It's not hard to circumvent the security, and I'm not in IT so I do absolutely nothing. My point was not to go on about how good the company I work for is, but to highlight that companies realised the USB-storage issue at least a year or two back and took some steps.
I work in a... large... company (one of the top Fortune ones) and there was a global mandate last year to lock all USB access for data storage devices unless users can make a special case.
That means that USB keys, iPods, plug-in hard drives and so on not only fail to work here, but they generate a little message to the IT department.
Some users, like our media guys, need this access for their work (in this case, digital camera images), and they have an exemption.
This lockdown removes the possibility for portable storage device-based data copying.
Of course, I can always stay late, take the PC apart, remove the hard drive, take it home and copy it, come in early the next day and re-install it. But that's just naughty.
My point is that IT security policies can easily stop this sort of issue, and most large companies are already doing this.
Am I going to be complaining that it doesn't work on non-apple hardware? Well, yeah I will, but not to Apple.
That's probably what they're trying to stop. They want a reputation of stability and ease-of-use. If people have to go through a series of tortuous steps to use OS X on their 'normal' PCs, and they make it known that it's not easy then people new to computing will get the wrong message.
Do you have a right to complain when you step outside the terms of use? I'd lean towards saying that you shouldn't complain because you're not using it in the intended way.
Yes we deserve to run Mac OS X on anything we want....
Why? I know that you *can* do this, but why do you *deserve* it? I can't think of a single argument to support your point, other than you want it, so you believe you deserve it.
After they get it running on a regular Intel box and they find out this stuff is great thier next PC may just come from Apple.
Why should it? If it's easy to run on a generic PC, why buy a Mac? Should there be a perfect solution for the hackers, and OS X is thoroughly cracked to the point where Software Update works correctly, then what possible reason could there be to buy a Mac?
In the long term, Apple stands to make that money back on future hardware and software purchases.
That's pure guesswork. It may happen, or it may not.
By selling their OS to users of generic PCs, Apple lose hardware sales and go head to head against Microsoft. There is a huge amount of risk in that proposition, and whether they make more money or are wiped out by a combination of rampant piracy and Microsoftian tactics remains to be seen. The history of OS vendors who go up against Microsoft is not good.
My opinion is that the hackers are solidly on the side of Microsoft and actively trying to destroy Apple. They're trying to bring about a situation where Apple are forced into a competition they can't win, and can only lead to devastation for Apple. It may seem like they're doing it for 'good' reasons (hacker ethics... urgh!) but I see no sign that they look at the end point or the future.
That's my opinion only, so take it how you like. What is less opinionated is that this is full of risk for Apple and just isn't simple.
Point 5 is just saying that people are pirating OS X, not trying to buy a copy or going by the incredibly unlikely route of buying a new Intel Macintosh and then using their install disc.
You're agreeing with Apple's point - copyright infringement is taking place. Therefore, under the legal system, Apple is within their rights to act.
On a different topic - information wants absolutely nothing. It's just information, not a thinking, sentient being. And even if you go on and say that "well, information *should* be free!" then you're on the wrong track. This is not information - this is a functioning piece of software. The old cry that "information wants to be free" was about removing secrets from governments and exposing corporate activites, not about ripping off companies for your own selfish motives.
Information should be freely available. Copyright should be respected. These things are not contradictory.
The CNN piece is an opinion piece, and factually incorrect.
The first link above was by 'the Packet Rat' - not a great source, given that the author prefers anonymity.
The second uses a quote by a graphic artist as the only reference to Apple. Another opinion.
The third link is a tongue-in-cheek piece collating a bunch of 'death knell' reports printed about Apple over the years. Nothing to see there - Apple somehow survived despite the dire predictions of pundits across the industry.
Have a look at Apple's filings from NASDAQ, or find *real* news articles.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-202143.html "Analysts said that Microsoft's assurance of providing its latest applications on the Macintosh may be more important to the company's long-term viability than the $150 million investment."
The facts don't fit your case, and the links you provide aren't solid enough to either. Microsoft didn't save Apple with their money. You could make a case that promising Office support saved Apple (and it's a much more solid case, to which I partially subscribe) but the money was irrelevant.
