LOL I love the " waaaa lemme use OS X!" posts. You whiners DO realize that if they did that, the company and its great products would cease to exist right?
Mac Specs: 2000 Power Mac G4 "Sawtooth" w/ Mac OS X 10.4; 500mHz; Early 2009 Mac Mini, 2gHz, 10.6
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZorroAMG
LOL I love the " waaaa lemme use OS X!" posts. You whiners DO realize that if they did that, the company and its great products would cease to exist right?
Name an OS from Apple recently that didn't use a piece of Mac OS X.
Name an OS from Apple recently that didn't use a piece of Mac OS X.
That makes no sence at all. Quoted for posterity. And quite funny too. All OS's use peices from themselves. They use all of themselves too. I fail to see the point of your post though.
__________________
Last edited by bobtomay; 11-21-2009 at 09:40 AM.
Reason: changed word, didn't think you'd mind
Mac Specs: 2000 Power Mac G4 "Sawtooth" w/ Mac OS X 10.4; 500mHz; Early 2009 Mac Mini, 2gHz, 10.6
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8thark
That makes no sence at all. Quoted for posterity. And quite funny too. All OS's use peices from themselves. They use all of themselves too. I fail to see the point of your post though.
I was quoting ZorroAMG on the fact "that if they did that, the company and its great products would cease to exist right?" on how us whiners say "lemme use OS X!"
Here: let me sum it up:
"LOL I love the " waaaa lemme use OS X!" posts. You whiners DO realize that if they did that, the company and its great products would cease to exist right?"
If that were true, then why does the iPhone OS use part of the kernel from Mac OS X 10.5? Why do all Mac's come with Mac OS X 10.x? Because it's the only OS that Apple makes! If and when Apple releases this tablet, what do you think that OS will be based off of? Mac OS X! That's why I said in response: "Name an OS from Apple recently that did not use a piece of Mac OS X." Should I reword it?
Here: Name an OS that Apple has used recently that IS NOT a piece of Mac OS X.
Here: Name an OS that Apple has used recently that IS NOT a piece of Mac OS X.
Why would I care? That was never my question or the direction of my comment.
DUDE, you still make NO sense. Apple products are partly selling and a large part great BECAUSE of OS X. If they allowed OS X to be used on any machine, they would lose revenue on computer sales; their largest profit margin. This would spell fail as a company eventually, since their product base is very small. I'm not interested in letting Apple become a software company, are you?
It's their product and their right, I hope they never satisfy your demand in that respect, sorry.
Mac Specs: Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD
I think that's what he's getting at. He's saying that Apple is so successful because it's using OS X or a derivation of it in all of its products. Granted, his wording is indeed awful.
__________________
Save a tree. Eat a beaver.
If that thing under the porch ate your dog, it's probably not a cat.
Browse the forum ad free with a Premium Membership.
What Psystar did was infringement and I seriously doubt that any company that tries to follow in Psystar's foot steps is going to win any battles in court.
While it certainly creates some satisfaction, I don't know how people can be exstactic of this decision. To me, while it looks on the surface like a major "hear me roar" chest beating of Psystar, it leaves me with some concern.
My first concern is that if Apple is getting all chuffed over Psystar is a little hypocritical as well. The core kernel and OS of Mac OS is nothing that Apple created - it's BSD. It's core foundation is someone else's brain child.
My second concern is that EULA's are regularly not worth the paper they are written on, except where it comes to intellectual copyright properties. My concern is that now courts will feel empowered to uphold even the stupidest innane EULA without the base issue being intellectual property rights.
My third concern is that legally Psystar does have a good legal challenge, as they were never copying and passing off as their own, they were simply transferring ownership...which is acceptable in copyright law. Methinks that Apple simply pursued this in a court sympathetic to their cause, which is half the battle in legal games. If Dell had done this, they would have the resources necessary to make sure it didn't make it to court, and to mount a proper challenge. So Apple taking Psystar on in court is like the 500lbs gorilla beating up the 5lbs chihuahua.
My last concern, is that this victory is a short-term victory that does little to address Apple's real problem with it's desktop and notebooks: marketshare. In the short-term will ensure they have complete control over their product, they won't grow that product until they become more accessible to people that really want their product.
