Psystar counter-sues Apple for anti-competitive business practices

[fatshitcat]

@jaez

 

I advise you, that if you think you're doing something illegal, then stop right away!

 

There's nothing worse than knowing something is wrong, and doing it anyway.

 

There's a big difference between that, and knowing that some people believe something is wrong, and you just disagree with that view, so you do it, because you believe you are right.

 

There's no difference, you brake the law either way. No one asks you in court of what you think.

 

"I misinterpreted the law..." There was a south park episode (partially) based on that, called "Eek, a {censored}!", in which Cartman taught kids to cheat tests, advising that when they are caught, say they "misinterpreted the rules". I urge you to watch that part.

[jaez]

@jaez

There's no difference, you brake the law either way. No one asks you in court of what you think.

 

"I misinterpreted the law..." There was a south park episode (partially) based on that, called "Eek, a {censored}!", in which Cartman taught kids to cheat tests, advising that when they are caught, say they "misinterpreted the rules". I urge you to watch that part.

 

 

How do laws change?

 

If someone writes a law, and one person disobeys that law, then that one person is arrested and charged. True.

 

What happens if everybody disobeys the same law? Do you arrest the whole population and charge them?

 

Who makes the law?

 

Ultimately, "we the people" make the law.

 

We the people, "tell our legislators what we think", and they are required to write that down in the form of a law for us, otherwise we fire them.

 

It is we the people who complain about injustice that we experience.

 

We the people say "tying A and B" is wrong. And any laws or rules found to attempt to tie two things together, and require the citizen to purchase one in order to use the other is unjust.

 

It is anti-competitive, because it doesn't allow us a choice between competitors, and its only purpose is the keep prices artificially high.

 

We the people have complained many times before, in other similar situations, and the courts have agreed with us.

 

We complained about Microsoft, and we won. Because there were many of us. And ultimately, it is we who make the law.

 

We the people complained when car manufacturers wanted to deny us their warranty when we used aftermarket compatible parts, they wanted us to buy their own parts, they wanted to tie the car to their auto part, to keep prices high, we fought for the right to untie the OEM part from the OEM product, and we won.

 

We the people are now fighting Apple, who most probably benefit from these other instances of "untying" laws already, I'm sure some people at Apple drive cars and use cheaper aftermarket parts, so it's a mystery how they justify to themselves the right to tie "OSX to MAC" and require the consumer to obey their EULA rule.

 

Ok, so you say, you don't "have to buy a MAC." Buy a Dell. Or just don't use computers at all.

 

Well, you don't have to buy a car, use the bus.

 

If the car ownership rules are unjust to you, just ride the subway or the bus instead.

 

That's not acceptable to "we the people."

 

That's why we get them to change the rules.

 

You know, the legislators can write anything and make it a law. It's only a vote that determines this.

 

But, if the people feel that law is illegal they simply disobey. Civil disobediance or compliance is the way the people vote.

 

That's because "the people" don't get to vote at the time the new rules become law. Their representitives vote for them.

 

And sometimes even the representatives misunderstand the will of the people.

 

So, the people vote afterwords by their action: compliance or disobediance. Thumbs up or thumbs down.

 

The whole Hackint0sh community has voted against Apple's EULA.

 

They can't be all wrong.

 

Ultimately, the judge gets the case and starts diliberations on the issue brought before it by "the people."

 

Sometimes, the judge, because of his training, can see "immediately" that a certain law is in conflict with the spirit and principles of one or more other laws on the books, and can quickly decide because "it is obvious what is right."

 

How can Apple be allowed to tie "OSX to MAC" when "FORD MOTOR CO." is not allowed to tie "FORD OIL" to the "FORD CAR", and EPSON is not allowed to tie "EPSON INK" to "EPSON PRINTER", etc.. and no other manufacturer is allowed to tie any two of their separate products together. What gives Apple the "special right" to be considered a different case? What is UNIQUE in the Apple situation?

