The fact that someone chooses to give away their work does not have anything to do with its value.
Some people may choose to do nothing in return for getting Firefox while others might be inspired to volunteer with testing of the product.
Your statement movies are not worth that price is your subjective opinion.
Yes, I do live in North America and even though I am paid well, I do not consider a movie a consumable. It is not food. Food is a consumable whereas a movie is supposed to be a work of art created to convey a message of some kind.
Consumer protection laws are there to protect you from deliberate fraud but if you accepted the terms sale which included a no return policy on non-defective product, you are bound by that sales contract.
Those laws require the vendor to make you aware of the terms and conditions. They do not require that they force you to read those conditions or for them to ask you implicitly if you agree to the terms. When you accept delivery of the product, you are agreeing to those terms.
Neither ignorance or illiteracy are an excuse to break the law.
No, you do not have a right to sell prints of a painting that you bought. Those rights (copyright) remain with the artist unless if they sell you those rights implicitly.
They are tools used by professionals and serve as an incentive for those professionals to buy the latest and most expensive Apple hardware to run it. Rarely will you see professionals buying pro apps with out buying new hardware to run it on.
You mention the price of those apps but you fail to realize that the software sales account for a small percentage of revenue and profit on the balance sheet. Just take a look at any of AAPL's quarterly reports.
Software upgrades are again small potatoes compared to hardware sales and I would like to point out that the hardware comes with OS X and iLife for "free".
Software development costs for non-pro apps are subsidized by hardware sales. The price you pay for upgrades are just that, "upgrade" pricing.
Apple offers the first version free with your hardware purchase and subsequent versions cost money.
Your point is moot since this version in the news is not available for public purchase. It is an interim build for developers to transition to universal binaries.
If I own the windows version of Office, that does not give my the right to use the mac version of Office.
You fail to see that every purchase is a contract with terms and conditions. You do not have to sign anything in order to enter into a contract and consideration in exchange for goods or services is enough.
Do you understand that the price of 129 for OS X is the price of an upgrade for machines that ship with OS X already? If they did sell OS X for regular X86 machines, you should not expect it to be the same price. I would wager that the "full version" of OS X would cost you 300+ USD.
Would you be willing to pay that? Do you think Apple would not incur more costs having to provide technical support for those users? How would you expect Apple to earn a decent profit margin?
Look at Apple's stock price. Apple is doing quite well without allowing everyone to run and by extension pirate their OS and programs. Marketshare does not always = Profits. Sales with healthy margins in sufficient numbers = profits.
Of course if you do something yourself, it may be "free" but the work you put into it does have intrinsic value. If you were not willing to exert the effort then you would have to "pay" someone to do it for you.
So you do not find worth 50 bucks? Then don't go to the movies then. Nobody is forcing you but I have ask you, when did people stop viewing movies as a "luxury" item and begin equating it with commodities? Art is not a commodity item.
You don't have a sign anything in order to enter into a sales "contract". A contract requires an exchange of goods for consideration. When you buy something, you are agreeing to the "terms of sale".
If you do not agree to the terms of sale, don't buy it. Otherwise, you may be found to be in breach of contract.
People who buy pieces of art cannot do anything they wish with it. You purchase the rendering of the art object, not the rights to reproduction.
Commodities can be bought and sold outright whereas creative works cannot and software falls into this latter category.
Not this crap again? Revisionist history has a tendency to cloud the facts. Mac Clones were nowhere in the picture when Steve was fired by Scully. It was the incompetence of Scully and Spindler which almost ruined Apple. The clones were a money losing proposition because they did not expand the market, ate into Apple's sales and cost the company in additional support costs. Cancelling the clones was the only choice Steve could have made.
You people just like spreading FUD like this don't you? I know how you think because I used to be one if you. You are jealous of mac users and wish you could either pirate or buy OS X for you PC.
Why don't you guys wait until the Intel macs arrive? Are you all that desperate to run OS X? Can't you buy an iBook off of Ebay to try out OS X?
Beer is not free in the real world. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
Get real jobs and get the fuck out of your parents basement already.
If you feel that "you" are entitled to be paid for the work that you do, you should feel obligated to pay for the work of others in kind if you make use of the products and services they provide.
If you cannot work for free then you should not expect software, music or movies for free either or for companies to provide support for hardware they did not sell or licence.
If you do not like the licence terms of a product, don't use it. You cannot use that as an excuse to pirate software.
Remember, even open source software can have terms that you must agree to in order to use it.
Well Apple is not a software company. They are a hardware company that also makes software.
I'm thinking that the majority of slashdot readers have never actually worked for a proprietary software company.
Contrary to popular believe on slashdot, software is not a money printing machine. On the surface it may look like software has a near 90% margin with economies of scale but the readers here seem to forget about hidden costs such as support and "free" upgrades and patches.
