Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2006 22:49 UTC, submitted by jayson.knight
Mac OS X It seems like flee-in-Apple's-fur, cracker 'Maxxuss', has succeeded in cracking Mac OS 10.4.4 for Intel. "We were just about to hunker down and wait through the cold winter and a wet spring until we saw some results on the OS X 10.4.4 for Intel hacking efforts, but it looks like we're getting a little Valentines present from 'Maxxuss' who has already broken through Apple's heightened security that is present in their shipping version of the OS. It's just a preliminary release, not all hardware is supported and it requires a bit of futzing around to get it to work, but seeing as we weren't expecting this kind of breakthrough this early, we really can't complain."
Thread beginning with comment 95734
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: hmm.."
Johan
Member since:
2005-06-30

The quest for freedom is a universal human need.

That's the biggest bullshit argument I've ever heard. If you're going to swindle Apple, just shutup and do it quietly. Don't hide behind the some idealism, trying to justify to yourself you're doing this for the good of mankind. There is no honour in breaking promises.

Apple only wants to sell OSX to people their hardware, that's the only way they can cover the costs and make a profit out of the enormous financial investments they put into developing the OS. They just can't justify the costs of development if the hardware costs are not included. If everyone bought OSX but not Apple machines, Apple will lose money. So theres an agreement that you can only install osx into Apple computers.

We all know this. You can argue the legality till the cows come home. If the current law cannot uphold this basic agreement, than its the failure of the system. But by actively trying to break this agreement, its ethically wrong. So don't try to claim some moral reason for dishonouring that agreement.

Apple is free to sell their products in any way they choose, and they do not force it upon anybody. You are free to not buy their products. But by dishonouring the agreement, and making them lose money, you are infringing on their freedom to make a living.

One does not have the freedom to infringe upon the freedom of others.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: hmm..
by archiesteel on Wed 15th Feb 2006 04:59 in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Apple is free to sell their products in any way they choose, and they do not force it upon anybody. You are free to not buy their products. But by dishonouring the agreement, and making them lose money, you are infringing on their freedom to make a living.

I'm sorry, but if Apple choses the wrong business model, it is their own problem. They are free to sell their products any way they choose, but that doesn't mean that the model they chose is sound...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:21 in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

damnit, i was going to hit reply but accidentally modded you up. oh well consider it a gift.

I'm sorry, but if Apple choses the wrong business model, it is their own problem. They are free to sell their products any way they choose, but that doesn't mean that the model they chose is sound...

If their model is not sound, then it their freedom to run it to the ground. No one else has the right to decide their business model for them. Does it make it right for me to steal more fruits from the grocer if i think they are overcharging? No, but i do have the power to not buy from them.

Thieves can't get away with the excuse "i don't think their business model was right". Neither can we.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:16 in reply to "RE[3]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

They just can't justify the costs of development if the hardware costs are not included. If everyone bought OSX but not Apple machines, Apple will lose money. So theres an agreement that you can only install osx into Apple computers.

If I were Apple, I'd be hesitant about basing my entire business model on a pseudo-contract that is on shakey legal ground even in the US, and is obviously not valid in some countries around the world. Of course, Apple is smarter than that. They count on the vast majority of users simply accepting that what's on the box is the law, and never challenging that idea. History suggests that they are right in believing this. However, that does not change the fact that there is thus nothing wrong with taking advantage of what you are legally allowed to do.

We all know this. You can argue the legality till the cows come home. If the current law cannot uphold this basic agreement, than its the failure of the system.

You speak as if having copyright holders dictate the terms of use is a good thing. Pesonally, I'm glad the system fails to uphold such a policy! I'm glad I live somewhere where, at least in theory if not in practice, the power of people over the actions of others is limited as much as possible. It's basic western thinking, though consumerism has diluted the power of the ideas somewhat.

Of course, at the very lowest level, its not a matter of ideology, but one of reality. The law is what it is. Apple maximizes its profit as much as it can within the law. I am, therefore, perfectly entitled to maximize my utility as much as I can within the law.

But by actively trying to break this agreement, its ethically wrong.

What is ethically wrong is basing your business model on the coercion of your customers.

But by dishonouring the agreement, and making them lose money, you are infringing on their freedom to make a living.

In the United States, people are not granted to make a living however they choose. They are granted the right to do so within the bounds of the law. If your business model depends on your customers obeying terms that they have no legal obligation to, that's your problem. Society is not obliged to make your business model work for you. I could very well start a bakery based on the "take a cookie, leave a dollar" model. Hell, I'd even have more legal standing to take people to court for violating that policy than Apple would for violating their EULA. But my business would likely not succeed, and society would not be obliged to see that it did.

Edited 2006-02-15 05:20

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[5]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:35 in reply to "RE[4]: hmm.."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

All your arguments were made as if the law is infallible. Laws change, society changes. Business models change throughout history and the law gets modified to accommodate them. If the current legal system is inadequate, it does not mean its ethically right to abuse loopholes. Many big businesses have done many abusive practices despite being within the confines of the law at that time.

At the most basic level, Apple is saying that, ok, i will only sell this to you if you install it on a machine you bought from me. You said, fine. But yet, behind Apple's back, you break that promise. There's no way you can ethically try to justify that.

Reply Parent Score: 1