Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th May 2009 13:27 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Hot on the heels of the Russians, we have another clone maker popping up, this time in fish & chips country: Freedom PC. "Powerful and versatile, environmentally friendly yet inexpensive computer systems compatible with any and all of the main operating systems: Mac OS X, Linux or Windows. So YOU can decide which one to use for what YOU want to do. And we give you a choice of models, too - from the low priced and good looking office machine, the ideal choice for business, to the high powered, sleek, gaming media centre. All, with the operating system of your choice pre-installed - or none at all - at prices accessible to all." They offer various models pre-installed with Windows, Linux, or Mac OS X.
Order by: Score:
Comment by darknexus
by darknexus on Wed 20th May 2009 13:56 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Well, that sure didn't take long. Soon enough every country will have a company like this.
This is why Apple is just going to have to adapt. They can't go after every one of these companies, in every country (some of which they have no legal authority) without throwing huge expendatures of money at the problem and likely failing or at the very least only partly succeeding.
They can start restricting how OS X is sold, but that will be worked around. They can start putting DRM chips in their machines or implement other forms of DRM or activation, and that will be cracked or bypassed within weeks.
Obviously, Apple did not see this coming, and they should have. The second they moved to using standard PC hardware, this was inevitably going to happen. Rather than counting on their eula to protect them from this, they really should have either stayed with PPC/Openfirmware (in which case running OS X on standard PCs would be a non-issue) or have made plans to deal with this situation effectively, either by licensing the right to create Mac-compatible clones or by not restricting the installation of OS X but offering no support to those who install it on a non-Apple configuration. If they're worried about hardware sales dropping in the latter case, then they could raise the price of OS X by a relatively small amount and still keep it cheaper than a fully-loaded Windows.
Bottom line: The cat's out of the bag and there's no way they can force it back in. They can fight, tooth and nail, against this and may win a few battles, but they will inevitably lose the war.

Edited 2009-05-20 13:58 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by darknexus
by PowerMacX on Wed 20th May 2009 15:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by darknexus"
PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

Well, that sure didn't take long. Soon enough every country will have a company like this.
This is why Apple is just going to have to adapt. They can't go after every one of these companies, in every country (some of which they have no legal authority) without throwing huge expendatures of money at the problem and likely failing or at the very least only partly succeeding.[...]


I find this line of reasoning repeated in every single story about Pystar & friends, but I don't see it as valid. You can make the same argument about almost anything, from software piracy to drunk driving. Is the fact that is "hard" to fight a reason not to bother at all?

The basic excuse used for preinstalling Mac OS X and violating the EULA seems to boil down to "I paid for it, I can install it anywhere I want, no matter what the EULA may say".
The problem with that is that if you ignore that EULA you may just as well ignore *any* licensing terms, so long as you don't violate copyright.
But... what happens then to "upgrade" licenses? Any upgrade that doesn't check for previous versions installs (as a convenience to the buyer) could be installed "legally" even if you don't actually own a previous version, as long as you ignore the fact the the license required it. And if it does check for previous license, by the same line of reasoning that makes people think it would be "valid" to remove any check Apple may add to Mac OS X to make sure you only install it on a Mac, it would be "valid" to remove a similar "check from previous versions" from upgrades.

What do upgrades have to do with Mac OS X? At some point, Apple used to label all OS releases as "upgrades", after all, since you can't buy a Mac without some version of Mac OS preinstalled, any later version could be considered an upgrade. They don't do that now, instead they simply say "to be installed only on Apple-labeled computers".
Upgrades are cheaper because you already paid for a previous version. Mac OS X, at $129 (compared to a full Vista which used to cost upwards $400), is to me an "upgrade" price, because by the EULA you are supposed to have paid for a Mac with a previous version already.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by darknexus
by Gunderwo on Wed 20th May 2009 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by darknexus"
Gunderwo Member since:
2006-01-03


The problem with that is that if you ignore that EULA you may just as well ignore *any* licensing terms, so long as you don't violate copyright.


This is where you're wrong. The issue is with a single clause in the EULA that states that you can only install Mac OS X on apple branded hardware. The issue is with the *single* clause that may violate a consumers right to do whatever they wish with a product they bought.

Saying that if this case is lost that we may as well throw out all EULAs is silly. It's like saying we found an invalid, unenforcable clause in a contract so all contracts are now null and void.

Please stop confusing the issue. The issue is with what rights does a consumer have to do what they choose with a product that they bought.

Reply Score: 5

v RE[3]: Comment by darknexus
by mrammb on Wed 20th May 2009 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by darknexus"
RE[4]: Comment by darknexus
by Gunderwo on Wed 20th May 2009 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by darknexus"
Gunderwo Member since:
2006-01-03

So let's say you buy a gun. It's yours... Can you go out and start shooting people just because you own the gun?


No, that would be murder.

I could however, buy a gun, refurbish it and re sell it if I wish. Provided I stay within any safety regulations that may come into play in respect to selling something that could be lethal, like a gun.

I don't see what this has to do with selling software though.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by darknexus
by bluedodo on Wed 20th May 2009 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by darknexus"
bluedodo Member since:
2006-03-26

So let's say you buy a gun. It's yours... Can you go out and start shooting people just because you own the gun?

Yes you could and you won't go to jail because you violated the Eula that came with the gun, I'm pretty sure they don't have one. You will go to jail for shooting people. So really your example is more like buying a Mac and then using it for identity theft. You've bought something and decided to break laws with it, the Eula however doesn't prohibit you from braking these laws so your example is invalid.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by darknexus
by PowerMacX on Wed 20th May 2009 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by darknexus"
PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

If my comment had indeed consisted of only the part you quoted, yes. But that was an introduction to the example about upgrades and a possible interpretation of that specific controversial clause in the EULA.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by darknexus
by Gunderwo on Wed 20th May 2009 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by darknexus"
Gunderwo Member since:
2006-01-03

If my comment had indeed consisted of only the part you quoted, yes. But that was an introduction to the example about upgrades and a possible interpretation of that specific controversial clause in the EULA.


But the issue that is being contested in a *Trial* has nothing to do with upgrading. Apple has never made any statements about using an upgrade copy being the reason that they are suing Psystar. So your point is moot.

With a name like PowerMacX you're obviously biased about this subject and grasping at straws trying to make it seem like Psystar and others are clearly wrong.

The fact is the issue is about a single clause in the EULA that has nothing to do with upgrades or making the whole EULA in applicable.

I don't know whether the clause is enforceable or not. And my opinion on whether it should be or not is just another opinion of a non lawyer so I won't even go there. But please stop trying to muddy the waters by bringing up a bunch of irrelevant points.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by darknexus
by PowerMacX on Wed 20th May 2009 23:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by darknexus"
PowerMacX Member since:
2005-11-06

With a name like PowerMacX you're obviously biased about this subject and grasping at straws trying to make it seem like Psystar and others are clearly wrong.

