Apple Asks Judge To Shutter Psystar's Clone Unit 346
CWmike writes "Apple wants a federal judge to shut down Psystar's Mac clone operation and order the company to pay more than $2.1 million in damages, according to court documents. The move was the first by Apple since US District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that Psystar violated Apple's copyright and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when it installed Mac OS X on clones it sold. Alsup's Nov. 13 order, which granted Apple's motion for summary judgment and quashed Psystar's similar request, was a crushing blow to the Florida company's legal campaign. In a motion filed Monday, Apple asked Alsup to grant a permanent injunction that would force Psystar to stop selling any computer bundled with Mac OS X; using, selling or even owning software that lets it crack Apple's OS encryption key to trick Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware; and 'inducing, aiding or inducing others in infringing Apple's copyright.'"
Groklaw has summarized Apple's request as well, and noted that Apple has also filed a motion to dismiss Psystar's litigation in Florida (or transfer it to California, where the above injunction was filed).
Shutter ? (Score:2)
n/t
Re: (Score:2)
Shutter:
duh.
The way I see it (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, Apple is Apple and I don't have to like the way they do things. I will however support them if someone is encroaching on the way they want to run their business. Cracking an Apple OS to run on a machine that Apple doesn't want to goes against what Apple wants to do with their OS. Yes, I know, they're still making money on an OS copy sold, so they shouldn't bitch, but if they want to thats their business.
Apple wants everything to stay within their box, and they want to have complete and utter control over that box. As long as Apple isn't trying to control whats outside the box - I don't care, but as I see it, OS X is part of their box. In the long run, their strictly closed box might be their downfall. No skin off my back.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The way I see it (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The way I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They aren't controlling other manufacturer's boxes though.
I don't know how manufacturer's got the idea of "Hey, I could run OS X on this box..." when Apple never gave them consent to. Its Apple's software, they decide who runs it.
The last thing Apple needs is bad PO saying that OS X got hit by a bad virus because of a vulnerability running on someone elses firmware. Sure, it won't hit any Legit Apple products, but the public will think that Macs are no longer secure.
Which is -EXACTLY- what is happening with
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that it is not in the license agreement of when I purchased this car, I wouldn't be enforced to it.
If however, I was looking at purchasing a car, and the license agreement said that I had to buy high priced tires, you can bet I wouldn't want to buy that car. If I did for whatever reason buy that car, I would be obligated to hold up my end of the license agreement.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wanted to point out that your car manufacturer should not care about the usage of the product after purchase, even if it is not used as intended originally. Like using a car to build a sculpture that the manufacturer wouldn't aprove of or something along those lines.
Much like Apple should not care if I use my brand-new MacBook Pro as toilet paper, even if it gives them ba
Re:The way I see it (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple isn't doing an after-sale tie-in. You don't *have* to ever upgrade your computer.
What they're doing is saying that when you buy a software upgrade, here are the terms and conditions. If they offer the upgrade and they also offer a different SKU as a bare install disk, then they shouldn't be allowed to say what hardware you can run it on, but that's a different story. In psystars' case, they were acting as retailers, not end-users. I don't think apple cares if the end user makes themselves a hackintosh, but they don't want competition in the hardware segment.
Is what they're doing anti-competitive? Yes. That's why they're using trademark and copyright law, not saying "this is illegal because we control the hardware." Or they're exporting the Steve Jobs RDF. At this point, who gives a crap?
After all, if you don't want Windows, you can get linux, you can get bsd, you can get menuet, and a bunch of other freely available operating systems. You want OSX? Then help someone make a works-alike port of Cocoa and Carbon and Aqua and IOKit - or go play around with this [puredarwin.org], or any one of a number of things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but what if you starting using Bob the pop Singer's latest CD in your upcoming Summer hit movie without Bob the poop singer's permission? It depends on how Bob the pop singer feels about how you are using his music in that film.
Just because you purchase something doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want with it. There are laws that are generated by the Federal Government (like Copyright laws) and then there are Licensing Laws the the company creates itself and is enforced by the government. If you
You're missing the point, (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not talking about copying and distributing, I'm talking about doing what you want with something for your personal use.
No, you're missing the point, Apple has never gone after anyone for making a hackintoch for their own use. Apple has only gone after those who want to distribute hackintoches. And that is what corresponds to you copying "Bob the pop singers' latest CD".
