But I hope that I am totally wrong, and none get the chance to play with OS X unless they pony up for some fresh Apple industrial design hardware also?!
THAT is fucking hillarious!!! Apple laptops are really nice, but there is NO SECOND MOUSE BUTTON!!! screw the stupid finger shinanagins, just add a damn button! I dont buy this "it keeps the UI devs honest" crap any more, I don't know about you, but I right click in everything, from FF, to itunes to mail.app to the dock...I mean everything!
Why not let ppl load it on their thinkpads (or Dells or whatever) and keep making hardware that is sexy and "l33t" and sell it to the same 2-4% that they have now, what is wrong with the idea of Apple as say 15-20% of the OS market and 3-5% of the hardware market?
Everyone knows that the software is the most expencive part of a computer anyways...
GM sells corvettes...they also sell after-market crate engins for corvettes; I can buy a Chevy big block and drop it in a Ford body (edit: at my own risk, and maybe void any warrenties), so as long as I buy the software, I fail to see a differance.
Car analogies never really work?
And the software is designed for a Mac, not an equal spec PC? That's why it is named Mac OS X, not PC OS X?
Like I said before, if Apple EVER licenses the OS again, it will be to specific companies, for specific machines? Special Apple (Intel) TPM modules will be involved? Apple & Intel will create reference designs for hardware, and Apple may even be as bold as to create a variety of 'reference designs' for the enclosures?
Hell, Apple could do the five top-tier thing, get a decent profit from the special 'clones', leaving the hardware departments to work on staying one step ahead of the reverse engineers in regards to the TPM unit? that, and 'lifestyle appliances'?
If you go that route, Apple could become the next Microsoft (OS & software) & Sony (lifestyle devices) combined?!!!
Interesting?
But whatever happens, Apple will still somehow control the whole widget?
A very good high quality Power Supply from reputable companys like Antec can be had for about 100 to 150 depending on how much power you want, and thats retail pricing mind you, and Apple doesn't pay retail. Thats great that the PS for the G5's are like 1000 watts good way to waste alot of money on energy bills. You do not need a 1000 watt PS unless you are running mad amounts of hardware, which the current G5's can't anyway. I wouldn't be so "suspect" of a good PSU.
A very good high quality Power Supply from reputable companys like Antec can be had for about 100 to 150 depending on how much power you want, and thats retail pricing mind you, and Apple doesn't pay retail. Thats great that the PS for the G5's are like 1000 watts good way to waste alot of money on energy bills. You do not need a 1000 watt PS unless you are running mad amounts of hardware, which the current G5's can't anyway. I wouldn't be so "suspect" of a good PSU.
Exactly. Until I built a cheap PC a few months ago, the PSU was the one component of a computer that I hadn't even thought about. I ran a very cheap PSU which came with the case for a few weeks, until scare stories made me get a decent 430W (constant power rating) seasonic unit. Even this one only cost me the equivilent of about $80. So there is no need to go overboard.
Lets get an idea about what power draws you might need to consider:
I used the calculator at http://www.extreme.outervision.com (no affiliation) to give an idea of the maximum that might be required. I speced a PC with dual 3Ghz woodcrests, 8 sticks of DDR2 ram, 2 top X1900 graphics cards, 2 DVD writers, 4HDs, 4PCI cards, 4 fans... You get the picture. That must be a maxed out system if you've ever seen one.
And the power draw? 539 watts, with everything going at the max.
If Apple keep a similar enclosure, there may not even be room for all that. So, a good 600w PSU, which is a pretty standard rating, should be more than enough. Even the extreme overclocking/gaming PC community see the 1kw units which are now being produced as a pointless waste of money. If you ask me, a drive to reduce power consumption is kicking in now, and I'd be suprised if it doesn't hit even the high-end GPUs in the next year or so. I think we're seeing a peak in PC power demands.
And the pricing? When we figure in the discounts of bulk pricing, and the reduced shipping when it's part of a larger product, I think Apple will be able to procure an excellent PSU for under $100.
Having said all that, isn't a discussion about +/-$20 on a PSU going a bit off topic?