Anybody remember a few years ago, when Apple was circling the bowl? Microsoft was being raked over the coals by DOJ for antitrust issues, remember? That's when Mr. Gates and Company pulled a rabbit out of their hat by investing in (bailing out) Apple. In one stroke, Mr. G. had diversified his portfolio while preserving the one (semi-)serious competitor in the Personal Computer market, thereby giving the DOJ a face-saving way to quietly let the whole thing go (don't believe me? Why aren't there three companies headquartered at the Microsoft campus right now?)!
AT that time, Apple had around four billion dollars in the bank. Microsoft's $150M was not small change, but it was a show of confidence and nothing more. You can't claim that they bailed out Apple without ignoring the fundamentals of business.
It doesn't matter how many people consider it a bail-out because it's so clear when you actually look at this that it wasn't. The numbers just don't stack up.
As for Bill Gates diversifying his portfolio - you're kidding, right? Around then he was worth sixty billion dollars. $150M is a tiny fraction of that. How is that diversifying?
Microsoft make a *lot* of money from Mac users. They want the OS X platform to succeed because they get lots of nice Office sales on it and it provides the appearance of competition without any real threat (this was important to them back in the anti-trust trial days).
I was going to write one of those "Of course Apple makes hardware" posts, but then I thought about your point.
Apple design the hardware and do all the engineering to their standards, but they have a manufacturing company actually create the devices.
But of course, that manufacturer uses components from many other companies.
And those companies make their chips, blank boards, surface mount components, etc from raw materials they get from mining companies.
And those mining companies get their raw materials from the ground.
And the planet formed out of a nebula around 4.5 billion years ago from the remains of an old, larger star.
So you're absolutely correct. Apple don't make their components. No-one does. We're all just riding on the coattails of some forgotten star that went nova billions of years ago.
It's got a good GPU, runs the latest processor and performs very nicely indeed. It's probably as good with games as any laptop.
What are the options that you get for laptops on the PC side? You can't just throw in a new motherboard, CPU or GPU. They're nearly always unchangeable.
So what are your customisation options in the laptop world? Or are you just comparing Apple's laptop line with the entire PC desktop range? Of course, that'd be pure foolishness, so I'll assume you just don't know what you're on about.
By the way, it's not a *Windows* thing, it's a *PC* thing - you need to understand that. Don't argue that Windows gives you heaps of hardware options, because you'll always come off looking like... well, like you do after your rant above.
Lastly, Apple don't use a BIOS. They have *never* used a BIOS, and never will. What exactly do you want them to open? The core of the OS is open sourced, their hardware makes use of many open standards, they're involved in many open source projects, they sit on boards like the OpenGL ARB and they recently gave a bunch of laptops to key contributors. Contrast with (ooh, let's pick some random tech company) Microsoft in this area.
They're not perfect, but you could at least ground your criticisms in reality instead of some fantasy land.
Anyone who actually takes the time to understand this issue will discover that a monopoly holder controls the market. They don't have to have 100% of the market, but they have to be able to exercise control over it.
Microsoft were found guilty of illegal use of their monopoly power. They appealed and the verdict stood. Perhaps you're a better lawyer than any of the ones they pay.
But then, I'm replying to some bozo troll who clearly hasn't got a clue. What do I know?
I think it's pretty much certain that the box will have requirements on the side, and that those requirements will centre around having an Apple Macintosh computer running an Intel processor.
To use your analogy, it'd be like a book coming with a sticker that states "You must be able to read English to use this book!" Yes, you can buy any book you like, but you can't complain too loudly when you buy a book you can't read. The publisher doesn't have to make it available in your language.
I think we've over-extended that metaphor though.
If the requirements are clearly stated, and the EULA reflects those requirements, then I think Apple would have a stronger case if someone were to challenge the EULA in a court of law.
If people don't care about Apple's EULA (which states explicitly that OS X should only be run on Apple-branded machines) then why should they care about the GPL?
Both are usage contracts. Both defines specific terms of use, and if you disagree with either, you can opt out by not using the software.
So - is there anyone who is for OS X on generic PC hardware *and* for the GPL?
