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 95744
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:16 UTC 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

RE[6]: hmm..
by rayiner on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:46 in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
rayiner Member since:
2005-07-06

All your arguments were made as if the law is infallible.

The law is the law. You have to follow it as it is, and you can take advantage of it as it is. If Apple wants the law changed, they can lobby for it. Indeed, I'm sure they already are.

If the current legal system is inadequate

The current legal system is perfectly adequate, and perfectly consistent with a model where an author does not own a work, in a conventional sense, but is only granted temporary control of it. If you don't like that model, to bad, that is what we have in the US, even if it is being pared down day by day.


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.

I don't have to ethically justify that, I just have to legally justify that. Beyond that, on an ethical level, I do not believe people have the right to decide how their products get used. I don't believe that people should have that kind of power over other people. Apparently, the law as it stands agrees with me.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: hmm..
by Johan on Wed 15th Feb 2006 05:54 in reply to "RE[5]: hmm.."
Johan Member since:
2005-06-30

Well, if you don't want to ethcally justify that, then we have nothing to talk about. My original post was about ethics, since the post I was replying to was going braveheart on us an crying FREEDOOOOM and proceed to cheat apple of money.

Apple has no power to force you to buy their wares. They don't coerce anybody to doanything. How you feel about the way they are selling their products does mean its ethical to lie to them, and thereby deciding yourself how they should run their business.

Reply Parent Score: 1