Configuration: Yes, usually autodetection and GUI config work. Sometimes doesn't.
I haven't had problems with this personally in a while, but then my daily, desktop Linux lives in a VM. One thing to note is this problem falls into the category of being an issue for Linux, but not OS X or Windows, not for technical reasons with the OS, but because of the current OS ecosystem. Apple makes sure their hardware is supported. Everyone else makes sure the hardware they make is auto-detected by Windows (usually successfully).
I don't think this will be a problem for the average novice Linux user, because most of them will not be doing their own installs. If Linux ever gains significant market share, it will be because either hardware vendors are selling machines with it pre-installed (and presumably will take care of making sure it works) or because a professional installs the system for the user (generally IT in a large organization). Those are the real opportunities for Linux to gain install base at this time, and I think make for a reasonable target for development.
Software installation: Again apt/yum/etc is great, but still imperfect.
Amen!
The case is, there is no distribution including all the software all the people will ever use...
This is true, but in this respect Linux is ahead of other players. Windows and OS X don't ship with a real package manager for general purpose software. As far as using a package manager to discover and install end user software, Linux is way ahead.
...and downloading and compiling tarballs (sometimes including tricky "./configure" parameters and/or iterating over several dependencies) is of course out of the question.
And therein lies the rub. For software that is not in the default repository, Linux is much, much worse than Windows or OS X. Without package managers OS X has developed a very useful way to install software and the Windows development community has become good at creating usable installers, such that the average person can use them. If you want to install software from a DVD/CD, flash drive, Web site, Bittorrent, or another computer, Linux can be a huge pain in the ass. And realistically, normal users generally do want to do this at some point.
I think the community should embrace things like ZeroInstall (or Autopackage), and either becoming the standard for packaging and installing anything besides the base system, and developers providing those packages instead of just source and waiting for some packagers picking it and integrating it into distros' repos.
ZeroInstall partially addresses the issue of installing from a Web site and is an incremental improvement, except that it introduces a second package manager for users to have to understand. It also makes dependencies visible to the end user, which is less than ideal for novice users.
Autopackage basically "pulls a Windows" and gives up on package management and goes back to running arbitrary binary installers to get software installed. It also is more problematic than Windows because it also introduces a second workflow for installing software, so users have to juggle two different ways, unlike just one way on Windows.
Basically, while I wholly agree package management on Linux is not taking care of the needed use cases, I disagree that we should introduce, multiple competing workflows or step backwards to the "windows way" of doing things.
In my utopian fantasy all the major Linux distros, Apple, and Sun all sit down in a room and create a compatible solution that combines the benefits of OS X's application bundles for some use cases and at the same time leverages all the advantages of modern package managers and accounts for all use cases. Here's how I see those advantages.
I understand your point, but I somewhat doubt that paying a fee is going to improve the quality of the software written for the iPhone. A lousy application won't be any better for being signed.
But it does pave the way for Apple to blackbox test it, for Apple or others to view the code or certify it, and most importantly for the source of software to be confirmed. I seriously doubt there will be much malware on the iPhone and for a change it may well be tied to a person who can be thrown in jail or sued by users.
I do not know all the SDK terms, but I take it that Apple does not necessarily get to see the code--and if they did, they would certainly lack the resources to audit every submitted piece of software--, so the only way to really protect their users is a very carefully designed API and execution subsystem.
A quick smell test is all that is needed to identify most malware today. It is certainly enough to identify a worm, which is one of the real issues. Basically, no drive by installations because the iPhone can detect if the software changes. It reduces malware to only programs with a social engineering component that users intentionally install. Even then, it will onyl be active until it is detected/identified at which point Apple can stop downloads and possibly disable it remotely.
...so the only way to really protect their users is a very carefully designed API and execution subsystem.
That may be true in the long run, but in the short term this knocks out several of the most proliferate types of malware, reducing the problem to just trojans and allowing for the authors of those to be prosecuted. Even with a MAC or other ACL type subsystem the signing component is still needed to see if an app is the exact version it claims and if it is from the people who claim to have created it.
If they have got this part right, no poorly writen application should be able to crash the handset.
Crashing them is not the major issue. There is little profit in that. The real concern is data theft and misuse of network resources for spamming, DDoS and Shiva forbid, automated voice calling spam.
In other words, I fail to see how this measure is for users' sake and not plain bullshit for generating (even more) revenues for them.
I doubt they're making much profit on this. It is probably just trying to pay for itself, and is certinaly cheaper than signing offers from other vendors. If this was a cash grab, why allow unlimited signing from a key? They could easily have gone for 10 or 25 signings per key and been on par with other phone signing schemes.
I can see you don't fully understand how a signing system is one of the four major components of next generation anti-malware systems. You can read up on it, or just take my word for it. They incorporated signing into OS X for the same reason, even though it is currently optional and free. It paves the way going forward for greylisting combined with ACLs combined with weighted security data feeds.
Obviously, I do not blame them for trying, it is their product and they can do whatever they please, but it certainly won't be a selling point for me.
Signing is not supposed to be an end user feature. Security is and this may well enable Apple to make security a non-issue for the vast majority of their phone users, as it is for most Mac users today. It sells them a lot of PCs and they have technology plans to keep it that way. With the iPhone they just got a chance to make sure there will be no backwards compatibility problems as well. We'll see how it goes. They may pull it off and they may not, but "no malware problems" may sell them a lot more phones than "some OSS and self created programs don't run." Maybe it won't. I hope the market is allowed to decide.
The site is up - Looks like they were actually redesigning the website while it was off line. Here's the URL: http://www.psystar.com/openmac_the_apple_alternative.html [psystar.com] If I had some cash to blow, I'd buy one now. Hopefully the site will last long enough for me to get that vaporware government check we've all been hearing about.
You might want to rethink that. The guardian looked into the company and found that there is no evidence they have ever sold anyone anything. The original address listed was a private home and the new one is a shipping company who claims to have never heard of them. In light of this, I'd hold onto my credit card number a bit longer and wait to see if they are a legit business going forward.
My suspicion is this is a one or two man attempt to start a new business and they obviously did not consult a lawyer before launching their new scheme.
The fact that other vendors are even worse than Apple in this respect does not make Apple's attitude right!
True, but neither does it make it wrong. You have to consider the ramifications.
They may say that code signing is there to protect me and to make sure that my phone does not crash because of a badly-made application, but I would rather be given the choice.
App signing is to protect users, but not necessarily you in particular. Apple is concerned about the average user, not the modder.
I mean, all they have to do is refuse technical support on any iPhone with unsigned software installed onto it and provide a reasonable way to restore any iPhone to its initial state in case something I install turns out to make the handset misbehave.
You're assuming that is the only cost to Apple and that the ability to do this will not be a problem for normal users. So here's the situation from Apple's perspective. They want iPhones to be stable and resistant to malware. A whitelist is an extreme way to do this, but not necessarily unneeded. If they provide an easy way to opt out and run unsigned apps, will mainstream applications be unsigned an require this? Will users become accustomed to clicking past the warning, just like they do on Windows now? Will malware thus find its way onto a large portion of iPhones as a result?
From Apple's perspective, this is a real concern. Further, malware ridden phones are a problem to more than the individual user. Users will certianly still call Apple's support, especially if this becomes common. Does Apple refuse to provide support for a potentially significant number of iPhones? Can they screen these out in advance so they don't have to waste employee time and phone bills determining which phones are running unsigned apps? Will malware running on iPhones even if the user clicked "OK" damage Apple's brand? Will it damage the reputation of the iPhone? Will the press not bother running "scary" articles about the danger of malware on your phone, if that malware was installed by a user who opted to run unsigned apps? These are all valid considerations.
MS has repeatedly played the blame game. They've made security decisions that result in more systems being compromised, but being able to point the finger at the user for having clicked "OK" for the hundredth time. That is certainly less than ideal and leads to a very poor culture for real security in future development.
I do not need further protection and, what is more, do not want it!
Maybe you're not Apple's target market. Maybe you'd be happier with a different phone.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't own an iPhone and may never do so. If Android turns out to be a more free and open, but still usable and secure alternative, it may be preferable to both you and I. think an outright, user un-editable whitelist is a very serious restriction. I'd much rather see some middle ground, where users can run unsigned applications, but by default they are severely sandboxed and restricted. Heck, a locked down JVM would be a fine start. I'm just not sure the cost this entails to Apple makes it a worthwhile business case for them. For a general purpose computer, I'd find this completely unacceptable. For a phone, well for now I'm not too upset. Going forward, I think users will require more options and a middle ground will win in the marketplace (or would in a truly free market). We'll have to see how things play out.
The BSD license isn't going to get you very far if you could be violating the Apple NDA by publishing the source code.
Why? You don't need to publish the source code to be in compliance with the BSD license. All you need to do is credit the authors. Heck, Windows incorporates (or used to) a BSD licensed TCP/IP stack. The fact that you don't need to publish the code is the main difference between the GPL and BSD licenses.
