There are hardware for sale that allows decrypting Cable, and Satellite signals and they're totally legal, pickup a Make magazine, or a Popular mechanics checkout the back pages.
My question to you would be, why doesn't Apple serve a cease and desist to Hackintosh and get it over with? Certainly if Psystar didn't have Hackintosh they would not be able to sell their system.
Hackintosh isn't a company, or entity that could be served a cease and desist order, its a term for non Apple computers running OS X. The OSX86 Project is an open source project / community that works on making non Apple systems run OS X. Psystar just tried to capitalize on this. EFI-X used very similar approaches like that of BOOT 132 (from OSX86) to installing OS X from a genuine Leopard disc onto non Apple systems.
Who, in their right mind, is going to drop nearly $2,000 on a knock off when they could spend a little more and get the real thing??
It would be one thing if we were talking about a $700 hardware package, but we are talking about $2,000. That is not throw away money. I just don't see them selling very many...
Pure bullshit, spread by fanbois over the years. If both the iMac and the dual MP are truly Apple's flagships and the best in the business, they (you) shouldn't be afraid of a dull tower with a single quad-core cpu. If it is the case, that means that both products have been poorly designed/priced, they can't withstand a little competition.
Wow, you're really that stupid aren't you?
NO PRODUCT THAT APPLE MAKES SHOULD COMPETE WITH ANY OTHER ONES IN THEIR OWN DAMN LINEUP!
That's Dell's problem! They have ten DIFFERENT computers in their OWN lineup that are competing with each other! Everytime they sell ONE computer, that's NINE MORE that won't sell!
Remember the 90's? I bet you don't!
During that time, Apple had low-cost Performas and high-quality Powermacs. Which one sold? The performas! Where did Apple lose their money? on all the powermacs that DIDN'T SELL!
Were the performas as good as the powermacs? HELL NO!
Were Performas a good deal? HELL NO!
Joe consumer will buy what looks like the cheeapest. Even if it ISN'T the best deal!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
Would you please take the time to read every detail: LED-BL on the iMac + the less expensive desktop 65W cpus. While it doesn't change much on the low end, the savings on the high-end are huge, thus making the cost of LED-BL irrelevant.
Uh-huh.
How you gonna keep those desktop CPUs cool? Ever think of that?
There is a REASON why the iMac uses mobility processors!
FYI, I read every crappy word of that post. It's garbage, plain and simple.
Plus, dumbass, i recall saying that LED was a 'maybe' for iMacs, IF it can be done and Apple can meet their price point.
Apple IS a business, you know...
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
Again, you should read every detail instead of just the first word of each sentence. A "netbook" based on the ARM chips and running the iPhone/iPod touch OS is no threat to the other Mac OS X notebooks. If it is, then Mac OS X has a problem.
I READ EVERY WORD OF THE POST!
The Idea is a crappy one!
'No Threat'? Did you just say that??
Well, for starters the iPhone and iPod touch are DIFFERENT PRODUCTS. A Netbook would instantly be seen as a CHEAP laptop and be bought over getting a Macbook, regardless of how much better a macbook would be as a computer!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
I don't care about the competition. When Apple charges $200 for the 1.86GHz cpu that cost just $32 more than the 1.60GHz one in bulk, I think there is room for price cuts. Also SSD drives are getting cheaper every week (if not day). +$700 for a 128GB SDD with middle of the road performance is pushing it hard down the consumer throat. And I'm a fan of the MBA.
Seriously, look at what the competition is charging to upgrade their laptops to SSD. Some of them aren't even as big as Apple's. Sure, you can go and buy a drive for $225, but after you buy it and pay your technicians to load OSX onto them, Test and INSTALL them, you still want to charge $225?
BTW, I don't know what planet you live on, but here on EARTH the upgrade costs $500, NOT $700. Look it up, kid.
Don't be stupid, the CPU that is used in the MBA costs WAAAAAAAY more than $32! For starters, it is on a much smaller die than normally. That makes it a custom chip! Look it up!
Plus, on top of that, it is a MOBILITY component! Rule of thumb with mobility components, THEY COST MORE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjteix
Pipe is finished. You can go back to your full-size barbie doll with Apple's socks.
Oh, that's sooooooo funny, you tried to make an insult. That's cute.
You should concentrate on coming up with ideas that have some kind of value instead of trotting out your FAIL-tier insults.
Dude you really know how to make some Apples taste like Oranges. People don't only want a headless Mac, they want a headless Mac with expandability. The Cube -> Mac Mini.... Power Mac G4 -> Mac Pro. Nothing has changed except the Mac mini is wildly popular.
You know custom boxes as well as Dell's, HP's and the like share many core components that are in current Apple computers.
While I agree the mini is popular, it is not exactly over powering iMac sales. Apple has a lower PM on the mini, have hampered the performance so they can upsale you to an iMac.
