OSNews

Where is the signed contract?

Are you related to The Devil, by any chance? He plays that card a lot...

Edited 2009-11-02 18:48 UTC

Actually, if you've been following along lately, that's known as a post-sale restriction. You can't take somebody's money, and then, as they are using the product, impose some wierd restiction that they did not agree to _in writing_ at the time of the sale. That's really the whole point.

Right now, I could buy a copy of OSX, come home to my nice computer, and in the process of installing it, find out that they arbitrarily decided to forbid me from installing it on certain of my computers.

I believe that to be illegal, and I think the courts will soon agree. Certainly, in many countries it is definitely illegal to impose a post-sale restriction. I don't think it has been settled yet in the U.S., but it seems tremendously obvious that it is wrong. Nevertheless, the U.S. is famous for allowing some strange things, especially if campaign comtributions are involved. Especially in West Texas!

"Right now, I could buy a copy of OSX, come home to my nice computer, and in the process of installing it, find out that they arbitrarily decided to forbid me from installing it on certain of my computers."

they most certainly can. You don't have a right to software that will always work with the hardware it used to work with.

That is so dishonest, it must have hurt to write it. Nobody is saying that the software has to work with my computer. If it doesn't, I'm out of luck. The question is - can they forbid me from even trying it. Even in an "Emperor Steve has such beautiful clothes" world, you must admit is somewhat strange to forbid people from using Apple software on machines the user owns. Very strange.

By the way, I do not have an Apple, I do not have OSX, and I am not trying to run it on my machines. I just find it wierd in a "free" society that people could support such a tyrannical concept.

You are free to disagree and don't buy their products, there is where liberty lies.

Fortunately in America, I am also free to note illegal behavior and point it out. I will say this one last time - you can't have a post-sale restriction. I believe Apple is doing this. I believe they will be caught and forced to stop doing it. Afterwards, the world will keep on spinning, nothing bad will happen to Apple or the faithful. But at least an illegal behavior will be stopped.

By the way, if for some strange reason Microsoft had the same foolish after-sale restriction on Windows, and informed me in the Eula AFTER I had purchased it, that I couldn't install in on Apple-labelled hardware, I would note that as illegal also. Fortunately they don't, thus Apple users install Windows on their Appple hardware using Boot Camp.

It may seem trivial (especially since I don't run OSX or plan to any time soon), but if we allow companies to do sneaky stuff, you never know what they will do next.

What, exactly, is involved in providing support for a processor which supports all the x86 instructions that their supported hardware products do? Doesn't it come down to selectively breaking it?

How come when it comes to what big corporations do, we always hear about what "it" has the "right" to do.

(And exactly what is "it", anyway? A virtual person? Some bizarre legal entity masquerading as a person? Something else? What rights, exactly, should "it" have?)

But when it comes to what the users do, we hear so much about how we don't have a right to... whatever.

And when it comes to "rights"... how many of you folks have a department of attorneys on retainer to fight for yours? Because Apple ("it") sure has one. And is not afraid to use it. Though it does tend to send in its PR department first, as the actual deliverers of the legal threat:

http://www.osnews.com/story/21937/Apple_Tried_to_Silence_Exploding_...

Edited 2009-11-02 21:44 UTC

Actually, if you've been following along lately, that's known as a post-sale restriction. You can't take somebody's money, and then, as they are using the product, impose some wierd restiction that they did not agree to _in writing_ at the time of the sale. That's really the whole point. "

So I don't have to worry about those pesky fair use terms that I agreed when I took out my mobile phone and broadband internet accounts online because I didn't sign anything right? Nice to know.

Oh, and I'm going to take those so-and-so's to the cleaners because they went and did a credit check on me! When I clicked that button that said they could I didn't really mean it - I certainly didn't sign anything!

And of course any amendments they make to the terms are also invalid because the initial terms that I agreed to that allow them to make amendments aren't valid, and even if they were any changes to things like the fair-use policy would be a post-sale restriction and wouldn't be valid anyway would they? Again, nice to know.