I'm sure they have. They are also notorious for ignoring market research and doing what appears to be the wrong thing and getting big wins from it...
Really. What evidence do you have to support that Apple acts contrary to their market research? I've never heard such a thing.
...and also coming up with monstrosities like a handheld computer that you can't fit in your pocket...
I'm not sure what you're referring to here either. Please be specific.
They're also notorious for being amazingly resistent to doing sensible things until they can spin it as a brilliant idea... and all the hard core Apple fans forget (for example) that jobs said there would never be a headless desktop Mac...
Can you provide a link to that quote? Google does not seem to provide any such quote in the first 20 hits.
...and go all gaga about how cool the Mac mini is... ignoring the fact that it's a pretty awful desktop Mac.
The people that go "gaga" over how cool the Mac-mini is are not looking for a desktop Mac. They're looking for a cheap, small form factor machine and many don't even run OS X on it. The Mac mini is often regarded as best in its class because of its small size, relatively low price, and silent and relatively cool operation. It is perfect for mounting in small places, use in environments where noise is a concern (audio, home theater, etc.), building into robotics projects, etc. People on Slashdot like it, not because it is a viable midrange desktop Mac, but because it is smaller, cheaper, and better for geeky uses than pretty much all the shuttle-PC options out there. Some people are happy that it provides the lowest-end OS X system on the market and that was certainly Apple's target market, but that's not generally the applications you see it praised for, especially here on Slashdot.
Apple does stupid things. All the time.
They do things you perceive as stupid. That doesn't mean you're not just wrong or poorly informed. They're making a lot of money making those decisions, some of which are admittedly risky. Enough of those risks are paying off. If you think you can do better, start your own company.
Because the Thinkpad is still one of the best all-round laptops around (if not the best), and because Apple has worked with the Thinkpad division in the past when it was part of IBM.
The Thinkpad targets the exact same market as Apple's existing offerings, is slightly less reliable, and independent reviews often lists it as a close second to Apple's laptops. If they are going to partner with someone for expanding their offerings, shouldn't they go with someone that targets a different market entirely? Your argument sounds like it is founded in your desire for OS X on a ThinkPad, which you then have tried to come up with a reason for.
They did it before.
As I recall, IBM considered manufacturing Macs, using Apple's hardware design as well as OS. Lenovo is not IBM and IBM did not end up doing it. Again, what reasons would Lenovo have to do this in face of the huge risk it poses?
Yep, that's what people used to say about headless desktop Macs before Apple came out with the Mac mini. And a lot of people who would never have considered Macs before bought them.
Yeah, except the Mac mini makes Apple less money than any other system they sell (it has the smallest margins). It also has some of the lowest overall sales among mac offerings. Many analysts have been predicting it will be cancelled as a result, although they haven't been correct yet. I actually think Apple sees the mini as sort of a loss leader. They use it to target the lowest end market entrants in the hopes up an up-sell on their next purchase. They do this knowing it cuts into iMac and MacPro sales. So what makes you think the market and profits on a h
Also, today, Apple is hurting sales by limiting their product line.
Sorry but I have to believe Apple has done more market research than you. You anecdote is great and all, but fairly irrelevant. In general, you haven't presented any data to support that licensing their OS would result in significant instal base increases. Given the inflexibility of a monopolized market, economic models show that it is unlikely. You might want it to be the case, because it would give you more choices of hardware, but that is not a reason why it would be.
If Apple got together with Lenovo and made a Thinkbook, and released a "Mac mini pro" with a 3.5" hard disk and a real GPU, they would sell more copies of OS X, because there's a lot of people like me who really do NOT like Apple's hardware and aren't quite as motivated by the software to put up with it.
First, why Lenovo? They have lower reliability ratings than Apple, does, especially in the desktop area. Second, why would Lenovo do it, given that MS might retaliate in the next round of OEM licenses for Windows. MS can kill their ability to compete on price, and that would largely destroy Lenovo's business selling Windows (something no CEO in their right mind would be willing to risk). Yeah, some people don't like Apple's hardware, but very few are forgoing purchase of Macs for that reason, that would be likely to be real buyers otherwise.
Until they start shipping hardware that's attractive to a larger market, people are going to want to buy generic OS X and put it on hardware that sucks less.
The vast majority of people don't want to put OS X on their machine for many reasons. They don't know what OS X or even an OS is. They need software that is only available on Windows. They have an investment in software they would have to throw away moving to OS X. They need to interact with Windows only servers or online services. That is mainly what limits Apple's market share, not hardware models or even price.
Even if Apple were to do it, MS could simply roll out update after update that broke compatibility with Macs, each costing Apple time and money to overcome. They could further cancel software for the Mac that is needed in business (MS Office for example) and software which is needed by many in the home (Windows Media Player for their porn). All these would stop Mac market share from growing while costing Apple a bundle in dev costs at the same time other companies were getting large chunks of their hardware sales. It is a fairly lost cause while MS has such a large market share and so many lock-in strategies in place.
Apple ships about as many models as other system vendors their size. As they slowly grow, they have been adding more models in the segments their research shows the most demand. I never would have guessed the MacBook Air filled such a market, but sales numbers seem to indicate otherwise. There is a perception an Slashdot that people here are representative of computer buyers. Disabuse yourself of that idea. Most people don't know what an OS is or want a particular one. Most people don't want any upgradability in their machine and will simply buy a new one if they want an upgrade. Most people don't even want separate monitors as strange as it sounds to technical people here. Judging potential markets based upon your wants or those of technical people is simply inaccurate. Sorry. I'd love to buy OS X and put it on a whitebox myself, but that doesn't make it a reasonable move for Apple and it doesn't mean Apple can continue to develop OS X and make money doing it.
When another company can make a profit selling a more powerful system for half the price, it's not trolling to point out the obvious that the more expensive one is likely overpriced.
I take it you did not actually look at a what Psystar were offering for a given price? First they were paying for an upgrade to OS, not the development cost. Second, we have no idea what quality of parts were used, but I'm willing to bet they were not the most reliable in the industry, a title Apple got from consumer reports last year. Their "comparable system" is missing firewire, wi-fi, doesn't have a silent fan and sure isn't in a small footprint case and motherboard. Who knows what else because they haven't published the full stats. They don't even list what ports it does have. The only reason we know it doesn't have those is because they are upgrade options.
Only hyper-sensitive Apple FanBois (who did pay too much) can take offense at common sense.
So Consumer Reports, an unbiased company that won't even take ad dollars from Apple or anyone else, said Apple's hardware was more reliable and had lower margins than their next closest competitors. You're arguing that a machine you don't know the stats of is equivalent for half the price. Any you think that is a compelling argument? I'm not taking offense at common sense, I'm astonished that you can make such a claim seriously. Believe what you want and good luck learning about that "reason" stuff the rest of find so useful.
It's about time the legality of some of Apple's claims and actions are tested in the legal system. Apple gets away with a lot, some of which is questionable?
Not particularly. Some of the way they restrict things is questionable (closed box EULA) but aside from that, not really.
I.e. once you sell an operating system, are you really allowed to restrict it to your hardware?
Once you sell an OS, you can restrict people from making copies of it onto anything, assuming you have copyright on that OS.
Ford can't restrict their cars to only running on Ford gas, and only being repaired with Genuine Ford Parts, for example.)
Nope, but they can restrict you from making copies of the car and selling them, because they have patents on some of it and trademarks on the logos on it.
Could Apple legally say that no other O/S than OS-X is allowed to be run on their computers - just to ensure that you have to buy the O/S from them?
First, it's OS as in Operating System, not O/S as in Operating/System. Second, no, they can't because copyright does not apply to a computer. They can keep you from making a copy of it and selling it though, because of the same as above.
Basically, you're failing to understand copyright. The law says you can't make a copy of anything, like copying it onto a hard disk, or even into RAM according to some. The only thing that legally allows you to make a copy is if you get a license from Apple to do that. Apple provides such a license, but you have to agree to abide by the restrictions to gain that right, just as you have to agree to the GPL license to make copies of Linux (which requires you distribute the source code to any changes you make and distribute).
The questionable part of Apple's action is making you buy a copy before you get a chance to read the license, which is questionably legal. In the worst case, they just change that and are in the clear. You have congress to thank for making noncommercial copyright infringement a crime in 1976.
The product that is being "tied" is osX, not "an operating system" but a SPECIFIC operating system.
By that definition every product on the planet would constitute a monopoly. I don't think you're understanding either the letter or the intent of antitrust law. You don't have the right to getting multiple sources for a product one company makes. Seriously, can you think of any product that is not a monopoly by your definition?
There is no free competition for buying osX, therefore what the parent poster said should hold true... and Apple should not be able to enforce that portion of their EULA.