I believe more normal people want the iMac due to clutterless factor and the everything is right there in front of me look. Every PC person that comes into our office wants to look at our iMac's up close and personal once they realize the whole computer is inside. They have seen them on TV, but have believed they are just monitors. I think it would do Apple well to show a DVD sticking out of the side of the iMac.
I think the MIni is nice for servers and people that need cheap replacement boxes. But I don't think they have a large place with mainstream Joe Computer user like we would believe and hope (in some cases).
Hackintosh isn't a company, or entity that could be served a cease and desist order, its a term for non Apple computers running OS X. The OSX86 Project is an open source project / community that works on making non Apple systems run OS X. Psystar just tried to capitalize on this. EFI-X used very similar approaches like that of BOOT 132 (from OSX86) to installing OS X from a genuine Leopard disc onto non Apple systems.
Yes you can send a cease and desist to anyone that is violating your rights, you don't have to be a company. The reason why these projects like iPhone jailbreaks and Hackintosh are legal is because they can be used for educational purposes, as long as the buyer does not use them illegally. The liability becomes the buyers and not the ones who make the code, it's one of those things that are legal to make and own, but are illegal to use. There are many products that fall into that category.
EFi-X USA are not breaking any laws whatsoever and Apple cannot sue them and win, Psystar on the other-hand are on the wrong and seem to have no leg to stand on.
Here it is from Wikipedia:
A cease and desist (also called C & D) is an order or request to halt an activity, or else face legal action. The recipient of the cease-and-desist may be an individual or an organization.
The term is used in two different contexts. A cease-and-desist order can be issued by a judge or government authority, and has a well-defined legal meaning. In contrast, a cease-and-desist letter can be sent by anyone, although typically they are drafted by a lawyer.
So, there are too many damn PC converts screwing things up for the true Mac fans and all these pesky "Mac clone" companies are screwing things up for the happy Hackintosh community...
Give me a f*cking break.
Whiners complaining about the popularity of OS X only give credence to those who would dismiss Mac-heads as masochistic snobs, happy only when an abused minority.
Anyone arguing against the clone companies (especially the likes of the more innocent ones like EFi-X) while supporting OSx86 "hobbyists" is a hypocrite, plain and simple. You either honor the EULA or you don't. I can't fault EFi-X for making and selling hardware; I have no sympathy for the EULA breaker or copyright violator.
Whereas Psystar deserves to get crushed, there's nothing wrong with what EFi-X is doing (except for the poor English on their website).
That increasingly myriad companies are providing hardware capable of running OS X is a good thing. It's good for Apple. There is no conspiracy; OS X is simply an excellent OS. I bet Ol' Steve is eating it up. Sure, he's maniacal about the Mac experience, but he's not an idiot; he saw this coming. I can't believe he's exactly fuming now. Of course Apple cares about marketshare; they continuously prove this with every transgression against their cult base (Intel, glossy screens, no Firewire on new MacBook, copy-protection video hardware, even a two-button mouse...).
Moreover, these clone companies are good for Mac lovers. Claims that opening up the software would lead to support nightmares are proof: all the more reason to stick with Apple hardware. Factor in PA Semi and the incentive is even stronger. Forget what you've known as the Apple experience; in the future, PA Semi is the Apple experience. Apple will not worry about clones that do not violate their copyrights; even with all their cash, they cannot go after individual EULA violators or even so-called facilitators. Is it a crime to advertise a fact of reality--namely that certain hardware is capable of running certain software? Please. Everyone here, regardless of how hardcore-Mac they are, should know this is bogus.
Apple will not modify their hardware to stop clones; there will only be new work-arounds. Apple will not switch from Intel back to Power PC; they need BootCamp. Apple will use PA Semi to optimize Mac hardware and let clone competitors/consumers fend for themselves with inferior products. Furthermore, one day, Steve will leave; by no means am I rooting for this or otherwise intending to be provocative; it's just a fact. The Mac experience is not so vaunted as to fend against resulting pragmatism (and I think Steve himself realizes this and is comfortable with the future). Unlike the days when Apple was poorly positioned for licensing their software, they are now perfectly poised. It's just a matter of time. Linux is a player (hell, Mac die-hards posting in this thread have threatened to switch to Linux under one circumstance or another. (Personally, I love Linux and find myself loving OS X more for its uniformity and ease of use; I use both and can't envision completely abandoning Apple--until such time as Linux eventually acquires uniformity and ease of use; it's hard to argue with free.)
If Apple is going to try and force their mirror ultra glossy glass displays down my throat then I want an alternative.
Then go buy a PC.
Whatever makes some of you think you are "entitled" to anything is beyond me. If you don't like Apples computers, don't buy one, but that doesn't mean they have to give you their OS just because you think your entitled to it.
