yea, got that too, but I had it on the POTS line back in the day anyway. I got tired of digging through the closet with a flashlight to find the old generic line-powered POTS phone everytime the power went out...
I have 1 base station, 6 handhelds (7 phones including the speakerphone in the base). It, the VOIP modem, and the router are on an older 1000AVR UPS. It runs for about 6 hours when the power is out, however, I actually unplug the router and modem when i don;t need it so I've made it as long as 2 days without juice and still had VoIP. Even if that's dead, the 2500AVR unit I have running the 2 PCs upstairs ought to still have some nice juice since it auto kills the PCs after 5 minutes, but has a 40 minute runtime at my current load. That might add another full day to the phones if I moved it.
Also, it should be noted, POTS also goes down now if there's a regional power outage in most parts of the world, since it's all on fiber now once its more than about half a mile from your house... POTS is equally as unreliable as cable... The VoIP runs over DSL, so it's equally as reliable as POTS (cable reliability varies). The old school pots lines running all the way back to a regioal station are long gone. It;s digital most of the way now, and it will go down. (last 3 outages we had, phopnes were out for 2 of them. Fortunately, they only lasted about 30 minutes each).
For the life of me I can't remember the brand, but I got it at Sam's club. I'll see if I can note it later tonight and enter it here as a reply to this comment (if i remember) Its 4 phones (supprots up to 6), 1 base station, 3 chargers, 8.1GHz. Phone calls can be transfered between handsets easy, room to room pager functions, 2 phones can conference even miles from the base station (handy on long car trips with multiple cars trying to stay in touch).
most importantly, it has 2 nice features i think you're in the market for: 1) entering a new contact on any phone is automatically replicated to others, as well as management of caller-ID history too (clearing history on 1 phone clears it on all, including numebr by number or clear all). 2) items in caller-ID can be added to one of 2 calling lists: phone book, or "blocked calls" The blocked call feature is what I really bought it for. Up to 40-50 numbers can be added to the list. (including by name or number). Calls from that number ring once, then the phone sends a busy signal back down the line and the phone stops ringing. This is great for keeping collection scams at bay; those guys who call asking to sell you warrantys for your car, and Portfolio Recovery Associates (scammers trying to collect debts that are no longer on record).
Granted, if you have a google voice number, all this is irrelevent, since you can call google and remote dial any favorite from there, and it;s blocked call featre is far superior as is their call screening option, but this base station is awesome if you still have a landline or VoIP line at home...
accepting that the SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS clearly state "Mac copmputer with intel Processor" clearly indicates the existinace of a prior OEM license.
Actually, that only indicates the existence of a Mac computer. I don't know of any clear cut definitions, but if I was looking to purchase an operating system, I would assume that the "computer" requirement only means hardware.
the 10.6 package actually does indicate 10.5 already be in existance as well as there is no 10.4 to 10.6 migration path using the 10.6 boxed product at $29 (you must buy the Mac Boxed Set at $169, which also clearly indicates it is intended only to upgrade 10.3 or 10.4).
Can you show me where it "indicates" this? Last time I checked, I could not see any noticable markings on the package that indicate that 10.5 is required, nor that 10.4 would not be sufficient. Actually, I couldn't find any specific instruction on the package that states anything about requiring a version of OSX.
This is clear text on the outside of the box, further clarified by references to apple.com for more detailed system requirements and their EULA full text.
This is considdered FULL legal disclosure pre-sale. It has been argued, and upheld in court, numerous times, for Apple and all other software vendors since back in the 80s when software retail packaging statrted becoming popular, when software could be bought without talking to a sales rep first.
EULAs have been enforced in some specific instances. They have been declared non-binding in other instances. There has not yet, afaik, been an all encompassing decision made, that makes all EULAs either binding nor non-binding.
Additionally, what encompasses agreement of the EULA? I know many state "if you do not agree, then return the product", but what if I don't bother reading it. What if I see a big wall of text, then manipulate my software (the software I purchased) to remove said wall-of-text. Now I just see a blank box, which I agree to. What now?
Ok, taken in series: 1) "MAC COMPUTER" as a requirement is a specific. Software packaging does NOT list "requires a PC" since THAT would be assumed. by stating the brand, its a specific requirement. Anyone who has existing mac hardware would understand this and courts have PREVIOUSLY ruled this is accepted common knowledge within the consumer segment associated with the Apple OS (this is old hat already).
2) From the package "Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
3) There is binding law indicating that an EULA in and of itself IS binding, however, seperate clauses within them have been thrown out by state or federal appelate law. The fact that you are in fact bound by any clauses in an EULA that you do not otherwise legally challenge is as legally binding as the clauses in a real-estate lease agreement.
4) explain how to legally manipulate the installer application that exists on read only media in such a way to avoid seeing the EULA text that would not be upheld in court as a specific action to avoid such, especially including that the package also includes language on it indicating the existance of such an EULA and additionl information HOW TO FIND IT, so either way, you were givin the opportunity for incformed concent. your choices or actions to avoid reading it do not make it non-binding, sorry. Per the EULA (and varios coupyrite laws) it is not "your software" to manipulate either, it is simply your LICENSE to use it for all things legal to do so per your state laws and the context of the EULA. You own the disk, not the applications on it, and that has repeatedly been upheld by law and courts. You have no argument. Everyone entering a courtroom who has ever presented that argument has lost, with the rare exceptions of abusive policy in the EULA that has violated state or local laws (and those clauses are removed by seperation
deaths are declining overall, but deaths related to distracted driving are rising dramatically as part of the whole, as are of much more and typically less reported concern, the insurance costs of NON-lethal accidents and the near doubling of distracted driving non-lethal accidents. The "declining" data is only current publically prior to 2006. Recent numbers have increased per reports from insurance claims.
It's not about saving lives, (that's a side effect) its about preventing minor accidents that are COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE, and saving each family in america $200-300 a year. Its also about preventing the ordinary traffic issues and driver rage associated with a distracted driver who does NOT cause a wreck but inconvineiences or troubles other drivers. Anything that can be done cheaply and simply to prevent accidents, and to reduce congestion and stresses on the road should be done, regardless of the number of lifes saved.
If we eliminated the bulk of distracted driving through strong regulation and punishment, on par with other things like drunk driving for which distracted driving in tests actually tests WORSE), then we can accelerate the pace of reducing accidents since currently this subclass of accident is increasing not decreasing, and making it decrease WILL save more lives and will save more money.
you still have a breaker down in the main box. The fuse is additional to it, therefore superior. Also, breakers (and surge protectors) throw fast, but only with significant overvoltage, usally in the thousands of joules. A fuse will blow in situations where overvoltage is minimal, say 140v, for an extended period of several seconds. I also understand the difference between GFCI, fuse, and breaker fully. Having ALL THREE is superior to having 1 or 2. THAT was the point.
