If we simply substitute my wording of "user" with "brain damaged bozo who cheerfully installs programmes they just downloaded from the Internet without any care when the system warns them, and on top of that they always run as the admin user and say 'yes' to any dialogue boxes" then you're spot on.
I'm going to have to say that until you can show something occurs, you can't use supposition as proof. You can't easily show the chain of events that would result in malware being able to completely disable a Mac, and the burden of proof is on people who say this is possible.
Yes, you can construct a theoretical method, but that's *very* different from an actual method that works without physical access.
Except in this case the user has to do a bunch of things - download the EFI software from Intel, a sudo command and a reboot. While some of this can be automated, OS X won't just allow all this to be run without the user helping it along.
I don't see that the parallel you're trying to draw is valid.
I'm not a manufacturing expert, but I would think that taking a machine from prototype to production would be more than a month's work. If they're still in development, then I would expect the shipping models to be *much* later than a month late.
The assembly line has to be geared up before any production can take place. How long does that take after the design is finalised?
I can't see how a model could still be in development and yet ship as a completed unit in a month.
Clearly many 'geek' users would not buy a Mac when it was running on a different processor.
If they still keep away, then who cares about them? The net loss is zero, the net gain is zero and why should a company chase a tiny market of geeks?
Better to chase people who want to do stuff. Look at what comes with a Mac. That's for users, not geeks. Apple sales stats show their strategy is good, as do their financials.
He never claimed the new iMacs were 2-4 times as fast. Watch the keynote. He claimed that on the SPEC scores, which he said were key indicators of performance, they were 2-4 times as fast.
He then went on to say that the speed improvements won't be across the whole system, because other components (he singled out hard drives) aren't improved over the G5 models.
I say that he can't win because for years he put up Photoshop numbers, and many people around here said "show us the SPEC numbers!"
Now he puts up SPEC numbers and people miss the bit where he said that they weren't the whole story.
He didn't lie. He told the full picture, but so many people haven't watched the keynote and are rushing to judgement based on second-hand information.
I sincerely hope that someday you're violently attacked by a rampaging mob of infected chimpanzees, or contract a special and interestingly painful form of cancer and die in agony without ever again uttering another word.
You just don't understand this, do you? And thanks for trotting out an insult. It says a lot about you.
You say "we" as if it meant something, when really you mean "I." Even reading as you probably intend it, who decides that Apple are doing the right or wrong thing? I get the strong feeling that you believe you should be the one that decides this. You might say the courts can decide, or the government can decide, but the economic and legal framework that Apple works within is the framework set up by the government and the courts.
You again fail to show any benefit for Apple. I keep harping on this point, because currently a corporation enjoys many of the legal rights afforded to a person. Right or wrong (and I'm not a fan of the concept) you can't just mandate a change against their interests, in the same way you can't just harm a person. You need justification.
And that's where your house of cards collapses. You make the point that we can revoke the power we grant companies like Apple, but you absolutely fail to show any justification for doing so. How are consumers hurt by Apple currently, that we should harm Apple and force a change upon them? You don't actually say, but the message is implicit in your posts.
You fail - and this is a critical point - to show that Apple are doing something that actually *is* against our interests as consumers.
Leaving all that aside, we have to face facts. The world we *actually* live in has laws around copyright, whether you like them or not. Apple already has the power you apparently don't want it to, and until the laws change, you have to live with that.
But you can't arbitrarily change the laws just to allow white-box manufacturers to force Apple to release a generic-PC version of OS X. It's not even a good thought experiment because you have to change the fundamentals of capitalism and self-interest as prerequisites. If your solution to such a minor issue (and it is minor) starts with "Step 1 - change all the laws and the way people think about corporations" then you'll never get anywhere.
If you can't or won't understand that, and want to live instead in the fantasy land where intellectual property is not a legally accepted concept and where information 'wants' to be free, then go ahead. I'll spend my time in the real world.
I ask what's in it for Apple because they are the ones who have to change to fit your beliefs. In fact, the whole nature of capitalism has to change to fit your belief. It's not a matter of what people want, but what they're prepared to pay for. Currently they seem okay with Apple, and you're in a minority of one.
A true Troll, it cannot turn aside but must instead blunder slowly onwards, reading posts it cannot understand and making comments with words too long for it!
Post some more Troll. Go for it. If you can't take my comments, get off the Internet!
But please, post your username (if you have one).
Don't be a coward - be at least *that* brave. You can do it!