Apple did not put HDCP (DRM) on the DisplayPort. HOLLYWOOD required it since Apple is now selling HD content. HDCP has been required on any digital output (DVI, HDMI, now DisplayPort for computers) since as early as 2003. This is nothing new, this has nothing to do with computers. This is to protect HD content from being copied in the digital form, and HOLLYWOOD doesn't want you to do it.
Whatever makes some of you think you are "entitled" to anything is beyond me. If you don't like Apples computers, don't buy one, but that doesn't mean they have to give you their OS just because you think your entitled to it.
A posting is made regarding someone wanting an alternative to Apple's glossy displays. Your response is "Then go buy a PC." followed by a candid admission of your chronic bewilderment regarding some entitlement issues. Would not the polite suggestion to buy another brand of computer monitor (not the shiny Apple one) solve this person's problem in a relatively constructive fashion?!
But if that was all you said, I'd have kept my virtual mouth shut this morning. But instead, as a direct response to your admittedly confused state of mind, I'm gonna attempt to explain the lack of logic in your argumentative position that if taken to the extreme would imply that no Apple customer is entitled to anything (or to paraphrase. that every Apple customer is entitled to nothing).
Generally speaking, companies sell products to consumers. They make a profit on those sales (unless that product is an American-made car, of course). If these customers are happy customers and they remain happy customers, they are more likely to generate future sales with that repeat business making more profits for the company. And profits can make even the saddest company happy once again (except for stupid companies that waste a big chunk of those profits on stupid TV commercials that feature Seinfeld). These happy customers are also likely to recommend this company and their products to their warm market (family and friends and everyone else they know who's running a high fever).
But would you like to guess what happens if those customers do not remain happy customers? That's right. A fifth grader could have guessed the correct answer to that one. They won't buy from that company again...regardless of the elevated levels of emotionally-triggered enthusiasm that they previously possessed. And neither will they recommend that company and that company's products to their warm market or their cold market for that matter (including deceased acquaintances). This is not good for the company since less profits from a reduction in sales (from new customers and from repeat buyers) often necessitates pursuing an untested course of action meaning that when the foggy mirage of material success begins to fade, they gotta go ask Congress for a multi-billion-dollar bail-out to hopefully bring back those happier days. And it's not really good for the consumer either if he is unable to find similar products at similar prices from a competitor (who may or may not exist) without even slightly compromising the personal standards of high-quality and hyper-cool innovation he felt justifiably ENTITLED TO in the first place.
So let me break it down for you in another way. I prefer to use the word EXPECTATIONS instead of entitlement as it pertains to what I expect from a company and their products. First of all, my expectations as a customer/consumer are dynamic and they evolve over time. They may and should differ from other customers (since as far as I can cognitively surmise, every customer is a unique individual with a unique personality, etc...). I expect the product to conform to the tech specs and do basically what the advertising materials (and my independent research) indicates it should do (as in function properly) for at least the duration of the warranty period as well as for the extended period of time that I will pay extra for. I expect the person on the other end of a customer service phonecall to at least speak English fluently enough so that I do not have to ask them if they just gave me their Mom's secret recipe for Lamb Jalpharezi when all I asked for was their first name. I expect manuals and tutorials and teaching tools galore and it's a really big plus if I can just download them from the company's online store. I expect to pay for periodic upgrades as long as they improve the product and/or "the user experience" in some tangible way. I expect the company to come out with better products down the road based on the inevitable introduction of technological discoveries and engineering advancements in their industry but this expectation is also accompanied by my genuine desire that they NOT abandon me relatively quickly (as in a few years) by introducing dramatic improvements that I can't add as upgrades to my current product (thus "forcing" me to spend more money than I'd prefer spending having to buy a brand new model of their product with every other tick or every other tock of a Semi-Intelligent wind-up clock).
And last but not least, I expect that if I don't wanna buy their glass-glossy display for whatever reason, they don't tell me (in essence) TO GO COPULATE MYSELF by banishing me to The Desolate Land of The Stained Windows...where shiny reflections from the glass-screen monitor might even be a true blessing in disguise...especially if it prevents me from seeing either the ghostly illumination from The Blue-Screen-of-Death or thwarts my best efforts to use the most seriously flawed OS-on-crutches this side of the Milky Way.
NO PRODUCT THAT APPLE MAKES SHOULD COMPETE WITH ANY OTHER ONES IN THEIR OWN DAMN LINEUP!
That's Dell's problem! They have ten DIFFERENT computers in their OWN lineup that are competing with each other! Everytime they sell ONE computer, that's NINE MORE that won't sell!
Sorry, but you're wrong about that. Most parts can be used on any model so they've only lost a sale on particular parts, not a whole computer.