This fuse in wall operates very much like the fuses in your electronics, except they don't require voiding warranties to open cases to replace them.
Actually, the little security flap adds about $0.08 to the cost of a socket (about $1 retail given markup). The inline fuse is differnt from a GFI, and instead of allowing the device to die a horrible death and trigger the GFI, it protects the devices from surges in the first place. They use GFI in the breaker box (as the breakers in my new house here in the US also do and it's not the builkding standard in this state as opposed to the expensive GFI sokets I needed all over the place in the old house). Their inline fuse is cheap and simple.
For the cost of a box, outlet, and cover plate, the UK socket might cost $2 more than a US one. Its safer and also protects devices with an additional surge protection barrier (so you don't need a surge stip for every fracking outlet you have more than a lamp plugged into).
Further, because they use round connectors, not flat, it's far less likely you'll bend up a plug, and it's also harder to find household objects you could stick in the hole in the first place. It;s not exactly often i bend up a connetor real bad, but when ui had a dog it more more frequent, and more than once I've had to solder on a new endpiece, which is really a bitch to do btw without the proper tools.
I'm not condoning everyone rip out all their outlets, I'm simply suggesting all new outlets come with a cover and fuse starting now, and all appliances start coming with a newer, better connector (and an adapter to use an older outlet).
People might compain, but they made the same complaint years ago when we added the 3rd prong and people started needing adapters for those. We got over it, and will again.
I'm for a much more straight forward solution across the board: ACCOUTNABILITY.
There are accidents caused by simple mistakes any driver could potentially make. Driving a bit too fast in the rain, reacting to another idiot's move, cutting someone off accidentally, running over a small animal, or any number of vehicular failures; these should all be subject to existing rules.
However, when it can be shown that neglect, or willful distraction (texting, shaving, putting on makeup, fumbing under the seat to find something, etc, leads directly to an accident, then instead of a ticket and simple fine, there should be CRIMINAL action. Severe, life changing penalties potentially including a minimum 30 day imprisonment, heavy fins and leans on property, and punishments up to those on par with charges for vehicular manslaughter if a death or mernanat injury results or for repeat offenders.
Drunk driving carries sever penalties. Not eactly life changing in most states for firs offences, but severe enough to get notice. If texting while driving, and other grossly negligent activityies carried similar penalties, this would stop quick.
To make this easier: 1) Cell phones must be in a dock or cradle and used exclusively hands free. A driver should never have view of a device while in motion except for a GPS. 2) Provide a simple system where passengers in other cars can take photos of drivers violating distraction laws and allow their instant submission to cops so that a vehicle can be dispatched to confirm the activity and arrest the driver (no different than calling 911 to report a suspected drunk driver, except it would include photo or video evidence too).
I don't want some system embedded in every car, at my own cost, to watch me. That's the responsibility of law enforcement and good samaritains. Especially if there is any potential for this technology to be abused for snooping by government or hackers then its a REALLY bad idea. I want a simple system where drives don't do things because the FEAR THE PENALTY, and I do not want people against such a system because they fear being spied on by big brother.
The same applies to speeding. Go on, speed. If we feel it;s excessive, we'll give you a warning and delay for 10-15 minutes while we pour over your driver record and validate your insurace (and notify them in case your speeding is habitual and they'd like to increase your rates slightly for it). Still, no fine or outright penalty unless you actually cause an ACCIDENT speeding, in which case the fine should be very severe...
Well, I suggest a very low tech solution, one that has been successfully deployed from my Great grandfather down through the ranks of the family.
It's called "Don;t make me stop this car." This is followed up by a serious ass kicking the first time you actually do, and then again with stricter and stricter restraints until they practically raise their hand to ask permission to speak to each other in the back seat, let alone you.
Kids will simply not stop unless they are given a significant reason. Simple groundings work for 8+ year olds, but for small children, typically spanking is the only thing that really works effectiveley as they do you yet comprehend forward looking punishment (this is a nuerological fact easily proven). There must be instant punishment for bad actions. Equally, good reward quickly offered for good behavior should be used as further encouragement. (stock lolly pops in the car, not only is it a handy reward, it also limits continued conversation effectively when mouths are full).
Anytime you;re going somewhere with kids, the option to turn back and go home (if you;re driving somewhere they'd like to be), or threatening to change routes and go somewhere they certainly do NOT want to be (dentist!), must lalways be an option.
You might be against physical punishment of your children, and personally I am to keep it at a minimum, but kids do not learn not to touch hot things until they've been burned at least once. A good ass kicking of a 6 year old saves 100 future punishments or more.
accepting that the SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS clearly state "Mac copmputer with intel Processor" clearly indicates the existinace of a prior OEM license.
the 10.6 package actually does indicate 10.5 already be in existance as well as there is no 10.4 to 10.6 migration path using the 10.6 boxed product at $29 (you must buy the Mac Boxed Set at $169, which also clearly indicates it is intended only to upgrade 10.3 or 10.4).
This is clear text on the outside of the box, further clarified by references to apple.com for more detailed system requirements and their EULA full text.
This is considdered FULL legal disclosure pre-sale. It has been argued, and upheld in court, numerous times, for Apple and all other software vendors since back in the 80s when software retail packaging statrted becoming popular, when software could be bought without talking to a sales rep first.
Microsoft may not sell PC hardware, but they DO sell cell phones, music players, game systems, and lots of other hardware.
Also, the non-PC divisions of apple are only 39% of their busines. The bulk, as is referenced by their recent Q4 earnings statement for 2009, is that stong PC slaes was the most direct impact to their 47% profit increase with iPhones flat and ipods faultering.
Custom support, in that Apple needs to identify the Atom and understand it's code set limitations.
OS X uses parts of the microcode (or is moving to further leverage them) that cuase the Atom to be an exception handle.
Further, it;s low performance is something Apple needs to be keenly aware of, as well as it;s chipset features which are lacking.
I did not state the Atom would not run code, but the OS lernel DOES require custom code to ID it and handle exceptions for missing features and lack of performance.
Actually, "Upgrade" appears on the package for both 10.5 and 10.6. Further, the system requirements clearly state "Mac hardware with intel Processor" (older versions also included PPC).
You were not coerced into agreeing to a contract post sale, you were provided ample opportunity to read that EULA pre-sale. Even if you did not read it, you still had the op to return it after opening it, if you read the terms of the EULA it states how to contact apple for that refund. Wether you read the EULA and agreed to it or not does not bind you to the purchase, simply failure to take the advice printed on the box to do so binds you into a potential of having to wait for a refund check. You have no legal obligation to keepm the software until you click "I Agree" and proceed with an install.