Falcon
Bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is doing NOTHING to stop Dell or HP from loading any flavor of Linux or Windows on their boxes.
Apple sells Macs and iPhones, and OSX by Apple is designated only to run on those machines. If you can get it to run on other boxes, fine (and Apple has yet to threaten or prosecute folks who make or tell you how to make a Hackintosh), but don't tell me that A
Re:The way I see it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
None of them made better hardware than Apple. They often made faster hardware, but it was generally less reliable, ran hotter, was more difficult to work on, etc. The clones gave Macintoshes a bad name.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Prove that they weren't less reliable. You sound like someone who never had the dubious pleasure of dealing with these machines. It's personal experience, but every Power Computing and UMAX machine I ever had to deal with needed a new PSU within a year. The cheap RAM they used often failed within a few months. They were a pain to take apart, too - sharp edges everywhere. You get what you pay for.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And yes, they caused some degree of confusion with consumers and hurt Apple's image, even though they weren't Apple products.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So at what point does Apple's behaviour become anti-competitive ? They *are* shutting out other manufacturers from making hardware that *could* run their software.
Apple doesn't stop any manufacturer up to one point: Macs contain a chip with a (not very secret) key that is needed to decrypt the MacOS X software. Dell could make a 100 percent Mac compatible computer up to the point that this key mustn't be there, because adding that key constitutes a DMCA violation.
You could have read the text of Judge Alsup's judgement. He had to look at exactly the question that you raised. And what he saw is that Apple tells you and anyone else what you can do with MacOS X. And t
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your argument is that if IBM had shut down all the clones in the 80/90s, the commodity market for computers might never have taken place. We would be stuck with each our proprietary systems, witht their own proprietary cables and devices.
If I want to buy a device or piece of software, or even computer to put together with my other legally purched devices, I should be able to do that without being stopped by over-zealous and anti-customer corporations.
This case should be dismissed out of han
Re: (Score:2)
To further your good argument, Apple sells Mac OS X by itself.
But Apple does not sell OS X for repackaging and resale. You can do what you want with a copy of OS X other than redistribute it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But it's being sold as for use with Apple computers that have other versions of Apple's operating system installed on them.
/Mikael
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like the legal situation that comes with the product, then don't buy the product. You can't say "Not just redistribution" - either you follow ALL of the terms of the license, or none at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't sign a license agreement saying you won't put the engine in another car. Now, you can argue whether or not license agreements are fair or not and you can work your ass off to get the law changed so that you actually own the software you buy instead of just licensing it (good luck with that), but at the minute the law is on Apple's side.
Re:The way I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole point of this story is that Psystar were modifying OS X without authorisation, storing the unauthorised modified copy on a server, and cloning those modified copies onto third party machines. How many companies do that (or get away with doing that) with Windows*? NONE. Office? NONE. In fact, if you took Ubuntu and modified it, then tried to resell or distribute it as "Ubuntu" and not under some other name, you would be at the wrong end of a lawsuit.
I realise here that Apple really doesn't want OS X to be a commodity OS, they want it tied to the hardware. But the case against Psystar is based on perfectly legitimate concerns, even if many Slashdotters don't like the end results. Apple are not the bad guys here, they're simply using a legitimate legal issue to achieve the end result they desire.
* before anyone starts talking about Dell etc. making installation images - they are authorised to do this by Microsoft under a licensing agreement, they aren't going out and buying retail copies of the OS.
Re: (Score:2)
My attitude is "It's Apple's OS, they can do what they like with it." Quite frankly, I think the advantages of OSX are completely overblown, and since the adoption of x86 hardware, the not-so-secret selling feature has been "runs Windows too!!!!"
But hey, they own it, and Psystar has behaved like a pack of crooks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The way I see it (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead imagine I buy a Ferrari engine, and put it into a Dodge Neon. Now this is entirely legal, and none of their business. The lawyers will only get involved when I start building these in bulk, and start a company to sell my new "Ferrari compatible" cars.
Still not perfect, but a lot closer than the original.
Re:The way I see it (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as you stayed clear of trademark problems, you wouldn't see any lawyers. At worst, Ferrari might stop selling engines to you.