If anything, what you're pointing out is a flaw in Apple's current methodology. If Apple had a headless Mac in the iMac tier, they couldn't use most of the more expensive parts in the headless since I'd assume that it wouldn't be using mobile computer components.
Quote:
During that time, Apple had low-cost Performas and high-quality Powermacs. Which one sold? The performas! Where did Apple lose their money? on all the powermacs that DIDN'T SELL!
Again, you're pointing out a problem on Apple's end. If Apple truly lost a lot of money on the PowerMacs, that's a problem with their inventory control for creating a purchase forecast that was unrealistic and thus ordering parts that were unnecessary. If the Performa was selling like hotcakes, it shouldn't have been an issue to increase inventory for them and let PowerMacs slowly dwindle down.
Keep in mind, apple doesn't own EFI. In addition to this device there are motherboards that use EFI and more coming out all the time. And nothing illegal about any of it.
If anything, what you're pointing out is a flaw in Apple's current methodology. If Apple had a headless Mac in the iMac tier, they couldn't use most of the more expensive parts in the headless since I'd assume that it wouldn't be using mobile computer components..
Indeed, and if Apple sold a headless desktop at the same price-points as the iMac, using desktop parts with no built-in display, their margins on that product would be huge. It would definitely eat iMac sales, and Mac Pro sales, as well. But doesn't the fact that it would do that indicate just how flawed Apple's lineup is?
Indeed, and if Apple sold a headless desktop at the same price-points as the iMac, using desktop parts with no built-in display, their margins on that product would be huge. It would definitely eat iMac sales, and Mac Pro sales, as well. But doesn't the fact that it would do that indicate just how flawed Apple's lineup is?
the lack of a mate screen iMac is bad for iMac sales. Also is selling 1000+ desktop macs better then 500+ mac pros?
the lack of a mate screen iMac is bad for iMac sales. Also is selling 1000+ desktop macs better then 500+ mac pros?
What is Apple's margin on a Mac Pro at $2500? What would it be on a desktop Mac at $1200? We can't speak definitively on those numbers, but I think it absolutely would be better. More computer sales mean more OS and software sales, too.
NO PRODUCT THAT APPLE MAKES SHOULD COMPETE WITH ANY OTHER ONES IN THEIR OWN DAMN LINEUP!
That's Dell's problem! They have ten DIFFERENT computers in their OWN lineup that are competing with each other! Everytime they sell ONE computer, that's NINE MORE that won't sell!
Remember the 90's? I bet you don't!
During that time, Apple had low-cost Performas and high-quality Powermacs. Which one sold? The performas! Where did Apple lose their money? on all the powermacs that DIDN'T SELL!
Were the performas as good as the powermacs? HELL NO!
Were Performas a good deal? HELL NO!
Joe consumer will buy what looks like the cheeapest. Even if it ISN'T the best deal!
There is a REASON why the iMac uses mobility processors!
Plus, dumbass, i recall saying that LED was a 'maybe' for iMacs, IF it can be done and Apple can meet their price point.
I READ EVERY WORD OF THE POST!
The Idea is a crappy one!
Well, for starters the iPhone and iPod touch are DIFFERENT PRODUCTS. A Netbook would instantly be seen as a CHEAP laptop and be bought over getting a Macbook, regardless of how much better a macbook would be as a computer!
Don't be stupid, the CPU that is used in the MBA costs WAAAAAAAY more than $32! For starters, it is on a much smaller die than normally. That makes it a custom chip! Look it up!
Plus, on top of that, it is a MOBILITY component! Rule of thumb with mobility components, THEY COST MORE!
Oh, that's sooooooo funny, you tried to make an insult. That's cute.
You should concentrate on coming up with ideas that have some kind of value instead of trotting out your FAIL-tier insults.
Do you think maybe you can use a few more exclamation points? I'm not sure we completely get the strength of your convictions yet. You may also try to tone down your own insults, like stupid and dumbass. Jumping into a forum then calling people names and calling them "kid" without actually knowing their age is not a good way to build credibility.
What it facilitates also has nothing to do with COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, breaking the EULA maybe if anything.
One might look at it as there is nothing in the EULA to break. The question is where does one get the right to install and execute Apple's software anywhere, if that right is not provided in the EULA? Have you ever seen or heard of a license from Apple that allows Mac OS X to be installed onto a non-Apple computer? I dare say none exists. And if we believe that, then any software or any device whose sole purpose is to facilitate the copying of Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer only exists to facilitate copyright infringement.
By the way, it's a very special form of copying that we're interested in here: that which creates a bootable copy.
If EFi-X wanted to be legal and still distribute the dongle, they could create a pseudo-OS (not necessarily a real OS or a complete OS or an OS at all) that has the same hardware requirements for copying/installation as Mac OS X. Of course, that assumes there is nothing inherently illegal about the dongle.
Comments
They probably got a call from Apple's lawyers.
