Yes and that's about the usual amount of market research that all you xMac guys do.
it's actually worse that that. the people screaming for the xMac are often the same that state 'i can build my own for x dollars'. well, yes you can for now! but if people like psystar and others keep taking the work of the hackintosh builders and try to make a profit from it, then apple will have no choice but to go after the hackintosh community. so far they haven't.
i for one appreciate the lack of serial numbers and other license verification procedures every time i do an osx installation. i dread the day i have to be on hold to some call centre in bangalore to get an umpteen digit long code to have apple bless my system like the nonsense the poor windows guys have to deal with every now and then.
i have no interest in building or buying a mac clone, and even when they were available i gladly paid more money for the real thing. my mac is a tool to help me do my job and it does it well. i wouldn't want to have obstacles in my way to get a hammer working either, when i want to put a nail in the wall.
There are millions upon millions of people who depend on the integrity of IP law in order to make a living. The integrity EULAs as well, happen to be a part of this.
Absolutely, positively, no one selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a hole blown in the principal of the EULA, by way of legal precedent or otherwise.
anybody that is working in a field where the end product can be easily copied (writers, photographers, film makers for example) would understand that your argument is complete nonsense.
according to your analogy panasonic should have the right to release a sony picture on panasonic dvd after having bought a copy of it on betamax.
i'm also curious if you think apple should have the right to interfere with businesses NOT owned by americans. if you do, you might consider pulling your head out of the american media bubble for a second and discover that 'globalization' does not mean what you think it means...
Actually, I am a student. But sure, if I have for example paid $100 to a photographer for a print of "his" photo, which I already find kind of asinine, I would not concern myself with his opinions on who I should invite to my party, who might by chance view "his" phtograph on my wall. I have some respect for copyright, so far as it goes. But usage restrictions? Honestly? They strike me as mere naggy opinion. At worst, they are an overextention of authorities that aren't even there, trying to swindle our rights away to get additional follow-on profits. An EULA on your newspaper could theoreically require you to become their slave. It's an amusing idea but in the end it has no merit. I think Apple needs to clarify things, because right now their assertions are too broad.
Actually, I am a student. But sure, if I have for example paid $100 to a photographer for a print of "his" photo, which I already find kind of asinine, I would not concern myself with his opinions on who I should invite to my party, who might by chance view "his" phtograph on my wall. I have some respect for copyright, so far as it goes. But usage restrictions? Honestly? They strike me as mere naggy opinion. At worst, they are an overextention of authorities that aren't even there, trying to swindle our rights away to get additional follow-on profits. An EULA on your newspaper could theoreically require you to become their slave. It's an amusing idea but in the end it has no merit. I think Apple needs to clarify things, because right now their assertions are too broad.
Apple could easily just stop selling their OS as a boxed copy and only offer it as a downloadable upgrade.
Actually, I am a student. But sure, if I have for example paid $100 to a photographer for a print of "his" photo, which I already find kind of asinine, I would not concern myself with his opinions on who I should invite to my party, who might by chance view "his" phtograph on my wall. I have some respect for copyright, so far as it goes. But usage restrictions? Honestly? They strike me as mere naggy opinion. At worst, they are an overextention of authorities that aren't even there, trying to swindle our rights away to get additional follow-on profits. An EULA on your newspaper could theoreically require you to become their slave. It's an amusing idea but in the end it has no merit. I think Apple needs to clarify things, because right now their assertions are too broad.
if you think that paying a photographer money even for one of his prints, you clearly have no respect for paying a fair price for his skills, his time, his equipment costs, etc. do you think that having paid for his print you should be able to publish it in a book that you get paid for?
i suppose you would have zero issues if we all copy your work in the future then? lets see some of it! maybe we can make a buck from it. you won't mind if you don't get paid for your efforts, do you?
I'm a recently returned user to the Mac-fold. I built myself a "hackintosh" on some Shuttle hardware (small form factor) and LOVED it. Plenty of power, expandability, etc for my needs but in a nice small box. It was working beautifully until 10.5.7 killed it and rather than try to fix it I went out and bought a refurb 2008 Mac Pro.