 

Why is APPLE different from MICROSOFT? Why is the "IE + WIN" case different from the "OSX + MAC"?

 

Why would a competent judge side with Apple, when all other judges dealing with similar cases of "the tying of two products together" denied those firms the right to tie and bind the consumer to their products?

 

See?

 

The consumer of the OSX on PC product "knows" that he is right, and the APPLE EULA is misguided.

 

The Hackint0shes have voted.

[fatshitcat]

No, I don't see it, Washington.

 

Because consumers have alternatives in this case. They can buy a PC, and have windows(or whetever OS) on them. Apple doesn't prohibit 'we the people' to use computers.

Why is APPLE different from MICROSOFT? Why is the "IE + WIN" case different from the "OSX + MAC"?

 

Because Microsoft did leave no competition to IE. And they were sued.

Apple leaves competition to OS X since it allows to install Windows on Macs.

 

And just because you use OSx86 doesn't mean it should be legal.

But, if the people feel that law is illegal they simply disobey. Civil disobediance or compliance is the way the people vote.

No.

Voting is the way people vote. That's the only way. Civil disobedience is the way they may break the law. Are you telling me that if I ill you I vote for making manslaughter legal? Give me a break.

[jaez]

Because Microsoft did leave no competition to IE. And they were sued.

Apple leaves competition to OS X since it allows to install Windows on Macs.

 

And Apple wants no comptition to the Mac for OSX.

 

And just because you use OSx86 doesn't mean it should be legal.

 

I don't know about that. I only do things that are legal. I only disobey when the rule itself is illegal.

 

If a legislator writes an unconstitutional law, which law would you obey? The legislators new law? Or, the constitition, which is the supreme law of the land?

 

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

 

No.

Voting is the way people vote. That's the only way. Civil disobedience is the way they may break the law. Are you telling me that if I ill you I vote for making manslaughter legal? Give me a break.

 

Voting at election time is only for determining the representatives.

 

Then the citizen goes about his daily life. He believes the representative is working on his behalf. It's the reps full time job.

 

But, the citizen also votes everyday, to confirm or reject the law, By action.

 

A speed limit law is rejected on the day I have an emergency and need to get to the hospital.

 

See?

 

That's a vote too.

 

When the cop pulls me over, I explain my rejection of the law at that particular time.

 

[fatshitcat]

I still don't see it.

 

I don't know about that. I only do things that are legal. I only disobey when the rule itself is illegal.

That is an illegal thing to do already. And besides, it's hypocritical.

 

Or, the constitition, which is the supreme law of the land?

And what does your constitution say about OS X exactly?

 

Voting at election time is only for determining the representatives.

Not really, no.

 

When the cop pulls me over, I explain my rejection of the law at that particular time.

... and the cop will still fine you. That's not by any meaning a vote.

[jaez]

I still don't see it.

 

That is an illegal thing to do already. And besides, it's hypocritical.

 

All law has to be "interpreted". Who has the correct interpretation?

 

When the legislators make the law they have one interpretation.

 

When the citizen encounters a situation where that law might apply he has to interpret it again.

 

When the executive, i.e. the cop sees the citizen violating the law, that's again another interpretation, this time by the cop.

 

The judge makes the final determination, it's his interpretation that we accept, that says what is legal or illegal.

 

Even the judges interpretation can be overturned by another judge's interpretation.

 

When it gets to the supreme court, nine guys make the final determination on whether it's truly legal or illegal.

 

That's the only time we know for certain.

 

That's why Pres Bush could break all laws and get away with it.

 

Because he has five friends on the supreme court, a majority, that will always vote in his favor.

 

So, Bush is king.

 

All you need is five friends on the supreme court, and you can do anything in america.

 

The laws don't apply to you.

 

You can arrest citizens, invent a new label for them, call them "terrorists" or "enemy combatants", or "communists" or "whatever the moment requires",

and you can hold them indefinitely without trial, even though the law says citizens have rights etc..the law is "IRRELEVANT".

 

We make the law.

