No, Apples isn't better since the software seem to be subventionised by the hardware sales, probably partly because the people who buy the software already own a mac and already have paid a premium for it.
I don't get your third point. Or you mean macs are underpriced to Windows PC? No one have claimed that. Just trolling?
Of course the Apple clone HW isn't cheaper than Windows HW. It's the same fucking HW.
Since they are only selling FUCKING PCS I don't see the problem for them either. But I also don't see why anyone would buy one from them. And if they sell them as "mac compatible" or something that's bullshit. So as long as they keep on selling random PCs which some people may or may not be able to hack OS X to run on they are clearly nothing different than other machines.
But why care about them..
That OS X runs on PC hardware is fucking old news, can I post a Slashdot story there I say "omg I bought this CRAP-PC from a friend and now I can run OS X, omg plz p0st on Slashdot diz iz zimportantz newz for geekz!one!!11eleven"
"Company sells PC, can run x86 code", holly cow, big news!
1) Apple sells you a CD with a license bound software.
Fixed that for you.
Unless your point of view are proven correct, which I find unlikely since sort of any software are sold under a license as the market works now and I doubt any court would like to render it all useless.
Also I guess your point also makes it ok to steal the code of any open source project and release it in your own closed product, I mean, the code was there to grab, I took it, now it's mine, how does the license matter now when I have the code? Thanks..
So then get away from Slashdot and into a place where it counts and make them change the license, because as of now the consumer DON'T have the right to choose what hardware to run the OS on.
Things was so much easier for them when they used PPC..
Until someone get a case thru court which render EULAs non-effective we should consider them as valid? Right? It's so lame to say "hey, but, like, this contract is so lame, I mean, bwah, it can't mean anything, I choose not to trust it and do whatever."
But both you and me know that the price for OS X is the same for everyone because it's supposed to be bought by mac users only, and all macs ships with OS X so what you are buying are actually an upgrade more than a complete OS. It just doesn't say it's an update and don't do any checks for a previous version (it do however require you to install the OS on a mac which kind of is proof enough...)
If you compare the price of OS X with the price of Vista and then compare the volume of each one and what you get for the money you'll quite easily find out that those $129 or whatever isn't enough for the OS.
Both you and me know that macs sell at a premium and part of the reason to pay for that premium is to be able to use their software.
So, would you be happier if the box said "upgrade"? Because then you kind of have lost your argument since you don't own the full version and it's impossible to buy it, just as it was impossible to buy OS X 10.4 Tiger for Intel.
The software are sold under an end user agreement, so if you choose to belive those are valid which we do because if not there's no point in discussing this then what you pay for is the right to USE THE SOFTWARE ON YOUR MAC, NOT TO GET A FULL VERSION OF THE OS TO USE ON ANY COMPUTER.
Hard to comprehend?
If you can make a case rendering all EULAs invalid then you got a point. And in that case Apple have to change something, and that something would be to for example not sell full versions but require a valid/old version to begin with. Would you be happy then? Or would you just copy and install it anyway which is probably the whole point of your argument.
If you don't like it and don't think it's worth it then just don't buy it. Simple as that, no one is forcing you to run OS X on the mac you think is to expensive, you don't have to buy one and use OS X at all.
Except it's closed source, forces you to use a non-standardized protocol, force you to use their client only, has all kinds of dirty tricks to prevent you from finding out what is going on, send your traffic thru p2p all over the place, may have said backdoor, so on so on.
I don't think IAX is supposed to have all the troubles of SIP. You can use lots of codecs with SIP as well.
I don't even know what he have done so I don't really care, I just notice that some people seem happy. And I guess we all have had to pay for his traffic generating and storage wasting activities.
Also since he didn't got killed but rather killed himself I see even less problem with it. The people believing it was good that his wife and kid died are probably easy to count.
Did it worked well? I'm not saying it didn't, but I don't know how it was created so I will keep on asking.
Who invented it? Did the media industry create the rental model? Or was people just letting other people borrow their copies for a smaller fee and that was considered ok? Because in the later case the media industry probably see no benefit in that model. Over here a new movie cost 219 sek or similar, a rental cost 25 or 40.
I guess just a very small part of those 25 or 40 goes to the media industry because if it didn't who would even care to rent out videos?
It's my idea that the media industry didn't wanted the rental model, but that it was forced upon them because it was considered ok to let other borrow your copy for a fee, but I may be wrong.
If the rental copy sells for a much higher amount than a normal one I get the point.
Slashdot Mirror
The IBM-PC.
No, Apples isn't better since the software seem to be subventionised by the hardware sales, probably partly because the people who buy the software already own a mac and already have paid a premium for it.
I don't get your third point. Or you mean macs are underpriced to Windows PC? No one have claimed that. Just trolling?
Of course the Apple clone HW isn't cheaper than Windows HW. It's the same fucking HW.
No one can because the board would be illegal, but if you accept to run a hacked version of the OS you can buy more or less any motherboard.
Doesn't real macs also contain the TPM-part with the correct key for the encrypted binaries in the OS?
and all are practically unenforceable against consumers
Says WHO? You? And now everyone have to obey? #1195047 is the new law interpreter, court and separator of right and wrong?
How does it matter if it's "weak" aslong as it's "valid"?
Yeah, because everyone are forced to make their Software run on all hardware! That's the law!! Give me final fantasy 13 for my NES please!!!