Compared to hardware, software has a great deal of after market costs associated with it.
I would argue that software can end up having a lower margin than hardware after all of the after market costs are factored in.
I've worked in technical support dealing with software issues in the past and I'm also a developer of in-house software for a major multi-national organization. I can tell you that software is neither cheap to develop or maintain.
Uh, the difference is that Apple designs and sells the hardware (motherboard) as well as the OS whereas neither MSFT or Dell designed the motherboard/CPUs in a Dell. Dell does not produce windows either. As much as i dislike MSFT, nobody is entitled to a "refund" if windows is bundled with hardware. You are entitled to take your money elsewhere if you don't like the terms and conditions of your purchase and service agreements.
There is nothing preventing you from installing Linux or FreeBSD but why should you be entitled to a refund on an OS that is produced by the OS vendor?
Software costs "money" to produce and even more money to support with technical support and bug fixes.
People on slashdot like to point out that software has a huge margin if you only include the "initial" cost of development and manufacturing but what they fail to include is the cost of after market support. After market support for software can often be much higher than for most hardware products.
Some of you will never get that until you actually "work" in the software industry.
No, no, no, no. Apple does not want it to be pirated any more than any other company would. I can understand your confusion if you are used to companies that distrust their users by forcing them to jump through various hoops. Apple does on currently rely on either CD keys or activation for OS X installs.
They know that some people will always pirate but in general, they still trust their "loyal" users to do the right thing and "buy" their OS.
Your AOL idea is horrible. Apple is not interested in being buried in technical support costs for little or no return on the investment.
Here are a few observations I've made of many people who post on slashdot:
- Most of you have never taken any sort of course on economics.
- Consequently, most of you have trouble grasping concepts such as profit motive or how a company must make money to survive.
- Many of you also do not understand that the true cost of a product includes the following: R&D, production and fixed costs which would include the various logistics to support business operations and customer service.
- Technical support is a financial drain on a company. It is an expense for most corporations and is part of those fixed costs I mentioned above.
- It is difficult to break even on the "free software" and paid technical support business model let alone earning a decent profit.
I worked in technical support in the past. I can tell you that it is costly and can be time consuming. I can also tell you that if you give the product away for free, very few people will be willing to pay for technical support.
Or maybe you guys are reading too much into things. Maybe Apple does know that some people will always pirate software. Apple does not seem to want to make it difficult for legitimate users from installing their software or accessing their music.
People may be used to companies like MSFT which do not "trust" their own users and may view this TPM chips as "copy protection". I see it as some way to identify a machine as an officially supported developer machine. It may be that the shipping boxes will not use TPM at all and this was just an attempt to keep the developer that received the transition kits honest.
Apple may instead opt to use a customized Bios or event EFI with proprietary extensions instead of relying on TPM or they may use both.
Maybe they decided to use TPM because it was fast to implement and they could mark various parts of the OS with unique identifiers. It may be that each copy will only boot on a specific developer transition kit without a crack.
I fully expect the person who leaked their copy to be hauled into court soon.
Yes and how would you expect Apple to survive by giving it away for free?
Why do you have such a problem with the concept of profit? Companies have to make money in order to exist. They cannot survive on donations.
Apple does give it away for "free" with purchase of new hardware. Hence, the price of the OS is "subsidized" by hardware sales. When you purchase an "upgrade", they do charge something.
What would be a fair price to compensate Apple for OS X if you did not purchase Apple hardware? Free is not the correct answer btw.
Mod me as a troll if you wish but I speak the truth. Perhaps that is not very popular around here.
The fact remains that prices of OS X and bundled applications are relatively low compared to their MSFT/Windows Third-party counterparts. This is due to the fact that the development of that software is subsidized by hardware purchases.
Apple does not care if you upgrade from Puma, Jaguar or Panther to Tiger as long as you are installing on hardware that is compatible with it.
They also do not enforce any form of copy protection to prevent you from installing on multiple machines because the "trust" users. That is a different philosophy from how MSFT does business.
These actions are a spit in the face of that very same company that not only trusts its users but also contributes to open source projects.
Congrats. You've just proven to us all that you are an amoralist who does not put value into other peoples work. If you did value the work other people did, you would not be interested in "stealing" a product that has not been shipped as a product to anyone yet.
If you don't like the terms of the license, don't use it. This applies to both commercial closed source software, closed source free software or open source software.
I'm not interested in your fantasies about running OS X on your white box. I was you about two and a half years ago.
If you can afford to spend so much time trying to hack your box to run OS X, you can afford to get a real job and "pay" for hardware to run OS X.
I'm also not interested in a world where OS X installations require CD keys and activation but this type of piracy may just cause that to happen.
