According to the guys at
www.osx86.classicbeta.com, some intrepid individuals have been able to get OS X running on generic hardware. There is a full explaination and some details on the site.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-08-02
"More like, "how do we make the OS better so Rayiner will spend more for it".
Thats exactly what I said. A better product at a fair price that is so compelling that you might buy it rather than be content with your existing OS on Apple hardware.
"A subtle distinction, yes, but the motivation is completely different.
I disagree.
"Companies are in the business of making as much money as they can within the bounds of the law. Consumers are in the business of getting as much stuff as they can as cheaply as possible, "
And there's nothing wrong with that.
"Consumers are in the business of getting as much stuff as they can as cheaply as possible, within the bounds of the law."
Unfortunately, what people are talking about here is not getting something as cheaply as possible within the boundries of the law but outside of it.
"If that was the price, that's what it would say on the price label."
It does.
"I don't think you understand the concept of "subsidized" prices. When we say "the price of X is subsidized by the revenues for Y", X and Y are not inevitably linked."
I'm using that terminology because the topic is being taken out of context by talking of OS X being installed on vanilla PCs. If we take that factor out of the equation, then it would be inappropriate for me to say that it is "subsidized by" because it negates the fact that Mac hardware and the OS are one product.
"Don't forget the original motivation of these "X subsidizes Y" arrangements: to make more money. Apple isn't pricing OS X at $200 (or whatever it costs) out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because it ultimately helps Mac sales (by keeping people on the platform with upgrades)."
Apple does profit from the sale of upgrades to the OS... but they only do it because they can. Its pretty insignificant to their bottom line. The reason why they upgrade their OS is to keep their platform competative thus giving reason for new and repeate customers. They could make the upgrades if they wanted to and the end result would probably be of little consequence.
"It's a gamble, and if they lose the bet, it was just that --- a lost bet, not theft!"
By calling it a gamble, you're deemphasizing the fact that they are one product. The gamble desciption is incorrect because its based on the notion that these are two seperate products not unlike the PC piecemeal approach.
"Where do you live?"
U.S.
"I ask because even if we assume that an EULA is a contract, a breach of contract is a completely different thing from theft."
But the breach of contract in this case has a very direct implication in lost sales. Calling it theft or breach of contract is symatics IMHO because the end result is still taking something that doesn't belong to you.
"you're speaking as if the EULA is a law. It's not."
EULAs are contracts and they're held up by the law.
"At best its a contract, but there is not enough evidence to prove that it even has that level of force."
Just because a contract hasn't been tried in court doesn't negate its principal. If I sign a contract with somebody... I'm not allowed to breach it until that contract is tried in court.
"And even if it is a contract, you have to question whether its terms are legal, considering the substantial amount of legislation and case-law precedence against such agreements."
I don't see any reason to see why they wouldn't be legal at all. I think tose that thinkn otherwise are simply trying to get something for less than is required of them.
"That's an interesting analogy, but you just brought a very different element into the game: redistribution or transfer of ownership. The law gets very weird with regards to redistribution, and we're not talking about making copies of OS X86 for your friends, so your analogy is useless."
I disagree, because your argument was about buying a Mac mini and then transfering that license over to Dell PC. Its very applicable to my analogy.
"It's more akin to if Airtran had a clause saying "we'll sell you the ticket at this price, but once you have to go eat at this resturant that sponsors us". Would that be enforcable? Highly doubtful."
If thats what the contract says... its very enforcable.
"I have no obligation to help them make a profit."
No, but you don't have the right to restrict them from making a profit. Its the same with concert tickets. Its illegal to scalp tickets. If a cop catches you selling outside the venue, you will be arrested.
"The law doesn't care about Apple making money. It just cares about its copyright being protected. Beyond that, Apple is on its own."
It cares about their copyright... and there is no reason to believe that the courts wouldn't side with Apple should someone breach their EULA.
Member since:"I'm using that terminology because the topic is being taken out of context by talking of OS X being installed on vanilla PCs. If we take that factor out of the equation, then it would be inappropriate for me to say that it is "subsidized by" because it negates the fact that Mac hardware and the OS are one product."
- There is no "fact" that Apple hardware and OS X are "one product." If they are one product, then legally, they need to be sold together, and exclusively together.
"By calling it a gamble, you're deemphasizing the fact that they are one product. The gamble desciption is incorrect because its based on the notion that these are two seperate products not unlike the PC piecemeal approach."
-No, it is a gamble, because they do sell them seperately, thus they are not one product.