 

All we need is the "RIGHT FRIENDS".

 

See?

 

What is legal?

 

I only do legal things.

 

If you believe that Hackint0shes are illegal, that's your problem. Not mine.

 

I would just like to understand, if you really believe OSX on PC is illegal, why would you do it?

 

 

This is what I'm having a hard time understanding.

 

 

... and the cop will still fine you. That's not by any meaning a vote.

 

In fact, the cop did not fine me. But let me off with "a warning."

 

The reason for the "warning" is that, if another cop finds me speeding another day,

and I use the same excuse, the previous warning will be like a red light, and the cop

will then question whether this is just a ploy to speed for fun.

 

Then there would be a fine. I suppose.

 

 

The vote to reject the speed limit law at the time, was simultaneously a vote to confirm

a higher law, the law to preserve life, which required speedy transit to the hospital. See?

 

So, I really didn't break any law, since there was a higher law to which I was required to

subscribe to, and the laws were in conflict at that time. I just tossed the illegal one.

That's all.

[slacker25]

@ulin understand that point to .. but i guess i should make it more with the POV that apple could verywell change how they work altogether and stop making macs and setup more of a format like the nokia or oh lets bring xbox 360 and ps3 into play even though peole dont think thats a good example .. even though it is cause if phystar wins this is the type of thing that everyone will force apple into and there might not be any more OSX and oh oncemore making 3rd party companies that make great stuff to ignore OSX all together and you hackintosh slowly becoming daTED CAUSE APPLE DOESNT PRODUCE NEW VERSIONS OF IT and then they are in a wider market with ps3 and xbox and nokia and other stuff .... and this is pure logic ... law system in us is part of our gov ... ummm they make teir money based on how much money these companies make a {censored} load of money.... you tihnk weather apple is right or wrong is gonna matter they gonna side with apple cause they are one of their cash cows. and if apple all the sudden has to make move to put them and their profit margins into a larger market and kill pystar and the hackintosh by doing so then ... the next court hearing should be like this .... judge deciding if he wants to get his pay role this week or not

 

@ fat{censored}cat ....i love south park cartman is the funniest thing ever... but may like family guy more

[jaez]

@ulin understand that point to .. but i guess i should make it more with the POV that apple could verywell change how they work altogether and stop making macs

 

Why? All apple has to do is set the price for Leopard to some reasonable number, that truly reflects development costs of the OS, and price the Mac accordingly closer to the true value of the hardware, and continue to sell both OSX and MAC, removing the restriction from the EULA. Done.

 

What's the problems with that?

 

Right now, if a consumer wants the MAC hardware, because it looks cool, or works better, or simply has the features he needs, but he wants to run WINDOWS or LINUX on the box instead of OSX, Apple is forcing that consumer to pay the OSX price premium whether he want's OSX or not.

 

Recent cases involving a similar situation with sales of desktop computers that automatically come with windows pre-installed, where the user never intended to use Windows, but had to remove Microsoft's OS to install LINUX, resulted in the judgement that the consumer was entitled to get back the Windows price premium from the seller.

 

If you make two separate products, and you price them both fairly, then this problem never occurs.

 

There are people who love the MAC hardware, but want to run LINUX. Apple approves of these folks.

 

But, they pay an OSX price premium.

 

Why should they?

 

There are people who love OSX software, but want to run it on their own hardware. Why should this be a problem.

 

Why does Apple feel it's fair sell MACs to LINUX and/or WINDOWS users, with that built in OSX price premium, thus over charging them for the product,

but feel its unfair for people to pay for Leopard and install it on their own PC.

 

?

 

Explain that logic to me?

 

Anybody?

 

Who has the guts to try?

