I understand where they are coming from with the initial scandal about "finding" Psystar, but I think Apple needs to let this go. I know they make a good product but it is technically a monopoly and a little competition never hurt the consumer.
@LazyPanda: but you could easily "reformat" your Coke bottle and put Pepsi in it and it would not violate your Coke EULA. In addition, you can also take that Coke and put it in a glass and not violate your EULA.
According to Apple, OSX is ONLY usable on Mac hardware (Coke liquid ONLY drinkable in a Coke bottle)
While Windows (Pepsi) can be run on any hardware (cups, saucers, mugs, Coke bottles, even Smirnov bottles) without violating their EULA.
@CaliBoom: Yes, but Pepsi can't sell Coke in their bottles and vice versa. What you do with your Coke and Pepsi and their respective bottles at home is your business. The issue here isn't just the EULA. It's the company that's breaking the EULA as part of actually selling a product.
@Macgyver: The only reason they can't do that is because they have a trademark on their logo. Using your argument, it would be like Psystar taking their own OS, putting it in a Mac OS X box, and selling it as Mac OS. Here, they are just taking a purchased copy of Mac OS X and re-selling it. The ONLY questionable part is their breaking the code that locks Mac OS X to Apple hardware, and the EULA that might or might not protect against this action (which has not been proven in a court of law).
Basically, Apple are being douchebags. They want to take a mostly open platform, put their operating system on it, and then modify that hardware to work in tangent with their system so that the system won't work on any other hardware. If they wanted to play that game, they should have stuck with proprietary chips.
@hexydes: Right, but that isn't against the law. The sell you the right to use the software, not the software itself. By agreeing to open/install the software you agree to the EULA.
Really what this is about, is that you're upset that what Apple is doing is legal, and you can't/won't afford the 'legally permissible hardware' that the EULA specifies.
So, no they're not being douchebags, they're doing what they've always done. Which is attempt to control the user experience to ensure that the product performs according to their intent and design. Disney does this at their theme parks. It is a fairly closed environment where they attempt to control the experience had. Should Disney be sued because we cannot copy the Tower of Terror?
Apple's business model is no different than any other company that sells a turnkey operation. Why aren't people angry that Cisco's FWSM systems cannot be installed on a PC? It's a linux/intel platform. What about the rest of the network appliance world? Or companies that sell turnkey POS systems. IBM's POS systems are basically Intel PC's w/ customized cases, displays, and a Linux OS these days.
12/04/08
12/04/08
What makes them crappy, exactly? I guess I missed the big Psystar computer review on Giz last month =/
12/04/08
12/04/08
"The evil men are out to get me."
12/04/08
12/04/08
12/04/08
[www.freespire.org]
12/04/08
12/04/08
12/04/08
12/04/08
12/04/08
12/04/08
12/04/08
12/04/08
12/04/08
After all, Coke only comes in Coke cans and bottles.
12/04/08
According to Apple, OSX is ONLY usable on Mac hardware (Coke liquid ONLY drinkable in a Coke bottle)
While Windows (Pepsi) can be run on any hardware (cups, saucers, mugs, Coke bottles, even Smirnov bottles) without violating their EULA.
12/04/08
12/04/08
Basically, Apple are being douchebags. They want to take a mostly open platform, put their operating system on it, and then modify that hardware to work in tangent with their system so that the system won't work on any other hardware. If they wanted to play that game, they should have stuck with proprietary chips.
12/04/08
Really what this is about, is that you're upset that what Apple is doing is legal, and you can't/won't afford the 'legally permissible hardware' that the EULA specifies.
So, no they're not being douchebags, they're doing what they've always done. Which is attempt to control the user experience to ensure that the product performs according to their intent and design. Disney does this at their theme parks. It is a fairly closed environment where they attempt to control the experience had. Should Disney be sued because we cannot copy the Tower of Terror?
Apple's business model is no different than any other company that sells a turnkey operation. Why aren't people angry that Cisco's FWSM systems cannot be installed on a PC? It's a linux/intel platform. What about the rest of the network appliance world? Or companies that sell turnkey POS systems. IBM's POS systems are basically Intel PC's w/ customized cases, displays, and a Linux OS these days.