The most useful thing we could have is a rough idea of what Apple has been paying for the G5s processors and mobo, and also if there are any examples of components that had to be proprietary in the G5, that can be taken from the PC world for the Mac pro?
THAT is fucking hillarious!!! Apple laptops are really nice, but there is NO SECOND MOUSE BUTTON!!! screw the stupid finger shinanagins, just add a damn button! I dont buy this "it keeps the UI devs honest" crap any more, I don't know about you, but I right click in everything, from FF, to itunes to mail.app to the dock...I mean everything!
Click the mouse button with two fingers on the trackpad.
I agree...there's an overwhelming amount of people that just can't grasp the idea of hidden costs and opportunity costs.
Some people will go to great lengths to fill their gas tanks at the cheapest gas station...they save maybe 30 or 40 cents (at most) but they've probably ate up this cost (in gas and time) simply driving to that gas station. This is only one of thousands of examples of things 90% of people do everyday.
Same with computers...some people will buy the cheapest computer they can find but will end up having to buy software to match what a more expensive computer, such as a Mac, offers. Oftentimes, they will end up paying more than if they had just bought the fuckin' Mac in the first place.
I doubt Apple will introduce a mid-level professional desktop for a lower price. On asked about the price of the iMac Steve Jobs once said: "We give you next year's computer for $1300 instead of last year's for $999." Apple has always lived by these standards.
Jobs always makes these declarations, you cannot count on them.
He once downplayed flash music players, then came out with the iPod Shuffle, then the iPod Nano.
I agree...there's an overwhelming amount of people that just can't grasp the idea of hidden costs and opportunity costs.
Some people will go to great lengths to fill their gas tanks at the cheapest gas station...they save maybe 30 or 40 cents (at most) but they've probably ate up this cost (in gas and time) simply driving to that gas station. This is only one of thousands of examples of things 90% of people do everyday.
Same with computers...some people will buy the cheapest computer they can find but will end up having to buy software to match what a more expensive computer, such as a Mac, offers. Oftentimes, they will end up paying more than if they had just bought the fuckin' Mac in the first place.
Can't expect everyone to make smart decisions.
It barely costs Apple anything at all to load software onto the new Macs.
When you consider Mac Pro pricing you need to start comparing it to computers with similar HW configurations these days because all of a sudden the Big Macs are going to have the same processors. Lots of performance comparisons are heading our way and Apple is going to have to be pretty close (preferably better) in terms of "Bank for the Buck". I believe that will impact how Apple prices the Mac Pros.
I also believe that there is going to be a Mac line (mid range headless), if not released along with the Mac Pro then dropped on the market not long after. The simple fact is that there are a lot of people who would go for one if it is a screamer - even a single Duo screamer.
I'm one - I use a G4 PB attached to a 23" display and anything that replaces it in the office will have to be a smaller form factor than the huge tower. Then there are people who have invested in a Mac mini (and maybe even an Apple display) that want to move up - but not all the way to a Mac Pro. Potential switchers with some very decent displays who want more than a mini, but $2,000+. Lots of potential for a single kick @ss processor, fast FSB, etc. Plus priced reasonably close to the competition.
I highly doubt you're going to see a legal way to install OS X on other computers without Apple's blessing. Here's why: There's a little chip on PC mother boards called a Tamper-Proof Module, which is used for encryption and stuff. Apple uses it such that a default Intel install of OS X requires the TPM on a Mac motherboard. To get around this, you have to heavily hack Apple's software. That hacking is probably not fair use, and even if it is, it violates the anti-circumvention clause of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. That's in the US, but similar stuff applies in most other countries.
Additionally, books are sold, but software is licensed. Licenses aren't necessarily worse than outright purchasing. If I lose a book, I can't legally copy my friend's book, but I can install Win XP off of someone else's CD as long as I have the CD-key from my copy if I lost my copy of the Win XP install CD.
Reality check. Anyone wanting to run a version of OS X on a DIY box or a Dell will have to do some serious hacking. Correct. But if someone wants to do this, Apple will have no way in the world to stop the person from doing what he or she likes to their own computer or software. I'm sure Apple's de facto policy will be to ignore this.