Let me be clear about one thing: I did NOT want a Mac Pro sized box. I WANTED a headless but powerful machine, which is not offered by Apple except in the Mac Pro. If Apple had offered a box that's half the size of a Mac Pro (Shuttle sized) I'd have happily bought one brand new and never attempted the hackintosh project. Why did I want a small, powerful, headless machine? Because I have two 24" monitors from a 3rd party that I wanted to continue to use and I didn't want to have this monstrous Mac Pro on my desk. But if I wanted the Apple experience they forced me to buy something that was more than I wanted. People resent that sort of thing and many do not do what I did: suck it up and suffer the size and cost of the big box.
There is definitely a market out there for a mid-sized headless Mac - I know because I was one of them.
So because you could not get your own way, you cheated, in fact you broke the law.
Your story sounds lame anyway . Too small too big too fast too many buttons . Or did you save a ton of money by stealing software. and hackintosh is a very low life word . Right up there with hacker .
I wonder why did the MINI not work for you ? It can run two large screens ? No ?
Isn't this a bit over the top. After all were talking about computers there not exactly complex. There all made from standard parts and it's not like apple even put there machines together.
And how is it going to lead them to have to support products they didn't sell? If anyone took one of these to apple to fix they just wouldn't do anything, same as when you take an apple product that's out of warrenty. If it's an os problem then they were paid and it's still there fault.
I can't really see a problem here it gives consumers more choice and freedom. After all if you sell some software in a box people should be allowed to use it how they want. A pencil company couldn't specify people only use there pencils with there paper because they see other paper as inferior.
You fundamentally misunderstand the situation at hand. A pencil and paper do not work together in the same manner as a computer and its operating system. The paper is not an instruction atmosphere for the pencil. The paper is simply something the pencil can write things on (it would be much more comparable to a file format).
Now, to answer your other query, were Apple to in any way, shape, or form, allow OS X on other hardware, it would be bound, by US and international law, to support the software on those platforms whether it desired to or not.
Here's what you don't get: Apple's existence gives consumers more choice and freedom. They are not bound to purchase computers with Microsoft Windows or any of the various Linux distros, but can also purchase an Apple if they so choose. Apple only produces OS X in order to entice people to buy its hardware instead of the offerings of vendors such as Dell, HP, & the like. Like those vendors, Apple is a registered hardware company. Microsoft is a registered software company and their business models strongly reflect this fact.
This is why OS X upgrades cost $129 and the equivalent Windows Vista product would be nearly twice that (Ultimate). This is also why Apple makes very little money on the App Store while making millions from sales of the iPhone. Apple isn't trying to limit customer choice, their simply is not such thing as an OS X market the way there is for Windows because OS X was created singularly to sell Apple hardware. Apple isn't trying to limit consumer choice, it's trying to create a mutual relationship wherein you as the customer receive a superior computing experience and service and it receives your money and, hopefully, your loyalty in future purchases.
One thing though, about what you said: the owner of an IP has every right to dictate its usage. This is why the Beatles do not yet allow their songs to be sold through the iTunes music store. Can they technically specify how you use that in your home? Not exactly, but their are some instances in which they can (though they are quite rare). However, the moment you resell it IP in an unauthorized manner, they have every right to sue you and unless the judge is daft, you will lose.
That is the free market: you create a product, you assign your terms, and people are then free to buy or deny purchase of those items and watch your company flourish or flounder as a result. I hate to sound so quaint, but the manner in which you and the European Union define competition is basically communist (and we all know how that worked out).
Actually, I am a student. But sure, if I have for example paid $100 to a photographer for a print of "his" photo, which I already find kind of asinine, I would not concern myself with his opinions on who I should invite to my party, who might by chance view "his" phtograph on my wall. I have some respect for copyright, so far as it goes. But usage restrictions? Honestly? They strike me as mere naggy opinion. At worst, they are an overextention of authorities that aren't even there, trying to swindle our rights away to get additional follow-on profits. An EULA on your newspaper could theoreically require you to become their slave. It's an amusing idea but in the end it has no merit. I think Apple needs to clarify things, because right now their assertions are too broad.
If the newspaper were to force such restrictions on its customer base, then they would all have the option to stop purchasing the paper and it would fail as a result.
And the painter did not trademark and apply for any other protections on his photo, he sold it to you outright. This means the photo is effectively your IP now and if you wanted to copyright and dictate its usage, you would have the right to do so. Were you an artist, were someone to open an exhibit of all of your life's works covered in human fecal matter and call it art, you, as the IP holder, could and likely would ask that the exhibit be shut down since it was displaying your work in a manner you found offensive.