The fact is the issue is about a single clause in the EULA that has nothing to do with upgrades or making the whole EULA in applicable.

I don't know whether the clause is enforceable or not. And my opinion on whether it should be or not is just another opinion of a non lawyer so I won't even go there. But please stop trying to muddy the waters by bringing up a bunch of irrelevant points.


First, I'm not trying to say they are *clearly* wrong, just describing why *I* think that single clause isn't necessarily invalid. As for the whole EULA, previous articles on this very same subject have mentioned that very same point: whether EULAS are enforceable at all or not.

Second, if you only care about what lawyers have to say, then why bother commenting at all? Let's just wait until the judge decides. But, where is the fun in that? :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by darknexus
by Gunderwo on Thu 21st May 2009 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by darknexus"
Gunderwo Member since:
2006-01-03

I don't have an issue with discussing your opinion on what the verdict should be regarding fair usage of a product you bought and whether those rights can be withheld in an EULA. I won't comment on them because my opinion has been stated dozens of times by others. I would suggest that any opinion you have has also been said dozens of times already to.

My issue is with your initial comment is that it is addressing a whole bunch of other points like whether EULAs are enforceable, whether it matters if it's an upgrade copy, or the completely ridiculous statement that finding one invalid clause will invalidate the entire EULA.

The case against Psystar has nothing to do with these issues so discussing them in regards to this case is irrelevant. All your trying to do is bring up a bunch of strawman arguments that have absolutely no bearing on what is really going on.

It's a classic example of feeling like you are in a a weak position in your argument so you bring up a whole bunch of other irrelevant crap. I've seen it several times and this time I've decided to feed the troll and say how silly you sound.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by darknexus
by kaiwai on Thu 21st May 2009 03:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by darknexus"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

This is where you're wrong. The issue is with a single clause in the EULA that states that you can only install Mac OS X on apple branded hardware. The issue is with the *single* clause that may violate a consumers right to do whatever they wish with a product they bought.

Saying that if this case is lost that we may as well throw out all EULAs is silly. It's like saying we found an invalid, unenforcable clause in a contract so all contracts are now null and void.

Please stop confusing the issue. The issue is with what rights does a consumer have to do what they choose with a product that they bought.


How is their requirement to be loaded onto an Apple computer any different to say a vendor who offers an upgrade version of their software with the requirement that you're a licence holder of an older version or have installed a legally acquired older version before the install can continue?

Sure, you could go out right now, buy a copy of Windows Vista upgrade and bypass the upgrade checker - which can be done through installing once without a serial then running the installer again but this time putting in the serial thus the installer thinks there is an older version installed. Because you can do it - does it make it legal?

Microsoft requiring you to have installed an older version before an upgrade can occur - is that a violation of your 'rights'? by you demanding that one piece about 'install on Apple hardware taken away' - Apple's requirements are no different to the requirements made for upgrading and thus do you want the upgrade based licensed be dismissed as illegal as well?

How about their requirement that I must be a student or a non-commercial user to use a given piece of software? isn't that a violation of my rights to use the software as I see fit? after all, I did pay for the software so why the heck should the software vendor remotely care whether I am using it in a commercial environment?

If we're going to talk about 'I paid for it and I should be allowed to use it as I see fit' then I think you need to look at the run off effect of such a declaration and how it impacts on the EULA in its entirety.

Edited 2009-05-21 03:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by darknexus
by Gunderwo on Thu 21st May 2009 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by darknexus"
Gunderwo Member since:
2006-01-03


How is their requirement to be loaded onto an Apple computer any different to say a vendor who offers an upgrade version of their software with the requirement that you're a licence holder of an older version or have installed a legally acquired older version before the install can continue?

Sure, you could go out right now, buy a copy of Windows Vista upgrade and bypass the upgrade checker - which can be done through installing once without a serial then running the installer again but this time putting in the serial thus the installer thinks there is an older version installed. Because you can do it - does it make it legal?

Microsoft requiring you to have installed an older version before an upgrade can occur - is that a violation of your 'rights'? by you demanding that one piece about 'install on Apple hardware taken away' - Apple's requirements are no different to the requirements made for upgrading and thus do you want the upgrade based licensed be dismissed as illegal as well?

How about their requirement that I must be a student or a non-commercial user to use a given piece of software? isn't that a violation of my rights to use the software as I see fit? after all, I did pay for the software so why the heck should the software vendor remotely care whether I am using it in a commercial environment?

If we're going to talk about 'I paid for it and I should be allowed to use it as I see fit' then I think you need to look at the run off effect of such a declaration and how it impacts on the EULA in its entirety.


I would suggest that each of the cases that you listed above would have to be looked at separately. While they may seem similar on the surface in that they all limit what you can do with the software after you buy it, there are also some very different circumstances to consider in all the above cases.

So any decision made in regards to not allowing a user to install a legitimately purchased, complete copy of Mac OS X on non Apple branded hardware would not be a precedent to throw out the rest of the EULA however similar they may seem on the surface. The other circumstances specific to each clause must be considered as well. Throwing out all such clauses because fault is found in one would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'm not going to argue one way or another on what is acceptable, that is for a judge to decide. But I would prefer to make it crystal clear that all of these issues are separate and the only issue being decided in the Apple vs. Psystar case is whether or not is acceptable to install a legally purchased, complete version of Mac OS X on non Apple hardware and then resell it. Bring up anything else is just a strawman argument.

Edited 2009-05-21 06:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by darknexus
by kaiwai on Thu 21st May 2009 06:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by darknexus"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I would suggest that each of the cases that you listed above would have to be looked at separately. While they may seem similar on the surface in that they all limit what you can do with the software after you buy it, there are also some very different circumstances to consider in all the above cases.

So any decision made in regards to not allowing a user to install a legitimately purchased, complete copy of Mac OS X on non Apple branded hardware would not be a precedent to throw out the rest of the EULA however similar they may seem on the surface. The other circumstances specific to each clause must be considered as well. Throwing out all such clauses because fault is found in one would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I'm not going to argue one way or another on what is acceptable, that is for a judge to decide. But I would prefer to make it crystal clear that all of these issues are separate and the only issue being decided in the Apple vs. Psystar case is whether or not is acceptable to install a legally purchased, complete version of Mac OS X on non Apple hardware and then resell it. Bring up anything else is just a strawman argument.