EULA has nothing to do with copyrite (though it also spells out exceptions to copyrite includng right to make personal copies, etc, in many cases). EULA is about USE RIGHTS, and LOTS of things come with EULAs beyond software, including Real Estate, equipment Rental Leases, Loans and grants, and dozens of other things.
You do NOT own the software, you purchased a license to use it with. you do own the physical copy of the CD, but a digital download where you acquire no physical media has the same legal restrictions.
You are not allowed to do whatevery you want with a CD either, and laws about that vary from state to state as well. Some clauses in EULAs have been determined by judges to be too restrictive, or contrary to law (as AutoDesk found out about trying to block resale and transfer of license, which IS allowed now), but invalidating part of the EULA does NOT mean the entire EULA is illegal (it;s called the "seperation" clause).
You can use the software from apple for any reason, including commercial, but ONLY on products containing an existing OEM license of that software. Note it claims "appel branded" which could imply 3rd party or authorized clone systems in the future, and this was NOT limited to "apple manufactured" or "apple distributed." Since there are no authorized clones/alternate manufacturers, which tey DO have the legal right to restrict and control and NO apple is NOt a monopoly (which itself would not be illegal if they were) and they are not stifling competition as is evidence by their limited 6% market share.
Well, you also can't tell people they can't resel copies of OS X, as the folks behind AutoCAD found out the expensive way. Even still, invalidating that PART of their EULA still did not invalidate the entire EULA. EULAs are VERY legally binding, and this has been proven out in cour over and over and over again.
It's illegal to discriminate point of sale to who, but it is not illegal to tell someone "though the full install is contained on the media, you may only use this if you already have an OEM copy of our OS on an existing machine".
I can't tell you wnat you can and can't do with my software, but... oh, wait, yes I can. The "Not for Commercial Use" EULA has ALSO been upheld in federal court, so YES, i very well legally CAN tell you that you can or can;t us eit for profit. I can't tell you what you can/can't install into the OS, even including the iPhone, all i can do is refuse to SUPPORT it if you violate my preference, but thats as far as Apple can take that.
Fact is, the license is a upgrade of an OEM copy of OS X. If you don;t have a Mac, it;s NO DIFFERENT that illegally installing a Upgrade version of Windows 7 on a new PC using an OEM copy from another PC as the validation copy.
Also, ytou WERE informed prior to sale, 3 different ways on the outside of the packaging, and all over the website if you bought online... even still, it could be retuend for a full refund, even if opened with seals broken, directly to apple. (you may have to wait a few weeks for a refund check to come in the mail).
The software you bought was an upgrade. It is equally illegal to buy an Upgrade to Windows 7, then buy or build a new PC, and try to migrate an OEM copy of Windows Vista or XP from the old machine to the new one (or worse still keep the old machine running as well).
IF and when apple chooses to offer FULLVERSION retail copies of OS X (don;t hold your breath, the support logistics alone would tripple or more their staffing requirements when tens of millions of people start installing copies), then you'll likely pay $249-359 for that copy. THEN you can install it on the PC of your choice.
Apple has made the requirement of an existing Mac a CLEAR part of the system requirements on the box, and the first line of the product description on the back of the box is "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard, a simpler, more powerful, and more refined version of Mac OS X. "
You have no excuse.
Coercion? Seriously? Explain to a judge exactly how they FORCED you to buy their software, and how you were never informed of the restrictions (even ignoring the packaging and after opening it, it could have been returned to appole if you simply clicked "disagree" to the software EULA for full refund).
The cereal i had for breakfast had a website address for "additional nutritional informatoin" and also actually suggested I speak to a doctor about the health benefits, risks, and reccomended diat before consuming if i have any existing health conditions.
The chair I'm stting in has a tag indicting I need to read the Ergonomic guide for health and saftey concerns, and absolves the manufacturer from all injury related suits against them for failure to do so. That information is also not printed on the box of any chair I've ever bought.
The Apple box DOES indicate in CLEAR text "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard, a simpler, more powerful, and more refined version of Mac OS X." on the packaging in the product description area, and the first system requirement is a "Mac Computer with intel Processor." Further, there is text indicating the product is governed by an EULA, and information about where to obtain that is on the box.
This is 3 fold indication the product has resatrictions that can be obtained and understood pior to purchase. Your failure to read the EULA is your own, and your lack of understanding of "upgrade" will not be upheld by a court of law. The manufacturer is not required by law to put a big blue sticker with "Upgrade onle" on the box, so long as it is indicated otherwise on the packaging, which it is.
Case closed, par your $100,000 fine for piracy to Apple Co.
1: System Requirements Section on the bottom of the box: Mac computer with an Intel processor 1GB of memory 5GB of available disk space DVD drive for installation Some features require a compatible Internet service provider; fees may apply. Some features require Apple’s MobileMe service; fees and terms apply.
2: first line of product description on the back of the box: "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard, a simpler, more powerful, and more refined version of Mac OS X. " Clearly indicates "upgrade" from an existing OS X installation.
3: Fine print on bottom of box provides EULA and other "reccomended reference" material in the legally required disclaimer area of the package. Your cereal box makes no such disclaimer, and noone expects cerial to have prerequisite requirements. It IS hoever legally accepted as common knowledge that PC software has reqtrictions and requirements, and it would be expected a purchaser would reference that material, which is not only freely provided on the web, but Apple retailers will provide it in print form if requested.
You were given 3 opportunities to undertsant the nature and restriction of the product before purchase. Failure to read the box is not Apple's fault. it HAS been upheld in a court of law that the product simply needs to REFERENCE the license, and the packaging does NOT need to have the entirety printed on hand, provided that license is freely available, which it is.
Your argument is bunk, and only supports a position of one who would wish to violate a clearly defined product restriction.
False. The license ready "by installing you agree..." This type of license has in fact been held up by appelate courts in numerous districts.
You have a right to return the product for full refund to the vendor should you refust the EULA. The local store may not be required to accept your return if the seal is broken, but Apple WILL refund your purchase.
Furhter, the box indicates an address to read the EULA from. The EULA is on hand in print form at all apple retailers per their reseller agreement. The box indicates in the system requirements include "Mac Computer with an Intel Processor." It CLEARLY states on the back of the box "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard, a simpler, more powerful, and more refined version of Mac OS X."
No, there's not a big blue sticker saying "Upgrade" on it. Howver, it is made clear in all their product documentation, and on the outside of the package, that it is an upgrade-only license, requiring an existing Mac to install it on. Further, the EULA, which CAN be refused, also states the same.
I'll tell you why they talk aboiut their apple products so much. The "Apple Experience" is actually an addictive one, and in some cases, completely changes how people veiw hardware and software, and certainly changes how they use it in their lives.
