Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 12:51 UTC
Editorial A couple of years ago, a professor at my university had a very interesting thought exchange with the class I was in. We were a small group, and I knew most of them, they were my friends. Anyway, we had a talk about language purism - not an unimportant subject if you study English in The Netherlands.
Thread beginning with comment 390990
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: It's simple really...
by alcibiades on Sun 25th Oct 2009 18:31 UTC in reply to "It's simple really..."
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

No, he is not suggesting they follow the MS business model. MS doesn't supply installed copies of Windows on a PC. He is not suggesting Apple stop shipping hardware with OSX installed. Of course not.

He is suggesting that they either stop selling retail copies OR allow people to do what they like with their retail copies when bought.

But what they should stop doing is, sell retail copies, and then try to tell buyers what they can and cannot do with them.

Why this is supposed to mean that they stop selling bundled hardware and software? No idea.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: It's simple really...
by wirespot on Sun 25th Oct 2009 22:20 in reply to "RE: It's simple really..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

MS doesn't supply installed copies of Windows on a PC.


Are you kidding me?! That's how the vast majority of [legal] Windows copies get sold. Very seldom do people go to the store and buy a boxed copy (if only because it's so much more expensive). They usually get an OEM version with a computer, and the cost is disguised in the price of that computer.

He is suggesting that they either stop selling retail copies OR allow people to do what they like with their retail copies when bought.


How is that a problem? Apple is allowing people to do just that. Have you seen Apple sue any individual who installed OS X on non-Apple hardware? What they have a problem with is companies who want to undermine their business model by producing Mac clones against Apple's express wishes and legal license.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

How is that a problem? Apple is allowing people to do just that. Have you seen Apple sue any individual who installed OS X on non-Apple hardware? What they have a problem with is companies who want to undermine their business model by producing Mac clones against Apple's express wishes and legal license.


...and that exact same license is used for ordinary consumers. If the judge rules that the specific EULA clause is valid, and Psystar is not allowed to install Mac OS X on non-Apple labelled machines, then that is just as much jurisprudence for companies as it is for individuals. The law makes no distinction.

If what you say is true, then Apple would've included that in its EULA - which is quite a common practice. There are literally countless of EULAs out there that give a lot of freedom to individuals, but restrict usage for commercial endeavours.

Apple is actively trying to make it illegal to jailbreak iPhones, a practice only done by individuals - and you're telling me they are okay with people like me installing Mac OS X on a non-Apple labelled machine? For a company so actively trying to prevent jailbreaking, it sure dun' seen like it.

Apple fanatics continuously put Psystar apart from individuals, but this is nonsense. Apple has a single EULA, covering both cases, and in said EULA, no distinction is made. Any ruling by the judge affects both cases, because legally, there is no difference between me selling my Mac clone on eBay, and Psystar.

Edited 2009-10-25 22:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2