To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
This is a very bad move. I mean, the latest Apples are just dual core pentiums with intel gfx. Pretty much standard on dirt cheap PC's
Are we mow going to see Apple sue every PC manufacturer becuse someone "might" be able to install OSX on their white box ?
>> Suing them for selling hardware is something else. Since when nobody can sell hardware that supports MacOS (except Apple of course)? <<
Apple isn't suing Psystar for selling "MacOS X Compatible Hardware", because they aren't. Nobody can. Apple puts stuff on the boards and in the BIOS that MacOS X looks for, and that nobody else can legally replicate. Plus, it wouldn't be financially sound for someone to keep re-engineering boards to be MacOS X compatible.
Apple is suing Psystar for selling systems pre-loaded with MacOS X and modifying MacOS X to work on otherwise incompatible boards.
Apple is claiming that Psystar is selling a derivative and unlicensed version of MacOS X. Which is based on the Retail MacOS X, but is altered in contravention of the license.
Whether that will hold up in court is interesting.
In any event, Apple makes more money from iPods and iPhones and the iTunes Music Store.
If they lose this suit and tons of Apple Clones start being marketed by Dell and Gateway... It won't hurt them all that much.
It might hurt us if Apple decides not to continue making computers or slows down the development on MacOS X.
We might lose, even if we "win".
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.
How is it civil disobedience to steal someone else's hard work and try to make cash out of it. Don't make them into a martyr, they are far from it. The author of the OSX86 project clearly denounced the project as he didn't intend his work to be used commercially, yet Psystar went ahead and did it anyway. Civil disobedience my ass, they are plain crooks.
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
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.
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.





Member since:
2005-11-10
(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