Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Sep 2009 19:20 UTC
Legal Apple has responded to Psystar's new lawsuit today, stating that it is nothing but a stall tactic on Psystar's end. While I could just paraphrase whatever the filing reads, I decided to take this opportunity to address a number of sentiments and analogies often made in comment threads (not necessarily on OSNews).
Thread beginning with comment 382054
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lurch_mojoff
Member since:
2007-05-12

Personally, I'm already disinclined to feel much sympathy for Apple in this matter...

Seriously, you cannot feel sympathy for them? Even though if we distill the issue it will sound like this - an entity (I'm not using company or corporation, because everyone's reaction these days seems to automatically be - companies are big and rich and therefor evil) invests money, quite a lot of it, I'd assume, given the level of talent that works there, into the development of a piece of software, for the sole reason of having something to differentiate them from their competition; and the product of said investment is taken by said competition and used to sell stuff, under the pretense that the terms of the license don't apply to them or that the license is bullshit.

Would you feel so little sympathy if the places of the "underdog" and the evil corporation were reversed?

Reply Parent Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Seriously, you cannot feel sympathy for them?


Mmm? Yes, that's what I wrote.

Even though if we distill the issue it will sound like this - an entity (I'm not using company or corporation, because everyone's reaction these days seems to automatically be - companies are big and rich and therefor evil) invests money, quite a lot of it, I'd assume, given the level of talent that works there, into the development of a piece of software, for the sole reason of having something to differentiate them from their competition; and the product of said investment is taken by said competition and used to sell stuff, under the pretense that the terms of the license don't apply to them or that the license is bullshit.


You left out a few fairly significant details. Like the fact that Apple also sells their operating system at retail, separate from their hardware (of course, if they *didn't* sell it at retail, that might put them in the position of having to provide free major version upgrades to existing Mac owners - cutting off, I presume, a decent income stream).

Or the fact that there are perfectly legitimate ways for them to limit the use of OS X to Apple hardware - like requiring all OS X/Mac buyers to sign a clear contract at/before purchase (of course, that would probably inconvenience Apple and cost them - both in terms of lost sales & extra logistical expenses). Thom's article even gave an example of that exact approach.

What it essentially amounts to is that Apple is trying to have their cake (use powerful, inexpensive commodity hardware) and eat it too (limit their OS to their own hardware). So no - the feeling that evokes in me is most definitely *not* sympathy, more like bemusement.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lurch_mojoff Member since:
2007-05-12

You left out a few fairly significant details. Like the fact that Apple also sells their operating system at retail, separate from their hardware (of course, if they *didn't* sell it at retail, that might put them in the position of having to provide free major version upgrades to existing Mac owners - cutting off, I presume, a decent income stream).


Retail or not, Apple are still selling you a license, which comes with the terms detailed in the software license agreement.

Anyway, do you feel the same way about Snow Leopard, which is sold for $29, although there have been no less time, effort and money invested in its development than any of its predecessors?

Or the fact that there are perfectly legitimate ways for them to limit the use of OS X to Apple hardware - like requiring all OS X/Mac buyers to sign a clear contract at/before purchase (of course, that would probably inconvenience Apple and cost them - both in terms of lost sales & extra logistical expenses). Thom's article even gave an example of that exact approach.


And you too conveniently omit the fact that it will also significantly inconvenience the user purchasing the software. In other words you think that because Apple decided to treat their customers like honest people and not implement, like other companies, amongst which Microsoft and Adobe, some asinine serial number and activation scheme, they should be punished now.

What it essentially amounts to is that Apple is trying to have their cake (use powerful, inexpensive commodity hardware) and eat it too (limit their OS to their own hardware). So no - the feeling that evokes in me is most definitely *not* sympathy, more like bemusement.


Bemusement, in fact, is a very good description of the way I feel after reading this last part of your response. I've already said it, but i seems it bares repeating, Apple invest time, effort, and money into the development of Mac OS X for the sole and explicit purpose of differentiating their "powerful, inexpensive commodity hardware" from everybody else's. For that they fully deserve to reap the benefits of that investment.

Reply Parent Score: 1