Its Engadget though, they probably think that Apple invented the smartphone, multitouch, the trackpad and any other useful inventions.
Apple may not have invented everything, but they've got a pretty impressive record at taking inventions, turning them into desirable products and marketing the hell out of them and then being copied mercilessly by the rest of the industry.
The G4 "Ti" Powerbook, at the time, certainly felt like a departure from traditional laptop design and while at 15:10 the screen may not have been 16:10 or 16:9 it was still wider than the then-ubquitous laptops. (I think 16:9 is a bridge too far for general-purpose laptops, anyway).
As a member of a flight club, I can fly a private Cessna 182 at 150 MPH (pretty much) anytime I want, at a cost that's perhaps 25% higher than driving.
But can you use your laptop or get up to go to the toilet during the last hour of the flight?
Actually, the state of the economy class bathrooms towards the end of a 10+ hour flight is usually enough to make this option seem attractive anyhow:-)
Exactly - how on earth did the TSA come up with such seemingly braindead directive?
Sounds like they put the problem to a committee (I won't use the traditional metaphor becase it is a baseless slander against the noble camel).
Stopping people from going to the toilet or having stuff on their lap for the whole flight might actually help with the problem, but would be unworkable for other reasons (anybody want to invent a pants-mouted bomb detonated by urine?) So they reach for the political compromise: a time limit. Completey defeats the object, but hey, they're seen to be doing something - whereas pointing out that what we really have here is more evidence of the inefficacy of amateur binary explosives would be totally unacceptable.
Surely you jest. A large media conglomerate that owns newspapers wouldn't also own commercial satellite TV stations that would be in competition with the BBC, would it? How would one get fair views?;-)
Oh, but they're private organisations governed by the wonderful free market (choir of angels) so they must be on the side of peace, motherhood and apple pie. There's no need to expose them to the sort of constant scrutiny that a nasty communist state-run organization like the BBC is subject to.
I'm guessing the executives / board / owners of the BBC know people in the right places and are able to intercept initiatives to change the legislation.
I think you'll find that the current system actually has quite a lot of public support and that a lot of the BBC-bashing comes from newspapers owned by certain large media groups.
Making the BBC a subscription service is the same thing as abolishing the BBC.
But it won't last forever
That much is true - eventually, as TV merges with the Internet, the only options will be to privatise the BBC or force internet users to pay the TV license.
If you want to add to the silliness: on their website they claim that you must pay the TV licensing even if you just watch DVDs or have the receiver at home but no TV set. But there you go.
Which website? The official TV Licensing website says that you need a license if you "watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.. DVDs are mentioned because DVD recorders have TV tuers.
(Whether they've botherd to tell the TV Licensing enforcer goon squad that, I don't know).
People actually pay for a limited-function calculator, when they have a more useful one already on the phone!
Part of the functionality of a restaurant bill splitter app is to act as an impartial "adviser" and avoid arguments - a standard calculator can't do that.
Anyway, A well-presented app for something like this is always likely to be quicker, simpler, and less error-prone than doing it on a pocket calculator emulation.
I mean, have you tried to do 5th-order Bistromathic transforms and solve NP-Complete problems on the cruddy retro 1970s calculator with a numeric-only display and a single memory emulated by the iPhone?
Nerds aren't good at writing software for non-nerds.
But non-nerds aren't good at writing software for anyone.
But when the non-nerds are writing the checks, they can order the nerds to finish the click'n'drool user interface before adding the Python-based scripting facility...
Perhaps I should say that nerds aren't motivated to write software for non-nerds?
If I'm a developer trying to write a major app - say a wordprocessor or an operating system - I have a huge job ahead of me and hence, a good incentive to recruit the help of the FOSS community by opening my code. Likewise, the community has a stronmg incentive to help.
A lot of "Apps", however, tend to be fairly simple, verging on the trivial, single-purpose applications, and a good one might owe more to being a cool idea rather than a clever and intricate bit of coding. There's less incentive to share (and less incentive for the community to help).
Of course, the community still gains from the increasing popularity of the underlying, open source OS and the "big tools" (like WebKit).
