The windows Logic users were left high and dry with no further updates or support whatsoever.
Just as Adobe left Mac users high and dry. Try to get 64 bit Photoshop CS for OS X. Oops, it's only available for Windows even though Leopard which was released more than 2 years ago is capable of running 64 bit apps. CS4 was released a year after Leopard.
Think about it - Logic for Windows was a $399 piece of software.
And Photoshop alone cost almost twice that.
I find it ironic that a Mac user would be proud of Apple for some of its most anti-competitive behaviour
What anti-competitive behavior is that? All Apple does is try to stop people from installing OS X on non-Apple hardware. Apple doesn't prevent people from installing Windows or Linux on PCs. Apple even allows people to install both on Macs. Where is this anti-competitive behavior?
which law is on the books that allows Apple to dictate how I may use their product in the privacy of my own home?
And when has Apple dictated and tried to prevent a person from making and using their own hackintosh? All Apple is doing is fighting another business who is trying to profit off of Apple's efforts. And making a profit isn't a right.
This licensing agreement is trying to assert a right of a copyright holder to tell you what you can and cannot do with the works that do not include copying.
Copyright also makes it illegal to modify software without the copyright owners permission. Psystar installs a modified OS X on it's PCs.
Copyright licenses attempt to assert some pretty unfriendly terms of use and the terms keep getting worse and worse. It's about time these creeping terms are hedged off.
It's about tyme people try to profit off others' hard work and expenses.
The way the law is written you are not free to go and buy 100 copies of a book and resell them without permission. Distribution rights are exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
On the First sale doctrine:
"With reference to trade in tangible merchandise, such as the retailing of goods bearing a trademark, the "first sale" rule serves to immunize a reseller from infringement liability. Such protection to the reseller extends to the point where said goods have not been altered so as to be materially different from those originating from the trademark owner."
.. evil. This is nothing new. They've had the same predatory behavior for well over 2 decades now.
It's hard for a lot of us to accept, because nearly everyone here owns an apple product they genuinely enjoy (I own several myself), but the truth is Apple is evil.
Would you rather be able to buy Apple products or not? Nobody has yet proven Apple can survive if they allowed OS X to run on any PC, but they did lose money when they licensed Mac clones.
I think morally and legally, companies should not be able to control what you do with products you have acquired legitimately.
Would you feel the same if you wrote a book, then someone else took a copy, edited it then sold copies of the edited version? That is what Psystar is doing. Pystar has even "failed to produce "customer purchase receipts or order documents" from April 2008 (when Psystar began selling their computers with Mac OS X preinstalled) until October 2008."
What if I wanted to buy Mac hardware but want to run Linux or Windows, why should I have to pay for the development and sale price of OS X if I am not going to use it. We use the same argument against OEM's with MS Windows.
If you switch the situation and just want the software, I can see that point as well. But I would not hold Apple responsible to support me in any way.
Apple sells hardware and software, do you want laws barring the sell of both? Apple hardware sells help fund the development of OS X.
I don't like some of what Apple does. Nah, let me rephrase that, I wish Apple would do some things Steve Jobs refuses to let the company do. Such as make and sell a mid-range expandable Mac.
I've been a Mac user for more than 15 years, but this month I'll be switching to an ordinary PC with Ubuntu on it.
After using Windows PCs almost exclusively for more than 10 years I switched. I first got a desktop, er Tower, PC with Linux preinstalled. When I get around to it I'll rebuild it into a server. And when I got a new laptop I got a MacBook Pro. Right now it's running Leopard however when I'm ready I'll install Snow Leopard, the DVD is in arms reach, as well as Ubuntu. I'm not sure if I'll install Jaunty or Karmic though. I'm still researching so I can lay out an upgrade plan. Once I have the plan I'll dualboot Snow Leopard and Ubuntu.
You cannot upgrade the graphics card on iMacs.
Can you upgrade the graphics card in other all-in-ones? Looking at Dell's XPS One I don't see where its graphics is upgradeable either. Their Studio One 19 isn't either. I bet if I looked more I'll come up with more all-in-ones without upgradeable graphics.