I started writing code on old Apple II systems. I used a Lisa for a few years and have owned Macs (and clones) using every OS through 9.x. I sold my last mac off in 2002 and have not persionally owned one since. I am an IT analyst for a major firm and simply don't have the time to mess with Macs nor the money to afford numerous systems (even my PC gaming rig is about 2 years out of date, and mid-range at best back then, as i have to scrimp and save to have enough used parts to keep all my other systems running so that I can stay up to par on Microsoft and Linux software i have to use at work).
My family are still all mac users. Mom n Dad, my sister and her husband, my Aunt and uncle, all live locally, and I frequenly have the pleasant experience of working on one of their machines, or helping them do something on it. My wife has since fallen in love with the idea of bringing our camcorder over to my parent's place and editing video on their mac, to the point she has demanded we get our own. I have $2,000 worth of PC video editing software from various vendors, and honestly, even i can't make it do in hours of effort what i can do on a Mac in 30 minutes.
The OS is slick, finding data is easy, backups are by accident, publishing to the web is cake, working with iPhoto is simply so far superior to anythig on the PC it is just pointless to try otherwise, the machines are fast-very fast for the price, and my BIGGEST reason for loving them is that basiccaly, I don't have to MANAGE the machine, it simply takes care of itself. I spend a few hundred every year on security software, and a couple hours a month keeping the systems up to date. Once a year or more I blow a whole weekend either re-installing or rebuilding a PC, it's a god awful pain in the ass, and 9/10 any backups of ther than file level data are useless.
For the 90% of people who work with multimedia, surf the web, make documents and flyers, and play common games (including that 10 of the top 25 games on the market DO run on Mac Os natively, as will every release from Blizard, EA, and even Turbine going forward, but the rest runs easily under bootcamp, and if gaming is all it's used for, security and patching isn't really important, so managing a dual boot mac is easy compared to simply managing a single instance of Windows), fact is, a Mac is all they need, it's unobtrusive in your life, and when you want to do something creative on it, it's ready to oblige.
When you DO have an issue, Apple support's first response is not "format and re-install", they actually try to solve the issue without doing that, and actually take you through simple hardware diagnostics to solve the issue, or you could allways just bring it in to a genius at a local store and they'll fix it for you, free, including support for 3rd party programs... free! I can't even call microsoft without wiping out a credit card, and Dell/HP/Acer simple support break/fix and don;t acctualy support the CUSTOMER (only the hardware, not even including the OS aside from their original factory image).
Having a mac is easy, getting help is easy, it is easily worth the 50 hours a year I save vs having a PC.
For all these reasons and more my wife has a 15" MacBook pro on its way to her now from Apple's factory (placed the order Sunday).
It should be noted, apple's 1/3rd profit point is based on 6% market share. Had they sold just 18%, their profit would equal M$. If they had 25%, it would DWARF microsoft.
Also, Microsoft's MAIN product revenue streams are NOT Windows home licenses. They profits stem MOSTLY from Enterprise systems and server licenses, user CALS, and copies of Office and other productivity software. The OS is the bait to get people to buy the stuff that supports it and runs on it.
Apple's bait is the well running OS which they use to get you to buy a SECOND mac (with over 90% repeat buyers!), then they sell you upgrades and additional software to make profits. You also tend to buy LOTS of other apple products one you own a Mac. The iPhone is fast cbecoming the new bait.
Apple makes such a high profit margin, they could VERY EASILY lower prices and corner the market. Their products are already highly competitive on price. If they released a true bargain mac, dropped prices $200-400 across the board, they'd still make a profit (actually, still better than Dell on average unit sold). unfortunately, Appel simply could not make machines fast enough to handle that, nor could they ramp up support fast enough to handle it. Same goes for selling the Os in a box. I all 90% of us that have windows, and would instantly drop $200 for a retail copy of OS X to install on our existing PC hardware, in months apple would have 2-3 times the user base, and that additional user base would mostly be on comoddity hardware with lackluster performance, and a significant portion would need support. to tripple marketshare by selling an OS in a box, apple would need 4-5 times the support staff, and much stricter policies, and all that would get them is a slew of "this OS sux and does not work on my hardware" complaints.
Apple is growing at a safe 10-15% anually. They can easily maintain that. With their cash reserves, they're building better facilties, better hardware, and better support systems. In 2-3 years they'll be shipping more units than Dell. In 5-6 years they'll be the #1 hardware vendor and have 10-15% of the total OS market (maybe more). If they lowered their prices, or opened the OS to generic hardware, honestly, they could not handle the growth, which is why they have not yet done so.
Exactly. Apple included support for intel x86 processors since alpha development of OS X 10.0, but they did not ENABLE support for it until much later. The Atom is a unique chip. Though Application code runs on it normally, OS level code requires custom support, and since Apple has NO intentions of letting OS X run on netbooks, as the performance of such can not rightly operate the OS in Apple's chosen user experience standards, they have since disabled it.
When they're ready (or rather, when the Atom is ready) Apple can easily re-enable support.
They may not be able to tell you what you can and can not do with the OS, but they CAN tell you what it is legally licensed for, and it is legal to install on Apple Hardware only as that is the only hardware with an existing version of the OS installed on in order to apply the retail box upgrade.
If you buy OS X, you have NOT bought a full version. Should Apple choose to sell a full retail version, it would likely be $329 or higher, and not include iLife. Until then, use of their OS on other hardware is no different from installing a copy of Windows Upgrade as a clean install on a new machine without decommisioning the older version (up upgrading an OEM license onto a new machine). That IS a licence violation, and I personally know people who have been charged by Microsoft for license violations (all of them working for businesses, no individuals, but it no less illegal).
Still, don't market it as a TomTom killer if it's still a beta. I know Google themselves is not making such a fuss, it's mostly clueless media, but the media should be schooled and get it right.
Biggest issue though, it's live, not static data. I'd be fine if it auto-updated data as it had access, but its still useless if i can't use it where there's no connection... That's not a minor change.
Devs have recourse, it's just paperwork, and NUMEROUS denials have been overturned and approved after further study. In fact, short of the apps that CLEARLY violated policies, and those that were determined to be user harrasing apps or spam/useless reppetitive applications very very few apps that have been rejected have not been approved in one form or another at a later date.
Apple does not go out of its way preventing unlocking either , AT&T does... Even still, Apple has made NO criminal threats against any user. They SELL unlocked iPhones in the USA and several other countries. And car dealers? no, they don;t PREVENT you from using unauthorized shops, they just VOID YOUR WARANTY for doing so.
You can install software from other sources, just not through THIER app in an automated fashoion, (though using that app to sync non-apple apps is easy). Unlock it, there are a dozen easy to use tools to do whatever you want with the device.
Slashdot Mirror
yea, got that too, but I had it on the POTS line back in the day anyway. I got tired of digging through the closet with a flashlight to find the old generic line-powered POTS phone everytime the power went out...