What will ruffle Apple's feathers is if that person is successful and publishes his/her results and methods online (or somewhere else). Then Apple engineers and legal goon squad will go into action. The engineers will update the OS and whatever else they have to (probably in a "security" patch) to close this loophole, and the lawyers will leave a dead horse's head in the bedroom just as a warning before suing the shit out of the person and the ISP or whatever that published the info.
The fact that "hackers" can't resist showing off and telling everyone what they did and how they did it works in Apple's favor.
I personally think that Apple is preparing for a major fight with Microsoft in the next 4-5 years: shrinkwrapped box of OS vs. shrinkwrapped box of OS. They almost have a fully-fledged office suite in place. Governments are requiring Office/Word documents to be based on open standards. They're running on the same architecture now. Even before the Intel switch, higher-end video cards started becoming available. Apple is waiting for the right time. If they wanted to, Apple obviously could have had a spreadsheet ready for iWork. But they don't want to bring down MS's ire just yet. Apple needs another homerun in the living room or with the "true" video iPod and a movie download business. And it needs MS to stumble badly. I was guesing that they would try for it this year, what with MS's Vista troubles. But it make more sense to go for their throat in the middle of Vista's lifespan, when MS has nothing really major on the horizon OS wise. (Look for MS's next OS interface to be codenamed "Glacial Ice.")
But that's just speculation. On topic, I think Apple will keep the Mac Pro prices the same. They won't raise them, unless Jobs et al has completely lost his mind. There's an outside chance that they will offer a lower-priced entry model, say $1599. If that does happen, look for the mini and MB to return to pre-switching prices by the fall.
Software is like a book, you are not buying the book, you are buying that copy, you can do whatever you want to it, read it, fold back corners, underline, hell, you can burn the thing!
Intellectual property law recognizes the distinction between tangible/real property and intellectual property, which you allude to with the above comment. While you are right that buying a book confers ownership over that particular tangible book so that ?you can do whatever you want to it?, this does not give you any ?copyrights? over the intellectual property contained in it. So while you may read, underline, sell or burn that book you may not make copies of it, plagiarize it, or distribute its contents. These Intellectual property rights (copyrights) are retained by the book?s author.
Quote:
[i]Apple saying that I couldnt install OSX on a Dell, HP, or whatever would be tantamount to Simon and sheuster dictateing that I read their books only with GE brand light bulbs, and I could be sued for EULA violation if I were caught reading their publications under a Sylvania bulb.[/B]
Where to begin untangling this mess of mixed metaphors and faulty logic? First, the analogy you draw between computer vendors, book publishers, and light bulb manufacturers is not apposite and does not prove the point that you are trying to make (that you should be able to do whatever you want with OS X after you buy it). A software OEM specifying how their software is to be used under a license is not analogous or tantamount to a book publisher limiting the reading of their book with a particular light bulb. It is, however, comparable to a book publisher determining who will distribute a book, where it will be sold, or what third parties buy subsidiary rights associated with the book (movies, merchandizing, etc). So, while a book publisher cannot dictate what kind of light a book buyer must use in order to read the book, this certainty does not mean that by buying the book a person acquires all of the copyrights associated with it. The same with OS X; Apple retains all IP rights over the OS when you buy a license.
Quote:
[i]Copyright law has this wonderfull clause called fair use.[/B]
Yes, but: (1) First, fair use is concept that arose from and is associated with copyrights and has no relevance in patent law. The fair use exceptions (defenses in copyright infringement cases) are the following: ?Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Now that software can be patented, the only legal way that a third party can use patented software is by getting a license and adhering to its terms. Any use not allowed under said license is an infringing use. Fair use defenses (exceptions for criticism, comment, news, teaching...) are not applicable in patent law; i.e. when Microsoft lifted 30,000 lines of QuickTime code it could not defend this by saying that the code was used for ?criticism? or ?scholarship?. Although copyright and patent law do have considerable Venn diagram-like overlaps, fair use is not one of them. Patent law has its own concepts, exceptions, and defenses.