Apple only sells new iMacs with old and already outdated graphics cards
iMacs come with different cards. The 21.5" model has the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and the GeForce 9 Series came out in 2008. The technical summary says the 9400 GT came out in August 2008, that makes it all of 15 months old. The 27" iMac comes with a card from 2008 as well.
And how long do you think OS X will be superior if anyone could install it on plain vanilla hardware? People complain about how MS Windows is unstable and doesn't work well with some hardware. By controlling their own hardware, yes Apple is a hardware as well as software company, they are able to make they work well together.
Another thing many people overlook is that Apple does not compeat directly against Microsoft, and MS has shown what it will do against competitors. MS once threatened Apple with canceling MS Office for Macs, and as much as many people know it is not true many people believe they need MS Office.
If I was a judge I would understand this as breach of copyright license if the license includes a mention in how you can only use the software in Apple hardware.
The label on my unopened Snow Leopard DVD box lists as a requirement "Mac computer with Intel processor". However according to at least one ruling by a federal judge software is sold not licensed. Normally that should work against Apple, however Pystar modifies OSX and mass copies it, both against copyright law. On top of that Pystar hasn't even proved they paid for OS X since they started selling their PCs with it.
What is the difference though? Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.
The difference? Microsoft licenses Dell to do that, Apple does not license Pystar though.
What's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money?
Pystar "failed to produce "customer purchase receipts or order documents" from April 2008 (when Psystar began selling their computers with Mac OS X preinstalled) until October 2008."
Actually, selling cars in the US is apparently a regulatory nightmare, given the extensive emissions and safety testing each vehicle must go through
There isn't a problem selling your own cars in the US, I've sold a number of them legally and haven't had a single problem doing so. What problem I had, which wasn't a problem at all, was finding a buyer.
If Apple relied on that, selling a license to OS X and not OS X itself, Apple would be in trouble. At least one federal judge has ruled that when a person buys software they are not buying a license. A federal judge has already ruled against Autodesk when Autodesk tried to stop resellers from selling Autodesk software such as AutoCAD on eBay. Autodesk claimed they sold a license not the software but the judge said otherwise.
However Apple does not rely on that. Apple relies in part on copyright law. Pystar makes at least two unauthorized copies of OS X. It also modifies OS X. Both break copyright laws.
I'm not talking about copying and distributing, I'm talking about doing what you want with something for your personal use.
No, you're missing the point, Apple has never gone after anyone for making a hackintoch for their own use. Apple has only gone after those who want to distribute hackintoches. And that is what corresponds to you copying "Bob the pop singers' latest CD".
at what point does Apple's behaviour become anti-competitive ?
Apple's behavior becomes anti-competitive when Apple prevents competition from creating their own hardware AND software. I haven't hear Apple doing or trying to do that. Unlike another business Apple even worked on and helped with a version of Linux on Mac hardware, MkLinux. In preparing to install Ubuntu on the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on some Apple techs gave me suggestions on how.
Give me a language that is very abstract and well defined instead.
A language can be abstract or can be well defined but not both. Abstract is about the theoretical and is not well defined whereas being well defined is about the practical. The abstract is not, and does not have, a specific example.
Pascal was the second language I took a class in, and it basically only in that class I used Pascal. I wanted to take Modula but it wasn't taught where I went.
Slashdot Mirror
The windows Logic users were left high and dry with no further updates or support whatsoever.
Just as Adobe left Mac users high and dry. Try to get 64 bit Photoshop CS for OS X. Oops, it's only available for Windows even though Leopard which was released more than 2 years ago is capable of running 64 bit apps. CS4 was released a year after Leopard.
Think about it - Logic for Windows was a $399 piece of software.
And Photoshop alone cost almost twice that.
I find it ironic that a Mac user would be proud of Apple for some of its most anti-competitive behaviour
What anti-competitive behavior is that? All Apple does is try to stop people from installing OS X on non-Apple hardware. Apple doesn't prevent people from installing Windows or Linux on PCs. Apple even allows people to install both on Macs. Where is this anti-competitive behavior?
