Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci | Twitter
Sean Fallon | Twitter
Jack Loftus | Twitter
John Herrman | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford | Twitter
Rosa Golijan | Twitter
Chris Jacob
It was a godsend for subtitled shows, but then I installed Perian and it worked better, in Quicktime, and displayed subs with the formatting they were supposed to have - just like VobSub on PC.
@fuchikoma: Also, if you visit the link, it says that the only crisis is not really a lack of man power to develop it fully, but a lack of man power to keep the UI on the Mac version updated, especially seeing as it's coded in Objective-C.
They're making a complete rewrite of the interface called Lunettes, apparently. Looks very "media-centric" so far... [wiki.github.com]
But I'm more intrigued by this line:
Finally, we have a few issues, since Apple doesn't want us on the Mac platform and is blocking us a lot, and refuses to explain why.
I wonder why Apple would have such an interest in doing that. Maybe it's not Apple, but the new tools of code that's blocking the libraries?
@(Starman) Starman: Lunettes doesn't look too bad... I was surprised how VLC on Mac is mostly like Quicktime on Mac, yet on Windows, it's like it was designed by someone who had never seen video player software before.
I wonder about the blocking comment too... I could see if they got frustrated if their program broke every time a major OS revision dropped. That makes sense too since so many Mac programs require the newest OS version if you're going to get the newer program version... of the same program with the same features.
Sad news, I think VLC is great and have never had problems with it. Some of you complained about the UI, perhaps I am blind, but I have been using VLC for a long time on both Mac and Windows and I didn't notice any major UI changes?
@Coolmodo: Anyone complaining about the UI is probably an apple/quicktime fanboy. VLC can easily be skinned. They have skins to emulate quicktime, windows media player, or whatever you want it to look like.
I used to love VLC. Then they screwed with their UI. Now I use CCCP and Media Player Classic for almost everything.... plays AVI's and MKV's just fine, even if I need to screw with VobSub to change subtitles instead of being able to do it within MPC. I keep VLC around for network streams but that's about it.
I mean, aren't they just PCs running MacOS in the same way Macs Run Windows? I mean, give and take a little R&D in creating working drivers and an installation work around.
ASSUMING they bought one copy of boxed MacOS per system they built, the only thing they've disrupted is the EULA, which is technically a crock of sh*t when you consider certain End-user rights are protected by Fair Use. In a sense "Unconstitutional."
Any OS that I, as an end user, purchase legally, I am protected by my right to modify that OS as I see fit, including drivers, software, workarounds, registry mods, etc. My only limitation is whether or not I am breaking OTHER laws, such as copyright infringement, installing malicious software, or using the system as a tool for other crimes.
@Louis Wang: But was it by them simply building a computer with a "Modified OS" or was it because they sold more copies of MacOS than they bought?
Consider any private computer builder, in fact, commercial ones, too, such as DELL. All of them use modified installers with Windows. Throw in some service packs, hotfixes, drivers, software, put it all into an unattended install, or better yet, hard drive image. Pump out fully working OSs as fast as you can build them.
Only catch is that if you Sell 100 computers running Windows, you need to purchase 100 licenses.
@Ninety-9: They did all of that:
1) Sold more copies than they bought (infringement)
2) Sold different copies than were installed (infringement)
3) Sold modified copies on the systems (infringement)
Dell has purchased a license that allows them to: 1) Ship without a disc, 2) Ship with a modified OS image, 3) Ship with a preload.
Was there any doubt that the apple lawyers would squash them? Nobody needed them anyway, They stole from the opensource community and tried to profit from it. They deserved to die. Tons of alternatives out there for people who wish to tinker, Words can't express how much i hate them.
Hold on a sec, Rosa. Your graphic confuses me. If Steve is the Emperor, about to shoot lightning bolts into Psystar, then "logic" would follow that AT&T would intervene at the last second, saving Psystar of its grizzly fate, but mortally wounding itself.
I never would have imagined AT&T would come to Psystar's rescue. Interesting development!
@Jrsy Devil's Advocate®: In this version of the story, it seems like Luke, I mean Psystar may not fare as well, though. I bet they're thinking, "I wish I could just curl up in a warm tauntaun right now, and sleep it off."
Actually Giz, you got it wrong. They are banned from selling their computers with OSX, but they still have the option to install OSX should their buyers feel the need to.
@ronaldmonster: You may want to re-read this section:
• Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe Apple's copyrighted Mac OS X software.
• Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.
• Playing any part in a product intended to circumvent Apple's methods for controlling Mac OS X, such as the methods used to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.
• Doing anything to circumvent the rights held by Apple under the Copyright Act with respect to Mac OS X.
This is what I don't understand. Why is it Apple can sell OSX only for Apple hardware and Microsoft would be sued for Billions of dollars in damages if it chose to disable Windows install on any manufactures hardware. Imagine if Microsoft decided Windows 8 will only be sold on machines manufactured by Microsoft. There would be a hail storm of anti trust lawsuits heading their way.
Microsoft can't even bundle a web browser with Windows 7 in Europe without getting sued and Apply can bundles tons of software like Safari in OSX. It's time Apple is brought down a peg. It's becoming a mini monopoly in it's own right.
Companies like Dell, HP, Sony should be able to offer the OSX operating system on any machine they sell.
@RyaninCalgary: That's like complaining that you can't install Playstation Home on your XBox 360. While I often disagree with them, Apple can legitimately and legally sell their proprietary OS to only be used on their hardware.