(2) Second, fair use has its limitations, and you?d be hard pressed to convince a court that a violation of a EULA is a protected fair use in copyright law. Hard pressed is too mild of a term?let me just say that it is not going to happen.
Quote:
[i]And the EULAs are a pesky thing too, two huge holes in th eula thing...here goes
1: It is pretty much signed under diress, you paid for the software, you have opened the packaging and broken all seals and thus it is likly non-returnable,[/B]
Duress is a concept from contract law, and I fail to see duress (in the contractual definition of the term) in the scenario you?ve given. Contracts are typically embodied by offers and acceptance, and duress is specifically associated with the acceptance side of the bargain. Where is the duress here? How exactly did apple force you to buy OS X (the offer)? Apple can dictate the terms under which licensees use their products, but this is not duress because you do not have to buy OS X or accept its EULA terms to begin with. This is one of the fundamental principles of contract law; the law leaves parties to shape their own bargains (unless they are illegal or against public policy, of course), and if you don?t like my offer, you don?t have to accept it. If I force you to accept, that is duress, and I just don?t see that here.
And what happens if you don?t accept the EULA? Can?t you get a refund from Apple? I?m pretty sure that you can. Someone fill me in on this one.
Quote:
[i]and you dont have a chance to strike-thrugh parts you dont agree to, or negotiate terms in ANY way.[/B]
Contracts of adhesion, while both defended and excoriated by academics, have been universally recognized by courts as necessary to the workings of our highly complex capitalistic society. As courts have pointed out in cases dealing with this issue, what would happen if Apple?s legal department had to review or negotiate contractual terms with each and every one of its customers? This is just not economically feasible. Contracts of adhesion: one size fits all.
Quote:
[i]2: How can you prove who agreed? there is no notery, what if I have a kid click the agree button, they legaly cant enter a contract...[/B]
Acceptance can be given in many different ways in contract law: it can be given expressly (I accept your terms) and implicitly and in some cases even by silence (these are my terms, you don?t object to them and you perform). Contract law uses an objective standard to determine if a party has ?outward manifestation of assent? (ie. accepted an offer), and no third party witness is necessary. The answer here is very simple: when you attempt to install OS X or any other software you generally have to scroll through the EULA and a button will pop up asking whether you accept or reject the terms. If you accept, you have accepted the terms (regardless of whether you even read them or not). By implication, if you are running the software, you must have accepted the terms in order to be able to have completed the installation process, otherwise, you would have clicked ?I don?t accept? and the installation process is generally halted at that point.
Quote:
[i]Upon the release of 10.5 I see this going to court, and I really cant wait.[/B]
If I learned anything in law school, is that you can sue anybody for anything. So while I think that you are right in your anticipation of seeing this going to court, such a lawsuit would be meritless and Apple would probably get a directed verdict (no trial). There is just no basis in copyright, patent, or contract law to support what you are advocating.
Software is not a book. You do not have the right to install OS X on anything other than an Apple computer. The courts wouldn't even hear your case.
100% right on. a_greer seems to think that the use of mixed metaphors and ill-conceived analogies (covertte engines and GE light bulbs) can somehow sweep away 300 years of intellectual, contractual, and copyright law. As hard as it is to accept, installing OS X on anything other than Apple-sanctioned hardware is illegal under current US and internation law. There are certainly many reasons to dislike this but (1) Apple is rightly exercising its legal property rights in imposing such limitations, and (2) no amount of rationalization for breaking the EULA (I paid for the software, this is unfair...) will make it otherwise. Just accept it.
It's an academic debate anyway, because if you privately break the Apple EULA in your own home, Apple is not going to hunt you down and sue you.
The EULA effectively only prevents companies from distributing pre-installed systems. Which is Apple's real goal anyway.
Also, DCQ had the correct point that sites distributing this information will probably run afoul of copyright law and will be hassled by Apple's lawyers frequently. But there will always be a torrent somewhere where you could get it.