Thanks for that insight, I now know I can go use as much mobile data as I like and they won't have a leg to stand on in court when they try to get the cash out of me - I'll just give them your contact details for reference ok?

In The Netherlands, you actually DO sign mobile contract and broadband contracts. As in, with a signature.

On top of that, the comparison is off, because you are comparing a PRODUCT (OS X) to a SERVICE (connectivity). This distinction is often lost on proponents of the EULA.

I can tell you that in the US, AT&T doesn't use any sort of click-through regarding their broadband "service". And if you sign a broadband contract one evening... and then cancel the next morning due to total lack of any working broadband service... they don't cut you any slack. Their representatives dress up in outfits right out of Dante's Inferno (Well, they sound like it, on the other end of the line.) and tell you so, in no uncertain terms. "Bwah! Ha! Ha! Ha!", they say. "Is there anything else I can help you with on this call? It may be recorded for quality assurance, you know. Bwah! Ha! Ha! Ha!".

And yet Apple acts like they have all our signatures on file, in blood. Go figure...

In The Netherlands, you actually DO sign mobile contract and broadband contracts. As in, with a signature.

On top of that, the comparison is off, because you are comparing a PRODUCT (OS X) to a SERVICE (connectivity). This distinction is often lost on proponents of the EULA. "

Is a mobile phone not a product? Or a wireless broadband dongle? What about the SIM card that you have to put in to the phone or dongle to make it work? I can go buy a SIM card for $10 over the counter and never agree to anything, the license agreement is presented when I go to activate it. Sound familiar?

And some countries have progressed beyond making your mark in blood for an agreement to be binding, otherwise those with severe physical impairments would continue to be discriminated against.

Oh, and for the record, I'm NOT a proponent of the EULA. I would love to see them all scraped but not by law because I believe someone who invests their time and resources into developing something has every right to determine it's use if they so wish. What I am a proponent of is doing what you agreed to do. If you click the AGREE button but you don't agree, you have no honour. If you don't agree with it you have the right to click the I DON'T AGREE button and not use the product - there is nothing forcing you to use the product. That is often lost on those who have no concept of Respect, Rights and Responsibility other than how it relates to THEM.

Edited 2009-11-03 01:13 UTC

So, in this thread, we've learned that Mac fanboys don't understand the difference between stealing vs. buying something, or the difference between goods & services. Now we can apparently add another one to the list: the difference between post-sales restrictions for a product and terms of use for a service.

Has someone at Apple accidentally bumped into a switch on their Reality Distortion Field generator? It looks like they've had it set on "pure BS" mode for the last few months.

Edited 2009-11-03 17:27 UTC

The point you're missing is that it's already been paid for. For a contract (written or click-through) to be binding the terms need to be agreed at the point of the transaction.

With your earlier example of phone service you still have to agree to the contract on-line before they'll send you your phone. In most countries you can 'sign' a contract using click through, it's still legally binding.

However you can't impose terms after sale, unless there was a contract at the point of sale explicitly stating that specific terms might change (like interest rates on a credit card for instance).

Apple are within their rights to impose usage terms on their products, but only if it's in a contract at the point of sale, not after sale.

Wow, what a completely useless analogy.

Those aren't post-sales restrictions, for one. And second, mobile phone carriers sell you services. An operating system, such as OS X, is a good, NOT a service. If you can't understand a distinction that basic, you should probably just stay out of these discussions altogether.

Wow, what a completely useless analogy.

Those aren't post-sales restrictions, for one. And second, mobile phone carriers sell you services. An operating system, such as OS X, is a good, NOT a service. If you can't understand a distinction that basic, you should probably just stay out of these discussions altogether. "

Obviously you have problems comprehending big person english so I'll spell this one out for you. You and Thom both suggested that there is no contract if you haven't signed a piece of paper, so I was pointing out that according to your view on the world there is no valid contract in place for my mobile phone because I completed the entire transaction on the 'net, therefore I needn't worry about the Fair Use policy that is part of the terms. But I see where you're going with this. You're saying that because it is a service different rules apply. I see how that works :S

And to your second "point", other than the fact that you're mindlessly regurgitating something Thom said - which is a load of crud anyway - your point is? I pay for a product, I pay for a service. I receive something in return for my money in both cases. One is tangible, one isn't. Irrelevant. But to play your silly game the contract for a mobile phone account or wireless broadband account is attached to the SIM, a "GOOD" in your terms. If I lease a building I pay for a service but get the use of a "good" - where does that one fall in your world? If I buy software that is in your terms a "good" and it includes two years of free updates that are downloadable is that classed as a "good" or a service in your world?

