun and interesting things with that purchase, Apple pushed the self-destruct button on them.
It was... punishment.
OBEY OR DIE
You can throw around all the "security" & "legal" bullshit you want, it doesn't make the bricking code right, or in the best interest of the consumer. They could have simply just stated that they won't support a modified phone, and let people do what they want with them. Instead, they punished people like an angry alcoholic parent.
And yes, they did intentionally brick the phone.
Apple has gone out of their way to make 1984 more of a reality then any other company in some ironic twist.
I agree with a previous poster... Apple is acting more evil then Microsoft ever did. For Apple's sake, I hope Pystar wins.
There was a choice when people spent their money on the iPhone. If you don't want to live with your choice, you can't blame Apple but rather, your own stupidity. Apple did not hold a gun to these people's head and forced them to dish out hundreds of dollars for their phone.
You sound like a spoiled brat who doesn't care how your actions hurt others as long as you get what YOU want.
What incentive would a company have to create innovative products if they lose their rights once the product enters the market?
Apple went out of their way to brick people's phones.
People spent HUGE money on their little piece of technology, and when they wanted to do fun and interesting things with that purchase, Apple pushed the self-destruct button on them.
It was... punishment.
OBEY OR DIE
You can throw around all the "security" & "legal" bullshit you want, it doesn't make the bricking code right, or in the best interest of the consumer. They could have simply just stated that they won't support a modified phone, and let people do what they want with them. Instead, they punished people like an angry alcoholic parent.
And yes, they did intentionally brick the phone.
Apple has gone out of their way to make 1984 more of a reality then any other company in some ironic twist.
I agree with a previous poster... Apple is acting more evil then Microsoft ever did. For Apple's sake, I hope Pystar wins.
Apple went out of their way to brick people's phones.
People spent HUGE money on their little piece of technology, and when they wanted to do fun and interesting things with that purchase, Apple pushed the self-destruct button on them.
It was... punishment.
OBEY OR DIE
You can throw around all the "security" & "legal" bullshit you want, it doesn't make the bricking code right, or in the best interest of the consumer. They could have simply just stated that they won't support a modified phone, and let people do what they want with them. Instead, they punished people like an angry alcoholic parent.
And yes, they did intentionally brick the phone.
Apple has gone out of their way to make 1984 more of a reality then any other company in some ironic twist.
I agree with a previous poster... Apple is acting more evil then Microsoft ever did. For Apple's sake, I hope Pystar wins.
Apple receive alot of revenue from the app store, that was one of the drives for them to make the iPhone. If everyone could easily jailbreak an iPhone and get that software for free then they (and the app developer) are going to lose money and at the end of the day they are a company and thats what they do. At the end of the day its cracking apples software, its illegal!
.
This quote is from Lawrence Lessig's site - one of the founders of the "creative commons" project:
"I'm very concerned that some forms of IP law have lost that balance. The example on which I have worked most is drug patent law. When drug companies create a drug that reduces pain or cures disease, they of course deserve a fair return. But drug patents should not last forever, and they should not be extended through legal manipulation. Unfortunately, many drug manufacturers routinely try to block legitimate competition from generic drugs by making meritless patent claims just as their real patent protection is expiring. After hearing about these problems firsthand in the Senate Health Committee, I helped write legislation to prevent these abuses and to make sure that lower-cost generic drugs reach the market without improper delays. A version of that bill is one of the few good parts of the prescription drug benefit now being negotiated.
Concern about excessive patent protection goes beyond prescription drugs. The Federal Trade Commission just issued a provocative study recommending substantial changes in the way our patent system works."
DavidW wrote: "If it weren't for the protection of copyright laws, OSX would not even exist today."
Oh, don't be so dramatic. Of course OSX would exist today - even without their molopolistic, OSX can be installed on Apple hardware ONLY, non-compete clause in their EULA. They probably would have to charge more for it (as Microsoft does), but I'd have no problems with that in the slightest. I'd be very willing to pay at least double what OSX's base retail price is right now. I just don't want them purposely crippling, or limiting my use of my retail copy of OSX after I purchased it - to Apple ONLY hardware - unless they happen to be the best machines on the market - to run the OS on. If Apple wants to sell their hardware without anyone copying their designs and features - all the power to them - but if they really are the machines that people want, or like best, or are the best value for the consumer to run OSX, then Apple will sell their hardware very competitively. If they are not, then LET competition offer an alternative hardware option.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...?articleid=978
Apple will survive quite well - even if they lose to Psystar (remote but possible). Ya'll are just worried about your Apple share prices...
