Decending to name calling now? Sorry if I refuse to accept Apple as the all-might, never-failing computer company that's going to change our lives, save the world, and cure AIDS all based on Steve's visions.
Do they have a decent niche product? Yes. Is their marketing team one of the best in the industry? Certainly. Did they actually come up with most of the technology they integrate? Certainly not.
Just one simple little thing like inspecting a weld joint with X-ray. You need to maintain a whole lab and trained people. and then you have the mission asserace people who check that the work was done and that the correct weld was inspeced and so on and so on
Except plenty of other private companies inspect high-stress weld joints and don't need to be funded billions of dollars to not be able to do something we managed 40 years ago. You did hit on what I agree is the real problem - the millions of people triple and quadrouple checking everything...3 times each. As with most engineering accomplishments - the physical hardware is normally a minor part of the price. The R&D, testing, and construction cost consumes the vast majority (do you really thing there's $250k of raw steel and carbon fiber in the latest Ferrari? lol).
Your window washer comment is entirely off-base and un-related. It's got nothing to do with the over-sized army of people creating piles of documentation, middle-management commitees and associated BS that's the failure of NASA>
There's also the not-so-minor consideration i pointed out already.
Their "hidden contract" requires action of you regardless of your agreement - otherwise you're forcd to give up the entire value of the product. You have to a) agree and abide by terms or b) go back and return (assuming there's not an argument at the store on top of it). Granted a money-back is known and assumed by most of us techie people but the majority of the population sees the "no returns on opened software" policy in virtualy *every*single*store*. So which contract superceedes which? 'Opened' to most stores is the box, not the sticker-sealed software packet that's inside many/most.
They are forcing you to take action that you can't not know prior to purchase.
Now, just initial here that the 2008 mandatory stress testing has been done on each component, OSHA has approved the ergonomics of the seats, all modern safety systems are in place...and...hello? Where are you going?
No one (with power in NASA or gov't) is interested in getting back to the moon without a billion rules, regulations, and safety measures.
After all, you can't USE software without copying it. Companies are getting into the insanity of claiming that any copy is subject to their rules or considered unauthorized and thus illegal. This includes the copy in system memory for Warcraft with respect to their glider lawsuit.
Wear leveling will dynamically move around clusters as needed.
Look at it a different way: What emerging technology will stay standard enough for 5 years (much less 30) that it will still be in vaugely common use? C'mon. These brand new SSD's are great but in a few years they'll be the early adopter junk that no one wants. Will you really care about a 32GB SSD when your average SSD is 500GB?
I sure don't pay any mind to the pile of 40GB hard drives i have laying around my house.
Depends on how it's hit. A drive mid-access is much more likely to take damage from a minor to moderate fall than a LCD.
But besides that, the value of the data of many laptops is far greater than the cost of a screen replacement and SSD's are at least on price-parity with the cost of basic data recovery fees for platter-based hard drives.
Oh, and you have the benefit of significantly faster data access in many/most cases.
You bought the car, PAID for the car, went outside with keys in hand and before climbing in to drive away they hand you a 'usage contract' and required you to agree to it before driving away. They fail.
The big problem is that software is treated differently than other "real" things and software companies are allowed to get away with nonsense like this.
If you bought 100 copies of the book, tore out the last 20 pages and inserted your own and marked it as such...you'd be on firmer ground.
I know there was a court case about someone modifying movies and reselling but that just means the precedent needs to be revisited. After all, that was a movie - not a bit of computer software:)
Knowing something comes with additional terms doesn't mean I agreed to them prior to purchase nor, as i've pointed out, agreed to them.
While precedent may generally side with Apple it's not crystal clear either. Furthermore it's just another example of how broken copyright/DMCA/patent laws are.
I can sell software that modifies software though.
Here, buy this "computer" Also...buy a copy of OSX Now, for.01c we throw in this one-time boot software that you might want. Yeah just run this the first time you boot, m'kay?
More complex loopholes have already been exploited (in the opposite direction unfortunatly - see bliz vs. glider).
You miss one big point. If honda had such a contract you would have to view and sign it BEFORE purchasing the car. If that was written in the users manual (provided post-purchase) stating that you had to agree or return the car it would be unenforcable.
Sorry, but modifying software is NOT copyright infringement.
They're legally purchasing copies of OSX - not stealing them (one would assume at least...or else this company is simply awaiting it's grave).
Furthermore, Honda *could* make you drive on honda-approved roads. Except they would make you read *and sign* the contract *PRIOR* to selling you the car. EULA's are attempts at after-the-fact forced contractual obligations. Depsite the offers of returns...a return still means they're requiring an action from you based on an agreement you 1) did not sign 2) did not read or have details presented prior to the sale.
This is why, afaik, EULA's have been shot down in court cases.