Product or service is irrelevant, it is the exchange of currency for something in return. Trying to portray them as something different is nothing more than a puerile attempt to justify a flawed standpoint.

When you made your purchase online you likely also checked some box saying you agreed to the terms of service/purchase. By verifying your purchasing method (credit card, Paypal, whatever it was), that transaction became your signature (or the signature of whoever's name was on the credit card, for instance).

Criticizing my literacy skills and then failing to capitalize a proper noun ("English")... Well done, genius. The words "pot," "kettle," and "black" come to mind.



And the point I made in response (which you were clearly unable to grasp) is that IT. DOESN'T. MATTER. For two reasons:

1) The provider of the service can discontinue your service at any time for any reason they like, with the exception of clearly-illegal reasons like religious or racial discrimination. They can cancel the service because they don't like the way you spell your last name, or any other random whim, and you would have no recourse whatsoever. Regardless of whether or not you have a proper, formal contract with them.

2) Services are not products. Spend a half second thinking about it and you should realize the obvious implications: terms of use for a service are not the same as post-sales restrictions in an EULA. Here, let me repeat that with some added emphasis, just so you have no excuse for missing the point this time: TERMS OF USE FOR A SERVICE ARE NOT THE SAME AS POST-SALES RESTRICTIONS IN AN EULA!!!



Um... Fair Use is an aspect of COPYRIGHT LAW, while everything you wrote up to that point is only relevant to CONTRACT LAW. They're not actually the same thing just because they both start with the letter "C," you know.

Are you genuinely unable to grasp such basic, obvious facts? Or are you just being deliberately-obtuse?

Then its not a contract its a 'End User License Agreement'.

See the links below:

http://www.osnews.com/story/22233/The_Difference_Between_EULAs_and_...

http://www.osnews.com/story/21010/Can_Your_Cat_Agree_to_an_EULA_

Luckily comments do have a thumbs down button.

I don't know about admins, but the Apple-related articles are all about moderation system abuse.

One of my favorite movies is "Conspiracy Movie", with Mel Gibson. I'm pretty sure he used an Apple Lisa.

Yes, yes, everyone's out to get you - you poor, poor martyr for the holy Apple cause.

I was really listening to that song when I read your comment.

Where in the article is the bitching? Did you not read the last paragraph?

Not that I expect anything different from the MDN-reader that you are, but still.

people just don't like your 'reporting' Thom, you're incredibly biased with how you feel the world should revolve around your student lifestyle.

you even admitted buying the $29 snow leopard 'upgrade' for your dad's machine and then making an illegal copy of it for your machine that didn't even have a valid Leopard license.

This isn't even news to begin with anyways, Apple isn't dropping support for something it never support, it just so happened to work previously. OSX never showed CPUIDs for ATOM or the number of others (Core 2 Quad, etc, etc).

The spin here is Apple has investigated how Atom was working and then blocked when there is no proof of that. Further optimization and upgrades to the kernel likely caused it to stop booting or being supported, but nobody has looked into this yet because you are biased (as well as many other sites out there).

Edited 2009-11-02 19:02 UTC

What are you talking about??

I bought a copy of Snow Leopard for my dad, but before giving it to him, I tried to get that copy to work on my Atom machine. It did work, but I removed it and installed windows XP. That copy of Snow Leopard is now running properly on my dad's iMac - it was a gift for him.

Please don't accuse me of illegal behaviour, sonny. The only lawbreaking I do is speeding and public intoxication. In that order.