There is a large industry full of companies that do basically what you're suggesting (although perhaps not creating quite such a ridiculous product).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, selling cars in the US is apparently a regulatory nightmare, given the extensive emissions and safety testing each vehicle must go through
There isn't a problem selling your own cars in the US, I've sold a number of them legally and haven't had a single problem doing so. What problem I had, which wasn't a problem at all, was finding a buyer.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Your car analogy is incomplete, and incorrect.
Instead imagine I buy a Ferrari engine, and put it into a Dodge Neon. Now this is entirely legal, and none of their business. The lawyers will only get involved when I start building these in bulk, and start a company to sell my new "Ferrari compatible" cars."
That happens all the time. In fact, many 'supercars' will use BMW or Mercedes engines. The Corvette's engine is in a number of 'third party' cars. Chip Foose's production car uses a Hemi engine from Chrysl
Re: (Score:2)
It's not your property, it's Apple's. They sold you a licence to use it.
Psystar f-ed it up (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a case where Psystar was making boxes, buying retail copies of MacOS, installing those on the boxes and selling box and MacOS together. That's how Psystar portrayed it, but it turns out that what they were actually doing was cloning all the machines from a master copy of the OS, then including a (still-unopened) copy of MacOS with the box. If you want to use 17 USC 117 (running programs) and 17 USC 109 (First Sale), you have to actually observe the forms. It's not enough to claim that the result is the same as if you'd observed the forms. Thus the case was a slam-dunk for Apple.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I was a judge I would understand this as breach of copyright license if the license includes a mention in how you can only use the software in Apple hardware. That is if I was a judge, who was concerned with upholding the law rathe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The license is not legal. I never agreed to it prior to purchase. I was never given opportunity to negotiate the terms. I don't even know what terms they have dictated in their silly documents. The terms are draconian and unenforcable.
Re:Psystar f-ed it up (Score:5, Interesting)
It's still inane. I argue this is similar to time-shifting. If they paid for the copies, who cares where they install them?
You can argue as much as you like, but Judge Alsup didn't agree with you. Mostly because that is not what happened.
Psystar paid for boxes with MacOS X and a license that allows installation on one Apple-labeled computer. They shipped their computers with these _unopened_ boxes. Whoever bought one of their computers now has a box with MacOS X which they can install completely legally on any Apple computer. Clearly these boxes have _nothing_ at all to do with the software that Psystar installed on their computers. Actually, the court saw evidence that the software in the boxes and the software installed was not the same. Psystar didn't even bother to argue in court that they bought boxes with MacOS X. Had they bought boxes with Windows 7, or boxes full of popcorn, it would have exactly the same legal effect - none whatsoever.
Let me say that again: Psystar bought boxes with MacOS X and sold them on. If you buy MacOS X and sell it on, then there are no rights that stick with you.
Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the difference though? Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.
What you're suggesting is insane. The only difference is having to install everything manually on every computer, or just cloning the same bits and bytes. What's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money?
The law should not be stupid, but be interpreted according to common sense. If this is how it is, either this broken legal system needs further fixes, or we just need to stay away from proprietary software altogether - too much risk and arbitrary decisions in the hands of the wrong people..
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What is the difference though? Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.
The difference? Microsoft licenses Dell to do that, Apple does not license Pystar though.
What's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money?
Pystar [osnews.com] "failed to produce "customer purchase receipts or order documents" from April 2008 (when Psystar began selling their computers with Mac OS X preinstalled) until October 2008."
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why do companies keep doing this? (Score:2)
You've got Real thinking they can legally distribute software to rip DVDs to you hard drive, Psystar thinking they can legally create defacto Macs, Napster thinking they can facilitate file sharing and on and on.... Someone needs to sit down with these companies and explain how this crushing business works.
Re: (Score:2)
Massive free advertising.
Defacto confirmation of their OS license.
Now no one else will try what Pystar did.
If I were a betting man I would bet on Steve Jobs owning a large piece of Pystar.
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Jobs can't possibly own a large piece of Psystar, the poor guy only receives $1/year in salary!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure why these smaller companies keep trying to take on the big boys, though, when they know they'll get crushed, like a nut.
Check out the Groklaw article [groklaw.net] on the case. It appears that getting sued by Apple was part of Psystar's business plan from the get-go. They actually marketed the idea to VC outfits as a reason to invest in the company.