Except Apple doesn't sell OS X. They sell licenses to run OS X on Apple hardware. They sell Apple branded computers that ship with OS X as part of them.
You can buy licenses for other OS's to run on Apple hardware (such as Windows). Apple has basically zero market share there and less that 10% of the install base. Apple makes up about 8% of the market for computer systems in the US and you can easily buy a Dell or a Sony system, so no monopoly there.
Sorry but it is not illegal to tie products together in general. Antitrust makes it illegal to tie products when one constitutes a monopoly in its market and the other is in a separate, existing market. Good luck trying to convince the courts that OS X constitutes a monopoly. They even seem about to reject the iPod as a monopoly because they are leaning towards including cell phones as reasonable competitors.
So if you are a success you aren't allowed to cheat.
Bzzzzt! Wrong. Thank you for playing.
I like that, but if you aren't a huge success cheat, all you want?
Sigh. You'd think if people are going to discuss antitrust laws being applied against MS, they'd understand what antitrust laws are, or at least what "trusts" are in such a context. If you have a monopoly, you can't use it to undermine free trade. If you don't have a monopoly, then guess what... it's pretty hard to use to undermine free trade.
Apple and MS are both banned equally from leveraging any monopolies they have to undermine free trade. MS has a monopoly on desktop OS's and is thus, restricted in what they can tie to it from other markets. Apple does not have a monopoly on OS's or computer systems so they can do whatever the hell they want with either of them. They may or may not have monopoly influence on portable, digital music players, which is why the EU has looked into it to decide if Apple is restricted from tying things to their iPod and thereby undermining free trade.
I think someone else needs to develop some higher brain functions.....
I think someone needs to get an education. It's called "antitrust law." There are plenty of explanations online and any economics book for the last 150 years should be fairly up to date. Was I the only person who had to take an introduction to economics course to get a degree?
Very good point, so MS "forces" IE/MediaPlayer/Whathaveyou on you, Apple "forces" you to their hardware. Which is worse?
You are a little to self centered it seems. This isn't about you. MS forces IE/media player/Whathaveyou upon PC OEMs and enterprise businesses by leveraging a monopoly. This is illegal and undermines free trade. They sell very little to people directly. The detrimental effects of MS's bundling for you, are fairly incidental.
Apple forces people who buy their OS to run it on their hardware, but they don't have a monopoly on OS's or computer systems. Don't like it, buy a Dell or buy Windows. You have choices. What Apple does is perfectly legal. OEMs do not have any practical choices when it comes to what MS does to them.
I fear you simply don't understand antitrust law, or how the markets operate or how these apply to Apple and MS. I'm not even going to try to explain the reasons for the laws because I'm sick of educating people on the topic. Why don't you go read about antitrust laws and their purpose and then when you have an educated viewpoint, if you still want to discuss the topic, go ahead and reply to my post.
No they don't. While the legality of not allowing the OS on other hardware is questionable, it's perfectly legal to not provide support for anything but Apple hardware.
The legality of supporting it is not the issue. Apple still has to answer the phone at their support line. They still have to process the e-mails. They still have to deal with negative reviews in the press and people being angry at them about things that are broken, even if they have no legal obligation. In short, it still costs them money directly (phone bills, employee time) and indirectly (poisoning their brand).
Apple makes computers. Microsoft doesn't. World of difference.
That is not the relevant difference at all. The relevant difference is that MS's OS constitutes a monopoly in its market. Apple's OS does not. Apple can pretty much do whatever the hell they want with their OS. What they may not be able to do soon, is whatever the hell they want with the iPod, since it may or may not be ruled to have monopoly influence on its market in the near future.
Antitrust laws states that it is illegal to tie one market to a monopolized market. Bundling is a very common subset of tying. MS bundling their media player and OS, therefor, is illegal and, in fact, MS was convicted of doing exactly that. The same courts are investigating if the iPod constitutes a monopoly, at which point Apple would be prevented from bundling a media player(iTunes) with the iPod. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to comprehend.
I predict 100 posts from people saying "Apple can do whatever they damn well want with their OS!" from the very same people who scream bloody murder if MS so much as includes a media player with their OS.
Who the hell mods this shit "insightful?"
Complaints about MS's bundling are because they have a monopoly on the market as determined by the courts in numerous jurisdictions. It is illegal to bundle products from one, preexisting market with a product you have monopolized. They've even been convicted of that specific bundling. The same bloody law applies to Apple which is why the EU has been looking into their bundling of iPods and a media player (software). The question is if the iPod constitutes a monopoly in its market, not if bundling such things is legal. It's the same laws applied to both. Are you trolling are are you still ignorant of antitrust law after the hundredth such discussion here on Slashdot?
A prime example of this is the MacBook Air, a light, pretty-looking machine, but priced way too high due to its overall lack of distinguishing features and poor performance compared to a low-end, factory-default MacBook.
Umm, are you joking? This is the machine that although I have no interest in was repeatedly evaluated by analysts to be coming out at a much higher price, equivalent to similar super compact machines from other vendors. This is also the machine that they're having trouble keeping in stock in some locations. It may be unwanted by me or you, but to claim Apple misjudged the market or priced it to high is pretty unsupportable.
For example, had they instead produced an official Apple-branded Macintosh tablet using the MacBook Air's casing/footprint, combined with only bluetooth and airport for adding devices/networking and then sold the package for a scant $999 per unit, everyone would want one to compliment their home computer.
Color me skeptical. Are you claiming you have better data than Apple's market research department? How exactly did you perform your study?
Sorry, but Apple went with the ultra compact and the iPhone and they're doing very well with it. All the armchair quarterbacking the world doesn't change that they're making a lot of cash.
But no... Jobs just wanted the "world's thinnest computer" title despite the fact it'll probably only ever end up in the hands of middle/upper class college students with cash to burn on such toys.
Actually the main market seems to be among business executives so far.
I want the Mac Apple refuses to sell me...
I already responded to the rest of this post as it is word for word the same as another.
EULA's... So are they good and enforcable this week, or evil and unenforceable? Seeing as this pertains to Apple it's probably a coin toss.
Umm, whether or not Apple is using them does not matter. Unreadable EULA's are an abomination from a legal and consumer rights perspective, but their ability to be enforced is still in question, having been upheld in some jurisdictions/uses and struck down in others.
The fanbois will all chime in with how it's such a good thing that Apple restricts what hardware one can run OS X on, and how this company should be shut down.
Well, I'd argue that it is a good thing Apple restricts OS X to only run on Apple hardware, since otherwise they have no business case for developing it and we'd all have to use Windows more often. As for this company being shut down, yeah they're boneheads and this particular operation should be shut down because they used Apple's registered trademark "Mac" in the title of their product, which is clearly confusing to the average consumer as to if this is a Mac (made by Apple) or not a Mac (made by someone else).
If this were about some MS EULA there would be a firestorm about how EULA's are bogus anyways and unenforceble.
Umm, there are hundreds of comments to that affect in this discussion. What do you mean, if this were MS?!? Give up on the stupid, Apple is treated differently on Slashdot meme.
If I buy OS X I'll damn well run it on any machine I want.
Okay, just so that you know you're probably violating Apple's copyright and if the courts decide you're not, Apple will change their license so that you will be in the next version. Do you also support distributing closed source modifications to Linux in violation of their copyrights? After all, just because you're making copies of an OS doesn't mean you have to obey the copyright license, right?
In fact, one of my two OS X machines is *not* Appple Branded. That's right, it's a Hackintosh. Sue me, Jobs.
They could, but they'll never bother to do so. They care about pre-installs, not hacks by hobbyists. If anything you have to worry that the courts will find their EULA un-enforcable and Apple will resort to copy protection schemes making it very difficult for the Hackintosh projects in the future as well as subject to absurd penalties thanks to the DMCA.
Apple isn't going to unbundle their hardware and OS in a monopolized market. All that remains to be seen is if Apple will have to make their OS harder to install/buy to make sure they stay bundled. In the extreme case, Apple would abandon development of OS X for the desktop since it would no longer be a profitable venture.
I'm going to take a shot in the dark here, but I think it's probably because Apple makes Safari for Windows which runs on non Apple-branded computers.
Actually, Apple screwed up on the Safari for Windows license then fixed it. The real important thing is, Apple gives away Safari for Windows so even if you were breaking the license to use it, you did not really have to worry about damages. Apple sells OS X, either as an upgrade in a box or as part of a complete system. That means real financial damages for violation, not just being stopped from doing it.
You obviously don't understand what's involved in releasing an update to an operating system. For starters, they're not going to recall existing copies off of the shelves.
Actually, they might pull it from the shelves if the EULA does not stand up.
They might try to kill it through Apple Update...
Likely.
...and then tell the purchaser that it's not their fault that their operating system doesn't run on approved hardware any longer.
