OSNews

(edit: I should add that this isn't aimed directly at you, merely an in-general statement brought about by your comment)

If you don't agree with Apple's practices and terms, don't buy their stuff.

Seriously, is this really, really hard for people to grasp or something?

It feels like people have this misconception that "voting with your wallet" means buying a companies stuff even though they disagree with them, and then complaining about it endlessly.

Apple can tell people what to do with their hardware and software as long as people keep buying it, regardless of "come see the violence inherit in the system!" complaints.

Edited 2008-07-15 20:32 UTC

I wouldn't buy anything from Apple, not even an iPod.
Not giving their blessing to Psystar is one thing. Suing them for selling hardware is something else. Since when nobody can sell hardware that supports MacOS (except Apple of course)?
This is a regrettable decision for the consumers (less choice) and for Apple (this is how you get more market share). Whatever, I don't give a flying shit actually.
I won't buy a Mac or a Mac clone in a thousand years.

In most cases, I would say that is true. As for PsyStar itself, their actions may be construed as an act of civil disobedience. This was not under the table stuff. It was done in plain view. Unfortunately, there was monetary gain. But it could be argued that Apple would not have launced a credible lawsuit based upon the EULA otherwise.



Some people have this misconception that businesses are democratic, and that buying stuff is a means of giving them a vote. This is completely untrue, which is one reason why transactions with businesses are subject to a lot of regulation.

Some of those regulations concern the ownership of property. This entails rights which pretty much every EULA argues that you do not have. The sad fact is, too much of our computer use is governed by EULAs. Even open source software presents an EULA to the user, even though those are much more balanced than their commercial counterparts.

So if someone wants to take on a company like Apple to try to invalidate, or at least limit the use of, EULAs, I congratulate them. And I sincerely hope that is what Psystar was trying to do when coming out in such a public manner.

You seem to have misspelled "love it or leave it!"

But we have right to criticize what Apple does right? This is about freedom of speech.

Apple IMO is worst company. One that itself [ab]uses open source and on top of that doesn't even let users decide what hardware they want to run their OS on.

Rotten Apple!

Edited 2008-07-16 00:31 UTC

Indeed. Complaints about the business practices of a large mass-merchandiser and the way they undercut the "Mom & Pop" stores abound, but these same people shop there because it's cheaper than anywhere else! Can't have it both ways....

Well, sure, they can tell people that but that doesn't mean people have an obligation to follow. That's what we call consumer law.

who died and made you boss of people's opinions? Complaining about a licensing practice or product is just as much a way of "wallet voting" as anything else. Besides, when it comes to large companies as well as monopolies "wallet voting" does NOT work which is the whole point of anti-trust.

I'm not saying that Apple is a monopoly at all btw I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your argument satan666.

Apple doesn't sell software. They sell you a right to use.

Just like you don't own the music that you buy a right to listen to on a CD.

Well, that's the debate. That is how software companies and music companies would like it to be. However, whether that is how the law (in whatever territory you live in) allows that is a different, and rather unclear, issue. This case will go some way to resolving it.

Ahh...but Sony Music can't specify that you can only listen to the music on the CD with a Sony player though can they?

The issue here is not 'illegality'...it's not 'illegal' to install OSX on other hardware...but it does make it 'unsupported'. By installing the software on any hardware beyond a Mac, you're breaking the EULA and so, you're on your own. Good luck to ya.

Beyond that, Apple have no right to force you to do anything.

And you do realise that Microsoft and Apple have completely different models - Microsoft can do what they do because they're a software company; Apple can't do what Microsoft does because it would require a complete change in the model - and it is doubtful that it would pay off in the end.

As for your psuedo-human-rights rant over what one should be allowed to do with their software - how is that any different to, for example, a games company refusing to pay royalties to Sony for their game to run on the Sony Playstation platform? the whole business models falls over because of it. Its because of this very model that you can pick up a Playstation for a few hundred rather than a few thousand.

Heck, there are restrictions placed on software all the time - what about academic software? using your logic, thousands of students would miss out on cheap software because of your 'one size fits all approach' thinks its going to enhance freedom when in reality it screws over the very people it is meant to assist.

Back to Apple again, I might have had sympathy if this were 15 years ago, and a Mac low end would set one back around NZ$4,000. That isn't the case now. Mac's are accessible in price; heck, a MacBook in New Zealand costs around NZ$2099 incl GST, which is no more expensive than a HP bought from a big name retailer. I picked up an iMac for, 2.6Ghz model with everyone one would need - at a price similar to that of HP and NEC computers on sale in big name retailers.

I've got nothing against it simiply as a research project to understand how things work, but when a company gets behind it, and starts making money off it - it moves it into a whole new ball park; just as I've maintained that opensource projects should be exempt from patent payments when the code and binaries are shipped stand alone and free of charge. It is about being reasonable.

Edited 2008-07-16 02:31 UTC

I disagree, especially with the climate nowadays. The change in their model is that they would have to hike the price of OSX. They would make a lot of money and get a hell of alot more users even if they jumped to vista home premium prices. They could even do it simultaniously with keeping the hardware with the huge margins, and discount the price for "Mac only" versions of OSX.

It isn't even like drivers are a problem, the hackintosh community is pretty damn small, but they have been able to get it to the point where osx can run on almost anything.



I completely agree with that. This idea that it is morally wrong for someone who owns something to decide how it can or cannot be used REALLY bothers me.

Apparently, it is up to court, and to you, to decide.

DG