I have 1 base station, 6 handhelds (7 phones including the speakerphone in the base). It, the VOIP modem, and the router are on an older 1000AVR UPS. It runs for about 6 hours when the power is out, however, I actually unplug the router and modem when i don;t need it so I've made it as long as 2 days without juice and still had VoIP. Even if that's dead, the 2500AVR unit I have running the 2 PCs upstairs ought to still have some nice juice since it auto kills the PCs after 5 minutes, but has a 40 minute runtime at my current load. That might add another full day to the phones if I moved it.
Also, it should be noted, POTS also goes down now if there's a regional power outage in most parts of the world, since it's all on fiber now once its more than about half a mile from your house... POTS is equally as unreliable as cable... The VoIP runs over DSL, so it's equally as reliable as POTS (cable reliability varies). The old school pots lines running all the way back to a regioal station are long gone. It;s digital most of the way now, and it will go down. (last 3 outages we had, phopnes were out for 2 of them. Fortunately, they only lasted about 30 minutes each).
Pots hardware, a generic VoIP provider, and a google voice number... Done.
For the life of me I can't remember the brand, but I got it at Sam's club. I'll see if I can note it later tonight and enter it here as a reply to this comment (if i remember) Its 4 phones (supprots up to 6), 1 base station, 3 chargers, 8.1GHz. Phone calls can be transfered between handsets easy, room to room pager functions, 2 phones can conference even miles from the base station (handy on long car trips with multiple cars trying to stay in touch).
most importantly, it has 2 nice features i think you're in the market for:
1) entering a new contact on any phone is automatically replicated to others, as well as management of caller-ID history too (clearing history on 1 phone clears it on all, including numebr by number or clear all).
2) items in caller-ID can be added to one of 2 calling lists: phone book, or "blocked calls" The blocked call feature is what I really bought it for. Up to 40-50 numbers can be added to the list. (including by name or number). Calls from that number ring once, then the phone sends a busy signal back down the line and the phone stops ringing. This is great for keeping collection scams at bay; those guys who call asking to sell you warrantys for your car, and Portfolio Recovery Associates (scammers trying to collect debts that are no longer on record).
Granted, if you have a google voice number, all this is irrelevent, since you can call google and remote dial any favorite from there, and it;s blocked call featre is far superior as is their call screening option, but this base station is awesome if you still have a landline or VoIP line at home...
accepting that the SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS clearly state "Mac copmputer with intel Processor" clearly indicates the existinace of a prior OEM license.
Actually, that only indicates the existence of a Mac computer. I don't know of any clear cut definitions, but if I was looking to purchase an operating system, I would assume that the "computer" requirement only means hardware.
the 10.6 package actually does indicate 10.5 already be in existance as well as there is no 10.4 to 10.6 migration path using the 10.6 boxed product at $29 (you must buy the Mac Boxed Set at $169, which also clearly indicates it is intended only to upgrade 10.3 or 10.4).
Can you show me where it "indicates" this? Last time I checked, I could not see any noticable markings on the package that indicate that 10.5 is required, nor that 10.4 would not be sufficient. Actually, I couldn't find any specific instruction on the package that states anything about requiring a version of OSX.
This is clear text on the outside of the box, further clarified by references to apple.com for more detailed system requirements and their EULA full text.
This is considdered FULL legal disclosure pre-sale. It has been argued, and upheld in court, numerous times, for Apple and all other software vendors since back in the 80s when software retail packaging statrted becoming popular, when software could be bought without talking to a sales rep first.
EULAs have been enforced in some specific instances. They have been declared non-binding in other instances. There has not yet, afaik, been an all encompassing decision made, that makes all EULAs either binding nor non-binding.
Additionally, what encompasses agreement of the EULA? I know many state "if you do not agree, then return the product", but what if I don't bother reading it. What if I see a big wall of text, then manipulate my software (the software I purchased) to remove said wall-of-text. Now I just see a blank box, which I agree to. What now?
Ok, taken in series:
1) "MAC COMPUTER" as a requirement is a specific. Software packaging does NOT list "requires a PC" since THAT would be assumed. by stating the brand, its a specific requirement. Anyone who has existing mac hardware would understand this and courts have PREVIOUSLY ruled this is accepted common knowledge within the consumer segment associated with the Apple OS (this is old hat already).
2) From the package "Snow Leopard is an upgrade for Leopard users and requires a Mac with an Intel processor."
3) There is binding law indicating that an EULA in and of itself IS binding, however, seperate clauses within them have been thrown out by state or federal appelate law. The fact that you are in fact bound by any clauses in an EULA that you do not otherwise legally challenge is as legally binding as the clauses in a real-estate lease agreement.
4) explain how to legally manipulate the installer application that exists on read only media in such a way to avoid seeing the EULA text that would not be upheld in court as a specific action to avoid such, especially including that the package also includes language on it indicating the existance of such an EULA and additionl information HOW TO FIND IT, so either way, you were givin the opportunity for incformed concent. your choices or actions to avoid reading it do not make it non-binding, sorry. Per the EULA (and varios coupyrite laws) it is not "your software" to manipulate either, it is simply your LICENSE to use it for all things legal to do so per your state laws and the context of the EULA. You own the disk, not the applications on it, and that has repeatedly been upheld by law and courts. You have no argument. Everyone entering a courtroom who has ever presented that argument has lost, with the rare exceptions of abusive policy in the EULA that has violated state or local laws (and those clauses are removed by seperation
deaths are declining overall, but deaths related to distracted driving are rising dramatically as part of the whole, as are of much more and typically less reported concern, the insurance costs of NON-lethal accidents and the near doubling of distracted driving non-lethal accidents. The "declining" data is only current publically prior to 2006. Recent numbers have increased per reports from insurance claims.
It's not about saving lives, (that's a side effect) its about preventing minor accidents that are COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE, and saving each family in america $200-300 a year. Its also about preventing the ordinary traffic issues and driver rage associated with a distracted driver who does NOT cause a wreck but inconvineiences or troubles other drivers. Anything that can be done cheaply and simply to prevent accidents, and to reduce congestion and stresses on the road should be done, regardless of the number of lifes saved.
If we eliminated the bulk of distracted driving through strong regulation and punishment, on par with other things like drunk driving for which distracted driving in tests actually tests WORSE), then we can accelerate the pace of reducing accidents since currently this subclass of accident is increasing not decreasing, and making it decrease WILL save more lives and will save more money.
you still have a breaker down in the main box. The fuse is additional to it, therefore superior. Also, breakers (and surge protectors) throw fast, but only with significant overvoltage, usally in the thousands of joules. A fuse will blow in situations where overvoltage is minimal, say 140v, for an extended period of several seconds. I also understand the difference between GFCI, fuse, and breaker fully. Having ALL THREE is superior to having 1 or 2. THAT was the point.