I suspect that open source will continue to be better at systems & infrastructure stuff (where the target audience is programmers or other nerds) than user-facing apps. Nerds aren't good at writing software for non-nerds.
"I find many aspects of desktop virtualization compelling, with one exception: the cost of the thin clients, which typically exceeds that of a traditional box.
Thing is, if you're using office productivity apps or database front ends (the usual applications for desktop virtualization) then the most computationally intensive part of the job is probably rendering the user interface - so your thin client needs to have pretty much the same CPU and GPU clout as the desktop it is replacing. The Flash RAM costs as much as 10x the amount of HD storage and (since most people expect Thin Clients to be Thin) you're probably paying a premium for laptop-class components. The only real saving is DRAM - which is dirt cheap.
Also, since the main market for these is corporate, any retail prices you see will be inflated so that corporate clients can be offered a nice "discount".
I find many aspects of smart phones compelling, with one exception: the cost of the phones [google.com], which typically exceeds that of a traditional box [system76.com].
...perhaps you should look at media players that do nearly everything except phone and GPS for 1/3 the price. (e.g. c.f. the price of an iPhone vs. an iPod Touch - or the HTC Hero vs. the non-Apple media player of your choice).
One does wonder whether the prices of phones are kept artificially high to encourage people to get them on contract...
Its very, very pedantic, but I think its true that while the GPL2 didn't even give lip service to the idea that you might need a license to run the software, GPL3 tries to fix that for those of us in countries which don't have the US's somewhat enlightened* laws on fair use and the right to run software and make backups. The practical upshot is that, by acknowledging this, the GPL3 becomes a "use" license - albeit one where the terms of use are "do what you will".
This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
...
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.
(GPL3)
The second part could (if you feel argumentative) suggest that if you lose your GPL license (e.g. by breaking the distribution terms) you also lose your license to run the program.
The GPL 2, however just says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted,
,,,which is somewhat self-contradictory but avoids implying that you need a license to run the program or that violating the GPL removes your right to run the software.
Yes folks, we're splitting hairs into quarters here...
I think that's the real concern with GPL3 - that by trying to "fix everything" it might have unintended consequences that, at the least, can be used to generate FUD.
Well, its a good job we're talking about the recent EU rulings and not the decade-old US case then, isn't it?
Since Windows 2000 & merging with NT codebase, Windows is not a single user OS, making that definition invalid.
What! You mean MS used their dominant position in the single-user OS market to gain a dominant position in the multi-user OS market? The varmints!!! Can't take your eyes of them for a minute...
Since server hardware and PC hardware is almost similar thesedays (x86/x64 servers anyway..) you can't really differentiate via hardware either.
No, but since desktops and servers are bought for very different purposes you can differentiate the markets quite easily...
I dare say if you define the market as operating systems that run on powerpc compatible PCs, Apple would be a monopoly..
Newsflash from 2005 - Apple uses Intel chips.
its understandable you don't really deal with facts.
Yes, I always wear special goggles which stop me seeing the wide choice of non-Windows operating systems on sale by the typical computer dealer. Instead, I see wall-to-wall Windows PCs. About 18 months ago, my goggles broke down and I started to see small laptops running linux, but I had them fixed and they all turned into Windows XP machines.
Am I reading this right? If I make a ceramic tile design, I'll get a cut from all future ceramics made with that pattern, anywhere in the EU or Canada? I think I'm in the wrong industry.
Well, yes - that is called a "royalty" and its perfectly standard operating procedure in the US, EU and elsewhere. It works for software, too. The manufacturer is copying your design and needs your permission to do that.
The rule in TFA is aimed at "fine artists" who create a single, original work (or a small number of "original" prints from a woodcut or photograph) and sell it. If they sell it to a collector for €100 who then sells it on for €100000 then they'd like a slice of that action, please* - so they put a clause to that effect in the contract of sale. However, a US/CA-style "right of first sale" would invalidate that.