Yes. I'm sure they never considered the possibility of being contacted by Apple when they started this project.
There are hardware for sale that allows decrypting Cable, and Satellite signals and they're totally legal, pickup a Make magazine, or a Popular mechanics checkout the back pages.
My question to you would be, why doesn't Apple serve a cease and desist to Hackintosh and get it over with? Certainly if Psystar didn't have Hackintosh they would not be able to sell their system.
Hackintosh isn't a company, or entity that could be served a cease and desist order, its a term for non Apple computers running OS X. The OSX86 Project is an open source project / community that works on making non Apple systems run OS X. Psystar just tried to capitalize on this. EFI-X used very similar approaches like that of BOOT 132 (from OSX86) to installing OS X from a genuine Leopard disc onto non Apple systems.
errr don't we already have 'proprietary' firmware, product serial numbers and an activation sequence ?
if that's all you're worried about...
You had to type in a serial number when you updated OS X? Please pay attention before you scoff at legitimate concerns being raised.
It would be one thing if we were talking about a $700 hardware package, but we are talking about $2,000. That is not throw away money. I just don't see them selling very many...
Pure bullshit, spread by fanbois over the years. If both the iMac and the dual MP are truly Apple's flagships and the best in the business, they (you) shouldn't be afraid of a dull tower with a single quad-core cpu. If it is the case, that means that both products have been poorly designed/priced, they can't withstand a little competition.
Wow, you're really that stupid aren't you?
NO PRODUCT THAT APPLE MAKES SHOULD COMPETE WITH ANY OTHER ONES IN THEIR OWN DAMN LINEUP!
That's Dell's problem! They have ten DIFFERENT computers in their OWN lineup that are competing with each other! Everytime they sell ONE computer, that's NINE MORE that won't sell!
Remember the 90's? I bet you don't!
During that time, Apple had low-cost Performas and high-quality Powermacs. Which one sold? The performas! Where did Apple lose their money? on all the powermacs that DIDN'T SELL!
Were the performas as good as the powermacs? HELL NO!
Were Performas a good deal? HELL NO!
Joe consumer will buy what looks like the cheeapest. Even if it ISN'T the best deal!
Would you please take the time to read every detail: LED-BL on the iMac + the less expensive desktop 65W cpus. While it doesn't change much on the low end, the savings on the high-end are huge, thus making the cost of LED-BL irrelevant.
Uh-huh.
How you gonna keep those desktop CPUs cool? Ever think of that?
There is a REASON why the iMac uses mobility processors!
FYI, I read every crappy word of that post. It's garbage, plain and simple.
Plus, dumbass, i recall saying that LED was a 'maybe' for iMacs, IF it can be done and Apple can meet their price point.
Apple IS a business, you know...
Again, you should read every detail instead of just the first word of each sentence. A "netbook" based on the ARM chips and running the iPhone/iPod touch OS is no threat to the other Mac OS X notebooks. If it is, then Mac OS X has a problem.
I READ EVERY WORD OF THE POST!
The Idea is a crappy one!
'No Threat'? Did you just say that??
Well, for starters the iPhone and iPod touch are DIFFERENT PRODUCTS. A Netbook would instantly be seen as a CHEAP laptop and be bought over getting a Macbook, regardless of how much better a macbook would be as a computer!
I don't care about the competition. When Apple charges $200 for the 1.86GHz cpu that cost just $32 more than the 1.60GHz one in bulk, I think there is room for price cuts. Also SSD drives are getting cheaper every week (if not day). +$700 for a 128GB SDD with middle of the road performance is pushing it hard down the consumer throat. And I'm a fan of the MBA.
Seriously, look at what the competition is charging to upgrade their laptops to SSD. Some of them aren't even as big as Apple's. Sure, you can go and buy a drive for $225, but after you buy it and pay your technicians to load OSX onto them, Test and INSTALL them, you still want to charge $225?
BTW, I don't know what planet you live on, but here on EARTH the upgrade costs $500, NOT $700. Look it up, kid.
Don't be stupid, the CPU that is used in the MBA costs WAAAAAAAY more than $32! For starters, it is on a much smaller die than normally. That makes it a custom chip! Look it up!
Plus, on top of that, it is a MOBILITY component! Rule of thumb with mobility components, THEY COST MORE!
Pipe is finished. You can go back to your full-size barbie doll with Apple's socks.
Oh, that's sooooooo funny, you tried to make an insult. That's cute.
You should concentrate on coming up with ideas that have some kind of value instead of trotting out your FAIL-tier insults.
Dude you really know how to make some Apples taste like Oranges. People don't only want a headless Mac, they want a headless Mac with expandability. The Cube -> Mac Mini.... Power Mac G4 -> Mac Pro. Nothing has changed except the Mac mini is wildly popular.
