Forums | MacLife

Once Apple starts selling boxed retail copies of OS X for Intel, which they will have to once Leopard ships, then the argument starts getting murky.  If I bought a legal copy and want to run it on compatible hardware, that could be considered fair use.  The part in the EULA about only running it on Apple hardware may not be legal.  Ultimately, it will have to be challenged in court.  But if Apple keeps making such craptacular consumer hardware, I might just be tempted to look into it…

MacBoy4139 wrote:

What if they only sold it as an upgrade (with an actual sticker that said "Upgrade, requires prior version of OS X or OS 9")?

Then they would have to create an actual upgrade version.  Most boxed versions have been full versions however, not upgrades.

I really do hope someone challenges Apple in court soon.  They're getting to be almost as bad a monopoly as those other guys in Redmond…

Switch wrote:

Are you being sarcastic?

No...

MacBoy4139 wrote:

How hard would that be?  Some app that checks for a prior version of OS X installed?  Or something that requires a hardware check of the TPM module (which means that they have a license to the Mac OS).

It will be cracked.  Hackers will crack it just to show that it can be cracked, even if they don't pirate the OS.  They'll do it just 'cuz.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

They just have to sell it as an upgrade.  If it is clearly labeled, anyone that tries is clearly trying to break the law.

No, they have to do more than that.  Just saying it's an upgrade won't work.  When you buy a license for software, you have certain rights under fair use.  The software manufacturer can only legally restrict use to a certain extent.  As I said, this matter would have to be adjudicated in order to get a definitive answer.  It's not clear-cut however.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

How are they getting as bad as Redmond?  This is how Apple makes money.  On hardware.  If you want to see the company fail, then hack OS X and run it on your POS Dell.

The iTMS - iPod monopoly anyone?

I wouldn't run it on a POS Dell.  I'd run it on good hardware.  Apple uses the exact same hardware now.  No more trying to say that Apple has better stuff - they have exactly the same stuff everyone else has from the RAM to the HDs to the chipset to the CPU - it's all off-the-shelf.  A pretty case and an Apple logo is all that's different.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

They tried licensing before, and it didn't work.  There is no way they can make money by only selling OS X.

That was a long time ago.  The licensing agreements were draconian and the OS at the time was crap.  Mac clone makers had to make PPC hardware, which was more expensive.  Now, they can use off-the-shelf components throughout.  Some of us would be perfectly willing to run OS X on better spec'd hardware - even if it meant giving up the aesthetics of the case.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

Microsoft can't even make money selling Windows (and they charge a hell of a lot more than $129 for the full version).  Their main money maker is Office.

Apple has iLife, iWork, their pro-level software…

MacBoy4139 wrote:

Apple is a hardware company.  Their main source of income is hardware.  Not iPods either but Macs.

If you people really cared, you would do the right thing.  Otherwise, OS X won't even exist - then where the smurf will you bastards be?

That is changing rapidly.  iPods account for almost half of Apple's revenue.  I would love to buy Apple's hardware, but they don't make anything that is remotely appealing hardware-wise that's affordable.  Apple's consumer line-up has always been crap and it continues to be crap.  So I would love to do the right thing.  If Steve can produce the hardware I want that meets my needs without screwing me over on the price, I'll buy.

See, the "Mac experience" only goes so far with me.  I'm more about the hardware.  I'll pay a premium for OS X, but not a whole lot.  Windows is teh suck, but it's useable.  I'd also gladly pay the $129 - or even more - and use my copy of OS X on whatever hardware I see fit.

Can you be a little more specific about what's not appealing about the lineup? The mini may have integrated graphics, but it's designed to be the very low end. It kind of sucks that it's now $600 minimum, but the CPU is much better than the old one, and the Radeon 9200 was hardly a huge performer to begin with. The largest drawback about the integrated graphics isn't so much the speed, since it should be slightly faster than the 9200, but the shared memory. If you upgrade your RAM like most users do, then you should be fine. It's designed for people who don't need that much GPU power.