Otherwise, Europe could be overrun with homeless "artists" wondering around and terrorizing the general public by cutting cows in half, drawing pictures with their own bodily fluids or arranging bricks in neat piles. If you come back from your hike to find that Tracey Emin has written Dear John letters all over your tent and crapped in your sleeping bag because she can't afford her own then blame Canada !
They should also be forced to include alternatives to Paint and Notepad.
Riiiight... because if you have Paint and Notepad, why on earth would you want any other graphics or wordprocessing software? Adobe must be quaking in their boots (and guess who pwn3s the wordprocessing market anyway). Oh, plus, those apps were part of Windows since before Windows had any market share (pretty sure they were in Windows 1.0 in the late 80s). IE, however, was parachuted in circa Windows 95 when the MS monopoly was at its height and Netscape, Opera et. al. had established businesses producing web browsers.
They may also want to look into rumors that Apple is bundling a single web browser into their own OS at the expense of other meritorious alternatives.
Oh ye gods and little fishes, how hard can it be? These are antitrust/monopoly abuse rulings - Apple doesn't have a near-monopoly in the desktop operating systems market so they can't use their OS monopoly to foist Safari on the masses.
Oh, and FWIW if you fire up your Mac and go to "Apple Menu*" => "Mac OS Software" => "Internet Utilities" you'll find an Apple-hosted page which currently includes Firefox and Chrome on page 1 and Opera on page 2.
For example: with GPL, you can't modify the application, and release the new version under a different license.
Not quite - The GPL offers you a conditional license to copy, modify and re-distribute the application - something that, regardless of whether you "own a copy" or "have a license", copyright law expressly forbids. If you don't re-distribute, you can ignore the GPL.
Other EULAs forbid you from doing things that would be permitted under copyright law if you had "bought a copy". The GPL lets you do what the hell you like with "your copy" provided you don't re-distribute it - and its fairly liberal about what "distribution" means.
Ditto BSD etc.: the conditions only cut in if you do something that wouldn't be permitted under regular copyright.
Where you do pay is if you exceed your overdraft limit by even one penny (something which is very easy to do when the bank automatically gives everyone a debit card, encourages them to use it and most businesses accept them without further charge).
...and they'll also charge an arm and a leg for bouncing a cheque and/or honouring a cheque which puts you overdrawn.
Both bank transfers and cheques are typically free on UK personal accounts (business accounts are another matter). Both cost money if they lead to an unauthorized overdraft.
But more importantly, virtually everything we enjoy in computing today is a result of that cloning process.
What, like ready-to-use home computers (Commodore, Apple, Radio Shack, et. al.) with Graphical User Interfaces (Xerox and Apple), Word Processing (Wordstar, anyone?) WYSIWYG Word Processing (MacWrite), Desktop Publishing (Aldus on Apple Macs), Photo manipulation (Photoshop/Digital Darkroom started on Apple Macs) Spreadsheets (Visicalc on Apple II), Video Editing (Amiga, Apple), Music (Amiga, Atari, Apple), Games (Atari, Commodore, Sinclair/Timex kickstarted that), PDA/Smartphones (Psion, Palm, Apple Newton), low-power CPUs for smartphones (the ARM started out as the CPU in Acorn personal computers in the UK), Internet (most of the protocols came from Unix, friendly clients appeared pretty simultaneously on Mac and PC)...
So remind me, what was it that the PC contributed...?
It broke the PC industry wide open and caused the cost of home computers to plummet.
Well, mainly it caused the price of PC Compatibles to plummet. There were plenty of affordable home computers on the market before that, often at a fraction of the price of IBM PCs and/or technically superior (Amiga?). Unfortunately, IBM had already used their dominant position to create a proprietary monoculture in the corporate world - the clones just allowed that to propagate into the home/small business market.
However, since pretty much all commercial software publishers use EULAs to restrict what you can do with "your copy" (e.g. OEM versions, no running on virtual machines, upgrades, educational versions, liability disclaimers, no publishing benchmarks...) why should Apple not be able to do the same?
Let me guess what they got for Christmas... brand new MacBook Pro laptops donated to everyone in their offices and families?