You know custom boxes as well as Dell's, HP's and the like share many core components that are in current Apple computers.
While I agree the mini is popular, it is not exactly over powering iMac sales. Apple has a lower PM on the mini, have hampered the performance so they can upsale you to an iMac.
I believe more normal people want the iMac due to clutterless factor and the everything is right there in front of me look. Every PC person that comes into our office wants to look at our iMac's up close and personal once they realize the whole computer is inside. They have seen them on TV, but have believed they are just monitors. I think it would do Apple well to show a DVD sticking out of the side of the iMac.
I think the MIni is nice for servers and people that need cheap replacement boxes. But I don't think they have a large place with mainstream Joe Computer user like we would believe and hope (in some cases).
Just my $0.02.
Hackintosh isn't a company, or entity that could be served a cease and desist order, its a term for non Apple computers running OS X. The OSX86 Project is an open source project / community that works on making non Apple systems run OS X. Psystar just tried to capitalize on this. EFI-X used very similar approaches like that of BOOT 132 (from OSX86) to installing OS X from a genuine Leopard disc onto non Apple systems.
Yes you can send a cease and desist to anyone that is violating your rights, you don't have to be a company. The reason why these projects like iPhone jailbreaks and Hackintosh are legal is because they can be used for educational purposes, as long as the buyer does not use them illegally. The liability becomes the buyers and not the ones who make the code, it's one of those things that are legal to make and own, but are illegal to use. There are many products that fall into that category.
EFi-X USA are not breaking any laws whatsoever and Apple cannot sue them and win, Psystar on the other-hand are on the wrong and seem to have no leg to stand on.
Here it is from Wikipedia:
A cease and desist (also called C & D) is an order or request to halt an activity, or else face legal action. The recipient of the cease-and-desist may be an individual or an organization.
The term is used in two different contexts. A cease-and-desist order can be issued by a judge or government authority, and has a well-defined legal meaning. In contrast, a cease-and-desist letter can be sent by anyone, although typically they are drafted by a lawyer.
Give me a f*cking break.
Whiners complaining about the popularity of OS X only give credence to those who would dismiss Mac-heads as masochistic snobs, happy only when an abused minority.
Anyone arguing against the clone companies (especially the likes of the more innocent ones like EFi-X) while supporting OSx86 "hobbyists" is a hypocrite, plain and simple. You either honor the EULA or you don't. I can't fault EFi-X for making and selling hardware; I have no sympathy for the EULA breaker or copyright violator.
Whereas Psystar deserves to get crushed, there's nothing wrong with what EFi-X is doing (except for the poor English on their website).
That increasingly myriad companies are providing hardware capable of running OS X is a good thing. It's good for Apple. There is no conspiracy; OS X is simply an excellent OS. I bet Ol' Steve is eating it up. Sure, he's maniacal about the Mac experience, but he's not an idiot; he saw this coming. I can't believe he's exactly fuming now. Of course Apple cares about marketshare; they continuously prove this with every transgression against their cult base (Intel, glossy screens, no Firewire on new MacBook, copy-protection video hardware, even a two-button mouse...).
Moreover, these clone companies are good for Mac lovers. Claims that opening up the software would lead to support nightmares are proof: all the more reason to stick with Apple hardware. Factor in PA Semi and the incentive is even stronger. Forget what you've known as the Apple experience; in the future, PA Semi is the Apple experience. Apple will not worry about clones that do not violate their copyrights; even with all their cash, they cannot go after individual EULA violators or even so-called facilitators. Is it a crime to advertise a fact of reality--namely that certain hardware is capable of running certain software? Please. Everyone here, regardless of how hardcore-Mac they are, should know this is bogus.
Apple will not modify their hardware to stop clones; there will only be new work-arounds. Apple will not switch from Intel back to Power PC; they need BootCamp. Apple will use PA Semi to optimize Mac hardware and let clone competitors/consumers fend for themselves with inferior products. Furthermore, one day, Steve will leave; by no means am I rooting for this or otherwise intending to be provocative; it's just a fact. The Mac experience is not so vaunted as to fend against resulting pragmatism (and I think Steve himself realizes this and is comfortable with the future). Unlike the days when Apple was poorly positioned for licensing their software, they are now perfectly poised. It's just a matter of time. Linux is a player (hell, Mac die-hards posting in this thread have threatened to switch to Linux under one circumstance or another. (Personally, I love Linux and find myself loving OS X more for its uniformity and ease of use; I use both and can't envision completely abandoning Apple--until such time as Linux eventually acquires uniformity and ease of use; it's hard to argue with free.)
If Apple is going to try and force their mirror ultra glossy glass displays down my throat then I want an alternative.
Then go buy a PC.
Whatever makes some of you think you are "entitled" to anything is beyond me. If you don't like Apples computers, don't buy one, but that doesn't mean they have to give you their OS just because you think your entitled to it.