Falcon
You aren't even permitted to buy 100 copies of OSX and distribute them without Apple's permission.
Yes you are, the First sale doctrine allows an owner of a legal copy to sell it, that includes retailers.
Falcon
At least one federal judge disagrees with you.
Falcon
which law is on the books that allows Apple to dictate how I may use their product in the privacy of my own home?
And when has Apple dictated and tried to prevent a person from making and using their own hackintosh? All Apple is doing is fighting another business who is trying to profit off of Apple's efforts. And making a profit isn't a right.
Falcon
The software loaded onto the Psystar machines were legally paid for.
Oh, really?
This licensing agreement is trying to assert a right of a copyright holder to tell you what you can and cannot do with the works that do not include copying.
Copyright also makes it illegal to modify software without the copyright owners permission. Psystar installs a modified OS X on it's PCs.
Copyright licenses attempt to assert some pretty unfriendly terms of use and the terms keep getting worse and worse. It's about time these creeping terms are hedged off.
It's about tyme people try to profit off others' hard work and expenses.
Falcon
Psystar had legally owned copies, purchased from Apple.
Oh, really?
Falcon
The way the law is written you are not free to go and buy 100 copies of a book and resell them without permission. Distribution rights are exclusive rights of the copyright holder.
On the First sale doctrine:
"With reference to trade in tangible merchandise, such as the retailing of goods bearing a trademark, the "first sale" rule serves to immunize a reseller from infringement liability. Such protection to the reseller extends to the point where said goods have not been altered so as to be materially different from those originating from the trademark owner."
Falcon
Wah wah wah Apple won't give me what I want.
Falcon
Troll
Falcon
.. evil. This is nothing new. They've had the same predatory behavior for well over 2 decades now.
It's hard for a lot of us to accept, because nearly everyone here owns an apple product they genuinely enjoy (I own several myself), but the truth is Apple is evil.
Would you rather be able to buy Apple products or not? Nobody has yet proven Apple can survive if they allowed OS X to run on any PC, but they did lose money when they licensed Mac clones.
Falcon
I think morally and legally, companies should not be able to control what you do with products you have acquired legitimately.
Would you feel the same if you wrote a book, then someone else took a copy, edited it then sold copies of the edited version? That is what Psystar is doing. Pystar has even "failed to produce "customer purchase receipts or order documents" from April 2008 (when Psystar began selling their computers with Mac OS X preinstalled) until October 2008."
Falcon
Apple tried Mac clones and lost money.
Falcon
What if I wanted to buy Mac hardware but want to run Linux or Windows, why should I have to pay for the development and sale price of OS X if I am not going to use it. We use the same argument against OEM's with MS Windows.
If you switch the situation and just want the software, I can see that point as well. But I would not hold Apple responsible to support me in any way.
Apple sells hardware and software, do you want laws barring the sell of both? Apple hardware sells help fund the development of OS X.
Falcon
I don't like some of what Apple does. Nah, let me rephrase that, I wish Apple would do some things Steve Jobs refuses to let the company do. Such as make and sell a mid-range expandable Mac.
I've been a Mac user for more than 15 years, but this month I'll be switching to an ordinary PC with Ubuntu on it.
After using Windows PCs almost exclusively for more than 10 years I switched. I first got a desktop, er Tower, PC with Linux preinstalled. When I get around to it I'll rebuild it into a server. And when I got a new laptop I got a MacBook Pro. Right now it's running Leopard however when I'm ready I'll install Snow Leopard, the DVD is in arms reach, as well as Ubuntu. I'm not sure if I'll install Jaunty or Karmic though. I'm still researching so I can lay out an upgrade plan. Once I have the plan I'll dualboot Snow Leopard and Ubuntu.
You cannot upgrade the graphics card on iMacs.
Can you upgrade the graphics card in other all-in-ones? Looking at Dell's XPS One I don't see where its graphics is upgradeable either. Their Studio One 19 isn't either. I bet if I looked more I'll come up with more all-in-ones without upgradeable graphics.