Do you mean unapproved hardware? They could just disable it and tell consumers the version they are using is in violation of their copyright and trademark and that they should contact PsyStar for a full refund.
They might not have a quick fix at all that doesn't break too much existing gear.
Unlikely. Several core libraries have copy protection that can be activated, which will break a lot of OS X.
Of course that's outright TERRIBLE PR for Apple themselves since if any of these people had intended to buy Apple branded hardware they would have done so in the first place.
Yeah, but they won't have any trouble spinning it. These things were marketed using Apple's Mac trademark in their name. It was completely stupid move which leads me to believe one of two things:
- Psystar does not really intend on selling these and is just looking for publicity to sell other products or are being paid to dilute Apple's brand.
- Psystar did not talk to any competent IP lawyers before making this move and are about to die, die, die.
More likely they'll try to kill it through the courts..
Umm, try? The copyright, EULA thing is something that the courts could debate for a while. The trademark thing is open and shut and Apple can have an injunction in days while the courts decide how much damages Psystar will have to pay for stupidly violating a registered trademark like this.
All this does is prove how overpriced Apple gear really is.
Umm, did you end with an attempt to troll? Consumer reports rated Apple's 2007 laptop offerings as the most reliable in the industry and having smaller margins than the second and third place vendors for small sales margins. They labelled the mac mini the best compact system buy for several years running.
Apple does not have much on the low end and because you are locked into one hardware vendor you're more likely to have to buy features you don't need to get one you do need. For what they offer though, they have been cheaper than comparable offerings in all but the tower space for years now. 2002 would like their argument back.
No. Apple sells a logo, they are a marketing company.
You're both wrong. Apple sells complete computer systems (among other things). This includes hardware and software. They sell under a trademark which they (like most companies) considers an important asset and markets. You could just as accurately claim Honda doesn't sell cars, just the Honda logo since they spend money marketing their brand. Nonsense.
I doubt Apple has the slightest interest in suing individuals who try to put OS X on their PCs (as they haven't so far). Hmm, that's funny. The same logic hasn't stopped the MAFIAA.
What logic? That was a statement of fact. Apple is doing one thing. The RIAA is doing another. That the RIAA seems to have an interest in suing individuals doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not Apple has done the same.
Say I had a hard drive in an Apple branded product, then installed Leopard. Then, say I cloned this hard drive and place 1 copy in each computer I sell. Have I "installed" the software on that computer?
It's called copy right. "Cloning" and making a copy are the same thing. You are restricted from making any copies of a copyrighted product, such as Leopard, unless you can pass the fair use criteria (and maybe not then depending upon the DMCA). Such a use would almost certainly not pass the commercial effect part of fair use.
I give you the original media, but I don't actually tell you that you have the right to use the media on the computer I sold you.
It is too late. You've already make a copy.
I think you could skirt this no problemo.
I doubt it.
Worth a shot, and I am sure Apple will pay the legal bills figuring out this is a loophole for you!:)
Are you aware that commercial re-use of a registered copyright almost always results in damages, including having to pay Apple's legal fees, which will be very high?
I doubt that, there are definitely reasons why this isn't clear cut. Litigation could help illuminate the subject.
Agreed, but win or lose, Apple will make sure they do have an enforceable contract going forward, even if it means labeling all retail copies as upgrades or even removing them from third party sales and requiring a contract be signed at time of purchase. All this provides is the potential of more legal restrictions going forward and potentially more inconvenience for OS X users either via purchasing process or via technological copy protection schemes.
They probably have grounds to sue and get an injunction on licensing grounds, but in terms of preventing a competitor from producing compatible hardware, they haven't a chance in hell.
Actually Apple can provide an enforceable license one way or another. The only question is if their current license will do.
Perhaps if they can demonstrate that Psystar reverse engineered the hardware in a way which isn't legal they can win.
They don't even need to do that. They can apply the DMCA to cracking their "protection" technology if need be.
But other than that, they don't have grounds to prevent the infringement.
I don't know what you're basing that on. The enforceability of EULAs is questionable in both directions. But since the OS is copied from media to disk, they have a clear case of it being copied and fair use probably does not apply due to the commercial effect criteria.
So I don't get this, your primary competitor just fumbled their latest major release, and clearly people like Apple's software, so why not really let the masses get their hands on it cheaply, get them addicted now while they are really looking for alternatives.
First MS is not a competitor to Apple. Apple specifically avoids competing in the desktop OS space because it is suicide. You say MS fumbled their Vista release. It certainly has been panned by the press. It doesn't matter. Competing in the OS space means going up against both XP and Vista at once. It also means whenever MS makes any sort of change that makes OS X incompatible, that is an additional cost for Apple. Basically, MS can introduce artificial flaws with OS X or any other desktop OS at will. Trying to compete in such an environment is doomed to failure, regardless of how much better OS X might be in a fair and competitive capitalist market.
Lets put it this way. The vast majority of people in the market for an alternative OS will buy from Apple regardless of the hardware lock-in. If, however, OS X is available on other hardware a portion of those will buy the other hardware, but given the Windows lock-ins, lower priced hardware is unlikely to actually grow the market. It doesn't matter if the box is $200 bucks cheaper, if replacing all your already purchased applications will cost you $2000 and if you have to reengineer your intranet applications to work in something other than IE and if it also introduces dozens of other incompatibilities with your other systems and partners. Remember, MS sells very little in retail channels. desktop OS customers are large enterprise site licenses and OEMs looking to include it in their shipping complete systems. Current mainstream OEMs won't touch it because MS can retaliate against them and kill their Windows business (it would be betting the farm, something no large business finds acceptable). That means new OEMs (without and install base) and enterprise customers are it. Enterprises looking to switch have Linux and the muscle to customize it. New OEMs will be taking hardware market share from whom most likely, Dell or Apple?
In short, your post presupposes that selling OS X on white boxes would grow the OS X install base significantly. In a monopolized market, that is unlikely to be the case as Apple found out in the 90's when they tried it. On top of that, most new OEMs would be targeting the low-end, which means trying to present comparisons to existing high-end systems. That means cheap, less reliable components with similar "numbers" to Apple systems. It cannibalizes Apple's hardware business while at the same time hardware related failures are regularly blamed on the OS poisoning Apple's brand not only for computers, but also iPods and iPhones. I'd love there to be a business case for it. I'd love it if licensing OS X for whiteboxes would grow their install base and weaken MS. Sadly, that is almost certainly not the case.
So IMHO Apple should turn this into an opportunity, spec a middle of the line hardware spec for 3rd party PC vendors, and then offer an approved version 'Mac OS X Lite' which is really cut down but only works on the 3rd party hardware.
Again, crippleware would dilute their brand and cut into hardware sales. Where's the upside for Apple? Why do you think this would increase OS X's market share overall?
This way Apple controls the differentiator. It seems they would be excited about extending their market share, I bet they probably would net the same kinda profit off a mac mini that they would by selling OS to a 3rd party vendor.
Apple is very interested in growing their market share. In a free market, what you propose would make them money. Until other OS's make up at least 30% of the installed desktop OS's though, pretending the market is competitive does not help. Apple's strategy is to slowly chip away until it gets to that point and hope other entrants (low end linux desk
If you reprocess it and burn the actinides it is 300 years for uranium ore levels of radioactivity.
I agree the nuclear waste problem is largely artificial. Between breeder reactors and processing solutions, nuclear waste is a largely overblown concern.
Besides, many chemicals we tolerate in other energy systems ( such as photovoltaics ) are toxic indefinitely ( Lithium, Arsenide, Gallium ). If you can tolerate photovoltaics or the molten salts used in solar thermal plants, then nuclear waste is not a problem.
Let's stay mostly on topic here. The coming generation of cheap photovoltaic cells does not make use of much in the way of toxic chemicals that cannot be recycled. The molten salts proposed by posters here are not waste products at all, but reusable parts of the system and easily recycled into another such. They are a non issue.
Argument by fear.
The formal name of this fallacy is "appeal to consequences" I believe. But you're correct. There is no problem with nuclear safety provided it is regulated well enough that safety is considered a serious concern. That said, there is still some real danger. Take a look at the recent events in Canada for example, where the regulatory body was completely overruled by the politicos of the day in favor of ignoring safety concerns because of economic pressure from the industry heavyweights. Power has always been big business, which leads to corruption of the government, which leads to safety taking a back seat to profit.
Rather than downplaying the risks, I think it is more useful to keep them in the forefront of the public consciousness and work towards global standards and regulation such that all power generation designs should be subject to thorough and open review. Nuclear power can be hazardous (as can coal, etc.). We need to make sure there are effective citizen watchdogs to correct for industry's mercenary decision making.
This is a problem with all energy generation and not specific to nuclear. It applies just as well to windmills and solar as it does to nuclear plants. Furthermore this is a legislative problem, not a technical one.