This fuse in wall operates very much like the fuses in your electronics, except they don't require voiding warranties to open cases to replace them.
Actually, the little security flap adds about $0.08 to the cost of a socket (about $1 retail given markup). The inline fuse is differnt from a GFI, and instead of allowing the device to die a horrible death and trigger the GFI, it protects the devices from surges in the first place. They use GFI in the breaker box (as the breakers in my new house here in the US also do and it's not the builkding standard in this state as opposed to the expensive GFI sokets I needed all over the place in the old house). Their inline fuse is cheap and simple.
For the cost of a box, outlet, and cover plate, the UK socket might cost $2 more than a US one. Its safer and also protects devices with an additional surge protection barrier (so you don't need a surge stip for every fracking outlet you have more than a lamp plugged into).
Further, because they use round connectors, not flat, it's far less likely you'll bend up a plug, and it's also harder to find household objects you could stick in the hole in the first place. It;s not exactly often i bend up a connetor real bad, but when ui had a dog it more more frequent, and more than once I've had to solder on a new endpiece, which is really a bitch to do btw without the proper tools.
I'm not condoning everyone rip out all their outlets, I'm simply suggesting all new outlets come with a cover and fuse starting now, and all appliances start coming with a newer, better connector (and an adapter to use an older outlet).
People might compain, but they made the same complaint years ago when we added the 3rd prong and people started needing adapters for those. We got over it, and will again.
I'm for a much more straight forward solution across the board: ACCOUTNABILITY.
There are accidents caused by simple mistakes any driver could potentially make. Driving a bit too fast in the rain, reacting to another idiot's move, cutting someone off accidentally, running over a small animal, or any number of vehicular failures; these should all be subject to existing rules.
However, when it can be shown that neglect, or willful distraction (texting, shaving, putting on makeup, fumbing under the seat to find something, etc, leads directly to an accident, then instead of a ticket and simple fine, there should be CRIMINAL action. Severe, life changing penalties potentially including a minimum 30 day imprisonment, heavy fins and leans on property, and punishments up to those on par with charges for vehicular manslaughter if a death or mernanat injury results or for repeat offenders.
Drunk driving carries sever penalties. Not eactly life changing in most states for firs offences, but severe enough to get notice. If texting while driving, and other grossly negligent activityies carried similar penalties, this would stop quick.
To make this easier:
1) Cell phones must be in a dock or cradle and used exclusively hands free. A driver should never have view of a device while in motion except for a GPS.
2) Provide a simple system where passengers in other cars can take photos of drivers violating distraction laws and allow their instant submission to cops so that a vehicle can be dispatched to confirm the activity and arrest the driver (no different than calling 911 to report a suspected drunk driver, except it would include photo or video evidence too).
I don't want some system embedded in every car, at my own cost, to watch me. That's the responsibility of law enforcement and good samaritains. Especially if there is any potential for this technology to be abused for snooping by government or hackers then its a REALLY bad idea. I want a simple system where drives don't do things because the FEAR THE PENALTY, and I do not want people against such a system because they fear being spied on by big brother.
The same applies to speeding. Go on, speed. If we feel it;s excessive, we'll give you a warning and delay for 10-15 minutes while we pour over your driver record and validate your insurace (and notify them in case your speeding is habitual and they'd like to increase your rates slightly for it). Still, no fine or outright penalty unless you actually cause an ACCIDENT speeding, in which case the fine should be very severe...
Well, I suggest a very low tech solution, one that has been successfully deployed from my Great grandfather down through the ranks of the family.
It's called "Don;t make me stop this car." This is followed up by a serious ass kicking the first time you actually do, and then again with stricter and stricter restraints until they practically raise their hand to ask permission to speak to each other in the back seat, let alone you.
Kids will simply not stop unless they are given a significant reason. Simple groundings work for 8+ year olds, but for small children, typically spanking is the only thing that really works effectiveley as they do you yet comprehend forward looking punishment (this is a nuerological fact easily proven). There must be instant punishment for bad actions. Equally, good reward quickly offered for good behavior should be used as further encouragement. (stock lolly pops in the car, not only is it a handy reward, it also limits continued conversation effectively when mouths are full).
Anytime you;re going somewhere with kids, the option to turn back and go home (if you;re driving somewhere they'd like to be), or threatening to change routes and go somewhere they certainly do NOT want to be (dentist!), must lalways be an option.
You might be against physical punishment of your children, and personally I am to keep it at a minimum, but kids do not learn not to touch hot things until they've been burned at least once. A good ass kicking of a 6 year old saves 100 future punishments or more.
accepting that the SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS clearly state "Mac copmputer with intel Processor" clearly indicates the existinace of a prior OEM license.
the 10.6 package actually does indicate 10.5 already be in existance as well as there is no 10.4 to 10.6 migration path using the 10.6 boxed product at $29 (you must buy the Mac Boxed Set at $169, which also clearly indicates it is intended only to upgrade 10.3 or 10.4).
This is clear text on the outside of the box, further clarified by references to apple.com for more detailed system requirements and their EULA full text.
This is considdered FULL legal disclosure pre-sale. It has been argued, and upheld in court, numerous times, for Apple and all other software vendors since back in the 80s when software retail packaging statrted becoming popular, when software could be bought without talking to a sales rep first.
Microsoft may not sell PC hardware, but they DO sell cell phones, music players, game systems, and lots of other hardware.
Also, the non-PC divisions of apple are only 39% of their busines. The bulk, as is referenced by their recent Q4 earnings statement for 2009, is that stong PC slaes was the most direct impact to their 47% profit increase with iPhones flat and ipods faultering.
Custom support, in that Apple needs to identify the Atom and understand it's code set limitations.
OS X uses parts of the microcode (or is moving to further leverage them) that cuase the Atom to be an exception handle.
Further, it;s low performance is something Apple needs to be keenly aware of, as well as it;s chipset features which are lacking.
I did not state the Atom would not run code, but the OS lernel DOES require custom code to ID it and handle exceptions for missing features and lack of performance.
Actually, "Upgrade" appears on the package for both 10.5 and 10.6. Further, the system requirements clearly state "Mac hardware with intel Processor" (older versions also included PPC).
You were not coerced into agreeing to a contract post sale, you were provided ample opportunity to read that EULA pre-sale. Even if you did not read it, you still had the op to return it after opening it, if you read the terms of the EULA it states how to contact apple for that refund. Wether you read the EULA and agreed to it or not does not bind you to the purchase, simply failure to take the advice printed on the box to do so binds you into a potential of having to wait for a refund check. You have no legal obligation to keepm the software until you click "I Agree" and proceed with an install.