"But the breach of contract in this case has a very direct implication in lost sales. Calling it theft or breach of contract is symatics IMHO because the end result is still taking something that doesn't belong to you."
-Unfortunately (for the sake of your argument), the law states that a breach of contract is one thing, theft is another.
Purchasing OS X for use on non-Apple-hardware is neither contract breach, nor is it theft. This is not a case of "symatics[sic]," it's a case of Apple trying to write their own laws through the use of EULAs, and hoping that nobody will call them out on it (though Apple is not the only company to do this).
"EULAs are contracts and they're held up by the law."
No, they are not upheld by the law, and if they ever did make it to court, it would be ruled that they are misleading, as in their current iteration, the user has no choice but to purchase the product in question before they even have the opportunity to view the EULA, let alone decide to agree or disagree to it.
"'It's more akin to if Airtran had a clause saying "we'll sell you the ticket at this price, but once you have to go eat at this resturant that sponsors us". Would that be enforcable? Highly doubtful.'"
"If thats what the contract says... its very enforcable."
It's not the same, though, because the customer has to agree or disagree at the time of purchase, thus the contract is valid. It would be more appropriate if Airtran sold you the ticket without saying anything, and then, as you're about to board the plane, an Airtran representative presented you with a EULA, which stated that your agreeance is implied by your boarding the plane. And, AND, if you decided to disagree, they refuse to refund you your money for the ticket. THEN it would be applicable to software EULAs, and the courts would side with the consumer on that one.
"No, but you don't have the right to restrict them from making a profit. Its the same with concert tickets. Its illegal to scalp tickets. If a cop catches you selling outside the venue, you will be arrested."
Actually, yes, I have every right to restrict them from making a profit as long as I don't break a law doing so. Since the legality of the EULA is very heavily called into question, I suggest you find another argument to try to refute this with. If I want to lead a massive boycott against Apple Computers, I can, and no law says otherwise. If Apple made a stupid marketing decision, and I can take advantage of it legally, thus causing Apple to lose money, then no law says, "Now WAIT a minute, you're causing them to lose their profit, so... y'know. Shame on you, you bad, bad boy."
"It cares about their copyright... and there is no reason to believe that the courts wouldn't side with Apple should someone breach their EULA."
There IS reason to believe that, though. The EULA in its current form is extremely misleading. The customer has no choice but to agree to the EULA, as they have already purchased the product, and they would not receive a refund if they disagreed- thus they would lose their money. This is hardly fair to the customer, both legally and ethically.
Member since:2005-07-06
Thats exactly what I said. A better product at a fair price that is so compelling that you might buy it rather than be content with your existing OS on Apple hardware.
Nope. What you said implied that their motivation was making a better product, and being able to make some money from it. That's not the case. Their motivation is making money, and making a better product is just one way to accomplish that.
Unfortunately, what people are talking about here is not getting something as cheaply as possible within the boundries of the law but outside of it.
I don't think you can say that clearly. What is obvious is that the act of hacking MacOS X is not illegal. I think the Lexmark precedent establishes that pretty clearly. Now, whether you think using such a hacked copy on non-Apple hardware is legal depends on your view of the legality of Apple's EULA. Not just the legality of EULA's in general (which is sketchy in and of itself), but Apple's EULA specifically, with its bundling clause.
It does.
Actually, it doesn't say anything of the sort, either at Apple's webstore nor on CompUSA's. I'll bet it doesn't say anything on the box either.
By calling it a gamble, you're deemphasizing the fact that they are one product.
If they were one product, they'd have one pricetag. I'm sure Sony would love to use that reasoning to get you to buy a WEGA with a PS2, but they don't, because it's a stupid line of argument. If they sell is seperately, it's a seperate product, period.
But the breach of contract in this case has a very direct implication in lost sales. Calling it theft or breach of contract is symatics IMHO because the end result is still taking something that doesn't belong to you.
Legality is all about semantics. And here in the US, legal versus illegal is all that matters. And I'm not taking anything, I'm buying something that they're selling to me. If Apple is counting on unenforcable (and probably illegal) bundling agreements to make up losses on that sale, that's really their problem. And excuse me if I don't see "breach of contract" as "theft", especially when its a case of Apple trying to have their cake (selling standalone copies of OS X to keep existing users happy) and eat it too (preventing users from using OS X without first buying a Mac).
EULAs are contracts and they're held up by the law.
They've also been struck down by the law. It probably depends on the nature of the EULA. Given the Lexmark case, I have a strong feeling Apple's EULA would not hold up in court.