I very much doubt it (if only because they're lawyers - $2000 wouldn't cover dinner!) - but if they did I'm sure they just stacked them alongside all the goodies from non-Apple manufacturers who didn't want them to invalidate the principle of software licenses.
Not really. The unwashed masses are paranoid of choices, one or two they can tolerate but more than that and they'll ignore anything but the two most popular ones.
Really? Every time I go to buy something other than a computer - from a can of cola to a car - there seems to be a huge choice of very different options. Perhaps you need to get out more.
we're just lucky it was a relatively open one
(...by some strange 1980s definition of "open" that actually means "closed and proprietary")
with an OS whose owner was ready to sell it to anyone and everyone,
...provided they agreed not to sell any computers with different OSs...
instead of trying to control the entirety of the user's experience ala Apple.
Yeah, because keeping big chunks of the API secret so your applications always give a better user experience than third party ones is so "open". "Windows ain't done till Lotus won't run" anyone?
PS: don't confuse Apple's tightly closed "appliances" - iPhone/iPod/iTunes - with the Macintosh. You can run whatever the hell you like on a Mac (including most of the major Open Source projects). Apple even throw in the dev tools, plus a point-and-drool tool for dual-booting with Windows. Dell once told me I'd void the warranty if I tried to dual boot even two versions of Windows...
Instead, the case hinged upon the fact that Psystar didn't have trained monkeys sticking each separate Mac OS X disk into each machine, retarded.
No - when monkey sticks disc into machine, monkey makes a second copy of the software (on the hard drive). If that machine's not an Apple, you've violated your licence - go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
"First sale" means that, if they destroy all the other copies, they can re-sell the original disc. That's all.
Every item I now produce and sell will be accompanied by an envelope only obvious once the buyer has brought it home.
That's already the case with virtually any product more technically sophisticated than a bunch of banannas. Come to think of it, when I buy a bunch of bannanas and pay with my debit card, the checkout flashes up the mystic runes "Refer to terms.":-(
Apple is just playing the game by the rules in force. Every other non-FOSS software house tells you what you can and can't do with "your" copy, too.
Oh, and to be fair, the outside of the box for OS X does say quite clearly that you need a Macintosh computer to use it.
Heh. What would've happened if they weren't able to create IBM PC Clones in the '80s? Today's computing world would've looked a lot different, I suppose.
...and probably a lot more healthy than the PC monoculture, with a diversity of different platforms and applications which (by necessity) exchanged data in standardized formats. The big snag of the IBM PC "standard" was that it wasn't really a standard - just a closed proprietary system that got cloned.
Anyway, the PC clone makers did face legal challenges - but unlike Psystar they were able to prove that they'd produced a work-alike version of IBM's ROMs without infringing copyright (by using a scurpulous "clean-room" programming process). Also, Microsoft was more than happy to license them MSDOS (which always had been available as a standalone product - there were many non-PC MSDOS machines around at the time).
Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?
Standard answer to all these types of comment: Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position and hence is subject to antitrust regulations. Apple hasn't (certainly not in computers - more debatably in music) and isn't. There really is one law for Microsoft and another for Apple.
As far as copyright is concerned. As long as the law accepts that the software you "buy" is licensed rather than owned, the copyright holder can impose whatever terms they want. The principle is no different from saying that some versions of Vista could not be used on virtual machines, or that the OEM Windows that came with your old PC can't be used on your new PC.
However, since Microsoft have ~90% of the personal computer operating system market, Intel have ~80% of the personal computer CPU market, any attempt to tie them would likely be challenged under antitrust law.
Psystar tried the antitrust line against Apple earlier in the case but it was thrown out on the grounds that Apple didn't have a dominant position in the personal computer OS market and the judge din't buy the argument that having a monopoly on the "OS X market" didn't count ("Brand X" will always have a monopoly on "Brand X" products. Duh!)
Slashdot Mirror
Its Engadget though, they probably think that Apple invented the smartphone, multitouch, the trackpad and any other useful inventions.
Apple may not have invented everything, but they've got a pretty impressive record at taking inventions, turning them into desirable products and marketing the hell out of them and then being copied mercilessly by the rest of the industry.