You nerds just don't "get it". Apple does not have any copy protection in the traditional sense of the word other than requiring purchase of mac hardware at "some point" within in the last five years or so. Those hardware purchases subsidize the software development of the OS and bundled applications. Without those sales, OS X would cost three times as much. Remember NeXTStep on Intel pricing?
You are trying to steal from a company that does nothing to enforce installation of a copy of OS X onto only one box. Way to to show appreciation for their hard work and their willingness to "trust" users.
Unless if they are released under a license which allows for distribution or are public domain, you do not have a legal right to distribute them. Copyright is somewhat of a misnomer as it is not have the right to copy but rather the right to distribute. If you are not the legal rights holder, you are not allowed to distribute unless the music was release into the public domain or released under a license which permits distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that is the rip that Dell uses in their marketing.
Well I said the "real world". Academia is a different world altogether.
Some people may choose to do nothing in return for getting Firefox while others might be inspired to volunteer with testing of the product.
Your statement movies are not worth that price is your subjective opinion.
Yes, I do live in North America and even though I am paid well, I do not consider a movie a consumable. It is not food. Food is a consumable whereas a movie is supposed to be a work of art created to convey a message of some kind.
Consumer protection laws are there to protect you from deliberate fraud but if you accepted the terms sale which included a no return policy on non-defective product, you are bound by that sales contract.
Those laws require the vendor to make you aware of the terms and conditions. They do not require that they force you to read those conditions or for them to ask you implicitly if you agree to the terms. When you accept delivery of the product, you are agreeing to those terms.
Neither ignorance or illiteracy are an excuse to break the law.
No, you do not have a right to sell prints of a painting that you bought. Those rights (copyright) remain with the artist unless if they sell you those rights implicitly.
They are tools used by professionals and serve as an incentive for those professionals to buy the latest and most expensive Apple hardware to run it. Rarely will you see professionals buying pro apps with out buying new hardware to run it on.
You mention the price of those apps but you fail to realize that the software sales account for a small percentage of revenue and profit on the balance sheet. Just take a look at any of AAPL's quarterly reports.
Software upgrades are again small potatoes compared to hardware sales and I would like to point out that the hardware comes with OS X and iLife for "free".
Software development costs for non-pro apps are subsidized by hardware sales. The price you pay for upgrades are just that, "upgrade" pricing.
Apple offers the first version free with your hardware purchase and subsequent versions cost money.
If I own the windows version of Office, that does not give my the right to use the mac version of Office.
You fail to see that every purchase is a contract with terms and conditions. You do not have to sign anything in order to enter into a contract and consideration in exchange for goods or services is enough.
Would you be willing to pay that? Do you think Apple would not incur more costs having to provide technical support for those users? How would you expect Apple to earn a decent profit margin?
Look at Apple's stock price. Apple is doing quite well without allowing everyone to run and by extension pirate their OS and programs. Marketshare does not always = Profits. Sales with healthy margins in sufficient numbers = profits.
So you do not find worth 50 bucks? Then don't go to the movies then. Nobody is forcing you but I have ask you, when did people stop viewing movies as a "luxury" item and begin equating it with commodities? Art is not a commodity item.
You don't have a sign anything in order to enter into a sales "contract". A contract requires an exchange of goods for consideration. When you buy something, you are agreeing to the "terms of sale".
If you do not agree to the terms of sale, don't buy it. Otherwise, you may be found to be in breach of contract.
People who buy pieces of art cannot do anything they wish with it. You purchase the rendering of the art object, not the rights to reproduction.
Commodities can be bought and sold outright whereas creative works cannot and software falls into this latter category.
You people just like spreading FUD like this don't you? I know how you think because I used to be one if you. You are jealous of mac users and wish you could either pirate or buy OS X for you PC.
Why don't you guys wait until the Intel macs arrive? Are you all that desperate to run OS X? Can't you buy an iBook off of Ebay to try out OS X?
Get real jobs and get the fuck out of your parents basement already.
If you feel that "you" are entitled to be paid for the work that you do, you should feel obligated to pay for the work of others in kind if you make use of the products and services they provide.
If you cannot work for free then you should not expect software, music or movies for free either or for companies to provide support for hardware they did not sell or licence.
If you do not like the licence terms of a product, don't use it. You cannot use that as an excuse to pirate software.
Remember, even open source software can have terms that you must agree to in order to use it.
Can you tell me the name of your boss? I want to tell him how you think making money and getting paid for your work is evil so he can stop paying you.
I'm thinking that the majority of slashdot readers have never actually worked for a proprietary software company.
Contrary to popular believe on slashdot, software is not a money printing machine. On the surface it may look like software has a near 90% margin with economies of scale but the readers here seem to forget about hidden costs such as support and "free" upgrades and patches.