Just because a contract hasn't been tried in court doesn't negate its principal. If I sign a contract with somebody... I'm not allowed to breach it until that contract is tried in court.
The argument here isn't whether or not you're allowed to breach the contract, its about whether there is a contract at all! Any given contract may not hold up, but the question is whether the kind of "contract" Apple is pushing is even valid.
I don't see any reason to see why they wouldn't be legal at all. I think tose that thinkn otherwise are simply trying to get something for less than is required of them.
Yes, we're trying to get something for less, it's the American way! The question is whether its legal or not. And if you don't see why it wouldn't be illegal, you're blind.
I disagree, because your argument was about buying a Mac mini and then transfering that license over to Dell PC.
That statement is completely and utterly clueless. Licenses are granted to people and redistribution pertains to people. You are the same person whether you use it on a Dell or a Mac, so there is no redistribution here.
If thats what the contract says... its very enforcable.
What??? If you think that, this argument is pointless. If Microsoft's bundling MSN with a discounted computer is illegal, what makes you think bundling a resteraunt service with a discounted ticket is legal?
No, but you don't have the right to restrict them from making a profit. Its the same with concert tickets. Its illegal to scalp tickets. If a cop catches you selling outside the venue, you will be arrested.
Interesting you mention this, because it somewhat undermines your argument. Traditionally, scalping laws have not been couched in "breech of contract" terms, likey because they'd be unenforcable if they were. Rather, they've been couched in terms of the state's or municipality's control over the terms of commerce. That's why you get arrested when you scalp tickets, instead of having a breech of contract lawsuit from Ticketmaster show up in your mailbox! Again, since you're not reselling OS X86, such justifications would be irrelevent.
Member since:2005-08-02
Member since:
2005-07-06
I think the thinking probably goes more along the line of... How can we make a better OS for Rayiner and how can we get a a fair amount of money for having done so?
Bullshit. More like, "how do we make the OS better so Rayiner will spend more for it". A subtle distinction, yes, but the motivation is completely different. Companies are in the business of making as much money as they can within the bounds of the law. Consumers are in the business of getting as much stuff as they can as cheaply as possible, within the bounds of the law. There is no obligation, no allegience, no good-will, and no other such silly notions. It's an adversarial system and I like it that way.
For the price of a Macintosh computer and the price of any upgrades you might also choose to purchase.
If that was the price, that's what it would say on the price label.
When you purchase OS X for a vanilla PC, thats money lost for Apple because OS X is subsadized by the sale of Mac hardware.
I don't think you understand the concept of "subsidized" prices. When we say "the price of X is subsidized by the revenues for Y", X and Y are not inevitably linked. Otherwise, its a bundling agreement. What they are is linked as a trend. Example: if George buys an XBox, he'll tend to buy games for it. The price of the XBox is subsidized by revenues from the games. If George doesn't buy any games, he still paid the fair price for the XBox. The fact that this fair price didn't make Microsoft any money is irrelevent.
Don't forget the original motivation of these "X subsidizes Y" arrangements: to make more money. Apple isn't pricing OS X at $200 (or whatever it costs) out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because it ultimately helps Mac sales (by keeping people on the platform with upgrades). It's a gamble, and if they lose the bet, it was just that --- a lost bet, not theft!
No, not at all. Its theft to go against the EULA which requires that the software be installed on an Apple computer.
Where do you live? I ask because even if we assume that an EULA is a contract, a breach of contract is a completely different thing from theft. The two things aren't even tried by the same courts! Beyond that, you're speaking as if the EULA is a law. It's not. At best its a contract, but there is not enough evidence to prove that it even has that level of force. And even if it is a contract, you have to question whether its terms are legal, considering the substantial amount of legislation and case-law precedence against such agreements.
If there was a clause that precluded you from buying extra tickets at the discounted rate and then selling it at that price to those who purchased late... then that would be illegal too.
That's an interesting analogy, but you just brought a very different element into the game: redistribution or transfer of ownership. The law gets very weird with regards to redistribution, and we're not talking about making copies of OS X86 for your friends, so your analogy is useless. It's more akin to if Airtran had a clause saying "we'll sell you the ticket at this price, but once you have to go eat at this resturant that sponsors us". Would that be enforcable? Highly doubtful.
I hope not. You didn't cheat them out of anything. Their business model allows them to sell you tickets at that price while still maintaining a profit.
I have no obligation to help them make a profit. If I told all my friends to book a month in advance, and they lost money because they count on late-bookers for their profits, I'd feel just dandy. The law doesn't care about Apple making money. It just cares about its copyright being protected. Beyond that, Apple is on its own.