Is that a contradiction?
While I'm at it - Apple are actively participating in several open source programs, and recently (and unexpectedly) gave a fair bit of hardware away for free to some top contributors. Should Apple be punished through active disregard for their OS X terms of use?
A lot of people would say that a marketshare of less than 5% could fairly be called "not a monopoly in any sense whatsoever - what are you thinking? How can you call a small player like Apple a monopoly"
Apple can't be defined as a monopoly except in the trivial (and ridiculous) sense of its own products. That's not a valid definition legally, and I've never seen an intelligent argument to support it that couldn't be easily knocked down.
The make the OS for their hardware, and they require their hardware to run their OS.
That's vertical integration, not monopolistic practices.
Apple vertically integrate, but that's neither illegal nor necessary for a monopoly. It's their model now, it's always been their model in the past and it probably will be in the future.
Apple have never been a monopoly. They still aren't one now. This suit looks baseless to me, but apparently we'll let the courts decide.
Have an iPod? Better get your music from iTunes, 'cause PlaysForSure files won't play on it
Or just buy * any CD * any non-DRM mp3 (hard to find, but popular with some independants)
My fiancee and I have around 27GB of mp3s in iTunes and on her iPod. We've got the CDs behind them all, except for the three or four albums we bought from iTMS.
There's no lock-in, there's no requirement to even use iTMS. It only opened a few months ago here in Australia, yet the iPod's been selling out for a few years now.
Apple make no promises about other products, only about the iPods and the iTMS. What people expect is nothing to do with Apple, and if someone buys an mp3 player and expect it to work with iTMS songs, that's their own issue. I've never heard of someone doing this, but I'm sure it happens. Just like someone wanting to play Halo on their PS2, or Half-Life on their Mac.
The unsubstantiated bit was about how Apple would behave with Microsoft, not about OS X.
And is Apple using DRM unfairly? Not according to the law, but there's a case up now that may decide it. I can't see that they are, because they make neither promises nor threats to other companies. They just go their own way and ignore the rest.
Apple isn't my friend? No, heaven forfend! Surely not! I thought they'd be my special bestest friend ever. Of course I understand that they're a company. I just don't accept that they should be lumped in with Microsoft (convicted of illegal use of monopoly power and whose appeals failed).
I give them the benefit of the doubt - I'm willing to wait for them to actually do something bad in this arena before I condemn them.
Look at nature. Where are 'rights'? No animal has rights, or even a right to life. They struggle and succeed or fail, but along the way they can be eaten, die of starvation or exhaustion, or suffer any number of fates. There are no rights or morals, no goods or evils in nature. Each animal acts according to its own interests and the interests of its species.
Rights are something we believe are fundamental to society, but aren't natural to the world. They're only possible when they can be enforced, either through the will of a large group in a democracy, or by physical force.
Rights are granted by society, for the benefit of society, and they can be revoked by society. They are an invention - and an invention I like - but nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not hard to circumvent the security, and I'm not in IT so I do absolutely nothing. My point was not to go on about how good the company I work for is, but to highlight that companies realised the USB-storage issue at least a year or two back and took some steps.
I work in a ... large... company (one of the top Fortune ones) and there was a global mandate last year to lock all USB access for data storage devices unless users can make a special case.
That means that USB keys, iPods, plug-in hard drives and so on not only fail to work here, but they generate a little message to the IT department.
Some users, like our media guys, need this access for their work (in this case, digital camera images), and they have an exemption.
This lockdown removes the possibility for portable storage device-based data copying.
Of course, I can always stay late, take the PC apart, remove the hard drive, take it home and copy it, come in early the next day and re-install it. But that's just naughty.
My point is that IT security policies can easily stop this sort of issue, and most large companies are already doing this.
Am I going to be complaining that it doesn't work on non-apple hardware? Well, yeah I will, but not to Apple.
That's probably what they're trying to stop. They want a reputation of stability and ease-of-use. If people have to go through a series of tortuous steps to use OS X on their 'normal' PCs, and they make it known that it's not easy then people new to computing will get the wrong message.
Do you have a right to complain when you step outside the terms of use? I'd lean towards saying that you shouldn't complain because you're not using it in the intended way.