Who said anything about throwing out the 'baby with the bath water' - you need to take a reading class because I specifically bought up two scenarios which are exactly the same as restricting what hardware one can load the software onto. How is upgrades and academic licence restrictions ANY DIFFERENT to restricting what hardware someone can load Mac OS X onto? either put up or shut up.

As for your quip of "Bring up anything else is just a strawman argument" is a load of bullcrap - you're simply stating that because you don't want to address the issue, line by line, subject by subject, statement by statement. You want to be able to scream to high heavens with none of your content being dare questioned. What is worse is your pathetic strawman argument claiming that people like me want to do away with EULA and yet provide NO EVIDENCE to prove it.

This isn't a separate issue; everything is linked and related to everything else; you may like to have an isolated one track mind by the world doesn't operate like your mind does; one event acts as a precedent to another action, one judgement is used as a precedent to another - stop living in this lalala land where there are no repocusions by decisions and actions of others; that everything some how occur in isolation.

Edited 2009-05-21 06:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by darknexus
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 21st May 2009 06:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by darknexus"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Upgrade license cases might indeed be similar to Apple's hardware restriction clause - but that doesn't invalidate in any way the assertion that Apple's clause is unlawful. I don't think that was your point, Kaiwai, but I can see how others might thinks it was.

And in that case, it most certainly would be a strawman. No matter how overused and bland that term has become ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by darknexus
by Gunderwo on Thu 21st May 2009 07:11 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by darknexus"
Gunderwo Member since:
2006-01-03

Calm down buddy. Maybe you should look a little deeper before you start getting all worked up. But seeing as how you're a little too jumpy for that allow me to explain in more detail.

Student Copies: Student copies are sold as such. The box clearly states that the copy is for students only and then there is generally some sort of documentation indicating what constitutes a student. Hence student copies aren't determined by some clause in a EULA, the box itself tells you you must be a student to use it. Also, In order to determine the legality of charging a different amount of money to different people the courts would have to decide if there are any sort of constitutional rights being violated by segmenting a market by your educational status. Precedents such as charging different amounts for seniors or children may be brought up. All the above are unique circumstances to the case of selling student copies.

Upgrade copies: One would need to ask how is the software determining that there is an existing installation. Is it using software detection? Has a user done something to circumvent or fake an old copy? Is altering software to satisfy the condition acceptable? See a whole another *SEPARATE* set of circumstances.

So yes these 2 arguments you have brought forth are not *EXACTLY* the same. I have just listed several circumstances that are different for both and I likely have only scratched the surface. So yes, if you would like to believe that because one clause in the EULA being overturned would also mean that other similar clauses will be null and void then you are "throwing the baby out with the bath water." And trying to bring up these other similar but not exactly the same examples is making a straw man argument because those cases really have nothing to do with the case that is being discussed.

Sorry I wasn't clear enough Kawai, you generally seem to be pretty good at thinking things through but apparently you're a little off tonight because to anyone with a modicum of logic would understand that these are not identical cases.

Edited 2009-05-21 07:15 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by darknexus
by darknexus on Wed 20th May 2009 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by darknexus"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I'm not arguing the morality of this situation, just saying how I see it.
However, remember a few things:
1. The entire eula is not in question, merely the clause prohibiting the installation of OS X onto non-Apple machines. Personally, I hope that this clause is found to be invalid, and not necessarily because I want to install OS X on a non-Mac, but rather because this amounts to a post-sale restriction which should by all applicable laws here in the U.S be shot down. If that one clause is voided, the eula itself still remains in tact minus that one clause, and no other eula is affected directly. However, a similar clause in other eulas, if found, will be determined based on the results of this case, i.e. a precedent will be set.
2. This particular clause is not legal everywhere. It's being contested here in the U.S, whereas in other countries it is already blatantly unenforceable under their laws. So, depending on the laws of the country in question, this may be perfectly legal and aboveboard.

It is not pointless to fight a losing battle, but it is pointless to continue with a strategy that is clearly not working. This is what Apple's legal bs on this issue currently amounts to; Even if they win the battle here, in the U.S, they're not likely to win it everywhere. You can win most of the battles but still lose the war in the end.

Reply Score: 4

What's the point of cloning a Mac?
by Liquidator on Wed 20th May 2009 15:20 UTC
Liquidator
Member since:
2007-03-04

I mean...The value-added of a Mac its its shining look. Its material (aluminum), and its shapes. They look gorgeous, but I think OS X is definitely not better than other OSes, I even found a how-to on the web that explains how to install Vista on an Intel Mac. I don't understand why people would pick the worst of both worlds (cheap case + OS X). Doesn't make sense to me. If it's because of Photoshop, cheap graphic designers can use Photoshop on Windows (and Linux using Crossover or WINE).

Reply Score: 2

werfu Member since:
2005-09-15

The point to Mac are that many people are filled up with Windows sucking donkey and dont have time for tuning Linux. Mac OS X just work. No assle, intuitive UI, nice well-integrated eye candies. Take an average Windows user, put it onto Mac for a year and then ask him if he'd like to go back to Windows. I know many people that have done the switch and never they'd want to switch back to Windows.

The problem with clones, is they break the advantage of Macs. If the integrator haven't done his job well enough, they wont just work out of the box and the people will have to tune them.

In a sense, Mac OS X has to be preconfigured first than will be usable for a long time. It's about the same you could do with a Ubuntu you'd fine tune for your mom than you disable system updates to lock the softwares in their current status. Windows simply can't get the cut with this... How many times have I seen systems getting clunky and slow over time simply because Windows haven't been reinstalled.

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The problem with clones, is they break the advantage of Macs. If the integrator haven't done his job well enough, they wont just work out of the box and the people will have to tune them.


Well, if they are so bad, then what does Apple have to fear? People will still buy Macs, right? Since they are so much superior and totally worth the money, right? What's the problem for Apple? What is Apple so afraid of, if these clones are so bad as everyone says they are?

The answer is, of course, that if given actual bloody choice, people will buy cheap, because they simply don't care about computers in the way that we do.

And that's the problem for Apple. Right now, there's a demographic that puts up with Apple's limited hardware choice, buying machines that are simply not the right fit for them i.e. they would be happier with the infamous xMac, since that means they can keep their screen.

And clone makers offer xMacs. And as soon as this has been declared completely legal (as I'm relatively sure it will be), Apple will be in a world of trouble.

Just like last time.

Reply Score: 3

digitaleon Member since:
2006-01-22

Just like last time.

Not quite. When I look back, I perceive two stark differences between the situation now and the situation 12 - 15 years ago.

1. The Apple brand is considerably stronger now. I believe this is more due to their recent non-Macintosh work: iPods, iTunes Stores, iPhones, changes to online stores, Retail store efforts (even though these are largely U.S. centric so far), various software, more 'vertical integration', and so on. I like to think of this as the true 'halo effect' (i.e. in raising the profile of their Macintosh lines, independent of whether it drives sales of those of not).