Second, it's not an upgrade copy. I tore the entire box apart, and NOWHERE does it say it is an upgrade - heck, it doesn't even state Leopard is required. The lovely girl at the Apple retailer didn't say anything either.

Edited 2009-11-02 19:06 UTC

you talked about

<<those of us>> yourself inclusiv,
doesn’t it mean that I have a Hackentosh?
maybe I just got it wrong!

I think so too. A lot of instructions on how to get Mac OS X on your PC start with:

Actually this is pretty sensible, because otherwise you have to jump through hoops to patch the Mac OS X install DVD.

I don't find it wrong to do so, if it's just curiosity driving you. Half your hardware won't work anyway.

Hmmm, really. Not my experience. Jumping thruogh hoops, is not what I had to do.

You really want to go there, because the list will be at least 2 pages long. Innovation doesn't always mean first to get there sometimes its first to make it good. Steam Boat Willy wasn't the first to implement sound, just the first to make good use of the technique.

Sure. It's not like we've been through this a zillion times before. Love to see that list!



Really?

Are we already qualifying definitions to suit our arguments?

I always thought that an innovator was the first to come-up with an idea -- the inventor -- not the one who "popularizes" the idea.

In addition, what exactly is meant by the phrase "... the first to make it good?"



A perfectly apt analogy.

Really?

Are we already qualifying definitions to suit our arguments?
"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/innovate?db=luna

Specifically:

1. to introduce something new; make changes in anything established.

And it will consist almost entirely of things that would be invalidated by a mountain of prior art, if Apple were dumb enough to try patenting them.



In other words they're not innovations, they're just variations on other people's innovations and Apple deserves no credit for the innovations themselves (the mouse, the GUI, the portable MP3 player, etc etc etc). If software patents had existed in Douglas Engelbart's day, then he could probably sue for every single penny of income that Apple has ever made.

The most pathetic claim of an Apple innovation was probably when they claimed that the dual G4 PowerMacs were the first multi-processor desktops in existence - despite the fact that SMP had been available even in the PC world for at least a decade. Not to mention the presence of SMP on nearly every other major CPU architecture, and even from Mac cloners like Power Computing.

But the best part was the circular, self-contradictory reasoning that made up the stock response from Apple apologists: they claimed that earlier x86 SMP machines weren't actually PCs, but workstations because they contained multiple processors... Sadly, this was before the word "facepalm" was coined.

You're probably correct, but I still question whether low end (think netbook) units were ever seriously considered within Apple. Macbooks remain their most popular item, and they'd be insane to undercut those.

Edited 2009-11-02 19:47 UTC

i dont even see why it has to be an Atom to be a netbook or why it has to be any existing Atom already on the market.

TOO RIGHT! Apple should be banished to infinite torture for ever making Apple PC's! And, instead of saying "oops, we made a mistake!" and doing what's necessary to make Intel Macs "NON-PC", they blindly keep fighting the growing tide of PC users who want MacOS X, by swatting each fly that comes along.

All they have to do is make their boards with a few chips that AREN'T in regular PC's (for unique identification or function), or code each machine's version of MacOS X specifically to the unique hardware specs of that system. Something that CAN'T be "cracked" or "broken".

There are ways Apple could make their life a LOT easier, but will they ever do it? NOOOOOOO.

Apple has simplified their product manufacturing so much, they've massively complicated their business! Mankind is full of idiots!

"Mankind is full of idiots"!

Very true. VERY true.

Edited 2009-11-03 01:19 UTC

Like selling of the company and moving to Bermuda to catch some rays? PC would approve.

I think Apple likes being in the PC business and doesn't mind being faced with these challenges, even if it makes their life less easy.

How is it massively complicated? All Apple has to do is change a minor thing and it will break all Hackintoshes. Just look at what's going on with the Palm Pre. Sure, the hackers will find ways to make it work, but it will just mean they are always playing catch up. Warnings advising against updating will be announced, creating enough hassle to stop any realistic clone makers become successful. Any non-geeks out there will just give up trying to be cheapskates and just buy the real thing... if they care that much about the software at all, that is.

Windows7 and Windows Vista on a 286, anyone?