You're mostly correct, IMHO. I'd say, however, that making power generation safe enough and attractive enough such that people don't mind it being in their backyard is a worthwhile goal. I also think the technical benefits of distributed power generation are underplayed, especially given the problems we have with reliable distribution in adverse conditions. I think it is reasonable to start on the high end and sell commercial businesses on the benefits of their own generation for reliability and cost and then trickle it down to consumer homes. I'd point to the thermal pumps just taking off to leverage flooded underground mines as a great example. A mediocre investment that can insure your power costs go down, regardless of the market changes and which insulate you from power failures, is "green" as a consumer selling point and for the quality of the system makes a whole lot of sense. I think it is important that we don't let big, consolidated power plants of any sort eclipse this sort of development.
Not really, the plants are well guarded and the containment structures are designed to survive a direct hit by a large airliner. An attack that would be a danger to a nuclear power plant would likely cause much more damage if directed towards an urban area or other piece of infrastructure
You're right in your points, but I think you miss the point. Terrorism, does not always mean airliners. It can mean a few employees that decide to drove off with enough material to do some real damage. That said, terrorism concerns are hugely overblown. Deaths hastened by particulates from fossil fuel plants probably kill more people than all the terrorists in the world will ever manage.
In short, I agree that nuclear should not be ignored, especially for the new small sca
Slashdot Mirror
Configuration: Yes, usually autodetection and GUI config work. Sometimes doesn't.
I haven't had problems with this personally in a while, but then my daily, desktop Linux lives in a VM. One thing to note is this problem falls into the category of being an issue for Linux, but not OS X or Windows, not for technical reasons with the OS, but because of the current OS ecosystem. Apple makes sure their hardware is supported. Everyone else makes sure the hardware they make is auto-detected by Windows (usually successfully).
I don't think this will be a problem for the average novice Linux user, because most of them will not be doing their own installs. If Linux ever gains significant market share, it will be because either hardware vendors are selling machines with it pre-installed (and presumably will take care of making sure it works) or because a professional installs the system for the user (generally IT in a large organization). Those are the real opportunities for Linux to gain install base at this time, and I think make for a reasonable target for development.
Software installation: Again apt/yum/etc is great, but still imperfect.
Amen!
The case is, there is no distribution including all the software all the people will ever use...
This is true, but in this respect Linux is ahead of other players. Windows and OS X don't ship with a real package manager for general purpose software. As far as using a package manager to discover and install end user software, Linux is way ahead.
...and downloading and compiling tarballs (sometimes including tricky "./configure" parameters and/or iterating over several dependencies) is of course out of the question.
And therein lies the rub. For software that is not in the default repository, Linux is much, much worse than Windows or OS X. Without package managers OS X has developed a very useful way to install software and the Windows development community has become good at creating usable installers, such that the average person can use them. If you want to install software from a DVD/CD, flash drive, Web site, Bittorrent, or another computer, Linux can be a huge pain in the ass. And realistically, normal users generally do want to do this at some point.
I think the community should embrace things like ZeroInstall (or Autopackage), and either becoming the standard for packaging and installing anything besides the base system, and developers providing those packages instead of just source and waiting for some packagers picking it and integrating it into distros' repos.
ZeroInstall partially addresses the issue of installing from a Web site and is an incremental improvement, except that it introduces a second package manager for users to have to understand. It also makes dependencies visible to the end user, which is less than ideal for novice users.
Autopackage basically "pulls a Windows" and gives up on package management and goes back to running arbitrary binary installers to get software installed. It also is more problematic than Windows because it also introduces a second workflow for installing software, so users have to juggle two different ways, unlike just one way on Windows.
Basically, while I wholly agree package management on Linux is not taking care of the needed use cases, I disagree that we should introduce, multiple competing workflows or step backwards to the "windows way" of doing things.
In my utopian fantasy all the major Linux distros, Apple, and Sun all sit down in a room and create a compatible solution that combines the benefits of OS X's application bundles for some use cases and at the same time leverages all the advantages of modern package managers and accounts for all use cases. Here's how I see those advantages.
OS X/OpenStep/GnuStep application bundles:
But it does pave the way for Apple to blackbox test it, for Apple or others to view the code or certify it, and most importantly for the source of software to be confirmed. I seriously doubt there will be much malware on the iPhone and for a change it may well be tied to a person who can be thrown in jail or sued by users.
I do not know all the SDK terms, but I take it that Apple does not necessarily get to see the code--and if they did, they would certainly lack the resources to audit every submitted piece of software--, so the only way to really protect their users is a very carefully designed API and execution subsystem.A quick smell test is all that is needed to identify most malware today. It is certainly enough to identify a worm, which is one of the real issues. Basically, no drive by installations because the iPhone can detect if the software changes. It reduces malware to only programs with a social engineering component that users intentionally install. Even then, it will onyl be active until it is detected/identified at which point Apple can stop downloads and possibly disable it remotely.
...so the only way to really protect their users is a very carefully designed API and execution subsystem.That may be true in the long run, but in the short term this knocks out several of the most proliferate types of malware, reducing the problem to just trojans and allowing for the authors of those to be prosecuted. Even with a MAC or other ACL type subsystem the signing component is still needed to see if an app is the exact version it claims and if it is from the people who claim to have created it.
If they have got this part right, no poorly writen application should be able to crash the handset.Crashing them is not the major issue. There is little profit in that. The real concern is data theft and misuse of network resources for spamming, DDoS and Shiva forbid, automated voice calling spam.
In other words, I fail to see how this measure is for users' sake and not plain bullshit for generating (even more) revenues for them.I doubt they're making much profit on this. It is probably just trying to pay for itself, and is certinaly cheaper than signing offers from other vendors. If this was a cash grab, why allow unlimited signing from a key? They could easily have gone for 10 or 25 signings per key and been on par with other phone signing schemes.
I can see you don't fully understand how a signing system is one of the four major components of next generation anti-malware systems. You can read up on it, or just take my word for it. They incorporated signing into OS X for the same reason, even though it is currently optional and free. It paves the way going forward for greylisting combined with ACLs combined with weighted security data feeds.
Obviously, I do not blame them for trying, it is their product and they can do whatever they please, but it certainly won't be a selling point for me.Signing is not supposed to be an end user feature. Security is and this may well enable Apple to make security a non-issue for the vast majority of their phone users, as it is for most Mac users today. It sells them a lot of PCs and they have technology plans to keep it that way. With the iPhone they just got a chance to make sure there will be no backwards compatibility problems as well. We'll see how it goes. They may pull it off and they may not, but "no malware problems" may sell them a lot more phones than "some OSS and self created programs don't run." Maybe it won't. I hope the market is allowed to decide.
You might want to rethink that. The guardian looked into the company and found that there is no evidence they have ever sold anyone anything. The original address listed was a private home and the new one is a shipping company who claims to have never heard of them. In light of this, I'd hold onto my credit card number a bit longer and wait to see if they are a legit business going forward.
My suspicion is this is a one or two man attempt to start a new business and they obviously did not consult a lawyer before launching their new scheme.
True, but neither does it make it wrong. You have to consider the ramifications.
They may say that code signing is there to protect me and to make sure that my phone does not crash because of a badly-made application, but I would rather be given the choice.App signing is to protect users, but not necessarily you in particular. Apple is concerned about the average user, not the modder.
I mean, all they have to do is refuse technical support on any iPhone with unsigned software installed onto it and provide a reasonable way to restore any iPhone to its initial state in case something I install turns out to make the handset misbehave.You're assuming that is the only cost to Apple and that the ability to do this will not be a problem for normal users. So here's the situation from Apple's perspective. They want iPhones to be stable and resistant to malware. A whitelist is an extreme way to do this, but not necessarily unneeded. If they provide an easy way to opt out and run unsigned apps, will mainstream applications be unsigned an require this? Will users become accustomed to clicking past the warning, just like they do on Windows now? Will malware thus find its way onto a large portion of iPhones as a result?
From Apple's perspective, this is a real concern. Further, malware ridden phones are a problem to more than the individual user. Users will certianly still call Apple's support, especially if this becomes common. Does Apple refuse to provide support for a potentially significant number of iPhones? Can they screen these out in advance so they don't have to waste employee time and phone bills determining which phones are running unsigned apps? Will malware running on iPhones even if the user clicked "OK" damage Apple's brand? Will it damage the reputation of the iPhone? Will the press not bother running "scary" articles about the danger of malware on your phone, if that malware was installed by a user who opted to run unsigned apps? These are all valid considerations.
MS has repeatedly played the blame game. They've made security decisions that result in more systems being compromised, but being able to point the finger at the user for having clicked "OK" for the hundredth time. That is certainly less than ideal and leads to a very poor culture for real security in future development.