No one is trying to keep tabs on you for profit, they're trying to keep you from abusing and profiting from their work. If you can't understand that simple concept, you really should just join the anarchist movement because that's basically where your ideas lead.
I didn?t want to join this thread as I feel I?ve paid my dues defending free market rights and the socialistish gimme-gimmes here never seem to understand anyway, but I had to comment just to say that I spit hot coffee out my nose (which is painful) and onto my Saturday night, fancy club clothes. Now I have to change my attire, but it was worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by :-|
Apple could easily just stop selling their OS as a boxed copy and only offer it as a downloadable upgrade.
They could, but we are talking about 3GB for the full install of Snow Leopard at this point. They could require you to have a DVD or a flash drive to put it on for the install, or they could repartition the drive like you can do with Disk Utility or Boot Camp, before it copies the files to that drive before it completes the OS upgrade. But that causes some other problems due to the image size and the inability to partition a drive if certain files are unmovable or if you don?t have enough space. It?s also time consuming and excludes people with slow connections and non-unlimited accounts.
Actually, I am a student. But sure, if I have for example paid $100 to a photographer for a print of "his" photo, which I already find kind of asinine, I would not concern myself with his opinions on who I should invite to my party, who might by chance view "his" phtograph on my wall. I have some respect for copyright, so far as it goes. But usage restrictions? Honestly? They strike me as mere naggy opinion. At worst, they are an overextention of authorities that aren't even there, trying to swindle our rights away to get additional follow-on profits. An EULA on your newspaper could theoreically require you to become their slave. It's an amusing idea but in the end it has no merit. I think Apple needs to clarify things, because right now their assertions are too broad.
Your photographer example is a good one.
If you pay a professional photographer for a portrait, you can not legally make copies - unless you specifically purchase the right to do so. Most portraits have the photographer's name in the corner and if you take it somewhere to make a copy, they will politely decline.
You do NOT automatically get the copyright to do whatever you want with a photograph any more than you automatically get the right to do whatever you want with your Mac OS X license.
Apple HAS clarified things. Their EULA is quite clear. Why do they need to clarify anything? You can install OS X onto any Apple-branded computer. What part of that don't you understand?
Rights? Do you believe as an American you have a right to OSX on the hardware of your choice, and that said right is protected by law? Or further that enforcement of a license is executed "just for emotional reasons"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwik
I don't think Apple has the right to interfere with other businesses owned by Americans, just for emotional reasons. Apple is the aggressor here. It is they who are depriving other people of their rights, IMO. Anyway, the courts will decide. Would I feel comfortable running a paid copy of Mac OS X as I please, sure I would feel totally comfortable doing that. It's like playing a Sony Pictures DVD on a Panasonic DVD player. If Sony doesn't like it, they always have an open invitation to suck it, forever.
Oh, and eventually charge less and/or offer a mid range, easily user upgradable tower so that people get more value for their money (or at least feel that they do). That might just kill the whole cloning market without the need for a chip.
I have to agree with this. Here's a comparison between German cloner PearC and Apple's Belgian store to show what I mean.
A top of the range iMac costs €2099 and you get:
• Intel Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz
• 4 GB DDR2 RAM
• 1TB HD
• 8x Superdrive
• NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 512 MB
• 802.11n WiFi and Bluetooth
• USB2, Firewire 800
• 24" monitor
A top of the range PearC costs €2119 (that's just €20 more) and you get:
• Intel Core i7 2.66GHz (quad core)
• 12GB DDR3 RAM
• 300GB 10000rpm HD + a 2nd 1.5TB 7200rpm HD
• 22x DVD-RW drive
• MSI GeForce N250GTS 1024MB
• 802.11n WiFi and Bluetooth
• 2x Firewire 400
• 2x Firewire 800
• Integrated card reader
Ok, you don't get a monitor but I bought a 26" Fujitsu Siemens monitor for less than €300 six months ago. It's probably cheaper now.
That's a huge difference in performance for roughly the same money. I can see why the cloners are doing what they do (even though it's illegal). There's definitely a market for it.