Comments
Originally posted by MacRonin
But I hope that I am totally wrong, and none get the chance to play with OS X unless they pony up for some fresh Apple industrial design hardware also?!
THAT is fucking hillarious!!! Apple laptops are really nice, but there is NO SECOND MOUSE BUTTON!!! screw the stupid finger shinanagins, just add a damn button! I dont buy this "it keeps the UI devs honest" crap any more, I don't know about you, but I right click in everything, from FF, to itunes to mail.app to the dock...I mean everything!
Why not let ppl load it on their thinkpads (or Dells or whatever) and keep making hardware that is sexy and "l33t" and sell it to the same 2-4% that they have now, what is wrong with the idea of Apple as say 15-20% of the OS market and 3-5% of the hardware market?
Everyone knows that the software is the most expencive part of a computer anyways...
Originally posted by a_greer
GM sells corvettes...they also sell after-market crate engins for corvettes; I can buy a Chevy big block and drop it in a Ford body (edit: at my own risk, and maybe void any warrenties), so as long as I buy the software, I fail to see a differance.
Car analogies never really work?
And the software is designed for a Mac, not an equal spec PC? That's why it is named Mac OS X, not PC OS X?
Like I said before, if Apple EVER licenses the OS again, it will be to specific companies, for specific machines? Special Apple (Intel) TPM modules will be involved? Apple & Intel will create reference designs for hardware, and Apple may even be as bold as to create a variety of 'reference designs' for the enclosures?
Hell, Apple could do the five top-tier thing, get a decent profit from the special 'clones', leaving the hardware departments to work on staying one step ahead of the reverse engineers in regards to the TPM unit? that, and 'lifestyle appliances'?
If you go that route, Apple could become the next Microsoft (OS & software) & Sony (lifestyle devices) combined?!!!
Interesting?
But whatever happens, Apple will still somehow control the whole widget?
[B]Did you really mean:
You one bad mudda!
As in:
I am a bad mutha fracker?!
That's the one.
[B]
Originally posted by MacRonin
Did you really mean:
You one bad mudda!
As in:
I am a bad mutha fracker?!
That's the one.
Dude, if you are gonna use the code, learn how to close the brackets?
Sloppy, really?
Originally posted by MacRonin
Dude, if you are gonna use the code, learn how to close the brackets?
Sloppy, really?
You're right
Originally posted by scavanger
A very good high quality Power Supply from reputable companys like Antec can be had for about 100 to 150 depending on how much power you want, and thats retail pricing mind you, and Apple doesn't pay retail. Thats great that the PS for the G5's are like 1000 watts good way to waste alot of money on energy bills. You do not need a 1000 watt PS unless you are running mad amounts of hardware, which the current G5's can't anyway. I wouldn't be so "suspect" of a good PSU.
Exactly. Until I built a cheap PC a few months ago, the PSU was the one component of a computer that I hadn't even thought about. I ran a very cheap PSU which came with the case for a few weeks, until scare stories made me get a decent 430W (constant power rating) seasonic unit. Even this one only cost me the equivilent of about $80. So there is no need to go overboard.
Lets get an idea about what power draws you might need to consider:
I used the calculator at http://www.extreme.outervision.com (no affiliation) to give an idea of the maximum that might be required. I speced a PC with dual 3Ghz woodcrests, 8 sticks of DDR2 ram, 2 top X1900 graphics cards, 2 DVD writers, 4HDs, 4PCI cards, 4 fans... You get the picture. That must be a maxed out system if you've ever seen one.
And the power draw? 539 watts, with everything going at the max.
If Apple keep a similar enclosure, there may not even be room for all that. So, a good 600w PSU, which is a pretty standard rating, should be more than enough. Even the extreme overclocking/gaming PC community see the 1kw units which are now being produced as a pointless waste of money. If you ask me, a drive to reduce power consumption is kicking in now, and I'd be suprised if it doesn't hit even the high-end GPUs in the next year or so. I think we're seeing a peak in PC power demands.
And the pricing? When we figure in the discounts of bulk pricing, and the reduced shipping when it's part of a larger product, I think Apple will be able to procure an excellent PSU for under $100.