The G4 "Ti" Powerbook, at the time, certainly felt like a departure from traditional laptop design and while at 15:10 the screen may not have been 16:10 or 16:9 it was still wider than the then-ubquitous laptops. (I think 16:9 is a bridge too far for general-purpose laptops, anyway).
As a member of a flight club, I can fly a private Cessna 182 at 150 MPH (pretty much) anytime I want, at a cost that's perhaps 25% higher than driving.
But can you use your laptop or get up to go to the toilet during the last hour of the flight?
or I'll just piss in my paints in the aisle
Actually, the state of the economy class bathrooms towards the end of a 10+ hour flight is usually enough to make this option seem attractive anyhow :-)
Exactly - how on earth did the TSA come up with such seemingly braindead directive?
Sounds like they put the problem to a committee (I won't use the traditional metaphor becase it is a baseless slander against the noble camel).
Stopping people from going to the toilet or having stuff on their lap for the whole flight might actually help with the problem, but would be unworkable for other reasons (anybody want to invent a pants-mouted bomb detonated by urine?) So they reach for the political compromise: a time limit. Completey defeats the object, but hey, they're seen to be doing something - whereas pointing out that what we really have here is more evidence of the inefficacy of amateur binary explosives would be totally unacceptable.
Surely you jest. A large media conglomerate that owns newspapers wouldn't also own commercial satellite TV stations that would be in competition with the BBC, would it? How would one get fair views? ;-)
Oh, but they're private organisations governed by the wonderful free market (choir of angels) so they must be on the side of peace, motherhood and apple pie. There's no need to expose them to the sort of constant scrutiny that a nasty communist state-run organization like the BBC is subject to.
I'm guessing the executives / board / owners of the BBC know people in the right places and are able to intercept initiatives to change the legislation.
I think you'll find that the current system actually has quite a lot of public support and that a lot of the BBC-bashing comes from newspapers owned by certain large media groups.
Making the BBC a subscription service is the same thing as abolishing the BBC.
But it won't last forever
That much is true - eventually, as TV merges with the Internet, the only options will be to privatise the BBC or force internet users to pay the TV license.
If you want to add to the silliness: on their website they claim that you must pay the TV licensing even if you just watch DVDs or have the receiver at home but no TV set. But there you go.
Which website? The official TV Licensing website says that you need a license if you "watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.. DVDs are mentioned because DVD recorders have TV tuers.
(Whether they've botherd to tell the TV Licensing enforcer goon squad that, I don't know).
People actually pay for a limited-function calculator, when they have a more useful one already on the phone!
Part of the functionality of a restaurant bill splitter app is to act as an impartial "adviser" and avoid arguments - a standard calculator can't do that.
Anyway, A well-presented app for something like this is always likely to be quicker, simpler, and less error-prone than doing it on a pocket calculator emulation.
I mean, have you tried to do 5th-order Bistromathic transforms and solve NP-Complete problems on the cruddy retro 1970s calculator with a numeric-only display and a single memory emulated by the iPhone?
But non-nerds aren't good at writing software for anyone.
But when the non-nerds are writing the checks, they can order the nerds to finish the click'n'drool user interface before adding the Python-based scripting facility...
Perhaps I should say that nerds aren't motivated to write software for non-nerds?
And nothing of value was lost?
If I'm a developer trying to write a major app - say a wordprocessor or an operating system - I have a huge job ahead of me and hence, a good incentive to recruit the help of the FOSS community by opening my code. Likewise, the community has a stronmg incentive to help.
A lot of "Apps", however, tend to be fairly simple, verging on the trivial, single-purpose applications, and a good one might owe more to being a cool idea rather than a clever and intricate bit of coding. There's less incentive to share (and less incentive for the community to help).
Of course, the community still gains from the increasing popularity of the underlying, open source OS and the "big tools" (like WebKit).
I suspect that open source will continue to be better at systems & infrastructure stuff (where the target audience is programmers or other nerds) than user-facing apps. Nerds aren't good at writing software for non-nerds.