Apple did not put HDCP (DRM) on the DisplayPort. HOLLYWOOD required it since Apple is now selling HD content. HDCP has been required on any digital output (DVI, HDMI, now DisplayPort for computers) since as early as 2003. This is nothing new, this has nothing to do with computers. This is to protect HD content from being copied in the digital form, and HOLLYWOOD doesn't want you to do it.
Apple chose Intel so Hollywood could choose them.
Then go buy a PC.
Whatever makes some of you think you are "entitled" to anything is beyond me. If you don't like Apples computers, don't buy one, but that doesn't mean they have to give you their OS just because you think your entitled to it.
A posting is made regarding someone wanting an alternative to Apple's glossy displays. Your response is "Then go buy a PC." followed by a candid admission of your chronic bewilderment regarding some entitlement issues. Would not the polite suggestion to buy another brand of computer monitor (not the shiny Apple one) solve this person's problem in a relatively constructive fashion?!
But if that was all you said, I'd have kept my virtual mouth shut this morning. But instead, as a direct response to your admittedly confused state of mind, I'm gonna attempt to explain the lack of logic in your argumentative position that if taken to the extreme would imply that no Apple customer is entitled to anything (or to paraphrase. that every Apple customer is entitled to nothing).
Generally speaking, companies sell products to consumers. They make a profit on those sales (unless that product is an American-made car, of course). If these customers are happy customers and they remain happy customers, they are more likely to generate future sales with that repeat business making more profits for the company. And profits can make even the saddest company happy once again (except for stupid companies that waste a big chunk of those profits on stupid TV commercials that feature Seinfeld). These happy customers are also likely to recommend this company and their products to their warm market (family and friends and everyone else they know who's running a high fever).
But would you like to guess what happens if those customers do not remain happy customers? That's right. A fifth grader could have guessed the correct answer to that one. They won't buy from that company again...regardless of the elevated levels of emotionally-triggered enthusiasm that they previously possessed. And neither will they recommend that company and that company's products to their warm market or their cold market for that matter (including deceased acquaintances). This is not good for the company since less profits from a reduction in sales (from new customers and from repeat buyers) often necessitates pursuing an untested course of action meaning that when the foggy mirage of material success begins to fade, they gotta go ask Congress for a multi-billion-dollar bail-out to hopefully bring back those happier days. And it's not really good for the consumer either if he is unable to find similar products at similar prices from a competitor (who may or may not exist) without even slightly compromising the personal standards of high-quality and hyper-cool innovation he felt justifiably ENTITLED TO in the first place.
So let me break it down for you in another way. I prefer to use the word EXPECTATIONS instead of entitlement as it pertains to what I expect from a company and their products. First of all, my expectations as a customer/consumer are dynamic and they evolve over time. They may and should differ from other customers (since as far as I can cognitively surmise, every customer is a unique individual with a unique personality, etc...). I expect the product to conform to the tech specs and do basically what the advertising materials (and my independent research) indicates it should do (as in function properly) for at least the duration of the warranty period as well as for the extended period of time that I will pay extra for. I expect the person on the other end of a customer service phonecall to at least speak English fluently enough so that I do not have to ask them if they just gave me their Mom's secret recipe for Lamb Jalpharezi when all I asked for was their first name. I expect manuals and tutorials and teaching tools galore and it's a really big plus if I can just download them from the company's online store. I expect to pay for periodic upgrades as long as they improve the product and/or "the user experience" in some tangible way. I expect the company to come out with better products down the road based on the inevitable introduction of technological discoveries and engineering advancements in their industry but this expectation is also accompanied by my genuine desire that they NOT abandon me relatively quickly (as in a few years) by introducing dramatic improvements that I can't add as upgrades to my current product (thus "forcing" me to spend more money than I'd prefer spending having to buy a brand new model of their product with every other tick or every other tock of a Semi-Intelligent wind-up clock).
And last but not least, I expect that if I don't wanna buy their glass-glossy display for whatever reason, they don't tell me (in essence) TO GO COPULATE MYSELF by banishing me to The Desolate Land of The Stained Windows...where shiny reflections from the glass-screen monitor might even be a true blessing in disguise...especially if it prevents me from seeing either the ghostly illumination from The Blue-Screen-of-Death or thwarts my best efforts to use the most seriously flawed OS-on-crutches this side of the Milky Way.
Wow, you're really that stupid aren't you?
NO PRODUCT THAT APPLE MAKES SHOULD COMPETE WITH ANY OTHER ONES IN THEIR OWN DAMN LINEUP!
That's Dell's problem! They have ten DIFFERENT computers in their OWN lineup that are competing with each other! Everytime they sell ONE computer, that's NINE MORE that won't sell!
Sorry, but you're wrong about that. Most parts can be used on any model so they've only lost a sale on particular parts, not a whole computer.