David
The most useful thing we could have is a rough idea of what Apple has been paying for the G5s processors and mobo, and also if there are any examples of components that had to be proprietary in the G5, that can be taken from the PC world for the Mac pro?
David
Originally posted by a_greer
THAT is fucking hillarious!!! Apple laptops are really nice, but there is NO SECOND MOUSE BUTTON!!! screw the stupid finger shinanagins, just add a damn button! I dont buy this "it keeps the UI devs honest" crap any more, I don't know about you, but I right click in everything, from FF, to itunes to mail.app to the dock...I mean everything!
Click the mouse button with two fingers on the trackpad.
Originally posted by a_greer
Everyone knows that the software is the most expencive part of a computer anyways...
Say that to the average windows owner
Originally posted by gar
Say that to the average windows owner
I agree...there's an overwhelming amount of people that just can't grasp the idea of hidden costs and opportunity costs.
Some people will go to great lengths to fill their gas tanks at the cheapest gas station...they save maybe 30 or 40 cents (at most) but they've probably ate up this cost (in gas and time) simply driving to that gas station. This is only one of thousands of examples of things 90% of people do everyday.
Same with computers...some people will buy the cheapest computer they can find but will end up having to buy software to match what a more expensive computer, such as a Mac, offers. Oftentimes, they will end up paying more than if they had just bought the fuckin' Mac in the first place.
Can't expect everyone to make smart decisions.
I doubt Apple will introduce a mid-level professional desktop for a lower price. On asked about the price of the iMac Steve Jobs once said: "We give you next year's computer for $1300 instead of last year's for $999." Apple has always lived by these standards.
Jobs always makes these declarations, you cannot count on them.
He once downplayed flash music players, then came out with the iPod Shuffle, then the iPod Nano.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I agree...there's an overwhelming amount of people that just can't grasp the idea of hidden costs and opportunity costs.
Some people will go to great lengths to fill their gas tanks at the cheapest gas station...they save maybe 30 or 40 cents (at most) but they've probably ate up this cost (in gas and time) simply driving to that gas station. This is only one of thousands of examples of things 90% of people do everyday.
Same with computers...some people will buy the cheapest computer they can find but will end up having to buy software to match what a more expensive computer, such as a Mac, offers. Oftentimes, they will end up paying more than if they had just bought the fuckin' Mac in the first place.
Can't expect everyone to make smart decisions.
It barely costs Apple anything at all to load software onto the new Macs.
I also believe that there is going to be a Mac line (mid range headless), if not released along with the Mac Pro then dropped on the market not long after. The simple fact is that there are a lot of people who would go for one if it is a screamer - even a single Duo screamer.
I'm one - I use a G4 PB attached to a 23" display and anything that replaces it in the office will have to be a smaller form factor than the huge tower. Then there are people who have invested in a Mac mini (and maybe even an Apple display) that want to move up - but not all the way to a Mac Pro. Potential switchers with some very decent displays who want more than a mini, but $2,000+. Lots of potential for a single kick @ss processor, fast FSB, etc. Plus priced reasonably close to the competition.
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
I highly doubt you're going to see a legal way to install OS X on other computers without Apple's blessing. Here's why: There's a little chip on PC mother boards called a Tamper-Proof Module, which is used for encryption and stuff. Apple uses it such that a default Intel install of OS X requires the TPM on a Mac motherboard. To get around this, you have to heavily hack Apple's software. That hacking is probably not fair use, and even if it is, it violates the anti-circumvention clause of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. That's in the US, but similar stuff applies in most other countries.
Additionally, books are sold, but software is licensed. Licenses aren't necessarily worse than outright purchasing. If I lose a book, I can't legally copy my friend's book, but I can install Win XP off of someone else's CD as long as I have the CD-key from my copy if I lost my copy of the Win XP install CD.
Reality check. Anyone wanting to run a version of OS X on a DIY box or a Dell will have to do some serious hacking. Correct. But if someone wants to do this, Apple will have no way in the world to stop the person from doing what he or she likes to their own computer or software. I'm sure Apple's de facto policy will be to ignore this.