If you disagree, show me where it is written down as a freedom that should be generally enjoyed. You Americans have a Bill of Rights (and a good thing it is, at that) but I don't recall anything about freedom to copy and distribute someone else's works without their permission.
Apple are doing nothing here. This is just a message so far. If it turns out that they are *actually* restricting the copying of their own operating system, then you can make your point.
You say Apple is preventing competitors from selling Apple's OS on non-Apple hardware.
Why shouldn't they? Why do you think Apple should allow other hardware companies to sell OS X for their hardware? You assume that it is a good thing, but you don't know this and you don't make a case for it. Is it a good thing for Apple? You absolutely cannot force them to act against their own interests, so you have to show how everyone benefits, not just Apple's competitors.
I believe that Apple should reasonably be allowed to protect their own work. I see that you don't believe in intellectual property, which is fine, but your position is not recognised legally and is therefore an opinion only. That's also fine - you should express your opinion. My opinion is opposed to yours in this.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you that most foul of all creatures, loathesome and base, the Troll!
Shudder as you read its poor postings, filled with bile, hate and not a jot of intelligence! Look into those bestial eyes, where there's no glimmer of wit or wisdom! See the way it soils itself as it posts, in a way that not even the vilest animals do!
Yes ladies and gentlemen, this disgusting specimen lurks on the Internet. But fear not! It's an irrelevant beast, and is quickly modded down by thinking individuals. Browsing at +2, or even +1 will filter out all but the most stubborn of these degraded creatures.
Remember - to Apple OS X is the crown jewels. Releasing it to the wild would be exposing them to an enormous amount of risk. It may pay off, or it may be that it gets pirated out of existence.
What justification is there to force Apple to expose itself like this?
Microsoft is a monopoly, as defined by US law. The anti-trust court showed that and Microsoft were unable to prove to the court that they were not a monopoly. Worse - they illegally used their monopoly power to damage their competitors. Again, this is not up for dispute as the cases and appeals are long over and Microsoft lost.
Apple is very close to having a monopoly on the mp3 player market. That could well cause issues for them if they then use that power to hurt their competitors. So far they've been good to their competitors (well, they ignore them completely) so there's no legal issue.
Your dictionary definition is good, but not complete as far as the law goes.
I agree that if you buy a copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it. I agree that they shouldn't try to tie the two together, and that's not what I see happening in this story.
If you can install it on your homebuilt machine, that's all good.
Apple is under no obligation to support it outside the terms of their licence though, and if it requires lots of work to get it to boot or doesn't seem to work as well as it should, then it's your own look-out.
Just as Apple should not try to enforce what happens to OS X after the sale, you cannot enforce support outside of the terms of use.
Apple is also under no obligation to make it easy, or even possible, to install OS X on generic PC hardware. It can put in all the protection it likes, and that's all fine and dandy. It's their product after all.
What is not okay is for people to illegally copy the OS and then try running that on their non-Apple hardware. That violates the copyright, and no lawyer on Earth would defend that case. Well, no sane lawyer at any rate.
If the customer has bought an Apple computer and then copies the OS from one Mac to another, then I agree with your point.
If, as I feel is vastly more likely, the customer copies OS X without ever purchasing either a single copy or anything from Apple, then the customer has no right to complain to Apple, and is not in fact a customer at all.
It'd be nice to think that all pirates are just pirating between copies they own. A bit naive though.
Microsoft don't give Apple anything. Once they invested $150M in non-voting Apple stock (Apple's cash reserves were around $4B then, making it a gesture of support more than anything else) but I've never heard of anything since. They sold those shares and recently I looked through the top hundred investors in Apple, and Microsoft wasn't even in that list.
Then to say Apple makes its money from interest..! Go and read the financial reports - they're available on the NASDAQ site. They show where the money comes from (hint - they sell stuff, lots of stuff).
All in all, an impressively incorrect post. No single sentence escaped error.
Statements made like that, especially about privacy, are critical to get right. If the CEO makes a comment about privacy and what happens with collected data, I'm pretty sure it has to be accurate or there will be ramifications in either legal or stock senses.
Either way, I don't care. I disabled the mini store within about two seconds of launching iTunes, and before I'd heard all this kerfuffle. I don't want automated systems suggesting crap to me - I actually have an idea what I want to buy.
Am I a perfect customer? Well, I'm not some tinfoil hat wearing bozo, but I also know enough about the way companies treat data to not want my usage patterns to be tracked and I do what I can to ensure that doesn't occur. I see that you fall solidly into the former category, which is great for you.