Yes we deserve to run Mac OS X on anything we want....
Why? I know that you *can* do this, but why do you *deserve* it? I can't think of a single argument to support your point, other than you want it, so you believe you deserve it.
After they get it running on a regular Intel box and they find out this stuff is great thier next PC may just come from Apple.
Why should it? If it's easy to run on a generic PC, why buy a Mac? Should there be a perfect solution for the hackers, and OS X is thoroughly cracked to the point where Software Update works correctly, then what possible reason could there be to buy a Mac?
In the long term, Apple stands to make that money back on future hardware and software purchases.
That's pure guesswork. It may happen, or it may not.
By selling their OS to users of generic PCs, Apple lose hardware sales and go head to head against Microsoft. There is a huge amount of risk in that proposition, and whether they make more money or are wiped out by a combination of rampant piracy and Microsoftian tactics remains to be seen. The history of OS vendors who go up against Microsoft is not good.
My opinion is that the hackers are solidly on the side of Microsoft and actively trying to destroy Apple. They're trying to bring about a situation where Apple are forced into a competition they can't win, and can only lead to devastation for Apple. It may seem like they're doing it for 'good' reasons (hacker ethics... urgh!) but I see no sign that they look at the end point or the future.
That's my opinion only, so take it how you like. What is less opinionated is that this is full of risk for Apple and just isn't simple.
It's disgusting and immoral, so I'm going to send them a message by buying a copy of their software and using it!
Yup, that'll show those bastards whose boss! That's a protest they'll fear.
Point 5 is just saying that people are pirating OS X, not trying to buy a copy or going by the incredibly unlikely route of buying a new Intel Macintosh and then using their install disc.
You're agreeing with Apple's point - copyright infringement is taking place. Therefore, under the legal system, Apple is within their rights to act.
On a different topic - information wants absolutely nothing. It's just information, not a thinking, sentient being. And even if you go on and say that "well, information *should* be free!" then you're on the wrong track. This is not information - this is a functioning piece of software. The old cry that "information wants to be free" was about removing secrets from governments and exposing corporate activites, not about ripping off companies for your own selfish motives.
Information should be freely available. Copyright should be respected. These things are not contradictory.
The CNN piece is an opinion piece, and factually incorrect.
9 7/msmacpr.mspx
7 002-1.html
. html
The first link above was by 'the Packet Rat' - not a great source, given that the author prefers anonymity.
The second uses a quote by a graphic artist as the only reference to Apple. Another opinion.
The third link is a tongue-in-cheek piece collating a bunch of 'death knell' reports printed about Apple over the years. Nothing to see there - Apple somehow survived despite the dire predictions of pundits across the industry.
Have a look at Apple's filings from NASDAQ, or find *real* news articles.
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-202143.html
"Analysts said that Microsoft's assurance of providing its latest applications on the Macintosh may be more important to the company's long-term viability than the $150 million investment."
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/aug
http://www.allbusiness.com/periodicals/article/65
As an aside, when Microsoft bought those shares, they were around $26. I think when they sold three years later they made a pretty good profit.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit19970814
Even Cringely doesn't get on board this bizarre "Microsoft Saved Apple" theory!
The facts don't fit your case, and the links you provide aren't solid enough to either. Microsoft didn't save Apple with their money. You could make a case that promising Office support saved Apple (and it's a much more solid case, to which I partially subscribe) but the money was irrelevant.
Anybody remember a few years ago, when Apple was circling the bowl? Microsoft was being raked over the coals by DOJ for antitrust issues, remember? That's when Mr. Gates and Company pulled a rabbit out of their hat by investing in (bailing out) Apple. In one stroke, Mr. G. had diversified his portfolio while preserving the one (semi-)serious competitor in the Personal Computer market, thereby giving the DOJ a face-saving way to quietly let the whole thing go (don't believe me? Why aren't there three companies headquartered at the Microsoft campus right now?)!
AT that time, Apple had around four billion dollars in the bank. Microsoft's $150M was not small change, but it was a show of confidence and nothing more. You can't claim that they bailed out Apple without ignoring the fundamentals of business.