"I find many aspects of desktop virtualization compelling, with one exception: the cost of the thin clients, which typically exceeds that of a traditional box.
Thing is, if you're using office productivity apps or database front ends (the usual applications for desktop virtualization) then the most computationally intensive part of the job is probably rendering the user interface - so your thin client needs to have pretty much the same CPU and GPU clout as the desktop it is replacing. The Flash RAM costs as much as 10x the amount of HD storage and (since most people expect Thin Clients to be Thin) you're probably paying a premium for laptop-class components. The only real saving is DRAM - which is dirt cheap.
Also, since the main market for these is corporate, any retail prices you see will be inflated so that corporate clients can be offered a nice "discount".
I find many aspects of smart phones compelling, with one exception: the cost of the phones [google.com], which typically exceeds that of a traditional box [system76.com].
...perhaps you should look at media players that do nearly everything except phone and GPS for 1/3 the price. (e.g. c.f. the price of an iPhone vs. an iPod Touch - or the HTC Hero vs. the non-Apple media player of your choice).
One does wonder whether the prices of phones are kept artificially high to encourage people to get them on contract...
Its very, very pedantic, but I think its true that while the GPL2 didn't even give lip service to the idea that you might need a license to run the software, GPL3 tries to fix that for those of us in countries which don't have the US's somewhat enlightened* laws on fair use and the right to run software and make backups. The practical upshot is that, by acknowledging this, the GPL3 becomes a "use" license - albeit one where the terms of use are "do what you will".
This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.
...
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.
(GPL3)
The second part could (if you feel argumentative) suggest that if you lose your GPL license (e.g. by breaking the distribution terms) you also lose your license to run the program.
The GPL 2, however just says:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted,
,,,which is somewhat self-contradictory but avoids implying that you need a license to run the program or that violating the GPL removes your right to run the software.
Yes folks, we're splitting hairs into quarters here...
I think that's the real concern with GPL3 - that by trying to "fix everything" it might have unintended consequences that, at the least, can be used to generate FUD.
In the last US vs MS anti-trust case
Well, its a good job we're talking about the recent EU rulings and not the decade-old US case then, isn't it?
Since Windows 2000 & merging with NT codebase, Windows is not a single user OS, making that definition invalid.
What! You mean MS used their dominant position in the single-user OS market to gain a dominant position in the multi-user OS market? The varmints!!! Can't take your eyes of them for a minute...
Since server hardware and PC hardware is almost similar thesedays (x86/x64 servers anyway..) you can't really differentiate via hardware either.
No, but since desktops and servers are bought for very different purposes you can differentiate the markets quite easily...
I dare say if you define the market as operating systems that run on powerpc compatible PCs, Apple would be a monopoly..
Newsflash from 2005 - Apple uses Intel chips.
its understandable you don't really deal with facts.
Yes, I always wear special goggles which stop me seeing the wide choice of non-Windows operating systems on sale by the typical computer dealer. Instead, I see wall-to-wall Windows PCs. About 18 months ago, my goggles broke down and I started to see small laptops running linux, but I had them fixed and they all turned into Windows XP machines.
Am I reading this right? If I make a ceramic tile design, I'll get a cut from all future ceramics made with that pattern, anywhere in the EU or Canada? I think I'm in the wrong industry.
Well, yes - that is called a "royalty" and its perfectly standard operating procedure in the US, EU and elsewhere. It works for software, too. The manufacturer is copying your design and needs your permission to do that.
The rule in TFA is aimed at "fine artists" who create a single, original work (or a small number of "original" prints from a woodcut or photograph) and sell it. If they sell it to a collector for €100 who then sells it on for €100000 then they'd like a slice of that action, please* - so they put a clause to that effect in the contract of sale. However, a US/CA-style "right of first sale" would invalidate that.
Otherwise, Europe could be overrun with homeless "artists" wondering around and terrorizing the general public by cutting cows in half, drawing pictures with their own bodily fluids or arranging bricks in neat piles. If you come back from your hike to find that Tracey Emin has written Dear John letters all over your tent and crapped in your sleeping bag because she can't afford her own then blame Canada !