What Psystar was more than anything else--certainly more than a computer manufacturer--was a case of investor fraud. Standby for shareholder lawsuits in 3...2...1...
Apple is .. (Score:5, Insightful)
.. evil. This is nothing new. They've had the same predatory behavior for well over 2 decades now.
It's hard for a lot of us to accept, because nearly everyone here owns an apple product they genuinely enjoy (I own several myself), but the truth is Apple is evil.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.
Apple sells systems. In the old days, nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware of an Atari, Apple, Amiga or Commodore computer.
The more you guys push to "free" Mac OS X, the more you guys risk of seeing the opposite laws being written, giving HP, Dell, Acer and others the ability to sign exclusive contracts with Microsoft. No more unlocked computers, no more OSS. Be very, very careful what you guys wish for.
Wah wah wah. The copyright laws are fucking ridiculous. Running a program constitutes an infringement since it transfers the data into memory, thus making an illegal copy.
Would a case against me memorizing my favorite book hold up in court? You can't legally force me to have a lobotomy, and I have an illegal copy of your work in my brain.
Re: (Score:3)
"Running a program constitutes an infringement since it transfers the data into memory, thus making an illegal copy."
Except we already have the exception in the law for that, and it's actually specifically stated.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't large PC manufacturers do something like this for whatever system they're installing?
Surely HP and Dell don't have someone sitting there running the Windows install disc for every machine they crank out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't large PC manufacturers do something like this for whatever system they're installing?
Sure they do. And they have a license from Microsoft that allows them to do that legally. Apple, on other other hand, did not grant Psystar any sort of license at all to install OS X on their computers, let alone one that allowed them to create cloned copies.
Re:Once again (Score:4, Informative)
The way the law is written you are not free to go and buy 100 copies of a book and resell them without permission. Distribution rights are exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
On the First sale doctrine [wikipedia.org]:
"With reference to trade in tangible merchandise, such as the retailing of goods bearing a trademark, the "first sale" rule serves to immunize a reseller from infringement liability. Such protection to the reseller extends to the point where said goods have not been altered so as to be materially different from those originating from the trademark owner."
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I too found that argument incredulous. Reading software into RAM is how programs are accessed. In fact, the software in question causes this action to happen! Apple should be suing themselves on this basis. I can't begin to imagine what was going on in the mind of the judge who ruled in favor of that argument other than being incapable of understanding that copying code into memory is part of how execution of said code is done in EVERY single case of software execution... (please, no comments related to
Re:Once again (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, special exceptions are made for software. One of the notable ones is that a legally owned copy may be duplicated into memory for the purpose of running the program. Notice the three words near the beginning which Psystar failed to satisfy.
(not a lawyer, and all that)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not quite, no. Psystar had legally owned copies, purchased from Apple. Claims that their copies are illegal because they run afowl of the Apple-branded computer clause in the EULA are only relevant if the EULA applies, which is what the GP was calling into question. As such, your statement is purely circular: Psystar's use was illegal because it wasn't covered by the exception because it was illegal.
The actual reason is that the law has simply been ignored since its conception. A bad precedent was set, and
Re:Once again (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the difference being that if I have a legal license to run software then I have a legal right to load that software into memory and utilize it as long as the original agreement allows for it.
But...
If i pirate software, then run it I don't have a legal right to have the original copy or the additional copy running in ram.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The software loaded onto the Psystar machines were legally paid for. Apple's problem with it is that it isn't being installed onto Apple hardware. This licensing agreement is trying to assert a right of a copyright holder to tell you what you can and cannot do with the works that do not include copying. Copying into RAM does not qualify as a copy as it clearly falls into the realm of making use of the works. It would be like telling someone they can buy a book but cannot read it. A damned stupid argume
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He's saying it doesn't count because it is literally a requirement to use any software. There is no other way to run software other than copying it into RAM, and therefore you don't require an exception to copyright law, as such an exception is assumed when you buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
I was raised to believe that possession is 9/10 the law.
Maybe if you had lawyers for parents, you wouldn't harbor these misconceptions about the law.
Re: (Score:2)
You were raised incorrectly in that sense, because the law is a whole lot more complicated than that. Try running that line past a judge and see how far it gets you.