[slacker25]

@Jaez ... it isnt a bad idea if it worked but hey ask M$ their OS is the most inscure stuff there is on the face of this planet and no one can deny that unless they are in denial

 

the OS is secure and can stay secure cause of the packaging

 

so your asking apple to become M$ and be a POS by doing this

 

i really see no price premium ... tired of feeling like people telling everyone this bull to make it seem like come on jump on the hate mac/apple revolution or something

 

 

to compaire a 600$ POS dell to any mac is halarious

 

 

i really see no price premium ... tired of feeling like people telling everyone this bull to make it seem like come on jump on the hate mac/apple revolution or something

 

 

to compaire a 600$ POS dell to any mac is halarious

 

 

OK on case of say a dell thats not owned by MS and windows thats not Owned by desll but co exist in the same market as multiple other things that would be locking out other OS from the dell and not say playing far but if dell markets thier OWN os and locks it in thats their right as much as apples..... apple really has no obligation to call itself a pc or a computer or allow linux or windows to work on thier macs .... bu they do and for good reasons cause they could be lost to a suite on that one like dell and others did .... which is why they wont lose this they for seen this before hand and apple isnt in the habit of making mistakes that will lead to legal issues. if they had no grounds to keep the hardware locked then there just simply would not be a mac

[NoSmokingBandit]

Fair enough. However this depends on the outcome of the case: Psystar has not only filed counterclaims but demands that apple not restrict OSX to "apple labeled computers". _If_ the judge rules in favour of Psystar and Apple "switches OS" I don't see how the same ruling would not apply to the next OS.

i doubt that a ruling would result in Leo being available for pc's. Its more likely that a ruling in Psystar's favor would result in apple being prohibited from making any future OS require apple hardware. If they rule in psystars favor i expect them to require apple to make everything released past a certain date installable on any hardware.

[ulin]

i doubt that a ruling would result in Leo being available for pc's. Its more likely that a ruling in Psystar's favor would result in apple being prohibited from making any future OS require apple hardware. If they rule in psystars favor i expect them to require apple to make everything released past a certain date installable on any hardware.

The case is about OSX (leo/snow leo/10.7, any other version). You mean, if the ruling is in favor of Psystar, they'll have to open from the next major OSX version? Hm yeah that would at least buy Apple some time. But that would make _current_ Psystar business not valid which would mean Psystar didn't win the case but reached some kind of settlement with Apple. This is a very possible outcome of course.

 

@ulin understand that point to .. but i guess i should make it more with the POV that apple could verywell change how they work altogether and stop making macs

I don't see it as a possibility. Apple is a public corporation, if their board of directors would make such a suicidal decision the shareholder assembly would just replace the board since the company would lose hundreds of millions of dollars. Of course the board knows this plus they themselves (being major shareholders) would never take such an absurd move. If they decide to include the gaming console business in the future no one is stopping them, but they won't quit their personal computer business. As far as gadgets are concerned (including cell phones etc.) Apple is already a major player on the market. In fact their gadget business would benefit a _lot_ if existing non-mac x86 owners would be able to install OSX.

[GTR-33]

Why? All apple has to do is set the price for Leopard to some reasonable number, that truly reflects development costs of the OS, and price the Mac accordingly closer to the true value of the hardware, and continue to sell both OSX and MAC, removing the restriction from the EULA. Done.

 

What's the problems with that?

True value is the eye of the consumer and the market sets prices. You realize that if Apple suddenly had to support all hardware the OS would skyrocket in price? You are living in a dreamworld. Just because you are too broke to afford the real thing doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that Macs are overpriced. Yes I played the snobbery card there but value is in the eye of the consumer and it seems only those in the OSX86 community complain about Apples pricing.

 

Right now, if a consumer wants the MAC hardware, because it looks cool, or works better, or simply has the features he needs, but he wants to run WINDOWS or LINUX on the box instead of OSX, Apple is forcing that consumer to pay the OSX price premium whether he want's OSX or not.

You are assuming you are paying extra for the OS. It's just included with the bundle. You aren't paying exrta for it nor is Apple forcing you to use Mac OS.

 

Recent cases involving a similar situation with sales of desktop computers that automatically come with windows pre-installed, where the user never intended to use Windows, but had to remove Microsoft's OS to install LINUX, resulted in the judgement that the consumer was entitled to get back the Windows price premium from the seller.