Since they are only selling FUCKING PCS I don't see the problem for them either. But I also don't see why anyone would buy one from them. And if they sell them as "mac compatible" or something that's bullshit. So as long as they keep on selling random PCs which some people may or may not be able to hack OS X to run on they are clearly nothing different than other machines.
But why care about them ..
That OS X runs on PC hardware is fucking old news, can I post a Slashdot story there I say "omg I bought this CRAP-PC from a friend and now I can run OS X, omg plz p0st on Slashdot diz iz zimportantz newz for geekz!one!!11eleven"
"Company sells PC, can run x86 code", holly cow, big news!
1) Apple sells you a CD with a license bound software.
Fixed that for you.
Unless your point of view are proven correct, which I find unlikely since sort of any software are sold under a license as the market works now and I doubt any court would like to render it all useless.
Also I guess your point also makes it ok to steal the code of any open source project and release it in your own closed product, I mean, the code was there to grab, I took it, now it's mine, how does the license matter now when I have the code? Thanks ..
So then get away from Slashdot and into a place where it counts and make them change the license, because as of now the consumer DON'T have the right to choose what hardware to run the OS on.
Things was so much easier for them when they used PPC ..
What moron moderated you flamebait? Rather insightful.
And the purpose of that would be? Considering the only people who cares in the first place are the people who WANT to use their software.
If they don't do it they kind of have no point of not doing it since it doesn't matter if Apple can defend their property or not.
Wouldn't it be easier to go to even further extent to prevent it from happening? Like for instance closing the kernel for 10.6?
Until someone get a case thru court which render EULAs non-effective we should consider them as valid? Right? It's so lame to say "hey, but, like, this contract is so lame, I mean, bwah, it can't mean anything, I choose not to trust it and do whatever."
But both you and me know that the price for OS X is the same for everyone because it's supposed to be bought by mac users only, and all macs ships with OS X so what you are buying are actually an upgrade more than a complete OS. It just doesn't say it's an update and don't do any checks for a previous version (it do however require you to install the OS on a mac which kind of is proof enough...)
If you compare the price of OS X with the price of Vista and then compare the volume of each one and what you get for the money you'll quite easily find out that those $129 or whatever isn't enough for the OS.
Both you and me know that macs sell at a premium and part of the reason to pay for that premium is to be able to use their software.
So, would you be happier if the box said "upgrade"? Because then you kind of have lost your argument since you don't own the full version and it's impossible to buy it, just as it was impossible to buy OS X 10.4 Tiger for Intel.
The software are sold under an end user agreement, so if you choose to belive those are valid which we do because if not there's no point in discussing this then what you pay for is the right to USE THE SOFTWARE ON YOUR MAC, NOT TO GET A FULL VERSION OF THE OS TO USE ON ANY COMPUTER.
Hard to comprehend?
If you can make a case rendering all EULAs invalid then you got a point. And in that case Apple have to change something, and that something would be to for example not sell full versions but require a valid/old version to begin with. Would you be happy then? Or would you just copy and install it anyway which is probably the whole point of your argument.
If you don't like it and don't think it's worth it then just don't buy it. Simple as that, no one is forcing you to run OS X on the mac you think is to expensive, you don't have to buy one and use OS X at all.
Or you know you could buy like any system and get the OS yourself and not support them trying to make a profit on Apples brand?
Except it's closed source, forces you to use a non-standardized protocol, force you to use their client only, has all kinds of dirty tricks to prevent you from finding out what is going on, send your traffic thru p2p all over the place, may have said backdoor, so on so on.
I don't think IAX is supposed to have all the troubles of SIP. You can use lots of codecs with SIP as well.
For OS X:
http://xmeeting.sourceforge.net/pages/xmeeting.php
If I remember correctly there is at least two solutions to that.
ZRTP are one.
http://swik.net/encryption+sip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZRTP
Use an open protocol such as SIP, for instance you could use Asterisk and Ekiga.
KIAX + Asterisk would be another solution.
http://www.asterisk.org/
http://ekiga.org/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kiax
Yeah, it's not like everyone buy fairtrade chocolate, coffee and tea either.
They aren't interested in me, my wallet may be empty but my penis are still alive.
So you must be wrong, it seems they only want the wallet :/
I don't even know what he have done so I don't really care, I just notice that some people seem happy. And I guess we all have had to pay for his traffic generating and storage wasting activities.
Also since he didn't got killed but rather killed himself I see even less problem with it. The people believing it was good that his wife and kid died are probably easy to count.
Did it worked well? I'm not saying it didn't, but I don't know how it was created so I will keep on asking.
Who invented it? Did the media industry create the rental model? Or was people just letting other people borrow their copies for a smaller fee and that was considered ok? Because in the later case the media industry probably see no benefit in that model. Over here a new movie cost 219 sek or similar, a rental cost 25 or 40.
I guess just a very small part of those 25 or 40 goes to the media industry because if it didn't who would even care to rent out videos?
It's my idea that the media industry didn't wanted the rental model, but that it was forced upon them because it was considered ok to let other borrow your copy for a fee, but I may be wrong.
If the rental copy sells for a much higher amount than a normal one I get the point.
We aren't celebrating that he killed his family, if anything we're celebrating he killed himself, but most of us probably just joke about it.
But a dildo isn't a man ..
New ads maybe?
"Before SpamAssassin", "After SpamAssassin"?