Like you, I live outside of the U.S., and I recall it being quite difficult to find Macintoshes at anything other than dedicated resellers 12 - 15 years ago. Now, they're fairly easy to find... along with iPods, iPhones, iTunes Music Store gift cards, and so forth. Apple have also managed to significantly increase traffic to their online sites, including their online stores, over time.

No doubt the cloners are selling a product which can run Mac OS X well, has a price/performance advantage, and certainly has a market ready and waiting. But without Apple's blessing (which the cloners had last time, and which I don't see Apple conferring in the near future), it's debatable whether these advantages alone will draw enough customers away from Apple to cause significant changes to their business model or pricing.

As you would be only too well aware, the history of computing is littered with those who had good products at good prices and yet failed to take off.

2. The Operating System question has been solved. I don't think it's a stretch to say Mac OS X is much better regarded and much more popular than System 7 was, and Apple aren't looking to replace Mac OS X (as they were System 7 then).

I recall this factor did limit the appeal of Macintoshes generally the last time around - regardless of whether it was Apple selling them or cloners - which defeated the purpose of the program, since it couldn't generate significant sales in markets not already interested. Ironically, these clones may in fact succeed, for those (few) cases where the brand strength isn't an issue, since the appeal of Mac OS X is essentially what the market for the cloners is built upon.



All of that said, as a long-time Macintosh user, I do agree with the rest of your post and would be very happy to see some changes in mentality of Apple the company. Wait and see, I guess.

Edited 2009-05-20 20:20 UTC

Reply Score: 1

OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Well, if they are so bad, then what does Apple have to fear? People will still buy Macs, right? Since they are so much superior and totally worth the money, right? What's the problem for Apple? What is Apple so afraid of, if these clones are so bad as everyone says they are?


The answer is simple Thom: "Money, Power" but there is more to this....

1. Image & Reputation. If someome who doesn't know anything about Macs gets one of these clones and they don't work that well as an orignal Mac, the average user would think it's the OS and this will create bad image & reputation to Apple.

2. EULA

3. Money, lost sales

4. Because they can

Anyway, I don't see Apple winning on this one. They will eventually run out of money if they go after every one of them.

There is a cure. They can create better DRM that requires activation and without the authentic DRM chip, you won't be able to activate your copy.

Edited 2009-05-21 09:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There is a cure. They can create better DRM that requires activation and without the authentic DRM chip, you won't be able to activate your copy.


...which will be cracked in an instant (like al DRM is), making it wasted money.

Reply Score: 1

OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

I personally dislike Apple's business practices but not Apple's products. I believe Apple does make some really nice products but due to their business practices, I have no intentions of getting one. I have never owned anything by Apple.

Reply Score: 2

ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

"There is a cure. They can create better DRM that requires activation and without the authentic DRM chip, you won't be able to activate your copy.


...which will be cracked in an instant (like al DRM is), making it wasted money.
"

Tell that to the Tivo users. Begining with a certain revision of the popular Series 2 models, they included a PROM that has to be altered before you can do anything to the software. There are some guides with poor documentation that gives basic step by step instructions on how to modify the chip, but suffice to say there is no industry for this.

Cisco has long used hardware cookies in various appliances that had Linux as the OS, but there is not one single method that I am aware of that allows you to work around this.

Sure the onboard chip may have very well have a hack, but a patented device could very will limit to the most extremes the ability of these clone makers.

Also, in refering to "post-sales" usage, I think the argument is easy to make that this is pre-sale license requirement that is legal. I think the conflict here is these companies which are selling clones. It is one thing of someone buys OSX and installs it at home, but another to try and market a Apple clone. Seems very familiar to those companies in the 1980s that made clone cars of Ferraris, and other exotics. Most were litigated to hell.

Reply Score: 1

Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

Ok, this is really subjective. I disagree with the above.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

How many times have I seen systems getting clunky and slow over time simply because Windows haven't been reinstalled.


Stop using that old win98 cd to installs, and you'd probably stop seeing that.

Windows hasn't really done that in years, unless you spend all your time downloading and installing/uninstalling software. If that's all you do with your computer, Linux or OS X would also suffer.

Reply Score: 3

thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

Actually, Windows does get much slower the more you use it. I have to use it at work. As a programmer, I have 2k, 2k3, XP, Vista and more recently 7. (not sure about 7 yet or 2k (as I hardly use that one)) but all the others "slow down" over time with the exception of Vista as much as it was already pitifully slow to begin with and hard to gauge how much slower it is (7 seems so much nicer than Vista).

But you are right, I also have OS X (10.5.7 now) running on 2 systems and both of them aren't nearly as "zippy" as they once were. On one of them I ran iDefrag (from a boot disk) which cleaned up the drive completely, but didn't speed the machine up any. I don't run extensions to the OS or anything like that, I'm not running Time Machine either. I will do a complete restore when Snowy comes out.

Having said all that though, all the machines I use are "usable", esp. Vista if you turn off effects etc...

If anyone knows anyway of speeding up Leopard, please let me know...

Reply Score: 2

bannor99 Member since:
2005-09-15

Keep telling yourself that. I can't speak for OSX but
while Windows became much better starting with Win 2000,
it's still prone to the slowdown effect, which I've never seen in the Linux distros I've used over the last decade, and I've beaten the stuffing out of them.

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Keep telling yourself that. I can't speak for OSX but
while Windows became much better starting with Win 2000,
it's still prone to the slowdown effect, which I've never seen in the Linux distros I've used over the last decade, and I've beaten the stuffing out of them.


I don't have to keep telling myself anything. I can see it with my own eyes. I have seen it with Linux distros, like I said, my desktop exhibits it, and I have beaten the hell out of it. It's inevitable with any OS, it all depends on the usage.

I have a win2k3 vm I use for development. Other than updates, it's been etched in stone for 5 years. It started out life on real hardware. It still runs smooth as silk.

I guess what I should have said is that it's a usage pattern sort of thing, and Windows is no worse than any other OS in this regard, and hasn't been for quite a while.

Reply Score: 1

fsck Member since:
2005-07-06

Let me preface this by saying I've used every version of windows since 2.0 up until Windows 2003 / XP-64 (which is internally a server disabled, rebranded version of Win 2003). (FYI I found win98 ok, win2k terrible, XP ok, and XP-64/2003 much better on the slowdown front).

There's one huge flaw with your argument. The slow down problem by its very nature cannot happen without anything to slow it down. The problem is modern Linux distributions don't leave a fragmented database with lots of redundant entries behind, and package managers remove redundant files. Lets ignore my and a large majority of users experience of it not happening for a moment and lets be logical and ask the questions:
How is it slowing down?
What is causing it?
Why?