The iMac, however, has a very good GPU in it. Not only that, the processors are quite speedy, and the the rest of the system is quite nice. It's a very good mid-ranged system.

robco wrote:

MacBoy4139 wrote:

How hard would that be?  Some app that checks for a prior version of OS X installed?  Or something that requires a hardware check of the TPM module (which means that they have a license to the Mac OS).

It will be cracked.  Hackers will crack it just to show that it can be cracked, even if they don't pirate the OS.  They'll do it just 'cuz.

Agreed.  At the same time, there are people like you who will run it on non-Apple hardware and use it.  Not "just 'cuz."

MacBoy4139 wrote:

They just have to sell it as an upgrade.  If it is clearly labeled, anyone that tries is clearly trying to break the law.

No, they have to do more than that.  Just saying it's an upgrade won't work.  When you buy a license for software, you have certain rights under fair use.  The software manufacturer can only legally restrict use to a certain extent.  As I said, this matter would have to be adjudicated in order to get a definitive answer.  It's not clear-cut however.

Then sue Microsoft for not allowing you to buy the Win XP upgrade and install it on a machine that you built.

Has anyone even tried that?  (I'm asking)

MacBoy4139 wrote:

How are they getting as bad as Redmond?  This is how Apple makes money.  On hardware.  If you want to see the company fail, then hack OS X and run it on your POS Dell.

The iTMS - iPod monopoly anyone?

You have a choice to not buy from the iTMS.  It works with CDs, and Real's Rhapsody keeps making their music iPod enabled.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

I wouldn't run it on a POS Dell.  I'd run it on good hardware.  Apple uses the exact same hardware now.  No more trying to say that Apple has better stuff - they have exactly the same stuff everyone else has from the RAM to the HDs to the chipset to the CPU - it's all off-the-shelf.  A pretty case and an Apple logo is all that's different.

Why haven't they laid off the hundreds of engineers that designed their motherboards then?  They are not going to stick with just whatever Intel makes obviously.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

They tried licensing before, and it didn't work.  There is no way they can make money by only selling OS X.

That was a long time ago.  The licensing agreements were draconian and the OS at the time was crap.  Mac clone makers had to make PPC hardware, which was more expensive.  Now, they can use off-the-shelf components throughout.  Some of us would be perfectly willing to run OS X on better spec'd hardware - even if it meant giving up the aesthetics of the case.

They licensed the motherboards that Apple designed.  How much would OS X have to cost for them to make up on it in a licensing fee?

A lot.  Plus, I really don't think OS X would be the same OS.  Look at Windows - it has to support everything.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

Microsoft can't even make money selling Windows (and they charge a hell of a lot more than $129 for the full version).  Their main money maker is Office.

Apple has iLife, iWork, their pro-level software…

So?  iWork is a joke for most.  iLife is good (except for the bugs) but even I haven't purchased the latest version yet.  I doubt they make a lot of money on that.

Pro level apps?  I would be surprised if their revenue out-weighed their purchasing of the companies that made it possible (they only made Final Cut Pro and I think Motion, btw).

They release all of this stuff for... you guessed it - so people buy their hardware.  Why else would they discontinue the Windows version of Shake?  Why not make FCP for Windows?

MacBoy4139 wrote:

Apple is a hardware company.  Their main source of income is hardware.  Not iPods either but Macs.

If you people really cared, you would do the right thing.  Otherwise, OS X won't even exist - then where the smurf will you bastards be?

That is changing rapidly.  iPods account for almost half of Apple's revenue.  I would love to buy Apple's hardware, but they don't make anything that is remotely appealing hardware-wise that's affordable.  Apple's consumer line-up has always been crap and it continues to be crap.  So I would love to do the right thing.  If Steve can produce the hardware I want that meets my needs without screwing me over on the price, I'll buy.