@RyaninCalgary: You do not seem to understand this word monopoly. Apple is no where near having complete control over their market. They compete with every hardware manufacturer out there. And have not even a 10% market share. So not only do they not control their field, they are no where near being a monopoly and triggering anti trust.
Also Microsoft, being a primarily software company would never try to compete directly with Apple. They would be mutilated. Looking at the figures for Xbox failure, should give you some idea as to how that would end. It would make no business sense.
@Nathan Obbards: Bad analogy. MacOS is an...OS. Home is a piece of software designed for the Playstation 3 OS. If you can figure out a way to install it and make it run on a 360, you would have to hack the PS3s file system, recode the entire application to run on the 360s architecture and then figure out a way to install your newly crafted software on a 360.
It wouldn't be a lawsuit waiting at the end for you, but a high-paying job.
Well, it serves 'em right, and this is what should happen to companies who lift the IP of others and redistribute it without first obtaining rights to resell it.
@Kaiser-Machead: Your right, it's not the same thing since Apple just used the idea and made another product out of it. But if it happened today, Apple wouldn't have stood a chance.
@symbology: Jobs made a deal with PARC, in which he would bring in his team to get a look at their work and use the concepts they saw and implement it into their own products, in exchange for a number of shares of Apple.
I don't think Psystar did anything remotely similar.
@Nathan Obbards: Well actually, that only helps my point. Apple did not deserve the name 'iPhone' for free, and they too had to pony up the dough for it.
@The.Smith: Psystar purchased the sealed copies that they included with some systems, but that doesn't grant them the right to sell a hacked version, which they got off of a master copy from a Mac in-house, which was used for the Open Mac's preloads. It wasn't just the fact that they were selling unauthorized clones, but that each machine was preloaded off of one master copy over and over again, which is piracy.
12/17/09
12/17/09
They're making a complete rewrite of the interface called Lunettes, apparently. Looks very "media-centric" so far... [wiki.github.com]
But I'm more intrigued by this line:
Finally, we have a few issues, since Apple doesn't want us on the Mac platform and is blocking us a lot, and refuses to explain why.
I wonder why Apple would have such an interest in doing that. Maybe it's not Apple, but the new tools of code that's blocking the libraries?
12/18/09
I wonder about the blocking comment too... I could see if they got frustrated if their program broke every time a major OS revision dropped. That makes sense too since so many Mac programs require the newest OS version if you're going to get the newer program version... of the same program with the same features.
12/17/09
So maybe Apple should consider throwing their $30B weight behind supporting more formats.
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
VLC is the only "free" OS X player that gives me 5.1 (suck it, Apple DVD player) - it's essential for my HTPC.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
I mean, aren't they just PCs running MacOS in the same way Macs Run Windows? I mean, give and take a little R&D in creating working drivers and an installation work around.
ASSUMING they bought one copy of boxed MacOS per system they built, the only thing they've disrupted is the EULA, which is technically a crock of sh*t when you consider certain End-user rights are protected by Fair Use. In a sense "Unconstitutional."
Any OS that I, as an end user, purchase legally, I am protected by my right to modify that OS as I see fit, including drivers, software, workarounds, registry mods, etc. My only limitation is whether or not I am breaking OTHER laws, such as copyright infringement, installing malicious software, or using the system as a tool for other crimes.
12/16/09
12/16/09
Consider any private computer builder, in fact, commercial ones, too, such as DELL. All of them use modified installers with Windows. Throw in some service packs, hotfixes, drivers, software, put it all into an unattended install, or better yet, hard drive image. Pump out fully working OSs as fast as you can build them.
Only catch is that if you Sell 100 computers running Windows, you need to purchase 100 licenses.
12/17/09
1) Sold more copies than they bought (infringement)
2) Sold different copies than were installed (infringement)
3) Sold modified copies on the systems (infringement)
Dell has purchased a license that allows them to: 1) Ship without a disc, 2) Ship with a modified OS image, 3) Ship with a preload.
Psystar has purchased none of those things.
12/15/09
12/15/09
I never would have imagined AT&T would come to Psystar's rescue. Interesting development!
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
In other words, this didn't do shit.
12/15/09
• Intentionally inducing, aiding, assisting, abetting or encouraging any other person or entity to infringe Apple's copyrighted Mac OS X software.
• Circumventing any technological measure that effectively controls access Mac OS X, including, but not limited to, the technological measure used by Apple to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.
• Playing any part in a product intended to circumvent Apple's methods for controlling Mac OS X, such as the methods used to prevent unauthorized copying of Mac OS X on non-Apple computers.
• Doing anything to circumvent the rights held by Apple under the Copyright Act with respect to Mac OS X.
12/15/09
Microsoft can't even bundle a web browser with Windows 7 in Europe without getting sued and Apply can bundles tons of software like Safari in OSX. It's time Apple is brought down a peg. It's becoming a mini monopoly in it's own right.
Companies like Dell, HP, Sony should be able to offer the OSX operating system on any machine they sell.
12/15/09
12/15/09
Also Microsoft, being a primarily software company would never try to compete directly with Apple. They would be mutilated. Looking at the figures for Xbox failure, should give you some idea as to how that would end. It would make no business sense.
12/15/09
It is their IP....they don't have to open it up.
Their "closed" system is clearly not for everyone as they are clearly not a big player by percentage of market share.
We use them because we need to get things done rather than trying to get things to work.
12/16/09
It wouldn't be a lawsuit waiting at the end for you, but a high-paying job.
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
(not flaming, just giving an example that fits)
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
I don't think Psystar did anything remotely similar.
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
Apple just used the name iPhone and then was forced to pay for it.
12/15/09
12/15/09