If it is doing so, there must be a reason, right?

We can quite easily find reasons why it happens in Windows and we can quite easily find reasons why it does not happen in other operating systems but is the reverse true? Having read your post I have been unable to find any reasoning or understanding, just misinformation.

If you uninstall a package, like say, abiword the only things left behind are text config files that only abiword reads - nothing will slow down. It theoretically cannot happen.

I cannot reiterate enough how much this will not happen due to installing and uninstalling on Linux.

With mac as far as I know you literally just drop a self contained program in a folder onto your drive with all dependences. so presumably when you remove it it leaves nothing behind either. As far as I know this is a windows only phenomenon.

It's much easier to see why this happens when you understand how the system works.

Edited 2009-05-21 13:15 UTC

Reply Score: 1

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Let me preface this by saying I've used every version of windows since 2.0 up until Windows 2003 / XP-64 (which is internally a server disabled, rebranded version of Win 2003). (FYI I found win98 ok, win2k terrible, XP ok, and XP-64/2003 much better on the slowdown front).

There's one huge flaw with your argument. The slow down problem by its very nature cannot happen without anything to slow it down. The problem is modern Linux distributions don't leave a fragmented database with lots of redundant entries behind, and package managers remove redundant files. Lets ignore my and a large majority of users experience of it not happening for a moment and lets be logical and ask the questions:
How is it slowing down?
What is causing it?
Why?[\q]

already answered, if you do nothing to the machine, then nothing will slow it down. Just like my win2k3 VM. If you mess with it all the time, then it will get slower as crap accumulates. All three questions answered.

It's not just the registry, it's also drivers installed by some app, and not removed by that apps setup program (clearly not Windows fault), drive fragmentation (it happens, defrag that drive once in a while) too many startup programs, full disk drives (doesn't just happen in windows, though not having a dedicated swap partition makes this much worse), huge search paths, I can go on for days...

If it is doing so, there must be a reason, right?

We can quite easily find reasons why it happens in Windows and we can quite easily find reasons why it does not happen in other operating systems but is the reverse true? Having read your post I have been unable to find any reasoning or understanding, just misinformation.

[q]If you uninstall a package, like say, abiword the only things left behind are text config files that only abiword reads - nothing will slow down. It theoretically cannot happen.


Theoretically, man can't fly either, but I am flying next week. Theoretically, nothing can travel faster than light, but quantum entanglement shows that information can.

A lot of apps do more than just add or change some config files. and sometimes, changes to config files don't go away when you uninstall an app. a networking app or an update can change the duplex setting of the NIC, instant slowdown. Theory disproved. Or, a new version of xorg comes down, and because of new features, it's a bit slower than the old version. Things like this can and do happen.

One thing I do know for sure, is that the latest kernel available for lenny, 2.6.26, seems a bit slower than the one that was distributed when Lenny was first released. I can see the difference in speed when I boot the older kernel (2.6.24, I believe) and watch the system start up, and then again in normal usage. (I have bootsplash turned off).

I cannot reiterate enough how much this will not happen due to installing and uninstalling on Linux.


I disagree, because my Lenny desktop at home proves it. The thing was damn fast when I first installed it, and after a couple of years, it is visibly slower. My Ubuntu desktop went the same way, only much quicker. I've seen it on fedora core too, but it's been a while since I used it, so I couldn't tell which version.

With mac as far as I know you literally just drop a self contained program in a folder onto your drive with all dependences. so presumably when you remove it it leaves nothing behind either. As far as I know this is a windows only phenomenon.


Linux doesn't work like that, you scatter files and stuff all over, not as bad as windows, but it's not neat and tidy like one dir == one app.

It's much easier to see why this happens when you understand how the system works.


I understand how the system works, do you? I am speaking from personal experience, but you can go ahead and discount it, just because you haven't experienced it yourself. Perhaps you only surf the web and chatter on messenger, if that's all you use it for, then you might not notice any slowdowns either.

You haven't offered any concrete reasons why it couldn't happen, other than some muttering about only touching config files and that it "theoretically couldn't happen"

Reply Score: 2

fsck Member since:
2005-07-06

already answered, if you do nothing to the machine, then nothing will slow it down. Just like my win2k3 VM. If you mess with it all the time, then it will get slower as crap accumulates. All three questions answered.

I dont see how "crap" accumulates in a system that removes all but text config files when uninstalling applications.

It's not just the registry, it's also drivers installed by some app, and not removed by that apps setup program (clearly not Windows fault)

Really? I dont have this problem on Linux, because it supports my hardware natively. No bs with scattering drivers with faulty install software all over the place and configs I cant remove easily.

drive fragmentation (it happens, defrag that drive once in a while)

First of all everything fragments - that's a desperate argument and not one fixable with software (but with flash drives when they take over). Secondly EXT3 and EXT4 have near legendary status in terms of preventing fragmentation. The problem is horrendous on ntfs. Sure it's in no way unique to windows but much worse than nearly any other file system.

too many startup programs

You can just turn them off on linux. a lot of software on windows is extremely insidious the way it integrates with the os (not Microsoft fault however they do make it easy to do so though hooks for example anti virus software)

Theoretically, man can't fly either, but I am flying next week.

Technically you're in a machine that can fly. That's just a ridiculous statement.

Theoretically, nothing can travel faster than light, but quantum entanglement shows that information can.
Just because it's not accepted with classical thinking does not mean it is false. I was pointing out the lack of basis(in argument) for your assertions with no reasoning behind how it is possible.


A lot of apps do more than just add or change some config files. and sometimes, changes to config files don't go away when you uninstall an app. a networking app or an update can change the duplex setting of the NIC, instant slowdown.

Which you can manually change without massive obfuscation like in Windows. Where some even problems are simply unfixable without just starting over (which is quite absurd when you think about it).

Or, a new version of xorg comes down, and because of new features, it's a bit slower than the old version. Things like this can and do happen.

So you literally have to resort to bugs (or regressions and hence mistakes - human error) as an example of how Windows is not unique in slow down situations? I think that proves my entire point.

One thing I do know for sure, is that the latest kernel available for lenny, 2.6.26, seems a bit slower than the one that was distributed when Lenny was first released. I can see the difference in speed when I boot the older kernel (2.6.24, I believe) and watch the system start up, and then again in normal usage. (I have bootsplash turned off).

There is a specific regression between 2.6.26 and 2.6.28 that cause this. It has already been fixed. Has anyone fixed the slow down in windows 95-98-me-2000-XP-Xp64-2003 ? No.

I disagree, because my Lenny desktop at home proves it. The thing was damn fast when I first installed it, and after a couple of years, it is visibly slower.