I do not need further protection and, what is more, do not want it!Maybe you're not Apple's target market. Maybe you'd be happier with a different phone.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't own an iPhone and may never do so. If Android turns out to be a more free and open, but still usable and secure alternative, it may be preferable to both you and I. think an outright, user un-editable whitelist is a very serious restriction. I'd much rather see some middle ground, where users can run unsigned applications, but by default they are severely sandboxed and restricted. Heck, a locked down JVM would be a fine start. I'm just not sure the cost this entails to Apple makes it a worthwhile business case for them. For a general purpose computer, I'd find this completely unacceptable. For a phone, well for now I'm not too upset. Going forward, I think users will require more options and a middle ground will win in the marketplace (or would in a truly free market). We'll have to see how things play out.
Why? You don't need to publish the source code to be in compliance with the BSD license. All you need to do is credit the authors. Heck, Windows incorporates (or used to) a BSD licensed TCP/IP stack. The fact that you don't need to publish the code is the main difference between the GPL and BSD licenses.
I'm sure they have. They are also notorious for ignoring market research and doing what appears to be the wrong thing and getting big wins from it...
Really. What evidence do you have to support that Apple acts contrary to their market research? I've never heard such a thing.
...and also coming up with monstrosities like a handheld computer that you can't fit in your pocket...
I'm not sure what you're referring to here either. Please be specific.
They're also notorious for being amazingly resistent to doing sensible things until they can spin it as a brilliant idea... and all the hard core Apple fans forget (for example) that jobs said there would never be a headless desktop Mac...
Can you provide a link to that quote? Google does not seem to provide any such quote in the first 20 hits.
...and go all gaga about how cool the Mac mini is... ignoring the fact that it's a pretty awful desktop Mac.
The people that go "gaga" over how cool the Mac-mini is are not looking for a desktop Mac. They're looking for a cheap, small form factor machine and many don't even run OS X on it. The Mac mini is often regarded as best in its class because of its small size, relatively low price, and silent and relatively cool operation. It is perfect for mounting in small places, use in environments where noise is a concern (audio, home theater, etc.), building into robotics projects, etc. People on Slashdot like it, not because it is a viable midrange desktop Mac, but because it is smaller, cheaper, and better for geeky uses than pretty much all the shuttle-PC options out there. Some people are happy that it provides the lowest-end OS X system on the market and that was certainly Apple's target market, but that's not generally the applications you see it praised for, especially here on Slashdot.
Apple does stupid things. All the time.
They do things you perceive as stupid. That doesn't mean you're not just wrong or poorly informed. They're making a lot of money making those decisions, some of which are admittedly risky. Enough of those risks are paying off. If you think you can do better, start your own company.
Because the Thinkpad is still one of the best all-round laptops around (if not the best), and because Apple has worked with the Thinkpad division in the past when it was part of IBM.
The Thinkpad targets the exact same market as Apple's existing offerings, is slightly less reliable, and independent reviews often lists it as a close second to Apple's laptops. If they are going to partner with someone for expanding their offerings, shouldn't they go with someone that targets a different market entirely? Your argument sounds like it is founded in your desire for OS X on a ThinkPad, which you then have tried to come up with a reason for.
They did it before.
As I recall, IBM considered manufacturing Macs, using Apple's hardware design as well as OS. Lenovo is not IBM and IBM did not end up doing it. Again, what reasons would Lenovo have to do this in face of the huge risk it poses?
Yep, that's what people used to say about headless desktop Macs before Apple came out with the Mac mini. And a lot of people who would never have considered Macs before bought them.
Yeah, except the Mac mini makes Apple less money than any other system they sell (it has the smallest margins). It also has some of the lowest overall sales among mac offerings. Many analysts have been predicting it will be cancelled as a result, although they haven't been correct yet. I actually think Apple sees the mini as sort of a loss leader. They use it to target the lowest end market entrants in the hopes up an up-sell on their next purchase. They do this knowing it cuts into iMac and MacPro sales. So what makes you think the market and profits on a h
Sorry but I have to believe Apple has done more market research than you. You anecdote is great and all, but fairly irrelevant. In general, you haven't presented any data to support that licensing their OS would result in significant instal base increases. Given the inflexibility of a monopolized market, economic models show that it is unlikely. You might want it to be the case, because it would give you more choices of hardware, but that is not a reason why it would be.
If Apple got together with Lenovo and made a Thinkbook, and released a "Mac mini pro" with a 3.5" hard disk and a real GPU, they would sell more copies of OS X, because there's a lot of people like me who really do NOT like Apple's hardware and aren't quite as motivated by the software to put up with it.First, why Lenovo? They have lower reliability ratings than Apple, does, especially in the desktop area. Second, why would Lenovo do it, given that MS might retaliate in the next round of OEM licenses for Windows. MS can kill their ability to compete on price, and that would largely destroy Lenovo's business selling Windows (something no CEO in their right mind would be willing to risk). Yeah, some people don't like Apple's hardware, but very few are forgoing purchase of Macs for that reason, that would be likely to be real buyers otherwise.
Until they start shipping hardware that's attractive to a larger market, people are going to want to buy generic OS X and put it on hardware that sucks less.The vast majority of people don't want to put OS X on their machine for many reasons. They don't know what OS X or even an OS is. They need software that is only available on Windows. They have an investment in software they would have to throw away moving to OS X. They need to interact with Windows only servers or online services. That is mainly what limits Apple's market share, not hardware models or even price.
Even if Apple were to do it, MS could simply roll out update after update that broke compatibility with Macs, each costing Apple time and money to overcome. They could further cancel software for the Mac that is needed in business (MS Office for example) and software which is needed by many in the home (Windows Media Player for their porn). All these would stop Mac market share from growing while costing Apple a bundle in dev costs at the same time other companies were getting large chunks of their hardware sales. It is a fairly lost cause while MS has such a large market share and so many lock-in strategies in place.
Apple ships about as many models as other system vendors their size. As they slowly grow, they have been adding more models in the segments their research shows the most demand. I never would have guessed the MacBook Air filled such a market, but sales numbers seem to indicate otherwise. There is a perception an Slashdot that people here are representative of computer buyers. Disabuse yourself of that idea. Most people don't know what an OS is or want a particular one. Most people don't want any upgradability in their machine and will simply buy a new one if they want an upgrade. Most people don't even want separate monitors as strange as it sounds to technical people here. Judging potential markets based upon your wants or those of technical people is simply inaccurate. Sorry. I'd love to buy OS X and put it on a whitebox myself, but that doesn't make it a reasonable move for Apple and it doesn't mean Apple can continue to develop OS X and make money doing it.
I take it you did not actually look at a what Psystar were offering for a given price? First they were paying for an upgrade to OS, not the development cost. Second, we have no idea what quality of parts were used, but I'm willing to bet they were not the most reliable in the industry, a title Apple got from consumer reports last year. Their "comparable system" is missing firewire, wi-fi, doesn't have a silent fan and sure isn't in a small footprint case and motherboard. Who knows what else because they haven't published the full stats. They don't even list what ports it does have. The only reason we know it doesn't have those is because they are upgrade options.
Only hyper-sensitive Apple FanBois (who did pay too much) can take offense at common sense.So Consumer Reports, an unbiased company that won't even take ad dollars from Apple or anyone else, said Apple's hardware was more reliable and had lower margins than their next closest competitors. You're arguing that a machine you don't know the stats of is equivalent for half the price. Any you think that is a compelling argument? I'm not taking offense at common sense, I'm astonished that you can make such a claim seriously. Believe what you want and good luck learning about that "reason" stuff the rest of find so useful.
Not particularly. Some of the way they restrict things is questionable (closed box EULA) but aside from that, not really.
I.e. once you sell an operating system, are you really allowed to restrict it to your hardware?Once you sell an OS, you can restrict people from making copies of it onto anything, assuming you have copyright on that OS.
Ford can't restrict their cars to only running on Ford gas, and only being repaired with Genuine Ford Parts, for example.)Nope, but they can restrict you from making copies of the car and selling them, because they have patents on some of it and trademarks on the logos on it.
Could Apple legally say that no other O/S than OS-X is allowed to be run on their computers - just to ensure that you have to buy the O/S from them?First, it's OS as in Operating System, not O/S as in Operating/System. Second, no, they can't because copyright does not apply to a computer. They can keep you from making a copy of it and selling it though, because of the same as above.
Basically, you're failing to understand copyright. The law says you can't make a copy of anything, like copying it onto a hard disk, or even into RAM according to some. The only thing that legally allows you to make a copy is if you get a license from Apple to do that. Apple provides such a license, but you have to agree to abide by the restrictions to gain that right, just as you have to agree to the GPL license to make copies of Linux (which requires you distribute the source code to any changes you make and distribute).
The questionable part of Apple's action is making you buy a copy before you get a chance to read the license, which is questionably legal. In the worst case, they just change that and are in the clear. You have congress to thank for making noncommercial copyright infringement a crime in 1976.