It doesn't matter how many people consider it a bail-out because it's so clear when you actually look at this that it wasn't. The numbers just don't stack up.
As for Bill Gates diversifying his portfolio - you're kidding, right? Around then he was worth sixty billion dollars. $150M is a tiny fraction of that. How is that diversifying?
Microsoft make a *lot* of money from Mac users. They want the OS X platform to succeed because they get lots of nice Office sales on it and it provides the appearance of competition without any real threat (this was important to them back in the anti-trust trial days).
Sounds good, but these things are *tough*
I've seen one hit with a golf club, fly a fair distance and smack into a tree only to crawl off. They have been run over by cars and survived.
A whacking day won't kill them. A *chopping* day might.
I was going to write one of those "Of course Apple makes hardware" posts, but then I thought about your point.
Apple design the hardware and do all the engineering to their standards, but they have a manufacturing company actually create the devices.
But of course, that manufacturer uses components from many other companies.
And those companies make their chips, blank boards, surface mount components, etc from raw materials they get from mining companies.
And those mining companies get their raw materials from the ground.
And the planet formed out of a nebula around 4.5 billion years ago from the remains of an old, larger star.
So you're absolutely correct. Apple don't make their components. No-one does. We're all just riding on the coattails of some forgotten star that went nova billions of years ago.
According to Apple, the MacBook Pro can plug into their 30" display.
I think their display uses the same connections as others of that size, but it's something I don't have the money to get interested in.
You'd better let id Software know then. They keep writing their rendering paths in OpenGL! Fools! They should know better.
(and if someone wants to comment that the box doesn't mention OpenGL, look it up on Google - they're famous for it)
What on Earth are you going on about?
It's a *laptop*
It's got a good GPU, runs the latest processor and performs very nicely indeed. It's probably as good with games as any laptop.
What are the options that you get for laptops on the PC side? You can't just throw in a new motherboard, CPU or GPU. They're nearly always unchangeable.
So what are your customisation options in the laptop world? Or are you just comparing Apple's laptop line with the entire PC desktop range? Of course, that'd be pure foolishness, so I'll assume you just don't know what you're on about.
By the way, it's not a *Windows* thing, it's a *PC* thing - you need to understand that. Don't argue that Windows gives you heaps of hardware options, because you'll always come off looking like... well, like you do after your rant above.
Lastly, Apple don't use a BIOS. They have *never* used a BIOS, and never will. What exactly do you want them to open? The core of the OS is open sourced, their hardware makes use of many open standards, they're involved in many open source projects, they sit on boards like the OpenGL ARB and they recently gave a bunch of laptops to key contributors. Contrast with (ooh, let's pick some random tech company) Microsoft in this area.
They're not perfect, but you could at least ground your criticisms in reality instead of some fantasy land.
You're wrong, of course.
Anyone who actually takes the time to understand this issue will discover that a monopoly holder controls the market. They don't have to have 100% of the market, but they have to be able to exercise control over it.
Microsoft were found guilty of illegal use of their monopoly power. They appealed and the verdict stood. Perhaps you're a better lawyer than any of the ones they pay.
But then, I'm replying to some bozo troll who clearly hasn't got a clue. What do I know?
I think it's pretty much certain that the box will have requirements on the side, and that those requirements will centre around having an Apple Macintosh computer running an Intel processor.
To use your analogy, it'd be like a book coming with a sticker that states "You must be able to read English to use this book!" Yes, you can buy any book you like, but you can't complain too loudly when you buy a book you can't read. The publisher doesn't have to make it available in your language.
I think we've over-extended that metaphor though.
If the requirements are clearly stated, and the EULA reflects those requirements, then I think Apple would have a stronger case if someone were to challenge the EULA in a court of law.
While that happened for some purchasers, it wasn't across the board.
I ordered a 450MHz G4 and received a 450MHz G4. I know of others who had the same experience as well.
If people don't care about Apple's EULA (which states explicitly that OS X should only be run on Apple-branded machines) then why should they care about the GPL?
Both are usage contracts. Both defines specific terms of use, and if you disagree with either, you can opt out by not using the software.
