Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Oct 2009 14:09 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Hardware, Embedded Systems When Psystar announced it Rebel EFI package, the company was quickly accused of simply taking open source code, repackaging it, and selling it for USD 50. While selling open source code is not a problem, not making the source code available if the license demands it is. Netkas, famous OSX86 hacker, and a Russian site are now claiming they have found the smoking gun.
Permalink for comment 391705
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by darknexus on Thu 29th Oct 2009 02:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
Member since:

Locking down the iPhone so that only "approved" apps can run

Not sure I'd call that sleazy in and of itself. What makes it less than ideal is their inconsistent application of their own policies. If they were consistent, and followed the same rules with every approval/rejection, most people would probably not be complaining about this. I've seen the results of installing an untested application on a windows mobile device, and it's not a pretty picture if the app messes with files it shouldn't.

Changing the iPod protocols to prevent interoperability

Agreed, 100%. It's far from illegal, but not nice at all.

Force-feeding iTunes users with unnecessary and unwanted additional Apple software (Safari)

Which they've corrected, and did so very soon after people complained I might add. I'm not convinced this was a concerted effort to force Safari on to Windows machines, it's more likely an oversight on either the update packagers or administrators.

Packaging Quicktime security updates with iTunes

Um, why is that bad? iTunes relies on Quicktime for it's media handling, after all, so it's as vulnerable to quicktime security issues as quicktime itself. That's like complaining if Microsoft puts security updates for DirectShow with windows media player.

Designing iPod battery so that you have to return the unit to get a replacement

Another one on which we agree.

Rejecting Google Voice and other iPhone apps that compete with Apple

See point 1 above. Notice that Skype didn't get rejected. I've a feeling that, in the case of Google Voice, contracts and politics were involved despite everyone's assertions to the contrary. Another example of inconsistently applying policy. Oh but of course, Google Voice hasn't officially been rejected according to Apple, not that it means much given how long it has been.

Suing enthusiast websites for releasing pre-release product information

Agreed again.

Suing enthusiast websites containing "iPod" in their domain names

I don't recall this one. Link please?

Sleazily backdating stock options for Apple executives

Proof please?

Including a "kill switch" in the iPhone for any mod/app that Apple doesn't approve

Every phone has a kill switch and if they don't, carriers put them in anyway. How is that any worse on the iPhone than every other cel phone out there?

Misappropriating work from artists such as Christian Marclay and Postal Service for use in their commercials


Outright lying in almost every Mac vs PC ad.

Every company stretches the truth about products, it's called advertising. Still, what kind of outright lies have you seen? I must have missed those particular commercials. Advertising and marketing is a world of half-truths.

Reply Parent Score: 1