There are ways to tell, of course:

If processor is Atom then...

Microsoft killed DR DOS using similar techniques. My Compaq notebook's bios refuses to boot the OS if it sees the Intel mini-pci wifi card I bought to replace the horrid HP-labeled Broadcom one.

It's business as usual for entities which maintain a pack of attorneys on perpetual retainer.

You mean the AARD code? That old chestnut?

You don't really believe that an error message in a beta of Windows 3.1 killed of DR-DOS. Digital Research were perfectly capable of doing that on their own.

And this is wrong why? Apple should and is obligated (to their share holders) to protect to their property any way they can. If that means locking OSX so tight it won't run on anything that hasn't passed through Job's ass, so be it. I don't see a problem with that. I would do the same if I didn't want my product running on a competitors machine as it affects my bottom line. Apple is a business not a charity, they are not obligated to give away what they paid for in the first place just because a few geeks think its their god given right.

Of course, there is the "what goes around comes around". As Apple squeezes its customers more and more on these trivial issues (Palm Pre, Non-Apple hardware), at some point the customers might start looking elsewhere. Humans seems to have some kind of attraction for freedom, even when it means abandoning all the "extra coolness" they are currently receiving.

People are sheep, yes, but only to a certain extent. They don't want to feel like sheep.

And yet "people" have been using Windows for more than a decade, an OS from a company who walked on corpses to achieve the monopoly they enjoy today. It got so far that there are people out there who think "Windows = PC" . Baa.

I agree. I enjoy my OpenBSD laptop. I just feel the need to stick up for the sheep once in a while. They are nice folks!

I don't see Microsoft telling me what hardware I can and can't run it on. I don't see them telling me what intel compatible processors I can use. A funny thing about Windows, it's much freer for me to use than MacOS X.

You can give you copy of OS X to someone else if you uninstall it from the Mac it was on and you pass the DVD along. You can't do that with Windows in the OEM variant, not legally.

And Windows is limited to x86, just like OS X is limited to certain processors.

And let's figure in the fact that Windows comes with copy protection (all that Genuine Advantage and activation stuff), whereas OS X does not.

How is Windows more free to use?

They dont tell me that I can't run it on any particular OEM hardware, I can just buy a copy of Windows and run it on my hardware...and I'm free to run it on a mac, a dell, hp, sony, even my whitebox computer that I built.

That's freer than anything Apple allows you to do with OSX. A copy of Windows can be activated a certain number of times on different hardware, so I can give my copy to someone else and erase my installation.

You can give your copy of OS X to someone else if you uninstall it from the Mac it was on and you pass the DVD along. You can't do that with Windows in the OEM variant, not legally.

And Windows is limited to x86, just like OS X is limited to certain processors.

And let's figure in the fact that Windows comes with copy protection (all that Genuine Advantage and activation and Microsoft keeping an eye on you), whereas OS X does not.

How is Windows more free to use?

Edited 2009-11-06 22:57 UTC

Maybe IBM and Intel should have taken the same approach. Sure, you would probably still be stuck with anemic, underpowered G4s - but hey, they would just be "protecting their competitive advantage," as another Apple apologist put it.



Oh don't worry, that's coming. They just haven't figured out the logistics yet.



Why not just completely drag the computer industry 30 years backwards while you're at it? Remember how awesome it was when we had computers that ran only a single application (word processors), and each vendor's hardware was incompatible with the software written for every other computer?

Screw standards and open hardware platforms!



Why are so many Maclots incapable of comprehending that it's not actually stealing when you PAY for the product (as Psystar has done)? When you have to twist the truth that much, it just stinks of desperation.

If I am paid for my labor, that does not give them the right to do whatever they want with me.

If I buy time/storage in a cloud/cluster, they have the right to impose conditions on my use of their facility, even if I have PAID money.

Taking more than is agreed may not be stealing in the strictest sense, but is crossing the line.

SERVICES AND PRODUCTS ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Sweet Jesus, how many times does the obvious need to be pointed out before Maclots give up on that disingenuous BS?