Actually, I am a student. But sure, if I have for example paid $100 to a photographer for a print of "his" photo, which I already find kind of asinine, I would not concern myself with his opinions on who I should invite to my party, who might by chance view "his" phtograph on my wall. I have some respect for copyright, so far as it goes. But usage restrictions? Honestly? They strike me as mere naggy opinion. At worst, they are an overextention of authorities that aren't even there, trying to swindle our rights away to get additional follow-on profits. An EULA on your newspaper could theoreically require you to become their slave. It's an amusing idea but in the end it has no merit. I think Apple needs to clarify things, because right now their assertions are too broad.
Apple isn't suing individual users. Pystar and these companies are PROFITING off copyrighted material. This is what you fail to grasp.
EFI has to "check in" occasionally with Apple servers to verify OS X before it loads. So begins another DRM/cracker war, making it difficult to use OS X for commercial hackintoshes. (or slow them up by having to provide so many cracked updates)
Can you verify this? I googled a bit and can't find anything suggesting this is true. I'd like a citation.
I have to agree with this. Here's a comparison between German cloner PearC and Apple's Belgian store to show what I mean.
A top of the range iMac costs ?2099 and you get:
? Intel Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz
? 4 GB DDR2 RAM
? 1TB HD
? 8x Superdrive
? NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 512 MB
? 802.11n WiFi and Bluetooth
? USB2, Firewire 800
? 24" monitor
A top of the range PearC costs ?2119 (that's just ?20 more) and you get:
? Intel Core i7 2.66GHz (quad core)
? 12GB DDR3 RAM
? 300GB 10000rpm HD + a 2nd 1.5TB 7200rpm HD
? 22x DVD-RW drive
? MSI GeForce N250GTS 1024MB
? 802.11n WiFi and Bluetooth
? 2x Firewire 400
? 2x Firewire 800
? Integrated card reader
Ok, you don't get a monitor but I bought a 26" Fujitsu Siemens monitor for less than ?300 six months ago. It's probably cheaper now.
That's a huge difference in performance for roughly the same money. I can see why the cloners are doing what they do (even though it's illegal). There's definitely a market for it.
Comments
Yes and that's about the usual amount of market research that all you xMac guys do.
it's actually worse that that. the people screaming for the xMac are often the same that state 'i can build my own for x dollars'. well, yes you can for now! but if people like psystar and others keep taking the work of the hackintosh builders and try to make a profit from it, then apple will have no choice but to go after the hackintosh community. so far they haven't.
i for one appreciate the lack of serial numbers and other license verification procedures every time i do an osx installation. i dread the day i have to be on hold to some call centre in bangalore to get an umpteen digit long code to have apple bless my system like the nonsense the poor windows guys have to deal with every now and then.
i have no interest in building or buying a mac clone, and even when they were available i gladly paid more money for the real thing. my mac is a tool to help me do my job and it does it well. i wouldn't want to have obstacles in my way to get a hammer working either, when i want to put a nail in the wall.
Absolutely, positively, no one selling computers or software in the current market is interested in seeing a hole blown in the principal of the EULA, by way of legal precedent or otherwise.
i'm curious what you do for a living.
anybody that is working in a field where the end product can be easily copied (writers, photographers, film makers for example) would understand that your argument is complete nonsense.
according to your analogy panasonic should have the right to release a sony picture on panasonic dvd after having bought a copy of it on betamax.
i'm also curious if you think apple should have the right to interfere with businesses NOT owned by americans. if you do, you might consider pulling your head out of the american media bubble for a second and discover that 'globalization' does not mean what you think it means...
Actually, I am a student. But sure, if I have for example paid $100 to a photographer for a print of "his" photo, which I already find kind of asinine, I would not concern myself with his opinions on who I should invite to my party, who might by chance view "his" phtograph on my wall. I have some respect for copyright, so far as it goes. But usage restrictions? Honestly? They strike me as mere naggy opinion. At worst, they are an overextention of authorities that aren't even there, trying to swindle our rights away to get additional follow-on profits. An EULA on your newspaper could theoreically require you to become their slave. It's an amusing idea but in the end it has no merit. I think Apple needs to clarify things, because right now their assertions are too broad.