Would you please stop spewing garbage and answer the question we're all getting at: if OS X is open to multiple vendors then what ultimately makes it any different than Windows? Sure, it will still be coded better, but customer service, by definition, will cease to be anywhere near good, especially since these new vendors will have absolutely no experience whatsoever with the operating system. Innovation will be stifled because now a myriad of different hardware components will have to be coded for, and now that the system is open to anyone, it will automatically be put on machines with specs to low to handle it and filled with adware to bring down the price. And my nature of being fully mass market, it will, while better handling them, soon be plagued with a number of viruses that will then require resource consuming anti-virus. Being a minority is, in and of itself, sometimes a strategy.
Again, this is why we all left Windows: it was a terrible experience precisely because there was no control. Other than your own desire to use cheap hardware, what exact difference do you see being resultant from such a change? All things being equal, people would buy Windows, not OS X because they're more familiar with it. Why do you like OS X? Answer that and let's see where this conversation goes.
Apple receive alot of revenue from the app store, that was one of the drives for them to make the iPhone. If everyone could easily jailbreak an iPhone and get that software for free then they (and the app developer) are going to lose money and at the end of the day they are a company and thats what they do. At the end of the day its cracking apples software, its illegal!
It's not even simply revenue, it's also that by circumventing the OS, things that AT&T doesn't want taxing its network become fair game. And under that auspice why should it partner with Apple in the first place if one party isn't going to stick to its agreed terms. I have to agree with the other poster, most of you sound like spoiled brats.
Man, this is the best debate ever on these forums.
Awesome comments and points made by both sides.
This judge is going to be deliberating until 2012. Or siding with whoever buys him out first.
Personally, I like the software/hardware strategy of Apple. It's what distinguishes Apple from Microsoft. It's what makes Apple great.
It's also why Apple was decimated by Microsoft.
It's also why Apple still sucks the big sweaty nut sack in the sky in some ways.
My dual 2ghz G5 3rd generation, blew up on me 3 weeks after the Applecare ran out on it. Apple's reply was "too f***ing bad.. ha ha, sucker".
After paying $200 for 'Certified Apple Diagnostics', the solution was $1100 for a processor that may or may not be the problem, or $980 for a new logic board that may or may not be the problem.
And Apple's policy is, they don't allow returns on parts. So it was like playing black/red split on a roulette table at the casino.
$2100 to fix a machine 3 weeks out of extended warranty that I paid $400 for.
(oh, and i love how apple made it so that you need an 'Apple certified allen key' to access the processors)
So now i'm kinda in the camp of "gee... wish I could have picked up a part for 1/9th the cost tha t Apple wanted to rape me on, yet don't want to lose the synergy they have with their products.
I do feel stifled by having to use Apple Hardware. Like when I had to pay $740 for the ATI X800 video card for my G5 thats now dead, when the EXACT SAME CARD for PC was $120.
I've had way too many of their products fail on me lately.
So for the purpose of brand loyalty, I guess Apple needs Pystar to win, it could be the best thing for them in the long run.
Bricking is just wrong... on so many many levels. It's so very anti-Apple and everything we, as a community fought against for so long.
It also shows that Apple is afraid it can't innovate enough to stay ahead.
They seem to be following the Sony model of the 90's, with the stores, proprietary equipment, software. Look where they are now.
I guess my wish would be that Apple stops raping people like it's a big freak'n orgy. If it takes Pystar winning the lawsuit to make Apple focused on quality and innovation again... I guess i'm all for it.
Anyone else miss 'Happy Mac'?
That lil dude represented a different corporate attitude.
What exactly is the point your trying to make? I'm sorry about your G5, but my local Apple Store has replaced plenty of stuff for me out of warranty over the years. And Apple isn't exactly in control of the prices IBM and AMD charge for replacement parts. Again, I'm sorry they're expensive, but you're ultimately blaming the wrong company. Apple certifies and installs the parts, but it doesn't make them. And it's not the exact same card: one is running OpenGL and the other is likely on DirectX 9 and there are a few hardware differences and software differences inherent in that. One question, though: how exactly did you procure a PowerMac G5 for $400 (or did you mean $4,000)?