Apple only sells new iMacs with old and already outdated graphics cards
iMacs come with different cards. The 21.5" model has the NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and the GeForce 9 Series came out in 2008. The technical summary says the 9400 GT came out in August 2008, that makes it all of 15 months old. The 27" iMac comes with a card from 2008 as well.
Falcon
Steve Jobs can't possibly own a large piece of Psystar, the poor guy only receives $1/year in salary!
And is on Walt Disney's board of directors. With Disney's acquisition of Pixar Jobs became Disney's largest stockholder.
Falcon
And how long do you think OS X will be superior if anyone could install it on plain vanilla hardware? People complain about how MS Windows is unstable and doesn't work well with some hardware. By controlling their own hardware, yes Apple is a hardware as well as software company, they are able to make they work well together.
Another thing many people overlook is that Apple does not compeat directly against Microsoft, and MS has shown what it will do against competitors. MS once threatened Apple with canceling MS Office for Macs, and as much as many people know it is not true many people believe they need MS Office.
Falcon
If I was a judge I would understand this as breach of copyright license if the license includes a mention in how you can only use the software in Apple hardware.
The label on my unopened Snow Leopard DVD box lists as a requirement "Mac computer with Intel processor". However according to at least one ruling by a federal judge software is sold not licensed. Normally that should work against Apple, however Pystar modifies OSX and mass copies it, both against copyright law. On top of that Pystar hasn't even proved they paid for OS X since they started selling their PCs with it.
Falcon
What is the difference though? Lots of manufacturers like Dell use master copies to clone their PCs.
The difference? Microsoft licenses Dell to do that, Apple does not license Pystar though.
What's the difference as long as Apple got the same amount of money?
Pystar "failed to produce "customer purchase receipts or order documents" from April 2008 (when Psystar began selling their computers with Mac OS X preinstalled) until October 2008."
Falcon
Pystar also modified as well as mass copied OS X. When asked Pystar couldn't even provide receipts proving they paid for OS X.
Falcon
Actually, selling cars in the US is apparently a regulatory nightmare, given the extensive emissions and safety testing each vehicle must go through
There isn't a problem selling your own cars in the US, I've sold a number of them legally and haven't had a single problem doing so. What problem I had, which wasn't a problem at all, was finding a buyer.
Falcon
They sold you a licence to use it.
If Apple relied on that, selling a license to OS X and not OS X itself, Apple would be in trouble. At least one federal judge has ruled that when a person buys software they are not buying a license. A federal judge has already ruled against Autodesk when Autodesk tried to stop resellers from selling Autodesk software such as AutoCAD on eBay. Autodesk claimed they sold a license not the software but the judge said otherwise.
However Apple does not rely on that. Apple relies in part on copyright law. Pystar makes at least two unauthorized copies of OS X. It also modifies OS X. Both break copyright laws.
Falcon
I'm not talking about copying and distributing, I'm talking about doing what you want with something for your personal use.
No, you're missing the point, Apple has never gone after anyone for making a hackintoch for their own use. Apple has only gone after those who want to distribute hackintoches. And that is what corresponds to you copying "Bob the pop singers' latest CD".
Falcon
at what point does Apple's behaviour become anti-competitive ?
Apple's behavior becomes anti-competitive when Apple prevents competition from creating their own hardware AND software. I haven't hear Apple doing or trying to do that. Unlike another business Apple even worked on and helped with a version of Linux on Mac hardware, MkLinux. In preparing to install Ubuntu on the MacBook Pro I'm typing this on some Apple techs gave me suggestions on how.
Falcon
Give me a language that is very abstract and well defined instead.
A language can be abstract or can be well defined but not both. Abstract is about the theoretical and is not well defined whereas being well defined is about the practical. The abstract is not, and does not have, a specific example.
Falcon
Pascal was the second language I took a class in, and it basically only in that class I used Pascal. I wanted to take Modula but it wasn't taught where I went.
Falcan