By that definition every product on the planet would constitute a monopoly. I don't think you're understanding either the letter or the intent of antitrust law. You don't have the right to getting multiple sources for a product one company makes. Seriously, can you think of any product that is not a monopoly by your definition?
There is no free competition for buying osX, therefore what the parent poster said should hold true... and Apple should not be able to enforce that portion of their EULA.Except Apple doesn't sell OS X. They sell licenses to run OS X on Apple hardware. They sell Apple branded computers that ship with OS X as part of them.
You can buy licenses for other OS's to run on Apple hardware (such as Windows). Apple has basically zero market share there and less that 10% of the install base. Apple makes up about 8% of the market for computer systems in the US and you can easily buy a Dell or a Sony system, so no monopoly there.
Sorry but it is not illegal to tie products together in general. Antitrust makes it illegal to tie products when one constitutes a monopoly in its market and the other is in a separate, existing market. Good luck trying to convince the courts that OS X constitutes a monopoly. They even seem about to reject the iPod as a monopoly because they are leaning towards including cell phones as reasonable competitors.
Bzzzzt! Wrong. Thank you for playing.
I like that, but if you aren't a huge success cheat, all you want?Sigh. You'd think if people are going to discuss antitrust laws being applied against MS, they'd understand what antitrust laws are, or at least what "trusts" are in such a context. If you have a monopoly, you can't use it to undermine free trade. If you don't have a monopoly, then guess what... it's pretty hard to use to undermine free trade.
Apple and MS are both banned equally from leveraging any monopolies they have to undermine free trade. MS has a monopoly on desktop OS's and is thus, restricted in what they can tie to it from other markets. Apple does not have a monopoly on OS's or computer systems so they can do whatever the hell they want with either of them. They may or may not have monopoly influence on portable, digital music players, which is why the EU has looked into it to decide if Apple is restricted from tying things to their iPod and thereby undermining free trade.
I think someone else needs to develop some higher brain functions.....I think someone needs to get an education. It's called "antitrust law." There are plenty of explanations online and any economics book for the last 150 years should be fairly up to date. Was I the only person who had to take an introduction to economics course to get a degree?
You are a little to self centered it seems. This isn't about you. MS forces IE/media player/Whathaveyou upon PC OEMs and enterprise businesses by leveraging a monopoly. This is illegal and undermines free trade. They sell very little to people directly. The detrimental effects of MS's bundling for you, are fairly incidental.
Apple forces people who buy their OS to run it on their hardware, but they don't have a monopoly on OS's or computer systems. Don't like it, buy a Dell or buy Windows. You have choices. What Apple does is perfectly legal. OEMs do not have any practical choices when it comes to what MS does to them.
I fear you simply don't understand antitrust law, or how the markets operate or how these apply to Apple and MS. I'm not even going to try to explain the reasons for the laws because I'm sick of educating people on the topic. Why don't you go read about antitrust laws and their purpose and then when you have an educated viewpoint, if you still want to discuss the topic, go ahead and reply to my post.
The legality of supporting it is not the issue. Apple still has to answer the phone at their support line. They still have to process the e-mails. They still have to deal with negative reviews in the press and people being angry at them about things that are broken, even if they have no legal obligation. In short, it still costs them money directly (phone bills, employee time) and indirectly (poisoning their brand).
True.
Apple makes computers. Microsoft doesn't. World of difference.That is not the relevant difference at all. The relevant difference is that MS's OS constitutes a monopoly in its market. Apple's OS does not. Apple can pretty much do whatever the hell they want with their OS. What they may not be able to do soon, is whatever the hell they want with the iPod, since it may or may not be ruled to have monopoly influence on its market in the near future.
Antitrust laws states that it is illegal to tie one market to a monopolized market. Bundling is a very common subset of tying. MS bundling their media player and OS, therefor, is illegal and, in fact, MS was convicted of doing exactly that. The same courts are investigating if the iPod constitutes a monopoly, at which point Apple would be prevented from bundling a media player(iTunes) with the iPod. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to comprehend.
Who the hell mods this shit "insightful?"
Complaints about MS's bundling are because they have a monopoly on the market as determined by the courts in numerous jurisdictions. It is illegal to bundle products from one, preexisting market with a product you have monopolized. They've even been convicted of that specific bundling. The same bloody law applies to Apple which is why the EU has been looking into their bundling of iPods and a media player (software). The question is if the iPod constitutes a monopoly in its market, not if bundling such things is legal. It's the same laws applied to both. Are you trolling are are you still ignorant of antitrust law after the hundredth such discussion here on Slashdot?
Umm, are you joking? This is the machine that although I have no interest in was repeatedly evaluated by analysts to be coming out at a much higher price, equivalent to similar super compact machines from other vendors. This is also the machine that they're having trouble keeping in stock in some locations. It may be unwanted by me or you, but to claim Apple misjudged the market or priced it to high is pretty unsupportable.
For example, had they instead produced an official Apple-branded Macintosh tablet using the MacBook Air's casing/footprint, combined with only bluetooth and airport for adding devices/networking and then sold the package for a scant $999 per unit, everyone would want one to compliment their home computer.Color me skeptical. Are you claiming you have better data than Apple's market research department? How exactly did you perform your study?
Sorry, but Apple went with the ultra compact and the iPhone and they're doing very well with it. All the armchair quarterbacking the world doesn't change that they're making a lot of cash.
But no... Jobs just wanted the "world's thinnest computer" title despite the fact it'll probably only ever end up in the hands of middle/upper class college students with cash to burn on such toys.Actually the main market seems to be among business executives so far.
I want the Mac Apple refuses to sell me...I already responded to the rest of this post as it is word for word the same as another.
Umm, whether or not Apple is using them does not matter. Unreadable EULA's are an abomination from a legal and consumer rights perspective, but their ability to be enforced is still in question, having been upheld in some jurisdictions/uses and struck down in others.
The fanbois will all chime in with how it's such a good thing that Apple restricts what hardware one can run OS X on, and how this company should be shut down.Well, I'd argue that it is a good thing Apple restricts OS X to only run on Apple hardware, since otherwise they have no business case for developing it and we'd all have to use Windows more often. As for this company being shut down, yeah they're boneheads and this particular operation should be shut down because they used Apple's registered trademark "Mac" in the title of their product, which is clearly confusing to the average consumer as to if this is a Mac (made by Apple) or not a Mac (made by someone else).
If this were about some MS EULA there would be a firestorm about how EULA's are bogus anyways and unenforceble.Umm, there are hundreds of comments to that affect in this discussion. What do you mean, if this were MS?!? Give up on the stupid, Apple is treated differently on Slashdot meme.
If I buy OS X I'll damn well run it on any machine I want.Okay, just so that you know you're probably violating Apple's copyright and if the courts decide you're not, Apple will change their license so that you will be in the next version. Do you also support distributing closed source modifications to Linux in violation of their copyrights? After all, just because you're making copies of an OS doesn't mean you have to obey the copyright license, right?
In fact, one of my two OS X machines is *not* Appple Branded. That's right, it's a Hackintosh. Sue me, Jobs.They could, but they'll never bother to do so. They care about pre-installs, not hacks by hobbyists. If anything you have to worry that the courts will find their EULA un-enforcable and Apple will resort to copy protection schemes making it very difficult for the Hackintosh projects in the future as well as subject to absurd penalties thanks to the DMCA.
Apple isn't going to unbundle their hardware and OS in a monopolized market. All that remains to be seen is if Apple will have to make their OS harder to install/buy to make sure they stay bundled. In the extreme case, Apple would abandon development of OS X for the desktop since it would no longer be a profitable venture.
Actually, Apple screwed up on the Safari for Windows license then fixed it. The real important thing is, Apple gives away Safari for Windows so even if you were breaking the license to use it, you did not really have to worry about damages. Apple sells OS X, either as an upgrade in a box or as part of a complete system. That means real financial damages for violation, not just being stopped from doing it.
Actually, they might pull it from the shelves if the EULA does not stand up.
They might try to kill it through Apple Update...Likely.
...and then tell the purchaser that it's not their fault that their operating system doesn't run on approved hardware any longer.Do you mean unapproved hardware? They could just disable it and tell consumers the version they are using is in violation of their copyright and trademark and that they should contact PsyStar for a full refund.
They might not have a quick fix at all that doesn't break too much existing gear.Unlikely. Several core libraries have copy protection that can be activated, which will break a lot of OS X.
Of course that's outright TERRIBLE PR for Apple themselves since if any of these people had intended to buy Apple branded hardware they would have done so in the first place.Yeah, but they won't have any trouble spinning it. These things were marketed using Apple's Mac trademark in their name. It was completely stupid move which leads me to believe one of two things:
- - Psystar does not really intend on selling these and is just looking for publicity to sell other products or are being paid to dilute Apple's brand.
- - Psystar did not talk to any competent IP lawyers before making this move and are about to die, die, die.