Maybe that was chosen from a list like * SuperSecretBackdoorNSAKey * HiddenBackdoorNSAKey * KeepOutThisMeansYouDontMakeMeComeOverThereNSAKey * ThisIsObviouslyARidiculousHoaxOrParanoidFantasyNSA Key
I can't believe that anyone installing a backdoor into an application or operating system would be so mind-mashingly stupid as to put their name on the key, thus ensuring it will be found.
It may be true - I believe we're yet to plumb the depths of the US government's stupidity - but I would take the whole NSAKEY thing with a few tons of salt.
Roz Ho, the general manager of the MacBU in Microsoft confirmed a formal agreement to produce Office for OS X for at least the next five years. This was during Steve Jobs' keynote speech.
Given that, they could be slow to release, but Microsoft has stated a number of times that Office for Mac is a very profitable line for them.
I don't think Microsoft will act as you think they will act.
The *company* is Apple, the hardware is the Mac, not a MAC!
Sorry - pet peeve.
I actually don't think Apple will ever sell a machine with Windows pre-installed, or even acknowledge that Windows can be installed side-by-side. At the moment, the comment is "we won't stop you" which is close to "we don't care."
A Windows partition infers that there are good reasons to buy Windows. You know that, and I know that but Apple won't admit that OS X is second-best in something. That'd be a very poor move for them.
I don't think anyone really cares that much about AMD outside of a small group. Intel and AMD trade speed places all the time, so either of them have the big advantage over IBM, and that's enough for Apple. I build my PCs with AMD chips because I want to support them, but I could use Intel chips as easily (although at a slightly higher price).
Slashdot Mirror
You're right.
If we simply substitute my wording of "user" with "brain damaged bozo who cheerfully installs programmes they just downloaded from the Internet without any care when the system warns them, and on top of that they always run as the admin user and say 'yes' to any dialogue boxes" then you're spot on.
I'm going to have to say that until you can show something occurs, you can't use supposition as proof. You can't easily show the chain of events that would result in malware being able to completely disable a Mac, and the burden of proof is on people who say this is possible.
Yes, you can construct a theoretical method, but that's *very* different from an actual method that works without physical access.
Except in this case the user has to do a bunch of things - download the EFI software from Intel, a sudo command and a reboot. While some of this can be automated, OS X won't just allow all this to be run without the user helping it along.
I don't see that the parallel you're trying to draw is valid.
I'm not a manufacturing expert, but I would think that taking a machine from prototype to production would be more than a month's work. If they're still in development, then I would expect the shipping models to be *much* later than a month late.
The assembly line has to be geared up before any production can take place. How long does that take after the design is finalised?
I can't see how a model could still be in development and yet ship as a completed unit in a month.
Clearly many 'geek' users would not buy a Mac when it was running on a different processor.
If they still keep away, then who cares about them? The net loss is zero, the net gain is zero and why should a company chase a tiny market of geeks?
Better to chase people who want to do stuff. Look at what comes with a Mac. That's for users, not geeks. Apple sales stats show their strategy is good, as do their financials.
Jobs can't win.
He never claimed the new iMacs were 2-4 times as fast. Watch the keynote. He claimed that on the SPEC scores, which he said were key indicators of performance, they were 2-4 times as fast.
He then went on to say that the speed improvements won't be across the whole system, because other components (he singled out hard drives) aren't improved over the G5 models.
I say that he can't win because for years he put up Photoshop numbers, and many people around here said "show us the SPEC numbers!"
Now he puts up SPEC numbers and people miss the bit where he said that they weren't the whole story.
He didn't lie. He told the full picture, but so many people haven't watched the keynote and are rushing to judgement based on second-hand information.
And can I just say thanks for the link.
I sincerely hope that someday you're violently attacked by a rampaging mob of infected chimpanzees, or contract a special and interestingly painful form of cancer and die in agony without ever again uttering another word.
The marketshare is irrelevant.
The important thing, and the focus of the story, is that it's coming for OS X on x86.
I'd have though that someone calling another's post off-topic would at least try to stay more on-topic!
You just don't understand this, do you? And thanks for trotting out an insult. It says a lot about you.
You say "we" as if it meant something, when really you mean "I." Even reading as you probably intend it, who decides that Apple are doing the right or wrong thing? I get the strong feeling that you believe you should be the one that decides this. You might say the courts can decide, or the government can decide, but the economic and legal framework that Apple works within is the framework set up by the government and the courts.