Compared to hardware, software has a great deal of after market costs associated with it.
I would argue that software can end up having a lower margin than hardware after all of the after market costs are factored in.
I've worked in technical support dealing with software issues in the past and I'm also a developer of in-house software for a major multi-national organization. I can tell you that software is neither cheap to develop or maintain.
It is not very healthy for the iPod to run an OS for very long on an iPod though.
Not if they were 3-4 year old Dells. PC's do not tend to hold a resale value.
There is nothing preventing you from installing Linux or FreeBSD but why should you be entitled to a refund on an OS that is produced by the OS vendor?
Software costs "money" to produce and even more money to support with technical support and bug fixes.
People on slashdot like to point out that software has a huge margin if you only include the "initial" cost of development and manufacturing but what they fail to include is the cost of after market support. After market support for software can often be much higher than for most hardware products.
Some of you will never get that until you actually "work" in the software industry.
They know that some people will always pirate but in general, they still trust their "loyal" users to do the right thing and "buy" their OS.
Your AOL idea is horrible. Apple is not interested in being buried in technical support costs for little or no return on the investment.
Here are a few observations I've made of many people who post on slashdot:
- Most of you have never taken any sort of course on economics.
- Consequently, most of you have trouble grasping concepts such as profit motive or how a company must make money to survive.
- Many of you also do not understand that the true cost of a product includes the following: R&D, production and fixed costs which would include the various logistics to support business operations and customer service.
- Technical support is a financial drain on a company. It is an expense for most corporations and is part of those fixed costs I mentioned above.
- It is difficult to break even on the "free software" and paid technical support business model let alone earning a decent profit.
I worked in technical support in the past. I can tell you that it is costly and can be time consuming. I can also tell you that if you give the product away for free, very few people will be willing to pay for technical support.
People may be used to companies like MSFT which do not "trust" their own users and may view this TPM chips as "copy protection". I see it as some way to identify a machine as an officially supported developer machine. It may be that the shipping boxes will not use TPM at all and this was just an attempt to keep the developer that received the transition kits honest.
Apple may instead opt to use a customized Bios or event EFI with proprietary extensions instead of relying on TPM or they may use both.
Maybe they decided to use TPM because it was fast to implement and they could mark various parts of the OS with unique identifiers. It may be that each copy will only boot on a specific developer transition kit without a crack.
I fully expect the person who leaked their copy to be hauled into court soon.
Why do you have such a problem with the concept of profit? Companies have to make money in order to exist. They cannot survive on donations.
Apple does give it away for "free" with purchase of new hardware. Hence, the price of the OS is "subsidized" by hardware sales. When you purchase an "upgrade", they do charge something.
What would be a fair price to compensate Apple for OS X if you did not purchase Apple hardware? Free is not the correct answer btw.
The fact remains that prices of OS X and bundled applications are relatively low compared to their MSFT/Windows Third-party counterparts. This is due to the fact that the development of that software is subsidized by hardware purchases.
Apple does not care if you upgrade from Puma, Jaguar or Panther to Tiger as long as you are installing on hardware that is compatible with it.
They also do not enforce any form of copy protection to prevent you from installing on multiple machines because the "trust" users. That is a different philosophy from how MSFT does business.
These actions are a spit in the face of that very same company that not only trusts its users but also contributes to open source projects.
Everyone around here has absolutely no clue about economics apparently or how much NeXTStep cost for intel.
If you don't like the terms of the license, don't use it. This applies to both commercial closed source software, closed source free software or open source software.
I'm not interested in your fantasies about running OS X on your white box. I was you about two and a half years ago.
If you can afford to spend so much time trying to hack your box to run OS X, you can afford to get a real job and "pay" for hardware to run OS X.
I'm also not interested in a world where OS X installations require CD keys and activation but this type of piracy may just cause that to happen.
You nerds just don't "get it". Apple does not have any copy protection in the traditional sense of the word other than requiring purchase of mac hardware at "some point" within in the last five years or so. Those hardware purchases subsidize the software development of the OS and bundled applications. Without those sales, OS X would cost three times as much. Remember NeXTStep on Intel pricing?
You are trying to steal from a company that does nothing to enforce installation of a copy of OS X onto only one box. Way to to show appreciation for their hard work and their willingness to "trust" users.
Unless if they are released under a license which allows for distribution or are public domain, you do not have a legal right to distribute them. Copyright is somewhat of a misnomer as it is not have the right to copy but rather the right to distribute. If you are not the legal rights holder, you are not allowed to distribute unless the music was release into the public domain or released under a license which permits distribution.
People, this is precisely why Apple will not allow OS X to run on generic X86 hardware.
South Korean man dies.
I'm talking about morality here. Do those songs belong to you? Do you have a right to distribute them to people you don't even know?
This does not make open source look good.