See, the "Mac experience" only goes so far with me.  I'm more about the hardware.  I'll pay a premium for OS X, but not a whole lot.  Windows is teh suck, but it's useable.  I'd also gladly pay the $129 - or even more - and use my copy of OS X on whatever hardware I see fit.

Apple has good hardware.  Even if they didn't on the PowerPC side as your opinion, if they have the "same off the shelf stuff" why not just do the legal thing and buy it from them?  It's not like all PC manufacturers charge rock-bottom prices.

Look at Dells XPS line, or the entire Alienware line.

You also pay for good design.  This is true for everything - from home furnishings to cars to computers.

Zetetic Apparatchik wrote:

I'm pretty sure that the methods involved to get it to work, break the DMCA.

EULA's aren't necessarily enforceable, especially if the local state laws contradict them. In regards to DMCA...who knows. I don't think it really matters in the long run. If Apple simply did nothing to stop installs on standard PCs, MOST folks would still use Windows without a second though. They wouldn't loose that much business because MOST folks aren't willing to pay Apple prices for their hardware in the first place.

I would dual-boot it, sure, but my wife wouldn't, and she is pretty computer savvy. To each there own.

Joe

Last edited by lamewing (2006-03-01 8:30 pm)

Phydeaux wrote:

MacBoy4139 wrote:

Please.  Oh wait - they already bought it once, so then it's really ok?

If anyone wants Apple to survive, they would do them a favor and not steal.

I'm not saying to steal anything you stupid smurf.

Go back and reread my post. If you're going to post anything to do with "theft" akin to downloading anything off of Bit Torrent, a P2P network or usenet, then type the post in your mind and don't let me see it.

I buy the software; I should be able to do as a please with it.

AND I KNOW THAT PIRATING IT DOESN'T COUNT.

Yes, that strawman does seem to come up in these debates often.

Then sue Microsoft for not allowing you to buy the Win XP upgrade and install it on a machine that you built.

Has anyone even tried that?  (I'm asking)

Yes I have and it works fine. Actually, I have the Win98 disk, but the install doesn't ask for it, and it isn't needed for the upgrade nowadays. Back in 2001, yes it asked for the disc, but I guess Microsoft really doesn't care that much anymore.

Joe

Your original complain was that installing X on generic intel boxes violated the box description and the EULA because both said that the software was an upgrade.

Phydeaux wrote:

How many people complained about product activation because they couldn't buy a copy and install it on their friends and family's computers?

Strawman.

Technically its a red herring.  But it is a logical fallacy.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

Agreed.  At the same time, there are people like you who will run it on non-Apple hardware and use it.  Not "just 'cuz."

I wouldn't just 'cuz.  I'd gladly pay for my copy of the software.  I would do it 'cuz I don't want to be restricted to pretty, underpowered, overpriced hardware.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

Then sue Microsoft for not allowing you to buy the Win XP upgrade and install it on a machine that you built.

The upgrade won't install.  Besides, getting a cheaper OEM version of Windows is easy - and legal.  Upgrade discs are a PITA, when you re-install the OS, you have to do it twice.

Apple could try making an installer that looks for a previously installed version of OS X, but that would hurt folks trying to do a clean install onto a freshly reformatted drive.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

You have a choice to not buy from the iTMS.  It works with CDs, and Real's Rhapsody keeps making their music iPod enabled.

Sorry, I don't buy it.

I have a choice, unless I want exclusive iTMS tracks.  Or unless I want to use the iTMS, but not the iPod.  Or use a different store with an iPod.  Real's Rhapsody was deliberately locked out by Apple.  If that's not the behavior or a monopoly, I don't know what is.  The entire system is closed to any competition.  If you're on a Mac, it is in fact your only option.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

Why haven't they laid off the hundreds of engineers that designed their motherboards then?  They are not going to stick with just whatever Intel makes obviously.

Lots of OEMs design and make mobos.  Apple's engineers no longer have to design the system controller and have it custom-made by IBM.  They'll save tons on R&D.  All Apple's mobo designers have to do is re-arrange the pieces into the shape they want.  There are custom PCs out there too, SFF PCs are becoming more popular.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

They licensed the motherboards that Apple designed.  How much would OS X have to cost for them to make up on it in a licensing fee?