Which would be a valid point, except that Apple happily sold copies of their OS to Psystar without requiring them to agree to any special terms before or at the time of sale. So if there's fault here, it's Apple's for failing to license their software properly. A fault which they've compounded by attempting to use EULAs and post-sales restrictions for bait-and-switch purposes.

It's just another example of Apple believing they deserve special treatment, and getting it in the minds of their faithful apologists. They want the protections (read: ability to impose restrictions) afforded by a legitimate pre-sales contract, but they're too lazy or cheap expend the effort to do it properly. So instead, Apple tries to use their EULA enforce post-sales restrictions.

Software is a service: acquiring a CD of software is not the same as acquiring usage rights to that software. And attacking me personally does not prove your point.

I do not own any apple products and do not approve of their business practices. Defending their right to license their property how they want does not make me a mac zealot.

If apple does not want to license OS X to the competition, the should they not be forced to.

This is a double-edged sword: if apple cannot enforce their right to license how they want, should open source licensing be also be unenforceable.

Software is a service: acquiring a CD of software is not the same as acquiring usage rights to that software.

Actually, software is a product. It was just recently reported here that there's a case in the US where a person was selling forward the software he had bought and court said it was indeed legal as the software was a product, not a service.

It's the same here in Finland too; several years ago already a similar case went to the court and the judge clearly ruled that software sold as a product is a product, not a service. If they wanted it to be a service they'd have to market and sell it as a service.

This is a double-edged sword: if apple cannot enforce their right to license how they want, should open source licensing be also be unenforceable.

Apples and oranges. You apparently don't understand the difference so I'll explain: open-source licenses are all based on the copyright law. They grant you permission to use and distribute copyright work; a permission you would not have without the license.

Commercial EULAs however try to imply that copyright law also allows you to dictate how, where and when your work can be used. The problem is that that is not part of the copyright law. Copyright law only handles about making copies of and distribution of copyright work, not how one can use it after one has legally obtained it.

References? Licenses are transferable, but you still are bound by the conditions of the license.



Different to a free software license how? Have you looked at the GPL? You are not arguing on principle: the right for a company to license as they want.

The EULA does not appear magically only after the software is bought. Neither does the GPL. Even then if you have second thoughts you can refund your money.

Wow, let's count the ways you're mentally challenged:

Assuming that Apple intentionally disabled Atom support, check.

I've done some looking around and so far it all boils down to some random guy going by the nick "stellarolla" and the description "I like to say things and eat stuff", saying Apple "killed" Atom support in 10.6.2. There's no word on who this guy is, whether it's more than just a rumor or any evidence for the lack of Atom support or whether it was their explicit intention to do so or a side-effect of another update.

BTW, here's looking at you, Thom. Way to do reporting, buddy. We're down to rumors and links to random blogs now, eh? Great going, OSNews.



Not understanding the first thing about EULAs, contract or copyright law, check.

If you have ANY legal training, by all means, make me eat my words.



Twisted logic supporting Pystar yet not seeing how what they're doing might go wrong, check.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Apple actually will disable Atom on purpose; what the hell do you think the outcome of Psystar's blatant disregard for the law will be? Here's how the real world works: there's gonna be a lawsuit, and Psystar will lose.

Furthermore, Apple might just feel that they've been too nice to their users. The honor system instead of copy protection? Letting them install OS X on anything they wanted? What were we thinking? Let's lock this baby down. Oh, thank you Psystar! You really opened our eyes!



Being a complete moron, check.

Seriously. You really expected a random company to go to another, say "I think I'm gonna steal your business from you", and the 2nd company should just roll over and let them. "Reasonable". Seriously?



Being out of touch with reality, check.

Apple has no copy protection in OS X, they don't pursue hackintosh projects, they made the record labels take DRM out of all the music on the iTunes Store, they're not a monopoly, not trying to limit choice of consumers, not trying to sell their stuff as cheap as possible just to make people buy it. But they do dare to go against a company who is trying to illegally steal their business from them. Yes, typical control freak.

Not understanding the first thing about EULAs, contract or copyright law, check.