They should also be forced to include alternatives to Paint and Notepad.
Riiiight... because if you have Paint and Notepad, why on earth would you want any other graphics or wordprocessing software? Adobe must be quaking in their boots (and guess who pwn3s the wordprocessing market anyway). Oh, plus, those apps were part of Windows since before Windows had any market share (pretty sure they were in Windows 1.0 in the late 80s). IE, however, was parachuted in circa Windows 95 when the MS monopoly was at its height and Netscape, Opera et. al. had established businesses producing web browsers.
They may also want to look into rumors that Apple is bundling a single web browser into their own OS at the expense of other meritorious alternatives.
Oh ye gods and little fishes, how hard can it be? These are antitrust/monopoly abuse rulings - Apple doesn't have a near-monopoly in the desktop operating systems market so they can't use their OS monopoly to foist Safari on the masses.
Oh, and FWIW if you fire up your Mac and go to "Apple Menu*" => "Mac OS Software" => "Internet Utilities" you'll find an Apple-hosted page which currently includes Firefox and Chrome on page 1 and Opera on page 2.
(*Thats the OS X equivalent of the "Start" menu)
For example: with GPL, you can't modify the application, and release the new version under a different license.
Not quite - The GPL offers you a conditional license to copy, modify and re-distribute the application - something that, regardless of whether you "own a copy" or "have a license", copyright law expressly forbids. If you don't re-distribute, you can ignore the GPL.
Other EULAs forbid you from doing things that would be permitted under copyright law if you had "bought a copy". The GPL lets you do what the hell you like with "your copy" provided you don't re-distribute it - and its fairly liberal about what "distribution" means.
Ditto BSD etc.: the conditions only cut in if you do something that wouldn't be permitted under regular copyright.
Maybe - but will it have a "trunk" or a "boot"?
Where you do pay is if you exceed your overdraft limit by even one penny (something which is very easy to do when the bank automatically gives everyone a debit card, encourages them to use it and most businesses accept them without further charge).
...and they'll also charge an arm and a leg for bouncing a cheque and/or honouring a cheque which puts you overdrawn.
Both bank transfers and cheques are typically free on UK personal accounts (business accounts are another matter). Both cost money if they lead to an unauthorized overdraft.
But more importantly, virtually everything we enjoy in computing today is a result of that cloning process.
What, like ready-to-use home computers (Commodore, Apple, Radio Shack, et. al.) with Graphical User Interfaces (Xerox and Apple), Word Processing (Wordstar, anyone?) WYSIWYG Word Processing (MacWrite), Desktop Publishing (Aldus on Apple Macs), Photo manipulation (Photoshop/Digital Darkroom started on Apple Macs) Spreadsheets (Visicalc on Apple II), Video Editing (Amiga, Apple), Music (Amiga, Atari, Apple), Games (Atari, Commodore, Sinclair/Timex kickstarted that), PDA/Smartphones (Psion, Palm, Apple Newton), low-power CPUs for smartphones (the ARM started out as the CPU in Acorn personal computers in the UK), Internet (most of the protocols came from Unix, friendly clients appeared pretty simultaneously on Mac and PC)...
So remind me, what was it that the PC contributed...?
It broke the PC industry wide open and caused the cost of home computers to plummet.
Well, mainly it caused the price of PC Compatibles to plummet. There were plenty of affordable home computers on the market before that, often at a fraction of the price of IBM PCs and/or technically superior (Amiga?). Unfortunately, IBM had already used their dominant position to create a proprietary monoculture in the corporate world - the clones just allowed that to propagate into the home/small business market.
Why would this only apply to software?
Because virtually every commerical software publisher has interpreted the law that way, and although there is some legal uncertainty, "No Court has ruled on the validity of EULAs generally; decisions are limited to particular provisions and terms.".
However, since pretty much all commercial software publishers use EULAs to restrict what you can do with "your copy" (e.g. OEM versions, no running on virtual machines, upgrades, educational versions, liability disclaimers, no publishing benchmarks...) why should Apple not be able to do the same?
Let me guess what they got for Christmas... brand new MacBook Pro laptops donated to everyone in their offices and families?