Actually, I am a student. But sure, if I have for example paid $100 to a photographer for a print of "his" photo, which I already find kind of asinine, I would not concern myself with his opinions on who I should invite to my party, who might by chance view "his" phtograph on my wall. I have some respect for copyright, so far as it goes. But usage restrictions? Honestly? They strike me as mere naggy opinion. At worst, they are an overextention of authorities that aren't even there, trying to swindle our rights away to get additional follow-on profits. An EULA on your newspaper could theoreically require you to become their slave. It's an amusing idea but in the end it has no merit. I think Apple needs to clarify things, because right now their assertions are too broad.
Apple could easily just stop selling their OS as a boxed copy and only offer it as a downloadable upgrade.
Actually, I am a student. But sure, if I have for example paid $100 to a photographer for a print of "his" photo, which I already find kind of asinine, I would not concern myself with his opinions on who I should invite to my party, who might by chance view "his" phtograph on my wall. I have some respect for copyright, so far as it goes. But usage restrictions? Honestly? They strike me as mere naggy opinion. At worst, they are an overextention of authorities that aren't even there, trying to swindle our rights away to get additional follow-on profits. An EULA on your newspaper could theoreically require you to become their slave. It's an amusing idea but in the end it has no merit. I think Apple needs to clarify things, because right now their assertions are too broad.
if you think that paying a photographer money even for one of his prints, you clearly have no respect for paying a fair price for his skills, his time, his equipment costs, etc. do you think that having paid for his print you should be able to publish it in a book that you get paid for?
i suppose you would have zero issues if we all copy your work in the future then? lets see some of it! maybe we can make a buck from it. you won't mind if you don't get paid for your efforts, do you?
what do you study?
I'm a recently returned user to the Mac-fold. I built myself a "hackintosh" on some Shuttle hardware (small form factor) and LOVED it. Plenty of power, expandability, etc for my needs but in a nice small box. It was working beautifully until 10.5.7 killed it and rather than try to fix it I went out and bought a refurb 2008 Mac Pro.
Let me be clear about one thing: I did NOT want a Mac Pro sized box. I WANTED a headless but powerful machine, which is not offered by Apple except in the Mac Pro. If Apple had offered a box that's half the size of a Mac Pro (Shuttle sized) I'd have happily bought one brand new and never attempted the hackintosh project. Why did I want a small, powerful, headless machine? Because I have two 24" monitors from a 3rd party that I wanted to continue to use and I didn't want to have this monstrous Mac Pro on my desk. But if I wanted the Apple experience they forced me to buy something that was more than I wanted. People resent that sort of thing and many do not do what I did: suck it up and suffer the size and cost of the big box.
There is definitely a market out there for a mid-sized headless Mac - I know because I was one of them.
So because you could not get your own way, you cheated, in fact you broke the law.
Your story sounds lame anyway . Too small too big too fast too many buttons . Or did you save a ton of money by stealing software. and hackintosh is a very low life word . Right up there with hacker .
I wonder why did the MINI not work for you ? It can run two large screens ? No ?
Anyway good luck
Good bye
Isn't this a bit over the top. After all were talking about computers there not exactly complex. There all made from standard parts and it's not like apple even put there machines together.
And how is it going to lead them to have to support products they didn't sell? If anyone took one of these to apple to fix they just wouldn't do anything, same as when you take an apple product that's out of warrenty. If it's an os problem then they were paid and it's still there fault.
I can't really see a problem here it gives consumers more choice and freedom. After all if you sell some software in a box people should be allowed to use it how they want. A pencil company couldn't specify people only use there pencils with there paper because they see other paper as inferior.
You fundamentally misunderstand the situation at hand. A pencil and paper do not work together in the same manner as a computer and its operating system. The paper is not an instruction atmosphere for the pencil. The paper is simply something the pencil can write things on (it would be much more comparable to a file format).
Now, to answer your other query, were Apple to in any way, shape, or form, allow OS X on other hardware, it would be bound, by US and international law, to support the software on those platforms whether it desired to or not.
Here's what you don't get: Apple's existence gives consumers more choice and freedom. They are not bound to purchase computers with Microsoft Windows or any of the various Linux distros, but can also purchase an Apple if they so choose. Apple only produces OS X in order to entice people to buy its hardware instead of the offerings of vendors such as Dell, HP, & the like. Like those vendors, Apple is a registered hardware company. Microsoft is a registered software company and their business models strongly reflect this fact.