And I disagree with your Sony comparison. Sony had, and still very much has, the habit of always creating a competing format standard in order to reap royalty fees. It always does this in adversity to already popular standards such as DVD and HD-DVD. Sony has never once offered the consumer any real benefit (beyond minor storage space) from these separate standards. Apple does and in some cases, such as Fairplay, had to adopt these standards because of external pressure from media studios. And, by the way, Sony had more problems than simply pushing too many standards on people, it also suffers from a fractured development staff that provides the overall company with an incomplete and incoherent vision. Now, what is this bricking is always wrong nonsense? How on earth are you so provide a retail space for business partners when the entire ecosystem can be usurped without anyone contesting it.
Last question: how old is this Mac hardware whose failure rate you complain about?
Man, this is the best debate ever on these forums.
Awesome comments and points made by both sides.
This judge is going to be deliberating until 2012. Or siding with whoever buys him out first.
Personally, I like the software/hardware strategy of Apple. It's what distinguishes Apple from Microsoft. It's what makes Apple great.
It's also why Apple was decimated by Microsoft.
It's also why Apple still sucks the big sweaty nut sack in the sky in some ways.
My dual 2ghz G5 3rd generation, blew up on me 3 weeks after the Applecare ran out on it. Apple's reply was "too f***ing bad.. ha ha, sucker".
After paying $200 for 'Certified Apple Diagnostics', the solution was $1100 for a processor that may or may not be the problem, or $980 for a new logic board that may or may not be the problem.
And Apple's policy is, they don't allow returns on parts. So it was like playing black/red split on a roulette table at the casino.
$2100 to fix a machine 3 weeks out of extended warranty that I paid $400 for.
(oh, and i love how apple made it so that you need an 'Apple certified allen key' to access the processors)
So now i'm kinda in the camp of "gee... wish I could have picked up a part for 1/9th the cost tha t Apple wanted to rape me on, yet don't want to lose the synergy they have with their products.
I do feel stifled by having to use Apple Hardware. Like when I had to pay $740 for the ATI X800 video card for my G5 thats now dead, when the EXACT SAME CARD for PC was $120.
I've had way too many of their products fail on me lately.
So for the purpose of brand loyalty, I guess Apple needs Pystar to win, it could be the best thing for them in the long run.
Your numbers don't add up. A PowerMac G5 Dual 2.0 Ghz was introduced on October of 2005. If you purchased your Mac when it first became available and you got an extended AppleCare at the time you bought it, then you were covered under warranty till October 2008. That's less than 4 months ago. You can get a used PowerMac G5 Dual 2 Ghz for less than $800 on eBay right now. That includes ram, HD, drives, PS, Etc.. You can probably sell yours, as is, for $200.
And most people don't buy the extended AppleCare at the time they purchase the Mac. It already comes with a 1 year limited warranty. And you can purchase AppleCare anytime with in the year. So if you had waited until August of 2006 to purchase AppleCare for your Mac, your Mac would still be under warranty today.
And $400 for AppleCare on a Power Mac seems high. The most expensive AppleCare is usually on their expensive laptops. AppleCare for a MacBook Pro only cost $350, today. It only cost $250 for AppleCare on a MacPro. Which is now at least a $2800 Mac.
I'm not even going to ask how you manage to pay $740 for a graphic card that was nearly two years old when the PowerMac Dual 2 Ghz came out. And had a list price of $500.
I swear that some of you posting on this thread must really be "Apple Insiders" - the way that you are bleating on and on in defense of Apples's defenseless, anti-consumer, anti-choice and anti-trust market monopoly in regards to OSX compatible hardware. Do some of you have stock in Apple as well?
As a certified Apple Tech and freelance Consultant, I have bought and sold hundreds of thousands of dollars in Apple's hardware and software. I have no problems respecting Apple's right to protect their branded and designed products (software/hardware) from being illegally copied or patent compromised by another company without due compensation, or prior authorization from Apple.