A lot.  Plus, I really don't think OS X would be the same OS.  Look at Windows - it has to support everything.

Exactly, but now standard mobos and cases can be used at a tremendous cost savings - but Apple won't do that, it has to be in a more expensive and pretty box.  I wouldn't mind a basic black minitower - not all of them are ugly.  I don't care if it's brushed Aluminum or white plastic.  They could probably even get away with selling OS X for $200 a pop and iLife for twice its current price - and it would sell.  Sure, they'd have to give a price break to OEMs, but they'll make up with a higher volume of sales.  Not just from the OS and iLife, but iWork and all their other software.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

So?  iWork is a joke for most.  iLife is good (except for the bugs) but even I haven't purchased the latest version yet.  I doubt they make a lot of money on that.

Office is the cash cow, but Windows does make money.  iWork is more than adequate for most home users.  Most consumer PCs have MS Works - iWork would be much nicer (nicer still if they'd offer a damn spreadsheet with it).  iLife is much better than most consumer media apps.

MacBoy4139 wrote:

Pro level apps?  I would be surprised if their revenue out-weighed their purchasing of the companies that made it possible (they only made Final Cut Pro and I think Motion, btw).

They release all of this stuff for... you guessed it - so people buy their hardware.  Why else would they discontinue the Windows version of Shake?  Why not make FCP for Windows?

FCP was bought long ago, FCP is making money - or they would have pulled the plug by now.

But you hit on the important point - they rely on people paying way too much for their hardware.  But now that the hardware is on equal footing, it's difficult to justify the price difference.  Apple needs to change from selling overpriced commodity hardware to supplement their software development.  They shouldn't have discontinued Logic or Shake for Windows either.  They could have made millions on the licensing (especially from Shake, the licenses were a few thousand per workstation).

If Apple had a complete product line, I wouldn't have a problem buying from them and paying for the whole package - but they don't and likely never will as long as Jobs is at the helm.  He has this ridiculous notion that people don't want expandable, upgradeable hardware.  So we're stuck with a tiny box and an all-in-one that offer most of the drawbacks of a laptop, but without the upside of mobility.  What other option is there for those of us actually interested in the hardware upon which our software runs?

MacBoy4139 wrote:

Apple has good hardware.  Even if they didn't on the PowerPC side as your opinion, if they have the "same off the shelf stuff" why not just do the legal thing and buy it from them?  It's not like all PC manufacturers charge rock-bottom prices.

Look at Dells XPS line, or the entire Alienware line.

You also pay for good design.  This is true for everything - from home furnishings to cars to computers.

Yes, look at Dell's XPS line.  I can choose from a SFF (XPS 200), mid-tower (XPS 400) or screaming full-tower with dual graphics cards (XPS 600).  From Apple I can get - a mini or an iMac.  That's it.  Alienware makes great stuff, but also a much more diverse product offering.  I can get a SFF, desktop, small tower, large tower, tiny laptop, mid-size laptop or humongous laptop.  Oh, the wonder of diversity!  Apple seems to think that all of us would prefer non-upgradeable machines with middling specs.  Either that, or behemoth workstation-class machines that start at $2K.  There is no middle ground.  You either get a smurf or a god box.

If Apple offered the range of hardware other OEMs offer (and with the switch, they are just another OEM), I would gladly buy from them.  But they don't, so I won't.

As for doing the legal thing - again, that's something the courts will have to determine.  It's not and B&W issue, it's very very gray.

Hi. You're technically a DMCA violator, if the CD has copy protection.

If the "CD" has copy protection, then it is not a CD-Audio disc, and cannot bear the CD-Audio logo.  So says Phillips -- the co-inventor of the CD format.

I assume they're referring to copy protection other than the SCMS flag, which standalone consumer digital audio recorders must obey and which computers are free to ignore.