You again fail to show any benefit for Apple. I keep harping on this point, because currently a corporation enjoys many of the legal rights afforded to a person. Right or wrong (and I'm not a fan of the concept) you can't just mandate a change against their interests, in the same way you can't just harm a person. You need justification.
And that's where your house of cards collapses. You make the point that we can revoke the power we grant companies like Apple, but you absolutely fail to show any justification for doing so. How are consumers hurt by Apple currently, that we should harm Apple and force a change upon them? You don't actually say, but the message is implicit in your posts.
You fail - and this is a critical point - to show that Apple are doing something that actually *is* against our interests as consumers.
Leaving all that aside, we have to face facts. The world we *actually* live in has laws around copyright, whether you like them or not. Apple already has the power you apparently don't want it to, and until the laws change, you have to live with that.
But you can't arbitrarily change the laws just to allow white-box manufacturers to force Apple to release a generic-PC version of OS X. It's not even a good thought experiment because you have to change the fundamentals of capitalism and self-interest as prerequisites. If your solution to such a minor issue (and it is minor) starts with "Step 1 - change all the laws and the way people think about corporations" then you'll never get anywhere.
If you can't or won't understand that, and want to live instead in the fantasy land where intellectual property is not a legally accepted concept and where information 'wants' to be free, then go ahead. I'll spend my time in the real world.
And they've got it. It's called Windows.
If they don't like Windows, they've got Linux.
One last time - why should Apple do this?
I ask what's in it for Apple because they are the ones who have to change to fit your beliefs. In fact, the whole nature of capitalism has to change to fit your belief. It's not a matter of what people want, but what they're prepared to pay for. Currently they seem okay with Apple, and you're in a minority of one.
Are you *sure* that you're correct in this?
... which is to say that you have no case.
Yes, I agree about freedoms. Rights are granted by governments though, but they should closely match freedoms.
But what happened to your actual point? What's in it for Apple to allow other hardware companies to sell OS X?
And still it reads!
A true Troll, it cannot turn aside but must instead blunder slowly onwards, reading posts it cannot understand and making comments with words too long for it!
Post some more Troll. Go for it. If you can't take my comments, get off the Internet!
But please, post your username (if you have one).
Don't be a coward - be at least *that* brave. You can do it!
It's not a freedom at all! Neither is it a right.
If you disagree, show me where it is written down as a freedom that should be generally enjoyed. You Americans have a Bill of Rights (and a good thing it is, at that) but I don't recall anything about freedom to copy and distribute someone else's works without their permission.
Apple are doing nothing here. This is just a message so far. If it turns out that they are *actually* restricting the copying of their own operating system, then you can make your point.
You say Apple is preventing competitors from selling Apple's OS on non-Apple hardware.
Why shouldn't they? Why do you think Apple should allow other hardware companies to sell OS X for their hardware? You assume that it is a good thing, but you don't know this and you don't make a case for it. Is it a good thing for Apple? You absolutely cannot force them to act against their own interests, so you have to show how everyone benefits, not just Apple's competitors.
I believe that Apple should reasonably be allowed to protect their own work. I see that you don't believe in intellectual property, which is fine, but your position is not recognised legally and is therefore an opinion only. That's also fine - you should express your opinion. My opinion is opposed to yours in this.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you that most foul of all creatures, loathesome and base, the Troll!
Shudder as you read its poor postings, filled with bile, hate and not a jot of intelligence! Look into those bestial eyes, where there's no glimmer of wit or wisdom! See the way it soils itself as it posts, in a way that not even the vilest animals do!
Yes ladies and gentlemen, this disgusting specimen lurks on the Internet. But fear not! It's an irrelevant beast, and is quickly modded down by thinking individuals. Browsing at +2, or even +1 will filter out all but the most stubborn of these degraded creatures.
Why?
Why should Apple release OS X for generic PCs?
Remember - to Apple OS X is the crown jewels. Releasing it to the wild would be exposing them to an enormous amount of risk. It may pay off, or it may be that it gets pirated out of existence.
What justification is there to force Apple to expose itself like this?
Microsoft is a monopoly, as defined by US law. The anti-trust court showed that and Microsoft were unable to prove to the court that they were not a monopoly. Worse - they illegally used their monopoly power to damage their competitors. Again, this is not up for dispute as the cases and appeals are long over and Microsoft lost.
Apple is very close to having a monopoly on the mp3 player market. That could well cause issues for them if they then use that power to hurt their competitors. So far they've been good to their competitors (well, they ignore them completely) so there's no legal issue.