Again, an assumption that you actually pay extra for the OS.

 

If you make two separate products, and you price them both fairly, then this problem never occurs.

This "problem" has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's pricing. People can use that excuse all they want but when it comes down to it. There is a Mac already at every pricepoint for everyone. The market that needs/wants to upgrade their videocard every six months is so extremely small in the Mac world that building a tower smaller than the Mac Pro is not worth it, and anyone that wants a gaming rig can spend just as much on a Mac Pro as any other gaming rig and have the same performance.

 

There are people who love the MAC hardware, but want to run LINUX. Apple approves of these folks.

 

But, they pay an OSX price premium.

 

Why should they?

 

There are people who love OSX software, but want to run it on their own hardware. Why should this be a problem.

Both Apple and I would like Mac OS to remain a quality product. The only way they can do that is to limit the hardware that the OS is compatible with. If you want Mac OS to fall the way of Windows then by all means continue your narrow minded escapade.

 

Why does Apple feel it's fair sell MACs to LINUX and/or WINDOWS users, with that built in OSX price premium, thus over charging them for the product,

but feel its unfair for people to pay for Leopard and install it on their own PC.

Where do you keep pulling this price premium from? The OS is included with the hardware for free. You can use it if you want or throw it out. Most people just use it. What you're saying is like saying we can sue Sony or at least we are entitled to some kind of monies because they include Motorstorm or MGS4 with a PS3 and I can't play it on my Xbox. So I don't want it and I want the cost back when in reality it is included in the price of the machine.

 

There is no law that says that Apple has to make Mac OS available to everyone and there never will be.

[macmaniac]

There is no law that says that Apple has to make Mac OS available to everyone and there never will be.

 

EXACTLY. .....nuff said

[slacker25]

atleast a few good points came up here now

 

 

@ulin ... i dont think they will say stop the mac persay but yet completly re invent the thing call it somehting new take away the hard copies you can buy and attack the solution in a different fashion to make it harder for stuff like this to fight them in court or on market

 

cause technically if they do win and all the foolish ... people that really think this will help them get what they want they wont be able to continue as is and it will make a good argument for wanting to use the PSN on my xbox instead of live come on im sure that could be reverse engineered

[jaez]

You realize that if Apple suddenly had to support all hardware the OS would skyrocket in price? You are living in a dreamworld. Just because you are too broke to afford the real thing doesn't mean by any stretch of the imagination that Macs are overpriced. Yes I played the snobbery card there but value is in the eye of the consumer and it seems only those in the OSX86 community complain about Apples pricing.

 

The machine I built is more expensive than a Mac. Personally, this isn't the issue for me. I just want apple to recognise my right to install Leopard on my PC. I don't require them to support it for this use, just accept it. That's all.

 

 

You are assuming you are paying extra for the OS. It's just included with the bundle. You aren't paying exrta for it nor is Apple forcing you to use Mac OS.

 

Fine, so the OSX is fairly priced. I like the price myself. I'm quite willing to pay the retail price for Leopard and put in on my PC. I've done the same for Windows.

So, if it's true that the prices are already fair, that's great. I have no issues with this.

 

 

Both Apple and I would like Mac OS to remain a quality product. The only way they can do that is to limit the hardware that the OS is compatible with. If you want Mac OS to fall the way of Windows then by all means continue your narrow minded escapade.

 

So, keep it a quality product. I don't want the quality to drop either. I want to support Apple. There are other people out there willing to support OSX on various other hardware, Apple doesn't have to get involved at all. Only release the restrictions and drop the legal harrasement of those that put in the effort to make OSX even more widely adopted. They are helping Apple.

 

 

 

The OS is included with the hardware for free.

 

Is it really free? That's wonderfull. Why did I ever pay for this thing. Gosh. I wish I knew this before hand. No wonder many Hackint0shes just install copies of the free software.

Golly, I missed out on that deal. Shucks!