(I was raised incorrectly, too. Most of the family still believes in that platitude.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was raised to believe that possession is 9/10 the law. If I own the medium the software is contained on, and disagree with the license, which law is on the books that says it's illegal for me to run the software any which way I choose?
Part of the purchase agreement is that Apple only sells a box with MacOS X if you agree to the license. Up to the point where you agree to the license, you have a box in your hands that is legally Apple's, and Apple has money in its hands that is legally yours. You have the right to disagree with the license and return the box for a refund.
So before you agree to the license, you have no rights at all. You have the same rights as the postman who delivered the software to your home - he held software in hi
You mean (Score:3, Informative)
I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can do what ever you want with software you legally own. But any software you license from someone else is software you have to play by the owner's rules with.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't do whatever I want with a piece of software I legally own?
Too bad you don't legally own the software, only a licensee to it. I don't like it any more than the next guy (unless the next guy is a software company, then they probably like it a lot) but that appears to be the way the law looks at software. I guess that's what happens when you get legislation from people who don't understand what they are legislating.
Re: (Score:2)
You can do whatever you want with software you legally own.
Problem is, there isn't much (or any?) software you legally own. You don't own the Windows install on your comp, or the OS X or even Linux versions. You have "licenses" to use those (even Linux) for particular means. And those licenses refer to legislation and other stuff (DMCA, patents, copyright law, ...) restricting your use even further.
Of course it didn't start or stop with SW. Big chunks of the music and movie industry have fought for years to
Re:Once again (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?
Has Microsoft tried to sue WINE for allowing and encouraging Linux users to run MS Office under linux? Does Ubisoft care if I get Tomb Raider Underworld working on my copy of Windows ME? You can install Windows XP onto a machine with 32MB's of ram, MS won't try to stop you selling machines in that configuration.
Apple is the only company I know that attempts to restrict where it's software will run. All other companies will just refuse to support a platform and they state plainly what platform the software has been tested on (and will be supported on) and what they believe are the minimum requirements.
So why are Apple special? If people aren't expecting Apple to provide any support and there are no technical reasons for the software not running, why can't people do what they want? Every single other company works that way.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?
*figures pulled from ass, but not far from reality.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Eww... Remind me to never borrow anything from you, ever.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Every other company also makes 5% margin compared to Apple's 30%*, Should Apple also cut their margins to be with the cool crowd?
No, but that does indicate that there's something wrong.
All the people who defend Capitalism and Free Market often quote how it is a better thing for consumers than lots of regulation. It's true, when lots of competition exists. Ever questioned why that is? Hint: it's not because companies get a high profit margin. On the contrary, it's because prices approach marginal cost [wikipedia.org]
A high profit margin indicates there's something wrong with the market, in the form of not enough competition. In this case, it's
Re:Once again (Score:4, Interesting)
Cue all the replies from people who think they should have the right to install software from a company onto any piece of hardware they want.
Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?
I guess it's because those companies don't have those provisions in their license agreements. From my perspective it would be detrimental to their business models to place those kinds of restrictions on their products. For Apple it helps their business model and therefore they have included that into the license. You can argue that it might be worthy of anti-trust, might not be the best business model (though evidence points to it being highly effective) or anything else you can think of. The fact that nobody else does this does not mean that it can't be done, just that those other parties haven't found it to be a worthwhile business idea.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guess it's because those companies don't have those provisions in their license agreements
1. It is not settled law (to put it mildly) that the acceptance of a EULA is necessary to use a copy of software that you own. See here [cyberlawcases.com].
2. There is explicit federal law with regard to the right of a owner of a copy of a software program to modify that work as necessary to make it work on "a machine", provided that they do redistribute that modification. See 17 USC 1179(a) [bitlaw.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that doesn't involve Sun Microsystems and let's see how long you do in the market.
Or IBM OS/360. Or Palm WebOS. Or...
Re:Once again (Score:4, Informative)
You try to sell Solaris machines under a name that doesn't involve Sun Microsystems and let's see how long you do in the market. Or IBM OS/360. Or Palm WebOS. Or...
Fujitsu. They even design their own SPARC CPUs [wikipedia.org] which are better performing than Sun's. In fact, Sun has done such a craptastic job designing UltraSPARC V and Rock, that they have to sell high-end servers using Fujitsu's processors to be able to compete. Amdahl Corporation [wikipedia.org] manufactures IBM S/360 hardware.