EULA has nothing to do with copyrite (though it also spells out exceptions to copyrite includng right to make personal copies, etc, in many cases). EULA is about USE RIGHTS, and LOTS of things come with EULAs beyond software, including Real Estate, equipment Rental Leases, Loans and grants, and dozens of other things.
You do NOT own the software, you purchased a license to use it with. you do own the physical copy of the CD, but a digital download where you acquire no physical media has the same legal restrictions.
You are not allowed to do whatevery you want with a CD either, and laws about that vary from state to state as well. Some clauses in EULAs have been determined by judges to be too restrictive, or contrary to law (as AutoDesk found out about trying to block resale and transfer of license, which IS allowed now), but invalidating part of the EULA does NOT mean the entire EULA is illegal (it;s called the "seperation" clause).
You can use the software from apple for any reason, including commercial, but ONLY on products containing an existing OEM license of that software. Note it claims "appel branded" which could imply 3rd party or authorized clone systems in the future, and this was NOT limited to "apple manufactured" or "apple distributed." Since there are no authorized clones/alternate manufacturers, which tey DO have the legal right to restrict and control and NO apple is NOt a monopoly (which itself would not be illegal if they were) and they are not stifling competition as is evidence by their limited 6% market share.
Well, you also can't tell people they can't resel copies of OS X, as the folks behind AutoCAD found out the expensive way. Even still, invalidating that PART of their EULA still did not invalidate the entire EULA. EULAs are VERY legally binding, and this has been proven out in cour over and over and over again.
It's illegal to discriminate point of sale to who, but it is not illegal to tell someone "though the full install is contained on the media, you may only use this if you already have an OEM copy of our OS on an existing machine".
I can't tell you wnat you can and can't do with my software, but... oh, wait, yes I can. The "Not for Commercial Use" EULA has ALSO been upheld in federal court, so YES, i very well legally CAN tell you that you can or can;t us eit for profit. I can't tell you what you can/can't install into the OS, even including the iPhone, all i can do is refuse to SUPPORT it if you violate my preference, but thats as far as Apple can take that.
Fact is, the license is a upgrade of an OEM copy of OS X. If you don;t have a Mac, it;s NO DIFFERENT that illegally installing a Upgrade version of Windows 7 on a new PC using an OEM copy from another PC as the validation copy.
Also, ytou WERE informed prior to sale, 3 different ways on the outside of the packaging, and all over the website if you bought online... even still, it could be retuend for a full refund, even if opened with seals broken, directly to apple. (you may have to wait a few weeks for a refund check to come in the mail).
The software you bought was an upgrade. It is equally illegal to buy an Upgrade to Windows 7, then buy or build a new PC, and try to migrate an OEM copy of Windows Vista or XP from the old machine to the new one (or worse still keep the old machine running as well).
IF and when apple chooses to offer FULLVERSION retail copies of OS X (don;t hold your breath, the support logistics alone would tripple or more their staffing requirements when tens of millions of people start installing copies), then you'll likely pay $249-359 for that copy. THEN you can install it on the PC of your choice.
Apple has made the requirement of an existing Mac a CLEAR part of the system requirements on the box, and the first line of the product description on the back of the box is "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard, a simpler, more powerful, and more refined version of Mac OS X. "
You have no excuse.
Coercion? Seriously? Explain to a judge exactly how they FORCED you to buy their software, and how you were never informed of the restrictions (even ignoring the packaging and after opening it, it could have been returned to appole if you simply clicked "disagree" to the software EULA for full refund).
Funny you should mention some of these things.
The cereal i had for breakfast had a website address for "additional nutritional informatoin" and also actually suggested I speak to a doctor about the health benefits, risks, and reccomended diat before consuming if i have any existing health conditions.
The chair I'm stting in has a tag indicting I need to read the Ergonomic guide for health and saftey concerns, and absolves the manufacturer from all injury related suits against them for failure to do so. That information is also not printed on the box of any chair I've ever bought.
The Apple box DOES indicate in CLEAR text "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard, a simpler, more powerful, and more refined version of Mac OS X." on the packaging in the product description area, and the first system requirement is a "Mac Computer with intel Processor." Further, there is text indicating the product is governed by an EULA, and information about where to obtain that is on the box.
This is 3 fold indication the product has resatrictions that can be obtained and understood pior to purchase. Your failure to read the EULA is your own, and your lack of understanding of "upgrade" will not be upheld by a court of law. The manufacturer is not required by law to put a big blue sticker with "Upgrade onle" on the box, so long as it is indicated otherwise on the packaging, which it is.
Case closed, par your $100,000 fine for piracy to Apple Co.
Yes, they were.
1: System Requirements Section on the bottom of the box:
Mac computer with an Intel processor
1GB of memory
5GB of available disk space
DVD drive for installation
Some features require a compatible Internet service provider; fees may apply.
Some features require Apple’s MobileMe service; fees and terms apply.
2: first line of product description on the back of the box: "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard, a simpler, more powerful, and more refined version of Mac OS X. " Clearly indicates "upgrade" from an existing OS X installation.
3: Fine print on bottom of box provides EULA and other "reccomended reference" material in the legally required disclaimer area of the package. Your cereal box makes no such disclaimer, and noone expects cerial to have prerequisite requirements. It IS hoever legally accepted as common knowledge that PC software has reqtrictions and requirements, and it would be expected a purchaser would reference that material, which is not only freely provided on the web, but Apple retailers will provide it in print form if requested.
You were given 3 opportunities to undertsant the nature and restriction of the product before purchase. Failure to read the box is not Apple's fault. it HAS been upheld in a court of law that the product simply needs to REFERENCE the license, and the packaging does NOT need to have the entirety printed on hand, provided that license is freely available, which it is.
Your argument is bunk, and only supports a position of one who would wish to violate a clearly defined product restriction.
False. The license ready "by installing you agree..." This type of license has in fact been held up by appelate courts in numerous districts.
You have a right to return the product for full refund to the vendor should you refust the EULA. The local store may not be required to accept your return if the seal is broken, but Apple WILL refund your purchase.
Furhter, the box indicates an address to read the EULA from. The EULA is on hand in print form at all apple retailers per their reseller agreement. The box indicates in the system requirements include "Mac Computer with an Intel Processor." It CLEARLY states on the back of the box "Upgrade from Mac OS X Leopard with Snow Leopard, a simpler, more powerful, and more refined version of Mac OS X."
No, there's not a big blue sticker saying "Upgrade" on it. Howver, it is made clear in all their product documentation, and on the outside of the package, that it is an upgrade-only license, requiring an existing Mac to install it on. Further, the EULA, which CAN be refused, also states the same.
I'll tell you why they talk aboiut their apple products so much. The "Apple Experience" is actually an addictive one, and in some cases, completely changes how people veiw hardware and software, and certainly changes how they use it in their lives.