This is why OS X upgrades cost $129 and the equivalent Windows Vista product would be nearly twice that (Ultimate). This is also why Apple makes very little money on the App Store while making millions from sales of the iPhone. Apple isn't trying to limit customer choice, their simply is not such thing as an OS X market the way there is for Windows because OS X was created singularly to sell Apple hardware. Apple isn't trying to limit consumer choice, it's trying to create a mutual relationship wherein you as the customer receive a superior computing experience and service and it receives your money and, hopefully, your loyalty in future purchases.
One thing though, about what you said: the owner of an IP has every right to dictate its usage. This is why the Beatles do not yet allow their songs to be sold through the iTunes music store. Can they technically specify how you use that in your home? Not exactly, but their are some instances in which they can (though they are quite rare). However, the moment you resell it IP in an unauthorized manner, they have every right to sue you and unless the judge is daft, you will lose.
That is the free market: you create a product, you assign your terms, and people are then free to buy or deny purchase of those items and watch your company flourish or flounder as a result. I hate to sound so quaint, but the manner in which you and the European Union define competition is basically communist (and we all know how that worked out).
Actually, I am a student. But sure, if I have for example paid $100 to a photographer for a print of "his" photo, which I already find kind of asinine, I would not concern myself with his opinions on who I should invite to my party, who might by chance view "his" phtograph on my wall. I have some respect for copyright, so far as it goes. But usage restrictions? Honestly? They strike me as mere naggy opinion. At worst, they are an overextention of authorities that aren't even there, trying to swindle our rights away to get additional follow-on profits. An EULA on your newspaper could theoreically require you to become their slave. It's an amusing idea but in the end it has no merit. I think Apple needs to clarify things, because right now their assertions are too broad.
If the newspaper were to force such restrictions on its customer base, then they would all have the option to stop purchasing the paper and it would fail as a result.
And the painter did not trademark and apply for any other protections on his photo, he sold it to you outright. This means the photo is effectively your IP now and if you wanted to copyright and dictate its usage, you would have the right to do so. Were you an artist, were someone to open an exhibit of all of your life's works covered in human fecal matter and call it art, you, as the IP holder, could and likely would ask that the exhibit be shut down since it was displaying your work in a manner you found offensive.
No one is trying to keep tabs on you for profit, they're trying to keep you from abusing and profiting from their work. If you can't understand that simple concept, you really should just join the anarchist movement because that's basically where your ideas lead.
i want a pony!
Apple could easily just stop selling their OS as a boxed copy and only offer it as a downloadable upgrade.
They could, but we are talking about 3GB for the full install of Snow Leopard at this point. They could require you to have a DVD or a flash drive to put it on for the install, or they could repartition the drive like you can do with Disk Utility or Boot Camp, before it copies the files to that drive before it completes the OS upgrade. But that causes some other problems due to the image size and the inability to partition a drive if certain files are unmovable or if you don?t have enough space. It?s also time consuming and excludes people with slow connections and non-unlimited accounts.
Actually, I am a student. But sure, if I have for example paid $100 to a photographer for a print of "his" photo, which I already find kind of asinine, I would not concern myself with his opinions on who I should invite to my party, who might by chance view "his" phtograph on my wall. I have some respect for copyright, so far as it goes. But usage restrictions? Honestly? They strike me as mere naggy opinion. At worst, they are an overextention of authorities that aren't even there, trying to swindle our rights away to get additional follow-on profits. An EULA on your newspaper could theoreically require you to become their slave. It's an amusing idea but in the end it has no merit. I think Apple needs to clarify things, because right now their assertions are too broad.
Your photographer example is a good one.
If you pay a professional photographer for a portrait, you can not legally make copies - unless you specifically purchase the right to do so. Most portraits have the photographer's name in the corner and if you take it somewhere to make a copy, they will politely decline.
You do NOT automatically get the copyright to do whatever you want with a photograph any more than you automatically get the right to do whatever you want with your Mac OS X license.
Apple HAS clarified things. Their EULA is quite clear. Why do they need to clarify anything? You can install OS X onto any Apple-branded computer. What part of that don't you understand?