Your dictionary definition is good, but not complete as far as the law goes.
I agree that if you buy a copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it. I agree that they shouldn't try to tie the two together, and that's not what I see happening in this story.
If you can install it on your homebuilt machine, that's all good.
Apple is under no obligation to support it outside the terms of their licence though, and if it requires lots of work to get it to boot or doesn't seem to work as well as it should, then it's your own look-out.
Just as Apple should not try to enforce what happens to OS X after the sale, you cannot enforce support outside of the terms of use.
Apple is also under no obligation to make it easy, or even possible, to install OS X on generic PC hardware. It can put in all the protection it likes, and that's all fine and dandy. It's their product after all.
What is not okay is for people to illegally copy the OS and then try running that on their non-Apple hardware. That violates the copyright, and no lawyer on Earth would defend that case. Well, no sane lawyer at any rate.
That's a pretty contrived argument.
If the customer has bought an Apple computer and then copies the OS from one Mac to another, then I agree with your point.
If, as I feel is vastly more likely, the customer copies OS X without ever purchasing either a single copy or anything from Apple, then the customer has no right to complain to Apple, and is not in fact a customer at all.
It'd be nice to think that all pirates are just pirating between copies they own. A bit naive though.
What freedom specifically are you talking about here?
The freedom to pirate and violate copyright? Or Apple's freedom to licence software in the manner they see fit? What freedom is lost here?
This needs to me modded '-5 amazingly stupid'
Microsoft don't give Apple anything. Once they invested $150M in non-voting Apple stock (Apple's cash reserves were around $4B then, making it a gesture of support more than anything else) but I've never heard of anything since. They sold those shares and recently I looked through the top hundred investors in Apple, and Microsoft wasn't even in that list.
Then to say Apple makes its money from interest..! Go and read the financial reports - they're available on the NASDAQ site. They show where the money comes from (hint - they sell stuff, lots of stuff).
All in all, an impressively incorrect post. No single sentence escaped error.
Well done, AC!
Statements made like that, especially about privacy, are critical to get right. If the CEO makes a comment about privacy and what happens with collected data, I'm pretty sure it has to be accurate or there will be ramifications in either legal or stock senses.
Either way, I don't care. I disabled the mini store within about two seconds of launching iTunes, and before I'd heard all this kerfuffle. I don't want automated systems suggesting crap to me - I actually have an idea what I want to buy.
Am I a perfect customer? Well, I'm not some tinfoil hat wearing bozo, but I also know enough about the way companies treat data to not want my usage patterns to be tracked and I do what I can to ensure that doesn't occur. I see that you fall solidly into the former category, which is great for you.
Watch out! They're coming for you!
I love the bit where the key is called "NSAKEY"
A Key
Maybe that was chosen from a list like
* SuperSecretBackdoorNSAKey
* HiddenBackdoorNSAKey
* KeepOutThisMeansYouDontMakeMeComeOverThereNSAKey
* ThisIsObviouslyARidiculousHoaxOrParanoidFantasyNS
I can't believe that anyone installing a backdoor into an application or operating system would be so mind-mashingly stupid as to put their name on the key, thus ensuring it will be found.
It may be true - I believe we're yet to plumb the depths of the US government's stupidity - but I would take the whole NSAKEY thing with a few tons of salt.
Roz Ho, the general manager of the MacBU in Microsoft confirmed a formal agreement to produce Office for OS X for at least the next five years. This was during Steve Jobs' keynote speech.
Given that, they could be slow to release, but Microsoft has stated a number of times that Office for Mac is a very profitable line for them.
I don't think Microsoft will act as you think they will act.
That sounds fine to me.
No data is being kept, what is collected is not attached to some profile about me and I can disable the feature easily.
I'm not partial to Microsoft, but I see nothing to worry about in that statement.
Argh!
The *company* is Apple, the hardware is the Mac, not a MAC!
Sorry - pet peeve.
I actually don't think Apple will ever sell a machine with Windows pre-installed, or even acknowledge that Windows can be installed side-by-side. At the moment, the comment is "we won't stop you" which is close to "we don't care."
A Windows partition infers that there are good reasons to buy Windows. You know that, and I know that but Apple won't admit that OS X is second-best in something. That'd be a very poor move for them.
I don't think anyone really cares that much about AMD outside of a small group. Intel and AMD trade speed places all the time, so either of them have the big advantage over IBM, and that's enough for Apple. I build my PCs with AMD chips because I want to support them, but I could use Intel chips as easily (although at a slightly higher price).