Likely the previously mentioned regression which has been fixed is the cause (there is an article on Phoronix about it if you're interested

My Ubuntu desktop went the same way, only much quicker. I've seen it on fedora core too, but it's been a while since I used it, so I couldn't tell which version.

I'm currently(and primarily) a fedora user fyi. Not experienced that.

Linux doesn't work like that, you scatter files and stuff all over, not as bad as windows, but it's not neat and tidy like one dir == one app.
That is why I said mac. Mac is not Linux. As mentioned before linux does not have this problem either due to effective package management.

I understand how the system works, do you?

You don't seem to know about the differences in file systems, mention already fixed bugs as a problem while ignoring endemic problems in software design that has been available (and unfixed) for years(registry, no effective software management system) and seem to be confusing Mac and Linux.

I am speaking from personal experience, but you can go ahead and discount it, just because you haven't experienced it yourself.

That's not my intention. I'm saying: If there is a problem explain where it is, what is causing it and how it is possible because it doesn't seem to be one that effects more than a small minority. For all I know it could be anything from poor hardware choices to faulty ram to some huge architectural problem but nothing verifiable is given to back up any statements - completely unfounded.

Perhaps you only surf the web and chatter on messenger, if that's all you use it for, then you might not notice any slowdowns either.

I'm currently writing a book, I play games every now and then(modern), I used to be an IT Consultant and do a lot of software development, dvd authoring, I'm currently on a graphic design course and have a lot of high end audio applications. I do other things too and if you had commented on Linux being deficient in some of those areas I would certainly agree but there seems to be nothing behind your statements other than just claims.

You haven't offered any concrete reasons why it couldn't happen, other than some muttering about only touching config files and that it "theoretically couldn't happen"

Except for the whole system of installation/uninstallation and isolated storage of config data I suggest you read my post again.
Ah so you're using the "Prove god doesn't exist" argument? I can see i've wasted my time then.

Edited 2009-05-21 17:29 UTC

Reply Score: 1

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

With mac as far as I know you literally just drop a self contained program in a folder onto your drive with all dependences. so presumably when you remove it it leaves nothing behind either.


Ah, if only it were that simple. Some apps come as self-contained bundles, and installing them is as easy as you describe. However, on first run, many of them install additional system files, services, and other components, and those do not get removed when you delete the app, neither do the configuration files in your user folder although those aren't usually a problem. Everything has to be removed manually, as Apple provides absolutely no uninstall facilities in OS X. Yes, you read that right, none whatsoever.
These are bad enough... but worse, some larger apps are distributed as pkg files. These are installers very similar to Windows installers, and yes they put a lot of files in various places. If you're lucky, the app will come with its own uninstaller... if you're very lucky, the uninstaller will be written correctly and remove everything the pkg installed. If not, you're absolutely on your own, as Apple provides no way to uninstall pkgs or even track which files have been installed and where by which pkgs.
Over time, this makes Mac OS X slow down a great deal. In my experience it takes longer to happen than it does in WinXP or Vista, but it does happen nevertheless... and cleaning out an OS X system can be a nightmare once it gets to that state.

Reply Score: 2

fsck Member since:
2005-07-06


Ah, if only it were that simple. Some apps come as self-contained bundles, and installing them is as easy as you describe. However, on first run, many of them install additional system files, services, and other components, and those do not get removed when you delete the app, neither do the configuration files in your user folder although those aren't usually a problem. Everything has to be removed manually, as Apple provides absolutely no uninstall facilities in OS X. Yes, you read that right, none whatsoever.
These are bad enough... but worse, some larger apps are distributed as pkg files. These are installers very similar to Windows installers, and yes they put a lot of files in various places. If you're lucky, the app will come with its own uninstaller... if you're very lucky, the uninstaller will be written correctly and remove everything the pkg installed. If not, you're absolutely on your own, as Apple provides no way to uninstall pkgs or even track which files have been installed and where by which pkgs.
Over time, this makes Mac OS X slow down a great deal. In my experience it takes longer to happen than it does in WinXP or Vista, but it does happen nevertheless... and cleaning out an OS X system can be a nightmare once it gets to that state.

Heh. I'm not and have never been a Mac user so I made sure to preface with "afaik". The package management systems (and repository systems) may have their faults.....but when they work well - they work very well. Makes me glad to be a Linux user. I find it a bit strange Apple would lack any uninstall facility for pkg files, doesn't seem to be aligned with their "make everything intuitive" ethos.

Reply Score: 1

DavidSan Member since:
2008-11-18

With mac as far as I know you literally just drop a self contained program in a folder onto your drive with all dependences. so presumably when you remove it it leaves nothing behind either.

Ah, if only it were that simple. Some apps come as self-contained bundles, and installing them is as easy as you describe. However, on first run, many of them install additional system files, services, and other components, and those do not get removed when you delete the app, neither do the configuration files in your user folder although those aren't usually a problem. Everything has to be removed manually, as Apple provides absolutely no uninstall facilities in OS X. Yes, you read that right, none whatsoever.
These are bad enough... but worse, some larger apps are distributed as pkg files. These are installers very similar to Windows installers, and yes they put a lot of files in various places. If you're lucky, the app will come with its own uninstaller... if you're very lucky, the uninstaller will be written correctly and remove everything the pkg installed. If not, you're absolutely on your own, as Apple provides no way to uninstall pkgs or even track which files have been installed and where by which pkgs.
Over time, this makes Mac OS X slow down a great deal. In my experience it takes longer to happen than it does in WinXP or Vista, but it does happen nevertheless... and cleaning out an OS X system can be a nightmare once it gets to that state.


Well, it is true Mac OS X cannot provide uninstaller for all kind of apps. It is not very common for Mac applications to start installing things on first run, especially extensions and services. But it is not the point, those apps exist. Microsoft Office is one of them, for example.

With pkg there are mixed feelings. Originally pkg were provided just to be installers of system updates or Applications ported from UNIX and developer should write uninstallers. But most don't. Nevertheless if you run the installer again and you go the menu File and hit the Show files item... You can see what it installed where and how. You might see though, that many places are hidden files and places very UNIX like. Then you have to remove it by hand and terminal.

Apple expects, or hopes people update all the Apps to work as Apple intend, but it is very difficult. Especially with multi-platform applications, because obvious reasons.

However, the slowdown in Macintosh might not be related to that. I have seen, for example, that after security patches the system tends to get slower... I do not know, but it seems the team that makes the first release it is not the same team that updates the systems, so maybe they are screwing things around without knowing it.

Also, I have seen Mac OS X relies a lot on having a hard disc empty. I mean, having a hard disc with more than 60% filled is terrible. It might be that the file system is not as good as others out there, or the defragmentation on the fly technique does not have space to work.