More likely they'll try to kill it through the courts..Umm, try? The copyright, EULA thing is something that the courts could debate for a while. The trademark thing is open and shut and Apple can have an injunction in days while the courts decide how much damages Psystar will have to pay for stupidly violating a registered trademark like this.
All this does is prove how overpriced Apple gear really is.Umm, did you end with an attempt to troll? Consumer reports rated Apple's 2007 laptop offerings as the most reliable in the industry and having smaller margins than the second and third place vendors for small sales margins. They labelled the mac mini the best compact system buy for several years running.
Apple does not have much on the low end and because you are locked into one hardware vendor you're more likely to have to buy features you don't need to get one you do need. For what they offer though, they have been cheaper than comparable offerings in all but the tower space for years now. 2002 would like their argument back.
You're both wrong. Apple sells complete computer systems (among other things). This includes hardware and software. They sell under a trademark which they (like most companies) considers an important asset and markets. You could just as accurately claim Honda doesn't sell cars, just the Honda logo since they spend money marketing their brand. Nonsense.
What logic? That was a statement of fact. Apple is doing one thing. The RIAA is doing another. That the RIAA seems to have an interest in suing individuals doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not Apple has done the same.
It's called copy right. "Cloning" and making a copy are the same thing. You are restricted from making any copies of a copyrighted product, such as Leopard, unless you can pass the fair use criteria (and maybe not then depending upon the DMCA). Such a use would almost certainly not pass the commercial effect part of fair use.
I give you the original media, but I don't actually tell you that you have the right to use the media on the computer I sold you.It is too late. You've already make a copy.
I think you could skirt this no problemo.I doubt it.
Worth a shot, and I am sure Apple will pay the legal bills figuring out this is a loophole for you!Are you aware that commercial re-use of a registered copyright almost always results in damages, including having to pay Apple's legal fees, which will be very high?
Agreed, but win or lose, Apple will make sure they do have an enforceable contract going forward, even if it means labeling all retail copies as upgrades or even removing them from third party sales and requiring a contract be signed at time of purchase. All this provides is the potential of more legal restrictions going forward and potentially more inconvenience for OS X users either via purchasing process or via technological copy protection schemes.
They probably have grounds to sue and get an injunction on licensing grounds, but in terms of preventing a competitor from producing compatible hardware, they haven't a chance in hell.Actually Apple can provide an enforceable license one way or another. The only question is if their current license will do.
Perhaps if they can demonstrate that Psystar reverse engineered the hardware in a way which isn't legal they can win.They don't even need to do that. They can apply the DMCA to cracking their "protection" technology if need be.
But other than that, they don't have grounds to prevent the infringement.I don't know what you're basing that on. The enforceability of EULAs is questionable in both directions. But since the OS is copied from media to disk, they have a clear case of it being copied and fair use probably does not apply due to the commercial effect criteria.
So I don't get this, your primary competitor just fumbled their latest major release, and clearly people like Apple's software, so why not really let the masses get their hands on it cheaply, get them addicted now while they are really looking for alternatives.
First MS is not a competitor to Apple. Apple specifically avoids competing in the desktop OS space because it is suicide. You say MS fumbled their Vista release. It certainly has been panned by the press. It doesn't matter. Competing in the OS space means going up against both XP and Vista at once. It also means whenever MS makes any sort of change that makes OS X incompatible, that is an additional cost for Apple. Basically, MS can introduce artificial flaws with OS X or any other desktop OS at will. Trying to compete in such an environment is doomed to failure, regardless of how much better OS X might be in a fair and competitive capitalist market.
Lets put it this way. The vast majority of people in the market for an alternative OS will buy from Apple regardless of the hardware lock-in. If, however, OS X is available on other hardware a portion of those will buy the other hardware, but given the Windows lock-ins, lower priced hardware is unlikely to actually grow the market. It doesn't matter if the box is $200 bucks cheaper, if replacing all your already purchased applications will cost you $2000 and if you have to reengineer your intranet applications to work in something other than IE and if it also introduces dozens of other incompatibilities with your other systems and partners. Remember, MS sells very little in retail channels. desktop OS customers are large enterprise site licenses and OEMs looking to include it in their shipping complete systems. Current mainstream OEMs won't touch it because MS can retaliate against them and kill their Windows business (it would be betting the farm, something no large business finds acceptable). That means new OEMs (without and install base) and enterprise customers are it. Enterprises looking to switch have Linux and the muscle to customize it. New OEMs will be taking hardware market share from whom most likely, Dell or Apple?
In short, your post presupposes that selling OS X on white boxes would grow the OS X install base significantly. In a monopolized market, that is unlikely to be the case as Apple found out in the 90's when they tried it. On top of that, most new OEMs would be targeting the low-end, which means trying to present comparisons to existing high-end systems. That means cheap, less reliable components with similar "numbers" to Apple systems. It cannibalizes Apple's hardware business while at the same time hardware related failures are regularly blamed on the OS poisoning Apple's brand not only for computers, but also iPods and iPhones. I'd love there to be a business case for it. I'd love it if licensing OS X for whiteboxes would grow their install base and weaken MS. Sadly, that is almost certainly not the case.
So IMHO Apple should turn this into an opportunity, spec a middle of the line hardware spec for 3rd party PC vendors, and then offer an approved version 'Mac OS X Lite' which is really cut down but only works on the 3rd party hardware.
Again, crippleware would dilute their brand and cut into hardware sales. Where's the upside for Apple? Why do you think this would increase OS X's market share overall?
This way Apple controls the differentiator. It seems they would be excited about extending their market share, I bet they probably would net the same kinda profit off a mac mini that they would by selling OS to a 3rd party vendor.
Apple is very interested in growing their market share. In a free market, what you propose would make them money. Until other OS's make up at least 30% of the installed desktop OS's though, pretending the market is competitive does not help. Apple's strategy is to slowly chip away until it gets to that point and hope other entrants (low end linux desk
If you reprocess it and burn the actinides it is 300 years for uranium ore levels of radioactivity.
I agree the nuclear waste problem is largely artificial. Between breeder reactors and processing solutions, nuclear waste is a largely overblown concern.
Besides, many chemicals we tolerate in other energy systems ( such as photovoltaics ) are toxic indefinitely ( Lithium, Arsenide, Gallium ). If you can tolerate photovoltaics or the molten salts used in solar thermal plants, then nuclear waste is not a problem.
Let's stay mostly on topic here. The coming generation of cheap photovoltaic cells does not make use of much in the way of toxic chemicals that cannot be recycled. The molten salts proposed by posters here are not waste products at all, but reusable parts of the system and easily recycled into another such. They are a non issue.
Argument by fear.
The formal name of this fallacy is "appeal to consequences" I believe. But you're correct. There is no problem with nuclear safety provided it is regulated well enough that safety is considered a serious concern. That said, there is still some real danger. Take a look at the recent events in Canada for example, where the regulatory body was completely overruled by the politicos of the day in favor of ignoring safety concerns because of economic pressure from the industry heavyweights. Power has always been big business, which leads to corruption of the government, which leads to safety taking a back seat to profit.
Rather than downplaying the risks, I think it is more useful to keep them in the forefront of the public consciousness and work towards global standards and regulation such that all power generation designs should be subject to thorough and open review. Nuclear power can be hazardous (as can coal, etc.). We need to make sure there are effective citizen watchdogs to correct for industry's mercenary decision making.
This is a problem with all energy generation and not specific to nuclear. It applies just as well to windmills and solar as it does to nuclear plants. Furthermore this is a legislative problem, not a technical one.
You're mostly correct, IMHO. I'd say, however, that making power generation safe enough and attractive enough such that people don't mind it being in their backyard is a worthwhile goal. I also think the technical benefits of distributed power generation are underplayed, especially given the problems we have with reliable distribution in adverse conditions. I think it is reasonable to start on the high end and sell commercial businesses on the benefits of their own generation for reliability and cost and then trickle it down to consumer homes. I'd point to the thermal pumps just taking off to leverage flooded underground mines as a great example. A mediocre investment that can insure your power costs go down, regardless of the market changes and which insulate you from power failures, is "green" as a consumer selling point and for the quality of the system makes a whole lot of sense. I think it is important that we don't let big, consolidated power plants of any sort eclipse this sort of development.
Not really, the plants are well guarded and the containment structures are designed to survive a direct hit by a large airliner. An attack that would be a danger to a nuclear power plant would likely cause much more damage if directed towards an urban area or other piece of infrastructure
You're right in your points, but I think you miss the point. Terrorism, does not always mean airliners. It can mean a few employees that decide to drove off with enough material to do some real damage. That said, terrorism concerns are hugely overblown. Deaths hastened by particulates from fossil fuel plants probably kill more people than all the terrorists in the world will ever manage.
In short, I agree that nuclear should not be ignored, especially for the new small sca