A few reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
One is that Apple has done a good job of setting themselves up as the anti-MS underdog. Well, you get lots of geeks who hate MS. Thus if Apple is anti-MS, they like Apple. They never bother to examine if Apple's tactics are any better than MS's. It is a simple case of "I hate MS, these guys hate MS, so I like these guys."
Another is the cult/fanboy mentality Apple works to foster. They have always marketed their stuff as being superior, and implied that you are a superior person because you buy it. They work to create this cult-like status where you are "special" for being one of the chosen few who are an Apple user. That sort of thing leads to a "They can do no wrong," kind of mentality. Fanboys very much believe that their chosen brand/company is always right, whatever they say or do is correct. As such it doesn't matter how bad the action is, they defend it.
Along those lines is the worry that if another company replicates what Apple is doing, then they'll no longer be special. Despite their talk about OS-X being superior, the fanboys don't want everyone to have it because then they aren't special anymore, they are just normal.
That is really what it comes down to. Apple has a large fan base who is convinced they are the noble underdog, fighting the good fight. They don't examine their behavior objectively.
Re: (Score:2)
Bah. Most people who buy Apple stuff don't give the northbound end of a southbound rat about ownership, copyright, Pystar, Hackintoshes or anything else for that matter. It's essentially an appliance. You buy an MacBook, install whatever software you want (or not) and pick up the chicks at the local Starbucks. Or run the LH
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about getting software to work in those different ways, it's about changing it, repacking it and selling it on your own hardware.
Apple is very special (Score:2)
I have bought an (unlocked) iPhone and a 17" Macbook Pro. A few iPods are also on my conscience I must admit. The iPhone had to be unlocked. The Macbook Pro barely runs XP, after alot of fiddling with unofficial Bootcamp versions and whatnot. Why Apple can't seem to make regular updates for such software is beyond me. Maybe I have to buy the latest OS version, along with all the software again, to get updated? Oh yeah, I forgot, I probably have to buy a new computer from them as well then..
If OS X didn't tr
Re: (Score:2)
The full version of Bootcamp has worked flawlessly with every intel Mac I have ever used it on, including patching up through all the various service packs with XP - there was a hiccup with SP2 (or 3, I forget which) where it would refuse to install due to some issue with the way the partitions were laid out on the Mac HD (the XP installer just assumes by default that c:/ is the first partition without checking), but this could be fixed with a 5 second google+registry entry, or by updating a newer version o
Re: (Score:2)
See, OS X is the one reason I want to buy a mac right now (trying to convince myself the 27 inch imac is not hideously overpriced, but I am not doing a good job convincing myself.) Windows is Windows (though W7 seems to be kind of decent)and Linux is ugly and the media capabilities
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft does in the form of badges or certification.
Vista Approved, Designed for Vista, etc... These come from Microsoft and not the hardware maker.
However for Microsoft they go the opposite route. Rather than trying to restrict it, they label it to hardware that can barely do the job.
Of course this was an Intel/Microsoft clusterfsck, where Intel wanted to sell lots of old crappy motherboards, with terrible crappy integrated video, and Microsoft really wanted to release their new OS.
From some perspective
Go read some EULAs and have a fit (Score:2)
Out of interest where does, Microsoft Windows, Dos, Ubuntu, Photoshop, Autocad, Proteus, MS Office, Skype, All Games and just about any software I can think of come into this picture?
Go read the EULAs that come with all of those products, for a long list of things that you cannot do with "your" copy. Such as run the cheaper versions of Windows on any sort of virtual machine, move the OEM windows bundled with your PC onto another machine, use your educational-licence copy of Photoshop for commercial work...
The details are different, but the principle is the same: you don't own the copy you bought.
Every single other company works that way.
In your dreams. Well, maybe Ubuntu since the GPL only really kicks in if you want to modify
Re:Once again (Score:5, Informative)
In the old days, nobody would even think about separating the software and hardware
Sure they would. In 1980 I had a TRS-80 model I, with two single-density, single-sided floppy drives. When I booted it, I could boot Radio Shack's operating system (TRS-DOS) or one of several alaternates including NEWDOS, LDOS etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Once again (Score:4, Interesting)
much as TRS-DOS would be restricted to Radio Shack hardware.