I started writing code on old Apple II systems. I used a Lisa for a few years and have owned Macs (and clones) using every OS through 9.x. I sold my last mac off in 2002 and have not persionally owned one since. I am an IT analyst for a major firm and simply don't have the time to mess with Macs nor the money to afford numerous systems (even my PC gaming rig is about 2 years out of date, and mid-range at best back then, as i have to scrimp and save to have enough used parts to keep all my other systems running so that I can stay up to par on Microsoft and Linux software i have to use at work).
My family are still all mac users. Mom n Dad, my sister and her husband, my Aunt and uncle, all live locally, and I frequenly have the pleasant experience of working on one of their machines, or helping them do something on it. My wife has since fallen in love with the idea of bringing our camcorder over to my parent's place and editing video on their mac, to the point she has demanded we get our own. I have $2,000 worth of PC video editing software from various vendors, and honestly, even i can't make it do in hours of effort what i can do on a Mac in 30 minutes.
The OS is slick, finding data is easy, backups are by accident, publishing to the web is cake, working with iPhoto is simply so far superior to anythig on the PC it is just pointless to try otherwise, the machines are fast-very fast for the price, and my BIGGEST reason for loving them is that basiccaly, I don't have to MANAGE the machine, it simply takes care of itself. I spend a few hundred every year on security software, and a couple hours a month keeping the systems up to date. Once a year or more I blow a whole weekend either re-installing or rebuilding a PC, it's a god awful pain in the ass, and 9/10 any backups of ther than file level data are useless.
For the 90% of people who work with multimedia, surf the web, make documents and flyers, and play common games (including that 10 of the top 25 games on the market DO run on Mac Os natively, as will every release from Blizard, EA, and even Turbine going forward, but the rest runs easily under bootcamp, and if gaming is all it's used for, security and patching isn't really important, so managing a dual boot mac is easy compared to simply managing a single instance of Windows), fact is, a Mac is all they need, it's unobtrusive in your life, and when you want to do something creative on it, it's ready to oblige.
When you DO have an issue, Apple support's first response is not "format and re-install", they actually try to solve the issue without doing that, and actually take you through simple hardware diagnostics to solve the issue, or you could allways just bring it in to a genius at a local store and they'll fix it for you, free, including support for 3rd party programs... free! I can't even call microsoft without wiping out a credit card, and Dell/HP/Acer simple support break/fix and don;t acctualy support the CUSTOMER (only the hardware, not even including the OS aside from their original factory image).
Having a mac is easy, getting help is easy, it is easily worth the 50 hours a year I save vs having a PC.
For all these reasons and more my wife has a 15" MacBook pro on its way to her now from Apple's factory (placed the order Sunday).
It should be noted, apple's 1/3rd profit point is based on 6% market share. Had they sold just 18%, their profit would equal M$. If they had 25%, it would DWARF microsoft.
Also, Microsoft's MAIN product revenue streams are NOT Windows home licenses. They profits stem MOSTLY from Enterprise systems and server licenses, user CALS, and copies of Office and other productivity software. The OS is the bait to get people to buy the stuff that supports it and runs on it.
Apple's bait is the well running OS which they use to get you to buy a SECOND mac (with over 90% repeat buyers!), then they sell you upgrades and additional software to make profits. You also tend to buy LOTS of other apple products one you own a Mac. The iPhone is fast cbecoming the new bait.
Apple makes such a high profit margin, they could VERY EASILY lower prices and corner the market. Their products are already highly competitive on price. If they released a true bargain mac, dropped prices $200-400 across the board, they'd still make a profit (actually, still better than Dell on average unit sold). unfortunately, Appel simply could not make machines fast enough to handle that, nor could they ramp up support fast enough to handle it. Same goes for selling the Os in a box. I all 90% of us that have windows, and would instantly drop $200 for a retail copy of OS X to install on our existing PC hardware, in months apple would have 2-3 times the user base, and that additional user base would mostly be on comoddity hardware with lackluster performance, and a significant portion would need support. to tripple marketshare by selling an OS in a box, apple would need 4-5 times the support staff, and much stricter policies, and all that would get them is a slew of "this OS sux and does not work on my hardware" complaints.
Apple is growing at a safe 10-15% anually. They can easily maintain that. With their cash reserves, they're building better facilties, better hardware, and better support systems. In 2-3 years they'll be shipping more units than Dell. In 5-6 years they'll be the #1 hardware vendor and have 10-15% of the total OS market (maybe more). If they lowered their prices, or opened the OS to generic hardware, honestly, they could not handle the growth, which is why they have not yet done so.
Exactly. Apple included support for intel x86 processors since alpha development of OS X 10.0, but they did not ENABLE support for it until much later. The Atom is a unique chip. Though Application code runs on it normally, OS level code requires custom support, and since Apple has NO intentions of letting OS X run on netbooks, as the performance of such can not rightly operate the OS in Apple's chosen user experience standards, they have since disabled it.
When they're ready (or rather, when the Atom is ready) Apple can easily re-enable support.
They may not be able to tell you what you can and can not do with the OS, but they CAN tell you what it is legally licensed for, and it is legal to install on Apple Hardware only as that is the only hardware with an existing version of the OS installed on in order to apply the retail box upgrade.
If you buy OS X, you have NOT bought a full version. Should Apple choose to sell a full retail version, it would likely be $329 or higher, and not include iLife. Until then, use of their OS on other hardware is no different from installing a copy of Windows Upgrade as a clean install on a new machine without decommisioning the older version (up upgrading an OEM license onto a new machine). That IS a licence violation, and I personally know people who have been charged by Microsoft for license violations (all of them working for businesses, no individuals, but it no less illegal).
On that we likely agree...
Still, don't market it as a TomTom killer if it's still a beta. I know Google themselves is not making such a fuss, it's mostly clueless media, but the media should be schooled and get it right.
Biggest issue though, it's live, not static data. I'd be fine if it auto-updated data as it had access, but its still useless if i can't use it where there's no connection... That's not a minor change.
Devs have recourse, it's just paperwork, and NUMEROUS denials have been overturned and approved after further study. In fact, short of the apps that CLEARLY violated policies, and those that were determined to be user harrasing apps or spam/useless reppetitive applications very very few apps that have been rejected have not been approved in one form or another at a later date.
Apple does not go out of its way preventing unlocking either , AT&T does... Even still, Apple has made NO criminal threats against any user. They SELL unlocked iPhones in the USA and several other countries. And car dealers? no, they don;t PREVENT you from using unauthorized shops, they just VOID YOUR WARANTY for doing so.
You can install software from other sources, just not through THIER app in an automated fashoion, (though using that app to sync non-apple apps is easy). Unlock it, there are a dozen easy to use tools to do whatever you want with the device.