What I am strongly objecting to - is Apple's position that only Apple can sell the hardware that can run it's software exclusively. And the fact that Apple is purposely writing code into it's OS that specifically locks the user of their software into using ONLY Apple's own proprietary hardware (closed loop business model), is precisely why the EU ( as well as other parts of the world outside the US ) will not legally recognize Apple's absurd monopoly as it now stands.
We all know what Apple is really afraid of here - real competition in the hardware market. Once Apple loses it's current stranglehold over the hardware that can run it's OS and applications, then the whole "we don't do $500 computers" arrogance is kaput overnight.
Apple has put out some great machines/hardware like the current model iMacs and the intel Mac Mini (badly in need of a upgrade), and they have also sold some really overpriced and overhyped stinkers- like the cheaply made, underspeced, recently discontinued, plastic Macbooks, or the bad logic board (ram slot failures) G4 Powerbooks and the whole G5 Powermac fiasco - especially the "Liquid Cooled" Dual processor models that sold for almost 3K and are now fancy doorstops or sculpture for many unlucky owners.
I know that there is a boatload of crappy PC hardware out there with just as many if not more issued concerning quality and performance - so there is no perfect alternative hardware for running OSX, but at least one should have the option (CHOICE) as a consumer in purchasing or building a computer that can run any OS that is sold in the retail market - especially when they all basically on on the very same hardware.
In this economy, Apple will not be able to continue forcing us OSX users/fans to purchase ONLY their "high-end" computers and other hardware without resistance. We WILL hack, modify, or reconfigure any and all products to suit our needs as an end user/owner. OSX can run as easily and efficiently on a generic $500 laptop or desktop, as well as a top-of-the-line Mac Pro. Apple knows this - that's why they are fighting so hard too keep the hardware loop closed by modifying OSX - purposely limiting it's compatibility to only Apple branded machines. OSX flies on an AMD quad core, and is quite respectable on a $399 Asus EEE PC.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/dreams-ca...-pc-323279.php.
Psystar might not win their battle against the Big Bad Apple and it's phalanx of lawyers, but they are another necessary chink in Apple's Anti-Competitive hardware armor that will eventually have to open up and liberate OSX from Apple only equipment.
OSX may be the best OS available right now and I'd be willing to pay more for it, but not if it's crippled and closed - opening it up will only make it better and more widely used, Apple's hardware revenue be damned.
I would like to see what would happen if someone came along and took your product, re-badged it and sold it on as their own and paid you nothing. You then started to recieve support calls and complaints as your product wasn't working as it should or and update to your product broke theirs.
How would you react??
Apple sells Mac's. Mac OSX is Apple OS for their Mac's. Mac OSX is sold separately as an UPGRADE for existing Mac owners. Whenever Apple talks about OSX sales they talk about the number of Mac owners who have 'Upgraded' to OSX 10.xx.
I hope that Apple withdraws all copies of Mac OSX from stores and forces all Mac owners to purchase the upgrade online by providing their Mac serial number. This will prevent companies like Psystar from buying the software and selling it on their machines. Then the only way they would be able to do this would be through piracy, which would be an end to them.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/158...415/id_0.jhtml
Rowling won.
I would like to see what would happen if someone came along and took your product, re-badged it and sold it on as their own and paid you nothing. You then started to recieve support calls and complaints as your product wasn't working as it should or and update to your product broke theirs.
How would you react??
Apple sells Mac's. Mac OSX is Apple OS for their Mac's. Mac OSX is sold separately as an UPGRADE for existing Mac owners. Whenever Apple talks about OSX sales they talk about the number of Mac owners who have 'Upgraded' to OSX 10.xx.
I hope that Apple withdraws all copies of Mac OSX from stores and forces all Mac owners to purchase the upgrade online by providing their Mac serial number. This will prevent companies like Psystar from buying the software and selling it on their machines. Then the only way they would be able to do this would be through piracy, which would be an end to them.
Very drastic measures for something that is not a corporate crisis for Apple don't you think?
Don't be an ass!
You first. I'm not the one trying to push anyone out the door who doesn't rubber stamp everything Apple does.
You have only yourself to blame for your issues with Apple.
We live in a world where people can "own" intellectual property & sell that IP to whomever they wish. A lot of people & companies do this. Hence, consumers get to choose from a dizzying panoply of IP - art, computers, music, cars, houses, clothing, literature, &c, etc.