So - is there anyone who is for OS X on generic PC hardware *and* for the GPL?
Is that a contradiction?
While I'm at it - Apple are actively participating in several open source programs, and recently (and unexpectedly) gave a fair bit of hardware away for free to some top contributors. Should Apple be punished through active disregard for their OS X terms of use?
A lot of people would say that a marketshare of less than 5% could fairly be called "not a monopoly in any sense whatsoever - what are you thinking? How can you call a small player like Apple a monopoly"
But then a lot of people will say anything.
I still disagree with you, but I respect the way you express yourself so well.
Is there a mod for '-5 Has utterly no clue' ?
Apple can't be defined as a monopoly except in the trivial (and ridiculous) sense of its own products. That's not a valid definition legally, and I've never seen an intelligent argument to support it that couldn't be easily knocked down.
The make the OS for their hardware, and they require their hardware to run their OS.
That's vertical integration, not monopolistic practices.
Apple vertically integrate, but that's neither illegal nor necessary for a monopoly. It's their model now, it's always been their model in the past and it probably will be in the future.
Apple have never been a monopoly. They still aren't one now. This suit looks baseless to me, but apparently we'll let the courts decide.
Have an iPod? Better get your music from iTunes, 'cause PlaysForSure files won't play on it
Or just buy
* any CD
* any non-DRM mp3 (hard to find, but popular with some independants)
My fiancee and I have around 27GB of mp3s in iTunes and on her iPod. We've got the CDs behind them all, except for the three or four albums we bought from iTMS.
There's no lock-in, there's no requirement to even use iTMS. It only opened a few months ago here in Australia, yet the iPod's been selling out for a few years now.
Apple make no promises about other products, only about the iPods and the iTMS. What people expect is nothing to do with Apple, and if someone buys an mp3 player and expect it to work with iTMS songs, that's their own issue. I've never heard of someone doing this, but I'm sure it happens. Just like someone wanting to play Halo on their PS2, or Half-Life on their Mac.
The unsubstantiated bit was about how Apple would behave with Microsoft, not about OS X.
And is Apple using DRM unfairly? Not according to the law, but there's a case up now that may decide it. I can't see that they are, because they make neither promises nor threats to other companies. They just go their own way and ignore the rest.
Apple isn't my friend? No, heaven forfend! Surely not! I thought they'd be my special bestest friend ever. Of course I understand that they're a company. I just don't accept that they should be lumped in with Microsoft (convicted of illegal use of monopoly power and whose appeals failed).
I give them the benefit of the doubt - I'm willing to wait for them to actually do something bad in this arena before I condemn them.
Nice Apple bashing.
You failed to compare Apple's DRM with Microsoft's, instead lumping them together as equal.
You make unsubstantiated claims about Apple's future direction.
You made a cheap shot about companies being motivated by profit (isn't that a legal requirement under US law?)
You failed to make a claim that Microsoft actually own Apple though, so there's room for improvement.
Still, some good Apple bashing. Keep it up!
I don't see how rights are inherent to humanity.
Look at nature. Where are 'rights'? No animal has rights, or even a right to life. They struggle and succeed or fail, but along the way they can be eaten, die of starvation or exhaustion, or suffer any number of fates. There are no rights or morals, no goods or evils in nature. Each animal acts according to its own interests and the interests of its species.
Rights are something we believe are fundamental to society, but aren't natural to the world. They're only possible when they can be enforced, either through the will of a large group in a democracy, or by physical force.
Rights are granted by society, for the benefit of society, and they can be revoked by society. They are an invention - and an invention I like - but nothing more.
What is this 'true' and 'untrue' business?
The current iPods exist, do real things and don't disappear when superceded.
How is it untrue?
Or is this a 'complaint' brought by a 'user' of a 'product' that 'boils' down to 'nothing' much?
And what did you do to your Nano to scratch it in minutes? Mine has lasted months with barely visible scratching, and there's no cover for it.
The stock is hardly dropping like a rock.
m ode=basics&selected=AAPL
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=charting&
It climbed to a peak that was probably overvalued, and now we're seeing profit-taking by investors.
Well, that's my take on it anyway.