Sometimes, the best way to use Mac OS X is just like any other UNIX, I mean, just create a new account and see if the the thing is related to it and don't use administrator rights on the accounts.

Reply Score: 1

bannor99 Member since:
2005-09-15

I strongly suspect that what you're seeing with Windows is largely caused by fragmentation, which can happen to any OS.
What exacerbates the issue for Windows is that complete defragmentation is limited by the amount of internal fragmentation of the Master File Table, which, as far as I know ( at least up to XP ) isn't defragmented by the built-in defrag and, while it can be handled by Diskeeper or PerfectDisk, has to be done at boot-time.
I'll have to see if Vista or Windows 7 addresses this.
Fragmentation is and always has been a far lesser problem for the Unices but I imagine that if their filesystems move to an MFT-like structure, they'll have the same issues if they don't account for that in the design.
Ext4 has plans for an online defragger but I haven't found a timeline for if and when it'll be included.

The official word on ZFS is that fragmentation is not an issue but there are a few anecdotes contradicting this.

Reply Score: 1

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

"How many times have I seen systems getting clunky and slow over time simply because Windows haven't been reinstalled.


Stop using that old win98 cd to installs, and you'd probably stop seeing that.

Windows hasn't really done that in years, unless you spend all your time downloading and installing/uninstalling software. If that's all you do with your computer, Linux or OS X would also suffer.
"

Windows still does that, but to a lesser extent than it used to in the 9x days...
It also gets slower as you install service packs, compare a non service packed xp box to a fully up to date one (but don't put it online).

Linux doesn't suffer from this for a number of reasons...

Configs are stored as individual text files, not a single database, so they are just ignored when not used and don't have to be loaded/parsed (tho they do occupy some space)...
If you use the package manager, then apps can be removed cleanly, uninstall scripts for windows vary massively in how thorough they are..
Normal users cannot write outside their homedir, so you get far less instances of files cropping up in unexpected places...

Reply Score: 1

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I mean...The value-added of a Mac its its shining look. Its material (aluminum), and its shapes. They look gorgeous, but I think OS X is definitely not better than other OSes, I even found a how-to on the web that explains how to install Vista on an Intel Mac. I don't understand why people would pick the worst of both worlds (cheap case + OS X). Doesn't make sense to me. If it's because of Photoshop, cheap graphic designers can use Photoshop on Windows (and Linux using Crossover or WINE).


I read that post until "I even found a how-to on the web that explains how to install Vista on an Intel Mac" which shows you have never run a Mac in your life - that your post is merely a post of justification as to why you don't own a Mac, you envy owning a Mac, but to boost your self esteem you use this forum as your soap box to justify yourself.

I forced myself to go further on but it keeps getting worse; to equate Linux coupled with Wine as equal to the Mac OS X is even more comical at best as you try and claim that 'all operating systems are the same' and yet you apparently champion Linux as being the 'superior'.

Quite honestly I don't think you've used Windows or Mac OS X for any considerably length of time outside viewing for web sites. Sure, have your opinion but don't expect automatic respect simply because you're posting on a information technology orientated website.

Edited 2009-05-21 04:01 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Does anyone *seriously* believe
by orfanum on Wed 20th May 2009 16:51 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

That Apple did not see the resurgence of clones coming? How would Steve Jobs, known for his prescience, and with a direct and profound knowledge gained through experience of what clones can do to the Apple personal computer hardware market, not understand that as soon as you moved the hardware base closer to standard PC components, the new generation of now highly-networked, tech-savvy people, for whom computers represent a primary world, would not hack it?

Now, imagine if Apple did want to climb out of the PC hardware market, in order to devote itself to a different market. Could it just announce it overnight, and sell off the hardware stock without its share price plummeting?

But what have we here? An already long-running dispute with a clone-maker, and Apple stock remains high! When OS X for the desktop was released in 2001, its share price was slightly stagnant but the iPod revitalised the Mac range, and so has the iPhone, since then:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2002/tc20020118_0...

and

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/01/09/apple-announces-iphone-stock-s...

Ok, so back to the scenario - Apple wants out of Personal Computer devices but cannot do it in Blitzkrieg style, so, after a long, meandering, inconclusive trial against one clone-maker, inconclusive because others sprout up all over the place, like mushrooms, like the heads of the Hydra: Gasp! Apple bows to the inevitable, and licences OS X to a market it did not directly create, and which it would not have been able to accommodate in demand terms anyway; it's left to pursue much more innovative products for the 21st Century instead. Stock remains high, people marvel at Apple's finesse once more...

The alternative to this - *some* might think far-fetched - narrative, is that Apple didn't have a clue about the potential consequences of going over to Intel.

Which is the crazier headline, do you think?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Does anyone *seriously* believe
by kaiwai on Thu 21st May 2009 04:08 UTC in reply to "Does anyone *seriously* believe"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

That Apple did not see the resurgence of clones coming? How would Steve Jobs, known for his prescience, and with a direct and profound knowledge gained through experience of what clones can do to the Apple personal computer hardware market, not understand that as soon as you moved the hardware base closer to standard PC components, the new generation of now highly-networked, tech-savvy people, for whom computers represent a primary world, would not hack it?


I doubt he would have forgotten about it but hoped that some how it would never get to the point where people were developing communities around the idea of loading it onto computers - and more importantly, end users happy to put up with shocking hardware support until drivers were developed to support hardware.

I've said this in base posts that Apple would have been better off either removing protection from Mac OS X, disallowing OEM's from bundling OR having very select OEM licencing to companies that would suit a long term objective - namely that they share the development costs with Apple rather than Apple being the sole developer of Mac OS X by getting OEM's to work on the low level driver support.

Reply Score: 2

DavidSan Member since:
2008-11-18

That Apple did not see the resurgence of clones coming? How would Steve Jobs, known for his prescience, and with a direct and profound knowledge gained through experience of what clones can do to the Apple personal computer hardware market, not understand that as soon as you moved the hardware base closer to standard PC components, the new generation of now highly-networked, tech-savvy people, for whom computers represent a primary world, would not hack it?

Now, imagine if Apple did want to climb out of the PC hardware market, in order to devote itself to a different market. Could it just announce it overnight, and sell off the hardware stock without its share price plummeting?

But what have we here? An already long-running dispute with a clone-maker, and Apple stock remains high! When OS X for the desktop was released in 2001, its share price was slightly stagnant but the iPod revitalised the Mac range, and so has the iPhone, since then:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2002/tc20020118_0...

and

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/01/09/apple-announces-iphone-stock-s...