While the iPhone/iPod line represent a fair amount of their revenue, they also hold healthy marketshare in those area's. MacBooks and iMac and their servers, while truly phenomenal products, only represent low double, if not single digit percentages. This has been a thorn in Apple's side since they started this business. They cannot breach beyond 30% marketshare in the PC market, and past probably 2% in the server market. Yet, they have products that really aren't that different from dominant market share partners.
So, while I am happy the investments I've made in my Mac's are protected, I would still like to see Apple open up it's OS. It's the only true Windows competitor and could easily be ported (as evidenced by Hackintosh's), yet the only person holding back their success is Apple.
DCMA. They are breaking copy protection. I have MANY Windows machines here and a Netbook that will run OSX. Put in the OSX 10.5 Retail Install, nothing. It will not boot, it will do nothing. You have to get around the EFI Firmware which is Apples protection and doing that breaks DCMA. That is a fact and totally illegal.
I am not trying to be an Apple Loylest here or FanBoy, just stating the Law and what they are doing. I am sure this is not the end but at least it does send a message to others.
DCMA. They are breaking copy protection. I have MANY Windows machines here and a Netbook that will run OSX. Put in the OSX 10.5 Retail Install, nothing. It will not boot, it will do nothing. You have to get around the EFI Firmware which is Apples protection and doing that breaks DCMA. That is a fact and totally illegal.
DCMA makes using your PC illegal. And it only applies to Americans. Apple products are sold world wide, and could potentially be sold world wide. So if Apple is using the DCMA to product it's rights, that has a very, narrow limited scope.
I'm not condoning that Psystar presents and represents a product that Apple does not endorse, or that they infringe upon copyright, but really in the end it's my opinion that this is a near sighted win for Apple. It does nothing to promote their long-term growth, or enhance their marketshare.
Quote:
I am not trying to be an Apple Loylest here or FanBoy, just stating the Law and what they are doing. I am sure this is not the end but at least it does send a message to others.
Nothing wrong with being a loyalist or fanboy...Apple has a very strong product, and as a long time PC users I have to admit my Macbook aluminum has me smitten. It's the best laptop I've ever owned. Period.
I just happen to be a realist and feel Apple has great 5 year foresight - but they don't see much past the next product.
FWIW, I agree with you to some extent (and see my editorial on the blog if you'd like to see more of my thoughts on the issue).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfmann
DCMA makes using your PC illegal.
It makes breaking encryption in general illegal. Unfortunately, the implications of that also negate prior fair use doctrine in US law.
Quote:
And it only applies to Americans. Apple products are sold world wide, and could potentially be sold world wide. So if Apple is using the DCMA to product it's rights, that has a very, narrow limited scope.
Opening up OS X to anyone breaks one of Apple's core strengths, vertically integrated systems. This means that Apple is now tasked with supporting other hardware in their development, which makes building a secure, reliable and consistent OS a much more daunting proposition. Additionally, you would start to see the same kind of support finger pointing that you do with Microsoft and their hardware vendors.
Quote:
I'm not condoning that Psystar presents and represents a product that Apple does not endorse, or that they infringe upon copyright, but really in the end it's my opinion that this is a near sighted win for Apple. It does nothing to promote their long-term growth, or enhance their marketshare.
Apple's stated goal is not to take huge marketshare, it's to build the best PCs they know how. I know that sounds trite, but it's been restated frequently by them and I think it's something that plays into their corporate vision.
Quote:
Nothing wrong with being a loyalist or fanboy...Apple has a very strong product, and as a long time PC users I have to admit my Macbook aluminum has me smitten. It's the best laptop I've ever owned. Period.
I just happen to be a realist and feel Apple has great 5 year foresight - but they don't see much past the next product.
While I'd personally like to see them do some limited licensing to certain hardware vendors for niches that they don't currently play in, I think the reason you're seeing this kind of sentiment over Psystar being smacked down is that many of the long-time Apple fans lived through clones way back when and saw what it did to Apple. I think it's a very different market now and it would be more successful overall, but I'm not sure that it's in line with Apple's ultimate goals.
Think Different.