What will ruffle Apple's feathers is if that person is successful and publishes his/her results and methods online (or somewhere else). Then Apple engineers and legal goon squad will go into action. The engineers will update the OS and whatever else they have to (probably in a "security" patch) to close this loophole, and the lawyers will leave a dead horse's head in the bedroom just as a warning before suing the shit out of the person and the ISP or whatever that published the info.
The fact that "hackers" can't resist showing off and telling everyone what they did and how they did it works in Apple's favor.
I personally think that Apple is preparing for a major fight with Microsoft in the next 4-5 years: shrinkwrapped box of OS vs. shrinkwrapped box of OS. They almost have a fully-fledged office suite in place. Governments are requiring Office/Word documents to be based on open standards. They're running on the same architecture now. Even before the Intel switch, higher-end video cards started becoming available. Apple is waiting for the right time. If they wanted to, Apple obviously could have had a spreadsheet ready for iWork. But they don't want to bring down MS's ire just yet. Apple needs another homerun in the living room or with the "true" video iPod and a movie download business. And it needs MS to stumble badly. I was guesing that they would try for it this year, what with MS's Vista troubles. But it make more sense to go for their throat in the middle of Vista's lifespan, when MS has nothing really major on the horizon OS wise. (Look for MS's next OS interface to be codenamed "Glacial Ice.")
But that's just speculation. On topic, I think Apple will keep the Mac Pro prices the same. They won't raise them, unless Jobs et al has completely lost his mind. There's an outside chance that they will offer a lower-priced entry model, say $1599. If that does happen, look for the mini and MB to return to pre-switching prices by the fall.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Jobs always makes these declarations, you cannot count on them.
He once downplayed flash music players, then came out with the iPod Shuffle, then the iPod Nano.
Back then, the 5GB iPod was a good 4.7GB larger than any flashy player available. Cheaper, more capacious flash memory has changed this a bit.
Originally posted by a_greer
Software is like a book, you are not buying the book, you are buying that copy, you can do whatever you want to it, read it, fold back corners, underline, hell, you can burn the thing!
Intellectual property law recognizes the distinction between tangible/real property and intellectual property, which you allude to with the above comment. While you are right that buying a book confers ownership over that particular tangible book so that ?you can do whatever you want to it?, this does not give you any ?copyrights? over the intellectual property contained in it. So while you may read, underline, sell or burn that book you may not make copies of it, plagiarize it, or distribute its contents. These Intellectual property rights (copyrights) are retained by the book?s author.
[i]Apple saying that I couldnt install OSX on a Dell, HP, or whatever would be tantamount to Simon and sheuster dictateing that I read their books only with GE brand light bulbs, and I could be sued for EULA violation if I were caught reading their publications under a Sylvania bulb.[/B]
Where to begin untangling this mess of mixed metaphors and faulty logic? First, the analogy you draw between computer vendors, book publishers, and light bulb manufacturers is not apposite and does not prove the point that you are trying to make (that you should be able to do whatever you want with OS X after you buy it). A software OEM specifying how their software is to be used under a license is not analogous or tantamount to a book publisher limiting the reading of their book with a particular light bulb. It is, however, comparable to a book publisher determining who will distribute a book, where it will be sold, or what third parties buy subsidiary rights associated with the book (movies, merchandizing, etc). So, while a book publisher cannot dictate what kind of light a book buyer must use in order to read the book, this certainty does not mean that by buying the book a person acquires all of the copyrights associated with it. The same with OS X; Apple retains all IP rights over the OS when you buy a license.
[i]Copyright law has this wonderfull clause called fair use.[/B]
Yes, but: (1) First, fair use is concept that arose from and is associated with copyrights and has no relevance in patent law. The fair use exceptions (defenses in copyright infringement cases) are the following: ?Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Now that software can be patented, the only legal way that a third party can use patented software is by getting a license and adhering to its terms. Any use not allowed under said license is an infringing use. Fair use defenses (exceptions for criticism, comment, news, teaching...) are not applicable in patent law; i.e. when Microsoft lifted 30,000 lines of QuickTime code it could not defend this by saying that the code was used for ?criticism? or ?scholarship?. Although copyright and patent law do have considerable Venn diagram-like overlaps, fair use is not one of them. Patent law has its own concepts, exceptions, and defenses.