Beg to differ. Right of first sale or whatever nonsense it's called.
I already bought product XYZ without limitation. You're trying to enforce a contract after the fact. The "agree or return it" is still an attempt at enforcing a contractual obligation after the fact. I simply decline the entire agreement in whole - including that part. They can't force an action upon me (such as returning) that I don't agree to.
Not lookint to start a flamewar either...but Apple is not a huge innovation company. They LICENSE innovations and then put them together in appealing packaging and make comprimises to fit a niche market that other larger scale retailers will not do.
They licensed multi-touch. The licensed the scroll-wheel that essentially invented the iPod. They purchased the 1.8" hard drives when they first became commercially available. They purchase intel CPUs, standard LCD panels...etc.
Is the Shell on the Air nicely designed? No doubt. Is it innovative by itself? No. The gutts they bought.
Is OSX innovative? Perhaps...but again, it's based off something anyway (i.e. linux).
Iphone. Multi-touch + large LCD screen + phone. Nice combination but none are innovations of apple.
It is illegal to sell a modified, (unlicensed) OS X (or any other work under copyright), no matter the whining about "imaginary property".
Except Psystar *PURCHASES* OSX licenses. There is a rather fuzzy area regarding what they're allowed to do with those licenses once they have them, but click-through EULA's have been put to the test in court and shot down. Or are you saying that everyone that's purchased and hacked OSX onto a PC should also be sued?
Either the modification is legal or it's not. Either selling (or reselling) OSX is legal or it's not.
But Apple sells MacOS separate from their computers. They WANT users to put OSX on Macs, but very well know it's usable on a PC.
Psystar is not pirating anything. They're purchasing the copies of OSX that they sell. I suggest you re-examine what's going on here. Apple might want you to think differently but that's just because some people are over-creative when examining copyright law.
I don't like or dislike their business model. My point is that it's out of date and instead of adapting they're sueing. While it happens all to often, twisting laws and sueing competition into oblivion should not be a method of perpetuating your income.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry but at what point did I say that? Assuming I'm a MS fanboy just because I don't worship apple is a bit of a stretch.
Decending to name calling now? Sorry if I refuse to accept Apple as the all-might, never-failing computer company that's going to change our lives, save the world, and cure AIDS all based on Steve's visions.
Do they have a decent niche product? Yes. Is their marketing team one of the best in the industry? Certainly. Did they actually come up with most of the technology they integrate? Certainly not.
Except plenty of other private companies inspect high-stress weld joints and don't need to be funded billions of dollars to not be able to do something we managed 40 years ago. You did hit on what I agree is the real problem - the millions of people triple and quadrouple checking everything...3 times each. As with most engineering accomplishments - the physical hardware is normally a minor part of the price. The R&D, testing, and construction cost consumes the vast majority (do you really thing there's $250k of raw steel and carbon fiber in the latest Ferrari? lol).
Your window washer comment is entirely off-base and un-related. It's got nothing to do with the over-sized army of people creating piles of documentation, middle-management commitees and associated BS that's the failure of NASA>
There's also the not-so-minor consideration i pointed out already.
Their "hidden contract" requires action of you regardless of your agreement - otherwise you're forcd to give up the entire value of the product. You have to a) agree and abide by terms or b) go back and return (assuming there's not an argument at the store on top of it). Granted a money-back is known and assumed by most of us techie people but the majority of the population sees the "no returns on opened software" policy in virtualy *every*single*store*. So which contract superceedes which? 'Opened' to most stores is the box, not the sticker-sealed software packet that's inside many/most.
They are forcing you to take action that you can't not know prior to purchase.
Virtually all notebook users write 50GB to their drive a day? I somehow greatly doubt that.
Well unless you count LEO...we're not. The ISS is what, about 220 miles up? Shuttle makes it a whopping 500-ish at most? what a sad state.
Sure sure. Sounds great.
Now, just initial here that the 2008 mandatory stress testing has been done on each component, OSHA has approved the ergonomics of the seats, all modern safety systems are in place...and...hello? Where are you going?
No one (with power in NASA or gov't) is interested in getting back to the moon without a billion rules, regulations, and safety measures.
This analogy is too far out there at this point.
After all, you can't USE software without copying it. Companies are getting into the insanity of claiming that any copy is subject to their rules or considered unauthorized and thus illegal. This includes the copy in system memory for Warcraft with respect to their glider lawsuit.
Insanity.
Wear leveling will dynamically move around clusters as needed.
Look at it a different way: What emerging technology will stay standard enough for 5 years (much less 30) that it will still be in vaugely common use? C'mon. These brand new SSD's are great but in a few years they'll be the early adopter junk that no one wants. Will you really care about a 32GB SSD when your average SSD is 500GB?