If anything, what you're pointing out is a flaw in Apple's current methodology. If Apple had a headless Mac in the iMac tier, they couldn't use most of the more expensive parts in the headless since I'd assume that it wouldn't be using mobile computer components.
During that time, Apple had low-cost Performas and high-quality Powermacs. Which one sold? The performas! Where did Apple lose their money? on all the powermacs that DIDN'T SELL!
Again, you're pointing out a problem on Apple's end. If Apple truly lost a lot of money on the PowerMacs, that's a problem with their inventory control for creating a purchase forecast that was unrealistic and thus ordering parts that were unnecessary. If the Performa was selling like hotcakes, it shouldn't have been an issue to increase inventory for them and let PowerMacs slowly dwindle down.
makes sense to me...
If anything, what you're pointing out is a flaw in Apple's current methodology. If Apple had a headless Mac in the iMac tier, they couldn't use most of the more expensive parts in the headless since I'd assume that it wouldn't be using mobile computer components..
Indeed, and if Apple sold a headless desktop at the same price-points as the iMac, using desktop parts with no built-in display, their margins on that product would be huge. It would definitely eat iMac sales, and Mac Pro sales, as well. But doesn't the fact that it would do that indicate just how flawed Apple's lineup is?
Indeed, and if Apple sold a headless desktop at the same price-points as the iMac, using desktop parts with no built-in display, their margins on that product would be huge. It would definitely eat iMac sales, and Mac Pro sales, as well. But doesn't the fact that it would do that indicate just how flawed Apple's lineup is?
the lack of a mate screen iMac is bad for iMac sales. Also is selling 1000+ desktop macs better then 500+ mac pros?
the lack of a mate screen iMac is bad for iMac sales. Also is selling 1000+ desktop macs better then 500+ mac pros?
What is Apple's margin on a Mac Pro at $2500? What would it be on a desktop Mac at $1200? We can't speak definitively on those numbers, but I think it absolutely would be better. More computer sales mean more OS and software sales, too.
Wow, you're really that stupid aren't you?
NO PRODUCT THAT APPLE MAKES SHOULD COMPETE WITH ANY OTHER ONES IN THEIR OWN DAMN LINEUP!
That's Dell's problem! They have ten DIFFERENT computers in their OWN lineup that are competing with each other! Everytime they sell ONE computer, that's NINE MORE that won't sell!
Remember the 90's? I bet you don't!
During that time, Apple had low-cost Performas and high-quality Powermacs. Which one sold? The performas! Where did Apple lose their money? on all the powermacs that DIDN'T SELL!
Were the performas as good as the powermacs? HELL NO!
Were Performas a good deal? HELL NO!
Joe consumer will buy what looks like the cheeapest. Even if it ISN'T the best deal!
There is a REASON why the iMac uses mobility processors!
Plus, dumbass, i recall saying that LED was a 'maybe' for iMacs, IF it can be done and Apple can meet their price point.
I READ EVERY WORD OF THE POST!
The Idea is a crappy one!
Well, for starters the iPhone and iPod touch are DIFFERENT PRODUCTS. A Netbook would instantly be seen as a CHEAP laptop and be bought over getting a Macbook, regardless of how much better a macbook would be as a computer!
Don't be stupid, the CPU that is used in the MBA costs WAAAAAAAY more than $32! For starters, it is on a much smaller die than normally. That makes it a custom chip! Look it up!
Plus, on top of that, it is a MOBILITY component! Rule of thumb with mobility components, THEY COST MORE!
Oh, that's sooooooo funny, you tried to make an insult. That's cute.
You should concentrate on coming up with ideas that have some kind of value instead of trotting out your FAIL-tier insults.
Do you think maybe you can use a few more exclamation points? I'm not sure we completely get the strength of your convictions yet. You may also try to tone down your own insults, like stupid and dumbass. Jumping into a forum then calling people names and calling them "kid" without actually knowing their age is not a good way to build credibility.
What it facilitates also has nothing to do with COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, breaking the EULA maybe if anything.
One might look at it as there is nothing in the EULA to break. The question is where does one get the right to install and execute Apple's software anywhere, if that right is not provided in the EULA? Have you ever seen or heard of a license from Apple that allows Mac OS X to be installed onto a non-Apple computer? I dare say none exists. And if we believe that, then any software or any device whose sole purpose is to facilitate the copying of Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer only exists to facilitate copyright infringement.
By the way, it's a very special form of copying that we're interested in here: that which creates a bootable copy.
If EFi-X wanted to be legal and still distribute the dongle, they could create a pseudo-OS (not necessarily a real OS or a complete OS or an OS at all) that has the same hardware requirements for copying/installation as Mac OS X. Of course, that assumes there is nothing inherently illegal about the dongle.