TRS-DOS wasn't restricted to Radio Shack hardware - It ran on any of the TRS-80 clones, like the LMW-80. Most people ran 'better' OSes like NEWDOS, but if memory serves (and granted it was nearly 30 years ago) there was nothing preventing you from running TRS-DOS on a TRS-80 clone.
Re: (Score:2)
GeOS on the Commodore 64 says 'Hi'
D
Re: (Score:2)
Do you mean the people who think they should be able to do whatever they want to do with something they bought and paid for? Beyond not making copies and selling them, what right does any vendor have to tell us what we can do with a product we bought?
If I want to buy a copy of OSX and install it on my own hardware, it has nothing to do with copyright. Can you imagine a car company saying "yo
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I think corporations exists for the shareholders not us...no?
Re: (Score:2)
They also sell operating systems without hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's ok (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't call them fools if their business strategy makes them alot money.
I don't like the way they do things either, but all in all, they picked a route - stuck to it - and have generally been flawless in its execution.
As you said, the fools are the ones buying the product, but if its what they want, who am I to argue?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My impression and limited experience of Mac users has been folks who genuinely think Apple is innovative. I believe they are not. They take existing technology and perhaps make it more mature by adding a good interface to it. I give them credit for making things like mp3 players more mainstream but they did it by trying to pushing their own format. In the end they are bad for the industry and I am glad their strategy of keepin
Re: (Score:2)
In the end they are bad for the industry
Well now I wouldn't say THAT. I think the more and more Apple pushes that everything must be what they say, the more and more people want to go against that. Which will, of course, lead to cases like THIS, where they try to crack the OS.
And When Apple Cracks down on those people - 2 things will happen.
People will end up purchasing a Mac with OS X from an Apple store, OR
People will end up purchasing a computer and putting a different operating system on it. And if wanted OS X to get away from Windows, maybe
Re: (Score:2)
"but they did it by trying to pushing their own format" - MPEG-4 is *not* Apple's format.
Re: (Score:2)
You can call the users fools if you want but a lot are quite simply desperate. A lot of people have had bad experiences with Windows (cue people saying that Windows works for them) and they are desperate to buy something else. And Mac happens to be that something else.
We could have an entire discussion about why exactly people have bad experiences with Windows. But the reasons are irrelevant. A lot of people (fools as you call them) are willing to pay a lot for something that is not Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
That's an awfully big generalisation to make about people who buy Apple products.
Am I to infer that you run some flavour of Linux because you are just too cheap to spend money on software and hardware that works for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I got a $6000 Mac Pro to run Windows 7 so that I can run the Software (Visual Studio) I want to on the hardware (2 Quad Cores) I want to. I do it using Bootcamp, with full legit copies of the Operating Systems.
And I'll be honest, I don't think all Mac users are fools*. As much as I know about the Music and Video industry, which is very little, I understand that Macs are quite popular in that regard. I personally don't use that software so I wouldn't know how well it performs. I'm sure for those people
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough, but it was still something of a generalisation.
Incidentally, the white headphones are terrible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please explain to me why I am a fool for buying the system that best enables me to do my work? I have, at various times, primarily used Windows, Linux and OSX and, currently, OSX is the system that works best for me. Considering the price differences amount to a couple of hours pay yet the productivity gains amount to more than that every month, wouldn't I be a fool *not* to use it?
Re: (Score:2)
(Don't mention Ardour either, because as good as it is, it's nowhere near Logic)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting choice of example, since Logic is Mac-only for the sole reason that Apple bought eMagic. Prior to that Logic was also available for Windows. The windows Logic users were left high and dry with no further updates or support whatsoever. Think about it - Logic for Windows was a $399 piece of software. It was also rather unorthodox, leaving users to learn entirely new audio software. Very few were of a mind to buy a Mac I assure you.
I find it ironic that a Mac user would be proud of Apple for s
Re: (Score:2)
So, Windows, Oracle, Sun, IBM, Intel, Micron, the entirety of China have OK corporate behavior? So you're posting on a 1982 Morrow Micro Decision [vintage-computer.com]? Or something you built in your basement?
Get over it.