Your argument, more properly directed against yourself than Apple, becomes neutered when we recall that in in our world full of all kinds of IP to buy - we have choice. Choice to buy or not buy, use or not use. With choice comes responsibility. A responsibility to be aware of what we are getting ourselves into with our choice(s).
If I choose to cross the road against traffic & become struck by a car - whom do I blame, BenRoethig, myself or the driver? I believe you would blame the driver of the car. I would blame myself for making a poor, poor choice.
I see a lot of self-entitled consumeritis in your words. Get that checked out, or it can worsen over time.
Oh, by the way, you can transfer files on your Mac to an NTFS drive using a cool little program called Macfuse.
http://www.hackszine.com/blog/archiv...fs_drives.html
http://code.google.com/p/macfuse/
So, it is the fault of me and other professional Mac users that we haven't reduced our activities to conform with Apple's low end consumer focus? When did we switch from Apple building machines and software to make the user's life easier to the user doing everything they can to support the whims of Jobs and Ive.
A semi useless lap-top on a stick? Wow, my iMac runs Aperture 2, Final Cut Express 4. Adobe Creative Suite 4, & acts as a server admin on a daily basis and works perfectly.
I have a similar setup, but a much different experience. I've had PC-like wireless connection problems from the start. iLife, iWeb, iPhoto, Garageband, and even mail have frequent slowdowns and I don't think its due to the software group. They know what they're doing. Why spend money on the next step up if iLife is this slow? When I want to relax I can't do a little gaming because the graphics chipset is so anemic that it has issues with three year old titles. Installing software or burning a CD/DVD takes forever with the notebook optical drive and I can't do anything with the camcorder DVDs my uncles send to me. The solution requires an expensive and less than reliable external drive. Hard drive filling up or if I want to use boot camp? I either have to disassemble the machine to replace the hard drive, get yet another external drive, or just replace my iMac with another because my meager uses were too extreme for the 320GB hard drive. TV tuner? External device. Card reader so you don't have to go fishing your camera cable? External device. Music interface? External device. Then I need an external hub for all these external devices.
It has never felt like an Apple product to me. It feels like a cheap PC running OSX. I'm used to expecting more and having the final product blow my expectations away, that's the kind of company Apple was. Now you get less in a prettier cases.
The Mac Pro is for people who seriously need high end computing, that's why it's a workstation, not a simple computer. And Apple does not sell its OS to weak minded people, it simply a consumer oriented business, not an enterprise oriented one.
Yes, you either need a mid-2ghz range all in one on a mobile platform with a 4GB ram ceiling, a single hard drive that require disassembling the entire machine to get to, a slow notebook drive than can't use 3.5" optical disks, a lower mid-range graphics card that requires buying the most expensive model for even the option of an upgrade, no expansion ports (not even expresscard), and just three USB2.0 ports or you need a full blown $2300 twin socket quad core Xeon workstation with 16GB of RAM, 2 full size optical drives, 4 easily accessible hard drives, the most high end graphics options, expansion slot galore, and easily accessible front ports. Does anyone else see the insanity of this? Its either feast or famine there is no step in between. Despite what Apple PR may tell you, reality lives in between.
What a tool you are. A semi - useless laptop o a stick? What amazing things are you doing in your advanced underground lair? Such tiresome trash - the Apple tax and all that.
I'm all too willing to pay the Apple tax, but I expect a superior product for it.
The divide between Mac and PC prices has been getting slimmer and slimmer.
You're right about slimmer and slimmer, only its the physical forms of Apple's computers and their losing all the things that made them special in the process.
I've had my iMac on for literally *months* at a time without a crash in my music studio, where I routinely run many plugins and haven't had any problems with it.
The OS has never been the problem. That group has continued to live up to the high standards of Apple.
Go to PC land, feel good about your $500 Windows box or whatever you are boobing on about. Your sense of entitlement is silly.
Yes, everything not made by Apple is $500. I wish I could find a core i7 machine for $500. I also wish I could find an Apple product with one so I wouldn't be in this dilemma.
Having used iLife since its inception, I don't think its all "flash and social considerations."
Like I said, the software side is not the problem, Ive's willingness to trade hardware features for a smaller case is.