I very much doubt it (if only because they're lawyers - $2000 wouldn't cover dinner!) - but if they did I'm sure they just stacked them alongside all the goodies from non-Apple manufacturers who didn't want them to invalidate the principle of software licenses.
Not really. The unwashed masses are paranoid of choices, one or two they can tolerate but more than that and they'll ignore anything but the two most popular ones.
Really? Every time I go to buy something other than a computer - from a can of cola to a car - there seems to be a huge choice of very different options. Perhaps you need to get out more.
we're just lucky it was a relatively open one
(...by some strange 1980s definition of "open" that actually means "closed and proprietary")
with an OS whose owner was ready to sell it to anyone and everyone,
...provided they agreed not to sell any computers with different OSs...
instead of trying to control the entirety of the user's experience ala Apple.
Yeah, because keeping big chunks of the API secret so your applications always give a better user experience than third party ones is so "open". "Windows ain't done till Lotus won't run" anyone?
PS: don't confuse Apple's tightly closed "appliances" - iPhone/iPod/iTunes - with the Macintosh. You can run whatever the hell you like on a Mac (including most of the major Open Source projects). Apple even throw in the dev tools, plus a point-and-drool tool for dual-booting with Windows. Dell once told me I'd void the warranty if I tried to dual boot even two versions of Windows...
Instead, the case hinged upon the fact that Psystar didn't have trained monkeys sticking each separate Mac OS X disk into each machine, retarded.
No - when monkey sticks disc into machine, monkey makes a second copy of the software (on the hard drive). If that machine's not an Apple, you've violated your licence - go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
"First sale" means that, if they destroy all the other copies, they can re-sell the original disc. That's all.
Every item I now produce and sell will be accompanied by an envelope only obvious once the buyer has brought it home.
That's already the case with virtually any product more technically sophisticated than a bunch of banannas. Come to think of it, when I buy a bunch of bannanas and pay with my debit card, the checkout flashes up the mystic runes "Refer to terms." :-(
Apple is just playing the game by the rules in force. Every other non-FOSS software house tells you what you can and can't do with "your" copy, too.
Oh, and to be fair, the outside of the box for OS X does say quite clearly that you need a Macintosh computer to use it.
Heh. What would've happened if they weren't able to create IBM PC Clones in the '80s? Today's computing world would've looked a lot different, I suppose.
...and probably a lot more healthy than the PC monoculture, with a diversity of different platforms and applications which (by necessity) exchanged data in standardized formats. The big snag of the IBM PC "standard" was that it wasn't really a standard - just a closed proprietary system that got cloned.
Anyway, the PC clone makers did face legal challenges - but unlike Psystar they were able to prove that they'd produced a work-alike version of IBM's ROMs without infringing copyright (by using a scurpulous "clean-room" programming process). Also, Microsoft was more than happy to license them MSDOS (which always had been available as a standalone product - there were many non-PC MSDOS machines around at the time).
Say Microsoft added a clause that Microsoft Window could _only_ be run on Intel machines. Would this ruling make it truly illegal to sell AMD machines with Windows on?
Standard answer to all these types of comment: Microsoft enjoys a monopoly position and hence is subject to antitrust regulations. Apple hasn't (certainly not in computers - more debatably in music) and isn't. There really is one law for Microsoft and another for Apple.
As far as copyright is concerned. As long as the law accepts that the software you "buy" is licensed rather than owned, the copyright holder can impose whatever terms they want. The principle is no different from saying that some versions of Vista could not be used on virtual machines, or that the OEM Windows that came with your old PC can't be used on your new PC.
However, since Microsoft have ~90% of the personal computer operating system market, Intel have ~80% of the personal computer CPU market, any attempt to tie them would likely be challenged under antitrust law.
Psystar tried the antitrust line against Apple earlier in the case but it was thrown out on the grounds that Apple didn't have a dominant position in the personal computer OS market and the judge din't buy the argument that having a monopoly on the "OS X market" didn't count ("Brand X" will always have a monopoly on "Brand X" products. Duh!)