I don't think Apple has the right to interfere with other businesses owned by Americans, just for emotional reasons. Apple is the aggressor here. It is they who are depriving other people of their rights, IMO. Anyway, the courts will decide. Would I feel comfortable running a paid copy of Mac OS X as I please, sure I would feel totally comfortable doing that. It's like playing a Sony Pictures DVD on a Panasonic DVD player. If Sony doesn't like it, they always have an open invitation to suck it, forever.
Oh, and eventually charge less and/or offer a mid range, easily user upgradable tower so that people get more value for their money (or at least feel that they do). That might just kill the whole cloning market without the need for a chip.
I have to agree with this. Here's a comparison between German cloner PearC and Apple's Belgian store to show what I mean.
A top of the range iMac costs €2099 and you get:
• Intel Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz
• 4 GB DDR2 RAM
• 1TB HD
• 8x Superdrive
• NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 512 MB
• 802.11n WiFi and Bluetooth
• USB2, Firewire 800
• 24" monitor
A top of the range PearC costs €2119 (that's just €20 more) and you get:
• Intel Core i7 2.66GHz (quad core)
• 12GB DDR3 RAM
• 300GB 10000rpm HD + a 2nd 1.5TB 7200rpm HD
• 22x DVD-RW drive
• MSI GeForce N250GTS 1024MB
• 802.11n WiFi and Bluetooth
• 2x Firewire 400
• 2x Firewire 800
• Integrated card reader
Ok, you don't get a monitor but I bought a 26" Fujitsu Siemens monitor for less than €300 six months ago. It's probably cheaper now.
That's a huge difference in performance for roughly the same money. I can see why the cloners are doing what they do (even though it's illegal). There's definitely a market for it.
These idiots never learn. Why not just sale hardware and then let customers install OS X, Vista, XP or what ever the heck they wanna do?
...because most of the idiots who buy clones aren't intelligent enough to install it themselves.
...because most of the idiots who buy clones aren't intelligent enough to install it themselves.
It takes great intelligence?
A great answer - make your mum proud?
I am a Mac user but I have long fallen out of love with Apple.
Troll
Actually, I am a student. But sure, if I have for example paid $100 to a photographer for a print of "his" photo, which I already find kind of asinine, I would not concern myself with his opinions on who I should invite to my party, who might by chance view "his" phtograph on my wall. I have some respect for copyright, so far as it goes. But usage restrictions? Honestly? They strike me as mere naggy opinion. At worst, they are an overextention of authorities that aren't even there, trying to swindle our rights away to get additional follow-on profits. An EULA on your newspaper could theoreically require you to become their slave. It's an amusing idea but in the end it has no merit. I think Apple needs to clarify things, because right now their assertions are too broad.
Apple isn't suing individual users. Pystar and these companies are PROFITING off copyrighted material. This is what you fail to grasp.
EFI has to "check in" occasionally with Apple servers to verify OS X before it loads. So begins another DRM/cracker war, making it difficult to use OS X for commercial hackintoshes. (or slow them up by having to provide so many cracked updates)
Can you verify this? I googled a bit and can't find anything suggesting this is true. I'd like a citation.
I have to agree with this. Here's a comparison between German cloner PearC and Apple's Belgian store to show what I mean.
A top of the range iMac costs ?2099 and you get:
? Intel Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz
? 4 GB DDR2 RAM
? 1TB HD
? 8x Superdrive
? NVIDIA GeForce GT 130 512 MB
? 802.11n WiFi and Bluetooth
? USB2, Firewire 800
? 24" monitor
A top of the range PearC costs ?2119 (that's just ?20 more) and you get:
? Intel Core i7 2.66GHz (quad core)
? 12GB DDR3 RAM
? 300GB 10000rpm HD + a 2nd 1.5TB 7200rpm HD
? 22x DVD-RW drive
? MSI GeForce N250GTS 1024MB
? 802.11n WiFi and Bluetooth
? 2x Firewire 400
? 2x Firewire 800
? Integrated card reader
Ok, you don't get a monitor but I bought a 26" Fujitsu Siemens monitor for less than ?300 six months ago. It's probably cheaper now.
That's a huge difference in performance for roughly the same money. I can see why the cloners are doing what they do (even though it's illegal). There's definitely a market for it.
How is the OS FOR Pear working out for you ?
Apple isn't suing individual users. Pystar and these companies are PROFITING off copyrighted material. This is what you fail to grasp.
Seems he's against copyrighting and the principle of IP in general.