Ok, so back to the scenario - Apple wants out of Personal Computer devices but cannot do it in Blitzkrieg style, so, after a long, meandering, inconclusive trial against one clone-maker, inconclusive because others sprout up all over the place, like mushrooms, like the heads of the Hydra: Gasp! Apple bows to the inevitable, and licences OS X to a market it did not directly create, and which it would not have been able to accommodate in demand terms anyway; it's left to pursue much more innovative products for the 21st Century instead. Stock remains high, people marvel at Apple's finesse once more...

The alternative to this - *some* might think far-fetched - narrative, is that Apple didn't have a clue about the potential consequences of going over to Intel.

Which is the crazier headline, do you think?


I think that even though your argument sounds like a movie, it might have some truth in it.

Everyone is so focus that Apple does not want to have clones, but all might be a masquerade. And Jobs did not make himself a billionaire thinking like mere mortals, like us.

Somehow, and for better or for worse, he see things differently.

But more than what Apple would do... I find very interesting that many small companies dare to sell Mac clones. I particularly think, Apple does not care about foreign or poor markets, so I think they will not go after Mac cloners in Russia, South America, Africa and South Asia.

Sorry for USA and Europe, Apple will fight legal battles in those countries.

Reply Score: 1

EULAs are highly questionable in the UK
by aahjnnot on Wed 20th May 2009 18:53 UTC
aahjnnot
Member since:
2008-07-24

Many of the comments above come from people who believe that Apple's EULA prohibition on installing OS X on non-Apple hardware is, or ought to be, enforceable under English law. However, EULAs are legally untested in this country (there has been a Scottish test case, but that doesn't apply south of Hadrian's Wall), and there are very good reasons for believing that they carry no legal weight.

Under English contract law, unless both parties pass consideration (something of value), no contract can be formed, a rule which also applies to contract variations. That's why shopping vouchers often contain a small footnote assigning them a minute monetary value (eg 0.005p) - without this value, no contract is formed so any T&Cs might be unenforceable.

The issue over the EULA is that the consumer gives no consideration to the software supplier when he clicks on 'I agree'. On the face of it, that makes the EULA completely unenforceable - no consideration, no contract - and this position is almost certainly true for free software such as Flash.

The position for purchased software is a little more complex, though, as the consumer did give consideration when the software was purchased. The issue now becomes one of timing - did the consumer enter into a contract when they handed over their cash, when they opened the box, when they popped the CD into their machine or when they accepted the EULA? This is a difficult and untested area of law, but it seems probable that the contract was completed when money changed hands. If so, the EULA is an attempt at a post-contract variation clause that cannot be enforceable without further consideration being offered by the consumer.

The EULA could, of course, be enforced if it were embedded in the original contract. That would require full disclosure from the software provider before the contract were made, but even that approach is problematic. We have several pieces of legislation that are designed to protect consumers from unfair non-negotiatable boilerplate comtracts, and a clause that required software only to be used on a device carrying a particular logo might well fall foul of one of these laws.

In short, Apple's job in the UK is a very difficult one. I, for one, would love to see this emerging as a test case in a senior court.

Reply Score: 7

OSX should be available for "mac-clones"
by Janvl on Wed 20th May 2009 22:25 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

OSX is build on the solid basis of BSD.
So it is not an entire developement made by Apple.

The Aqua desktop is made by Apple.
Changing to Intel hardware was a good start, now the next step is to let people run OSX on hardware they want, let the clone-makers certify it, that saves Apple the trouble of supporting all end every hardware.

To my opinion Apple can only profit from it, had OSX been available on Intel when I build my system I would have choosen it, now I work with Linux.

As for the EULA, I cannot believe Apple can force anyone using "their" OSX on different hardware then Apple macintosh.

This whole legal "battle" looks like a show to make Microsoft think Apple did everything to avoid OSX being available for common intel hardware.
OSX could become a big Windows concurrent.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

OSX is build on the solid basis of BSD.
So it is not an entire developement made by Apple.


Actually it is Mach/BSD, which results in the core called XNU (which is 'X is not Unix') - a good part of their core is actually either developed by Apple, NeXT or co-developed by one or the other.

The Aqua desktop is made by Apple.
Changing to Intel hardware was a good start, now the next step is to let people run OSX on hardware they want, let the clone-makers certify it, that saves Apple the trouble of supporting all end every hardware.

To my opinion Apple can only profit from it, had OSX been available on Intel when I build my system I would have choosen it, now I work with Linux.

As for the EULA, I cannot believe Apple can force anyone using "their" OSX on different hardware then Apple macintosh.

This whole legal "battle" looks like a show to make Microsoft think Apple did everything to avoid OSX being available for common intel hardware.
OSX could become a big Windows concurrent.


I agree - and there is nothing stopping Apple from really raising the bar on quality either by only licensing it to companies whom they deem to create good computers such as Lenovo. Apple seem to have this idea that if they licence it once, all must have access to it - if they selectively licence it they can keep the quality high enough as not to ruin the Mac name.

I know as an end user I'd probably skip on a MacBook or an iMac in favour of a ThinkCentre and Thinkpad running Mac OS X, but I do know many users who like iMac and MacBook's, so I don't think that there would be a major loss as some people claim there would be.

Edited 2009-05-21 05:05 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Apple should accept the reality
by OSGuy on Thu 21st May 2009 09:30 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

Personal Opinion: Apple should embrace their new reality and stop fighting. I believe clone makers will be everywhere. They should enhance their DRM and keep changing it if they want to stop this. It's gonna be a race.

Edited 2009-05-21 09:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Oh, give me a break. You know, as well as the rest of us, how useful DRM ends up being in the end. Apple can DRM all they want, it will do nothing in the end except waste more developer money and time spent on a fruitless effort. The DRM and/or activation will simply be cracked or bypassed again and again and again.
Also, if they went with your idea of an authentication chip in Apple machines, they would absolutely have to find a way to put that in firmware, because I guarantee you most people wouldn't simply send in their perfectly working computers to get an extra chip installed. And, since it is in firmware, it will be analyzed, duplicated, and therefore cracked.

Reply Score: 2

OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

Hence my statement "It's gonna be a race" ;) over and over and over....not a viable solution in my own opinion but it would probably slow others down.

Anyway, I didn't mean the existing users would need to send in their machines, just the new makes would come with a genuine authentic chip. Without the chip, no activation until it's cracked.

they would absolutely have to find a way to put that in firmware


Whatever it takes, better than throwing your money away for law suites.

Edited 2009-05-21 10:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

lol x86 mac
by Hussein on Thu 21st May 2009 13:26 UTC
Hussein
Member since:
2008-11-22

serves them right
Apple knew switching to x86 would lead to this and they went ahead with it regardless

Reply Score: 1