I sure don't pay any mind to the pile of 40GB hard drives i have laying around my house.
Ideally we'd stop using silly measurements like feet and miles.
Depends on how it's hit. A drive mid-access is much more likely to take damage from a minor to moderate fall than a LCD.
But besides that, the value of the data of many laptops is far greater than the cost of a screen replacement and SSD's are at least on price-parity with the cost of basic data recovery fees for platter-based hard drives.
Oh, and you have the benefit of significantly faster data access in many/most cases.
Ok, let's fill in the analogy some more then.
You bought the car, PAID for the car, went outside with keys in hand and before climbing in to drive away they hand you a 'usage contract' and required you to agree to it before driving away. They fail.
The big problem is that software is treated differently than other "real" things and software companies are allowed to get away with nonsense like this.
No, I hate all politicians equally.
So Apple is responsible for almost 20 years of innovation around multi-touch?
I suppose we should credit them with shrinking a laptop from the suitcase-size "portable computers" of the 80's too.
I restate my point - apple licenses the majority of it's technology and puts it together in a trendy package with excellent marketing.
Hell, why do you think people still ask for Absolute vodka in bars?
If you bought 100 copies of the book, tore out the last 20 pages and inserted your own and marked it as such...you'd be on firmer ground.
I know there was a court case about someone modifying movies and reselling but that just means the precedent needs to be revisited. After all, that was a movie - not a bit of computer software :)
Knowing something comes with additional terms doesn't mean I agreed to them prior to purchase nor, as i've pointed out, agreed to them.
While precedent may generally side with Apple it's not crystal clear either. Furthermore it's just another example of how broken copyright/DMCA/patent laws are.
I can sell software that modifies software though.
Here, buy this "computer" .01c we throw in this one-time boot software that you might want. Yeah just run this the first time you boot, m'kay?
Also...buy a copy of OSX
Now, for
More complex loopholes have already been exploited (in the opposite direction unfortunatly - see bliz vs. glider).
You miss one big point. If honda had such a contract you would have to view and sign it BEFORE purchasing the car. If that was written in the users manual (provided post-purchase) stating that you had to agree or return the car it would be unenforcable.
Why not if I paid for *each* copy to start with and permanantly transferred the 'license'?
Sorry, but modifying software is NOT copyright infringement.
They're legally purchasing copies of OSX - not stealing them (one would assume at least...or else this company is simply awaiting it's grave).
Furthermore, Honda *could* make you drive on honda-approved roads. Except they would make you read *and sign* the contract *PRIOR* to selling you the car. EULA's are attempts at after-the-fact forced contractual obligations. Depsite the offers of returns...a return still means they're requiring an action from you based on an agreement you 1) did not sign 2) did not read or have details presented prior to the sale.
This is why, afaik, EULA's have been shot down in court cases.
Beg to differ. Right of first sale or whatever nonsense it's called.
I already bought product XYZ without limitation. You're trying to enforce a contract after the fact. The "agree or return it" is still an attempt at enforcing a contractual obligation after the fact. I simply decline the entire agreement in whole - including that part. They can't force an action upon me (such as returning) that I don't agree to.
They also didn't invent multi-touch.
MS actually had a demo multi-touch computer back in the 90's.
Not lookint to start a flamewar either...but Apple is not a huge innovation company. They LICENSE innovations and then put them together in appealing packaging and make comprimises to fit a niche market that other larger scale retailers will not do.
They licensed multi-touch. The licensed the scroll-wheel that essentially invented the iPod. They purchased the 1.8" hard drives when they first became commercially available. They purchase intel CPUs, standard LCD panels...etc.
Is the Shell on the Air nicely designed? No doubt. Is it innovative by itself? No. The gutts they bought.
Is OSX innovative? Perhaps...but again, it's based off something anyway (i.e. linux).
Iphone. Multi-touch + large LCD screen + phone. Nice combination but none are innovations of apple.
Except Psystar *PURCHASES* OSX licenses. There is a rather fuzzy area regarding what they're allowed to do with those licenses once they have them, but click-through EULA's have been put to the test in court and shot down. Or are you saying that everyone that's purchased and hacked OSX onto a PC should also be sued?
Either the modification is legal or it's not. Either selling (or reselling) OSX is legal or it's not.
But Apple sells MacOS separate from their computers. They WANT users to put OSX on Macs, but very well know it's usable on a PC.
Psystar is not pirating anything. They're purchasing the copies of OSX that they sell. I suggest you re-examine what's going on here. Apple might want you to think differently but that's just because some people are over-creative when examining copyright law.
I don't like or dislike their business model. My point is that it's out of date and instead of adapting they're sueing. While it happens all to often, twisting laws and sueing competition into oblivion should not be a method of perpetuating your income.