(2) Second, fair use has its limitations, and you?d be hard pressed to convince a court that a violation of a EULA is a protected fair use in copyright law. Hard pressed is too mild of a term?let me just say that it is not going to happen.
[i]And the EULAs are a pesky thing too, two huge holes in th eula thing...here goes
1: It is pretty much signed under diress, you paid for the software, you have opened the packaging and broken all seals and thus it is likly non-returnable,[/B]
Duress is a concept from contract law, and I fail to see duress (in the contractual definition of the term) in the scenario you?ve given. Contracts are typically embodied by offers and acceptance, and duress is specifically associated with the acceptance side of the bargain. Where is the duress here? How exactly did apple force you to buy OS X (the offer)? Apple can dictate the terms under which licensees use their products, but this is not duress because you do not have to buy OS X or accept its EULA terms to begin with. This is one of the fundamental principles of contract law; the law leaves parties to shape their own bargains (unless they are illegal or against public policy, of course), and if you don?t like my offer, you don?t have to accept it. If I force you to accept, that is duress, and I just don?t see that here.
And what happens if you don?t accept the EULA? Can?t you get a refund from Apple? I?m pretty sure that you can. Someone fill me in on this one.
[i]and you dont have a chance to strike-thrugh parts you dont agree to, or negotiate terms in ANY way.[/B]
Contracts of adhesion, while both defended and excoriated by academics, have been universally recognized by courts as necessary to the workings of our highly complex capitalistic society. As courts have pointed out in cases dealing with this issue, what would happen if Apple?s legal department had to review or negotiate contractual terms with each and every one of its customers? This is just not economically feasible. Contracts of adhesion: one size fits all.
[i]2: How can you prove who agreed? there is no notery, what if I have a kid click the agree button, they legaly cant enter a contract...[/B]
Acceptance can be given in many different ways in contract law: it can be given expressly (I accept your terms) and implicitly and in some cases even by silence (these are my terms, you don?t object to them and you perform). Contract law uses an objective standard to determine if a party has ?outward manifestation of assent? (ie. accepted an offer), and no third party witness is necessary. The answer here is very simple: when you attempt to install OS X or any other software you generally have to scroll through the EULA and a button will pop up asking whether you accept or reject the terms. If you accept, you have accepted the terms (regardless of whether you even read them or not). By implication, if you are running the software, you must have accepted the terms in order to be able to have completed the installation process, otherwise, you would have clicked ?I don?t accept? and the installation process is generally halted at that point.
[i]Upon the release of 10.5 I see this going to court, and I really cant wait.[/B]
If I learned anything in law school, is that you can sue anybody for anything. So while I think that you are right in your anticipation of seeing this going to court, such a lawsuit would be meritless and Apple would probably get a directed verdict (no trial). There is just no basis in copyright, patent, or contract law to support what you are advocating.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Software is not a book. You do not have the right to install OS X on anything other than an Apple computer. The courts wouldn't even hear your case.
100% right on. a_greer seems to think that the use of mixed metaphors and ill-conceived analogies (covertte engines and GE light bulbs) can somehow sweep away 300 years of intellectual, contractual, and copyright law. As hard as it is to accept, installing OS X on anything other than Apple-sanctioned hardware is illegal under current US and internation law. There are certainly many reasons to dislike this but (1) Apple is rightly exercising its legal property rights in imposing such limitations, and (2) no amount of rationalization for breaking the EULA (I paid for the software, this is unfair...) will make it otherwise. Just accept it.
The EULA effectively only prevents companies from distributing pre-installed systems. Which is Apple's real goal anyway.
Also, DCQ had the correct point that sites distributing this information will probably run afoul of copyright law and will be hassled by Apple's lawyers frequently. But there will always be a torrent somewhere where you could get it.