If you have ANY legal training, by all means, make me eat my words.

To take some part in the discussion I have to say that you didn't say anything intelligent about EULAs, contracts or copyright laws yourself either.

First of all, pre-sale contracts can restrict the use of software sold in any way or form the seller wishes, but that contract is signed by all parties before the sales takes place. It is a binding agreement and all parties may examine the agreement before agreeing to it.

EULA however is a very different beast. I can't say how it works in the US or similar countries, but atleast in most European countries EULA can only restrict or grant rights as long as they themselves fit withing the copyright law. Copyright law does _not_ allow you to restrict f.ex. on which kind of a table you are allowed to eat your food. Equally, it can't restrict on what kind of a computer you are allowed to run the software on. Any such restrictions specified in the EULA which do not fall under the copyright law itself are invalid and can't be enforced legally. And yes, this has already been tested several times in courts.

As such, atleast here it is perfectly legal to run OSX on anything you wish and you own.

Unwarranted self-importance and confirmation bias, check.

Boy, this is fun!



And we should take your word instead, because some random guy named "wirespot" posting comments on a news site is just so much more credible.



That's okay, I won't hold it against you.



Actually, your "response" was nothing more than empty bombast. Sorry, but the burden is still on you have to offer a counter-argument of some actual substance before.

Or, to phrase that in a way that you're more likely to understand: "Dodging the point, check."



And what particular law have they been found guilty of breaking? Oh that's right, the trial hasn't even started yet, let alone concluded.

Unfounded claim, check.



I hear there are medications which can effectively manage those sorts of delusions.



Really now, no need to be so hard on yourself.



You might want to try educating yourself on what the word "steal" actually means. By the Apple (and Apple fanboy) definition, anyone who resells software is "stealing," same with anyone selling used software.

What Apple is doing is NO different from a game company trying to use EULAs to prohibit sales of used copies of their games, or a music distributor trying to prohibit used CDs, or a movie studio trying to block used DVD sales, etc etc etc. And if Apple wins their case with Psystar, you can bet on those things happening; Apple will have generously handed them a set of ready-made arguments.

I just don't get this whole argument. Apple intends OS X to run on their hardware, period. That is not a weakness, it is one of the strengths of the platform. Apple knows exactly what hardware they're writing for, and because of that everything works. Apple never intended you to install OS X on your $400 Dell, they
want you to buy a Mac. duh.

Intel owners: man up and buy a Mac if you want to run OS X, or content yourself with the crappy desktop experiences the X.org or Windows worlds provide.

Why are we crying about a CPU that OS X never supported in the first place?

_Thank you_. Nothing in an EULA, or the law, states that Apple _have_ to support any hardware at all, just because you _could_ install it on it.

It works on the hardware they decide, and people getting uppity about what it doesn’t support has nothing to do with rights, and is in no way a direct and ‘evil’ move by Apple. The fact it worked on Atom before was not how it was sold. That is your own personal choice to run it on Atom and there is no support. If it stops working, again, on your own head be it since you’re installing it on something that is not listed on the box as being compatible in the first place.

At no point in this game did Apple ever acknowledge Atom support or lack there of.

It requires the machine to be Apple labeled, and that is why, in order that both your base unit and your monitor can meet this requirement, Apple considerately supplies you with two labels with every copy of OSX.

If you are considering installing your copy of OSX on some computer which at the moment is not correctly labeled for that, we do urge you to make sure that the sticker goes on before the quality goes in. That is essential to maintaining your relationship with Apple in a happy state.

Didn't they do this for AMD chips?

Who says the support is gone from Darwin?

In fact, who says (and has actual proof) that the support is gone from OS X? So far all I've seen is a n unsubstantiated rumor.

What would they call it? The Apple Core 2 CPU?

yeah the apple core 2 duo....upgrade now to 2,5Ghz for just 600$

c'mon...applefanboy will pay alot but i cant imaging they pay for just the nice apple cpu adding alot the already price hardware. especially this would kill EU sales.

Watch out,Thom invested a lot of time and energy into this story. You can't disappoint him now.