 

 

You can use it if you want or throw it out.

 

Thanks. That's all I was trying to say. I'll use it, because I want.

 

 

 

There is no law that says that Apple has to make Mac OS available to everyone and there never will be.

 

Nobody is asking Apple to make Mac OS available to everyone, only to recgonise that the EULA is anti-competitive, and that those who pay for Leopard are entitled to use it.

 

That's all.

 

Nobody is calling Apple to tell them OSX isn't running properly on their Hackint0sh, and can Apple Tech please help support their PC.

 

Apple doesn't have to support OSX on PC, and I personally agree with that. If it goes to court, however, the judge may well "require" Apple to take certain steps to ensure that OSX is not encumbered by protective code to prevent installation on PCs, because that's the sort of thing the judges did to the Printer makers when they added "chips" to prevent ink refilling.

 

But, who knows.

 

Psystar is a good test case.

 

We all wait with abaited breath.

 

[slacker25]

atleast a few good points came up here now

 

 

@ulin ... i dont think they will say stop the mac persay but yet completly re invent the thing call it somehting new take away the hard copies you can buy and attack the solution in a different fashion to make it harder for stuff like this to fight them in court or on market

 

cause technically if they do win and all the foolish ... people that really think this will help them get what they want they wont be able to continue as is and it will make a good argument for wanting to use the PSN on my xbox instead of live come on im sure that could be reverse engineered

[fatshitcat]

Is it really free? That's wonderfull. Why did I ever pay for this thing. Gosh. I wish I knew this before hand. No wonder many Hackint0shes just install copies of the free software.

Nooo, it's not free. As a matter of fact, the power button isn't free, nor the enclosure... jesus, what stupidity.

When buying a mac, you get a package. A package, which consists of the logic board, the processor, ..., and OS X. How wonderful(l) is that?

 

Now I didn't want to say this before, but..

I just want apple to recognise my right to install Leopard on my PC. I don't require them to support it for this use, just accept it.

Baby jaes wants his rights, huuuh? Now who the hell do you think you are? The pope or smth? You have no special rights in this matter. Thank god there are spoiled brats to run around.

Let me tell you what's your problem. You picture yourself as a computer whiz, and you want to use OS X, but you don't want to tell your friends it's illegal, because it's not cool, so you invent this BS, to seem some sort of liberator, who sacrificed his life to save the world.

 

But there's a small problem with that....

 

Before even HAVING OS X on your PC, you Agreed to the EULA, and that means, my friend, that you ALREADY broke the law, YOU LIED. And that doesn't have to do anything with your personal beliefs.

[MadGhost]

Somtimes I ask myself if Apple isn't hidden under the OSx86 project...

It could be some marketing.

[eject]

 you Agreed to the EULA, and that means, my friend, that you ALREADY broke the law,

i broke a contract between apple and myself

 

in contries with a sensible law system this doesn't really mean something else then that i lose the right on claiming anything from apple.

[Bearcat]

Wow, this is like a religious disagreement, shall I say "very passionate" people.

 

Just out of curiosity, has anyone actually read "all the allegations" Apple has made in their complaint? I do believe they have some strong allegations in there. Even if some survive, Pystar, will have a tough battle.

 

 

Somtimes I ask myself if Apple isn't hidden under the OSx86 project...

It could be some marketing.

 

I think this theory comes up from time to time, as some people speculate that some individuals work for Apple, but as far as I know, it's never really been proven.

 

How would you find out that Apple is behind this, or that some people work for Apple, unless they let it slip?

 

Also, if I recall correctly, there was a story a long time ago (couple of years), that some employees from an Apple retail store were fired for having used and installed OSX86, but my memory is failing, so I may be incorrect.

[ikkiban]

I've been lurking here and thought I really had to post;

 

 

Fine, so the OSX is fairly priced. I like the price myself. I'm quite willing to pay the retail price for Leopard and put in on my PC.

 

Look. Where does it say you can't put Leopard on a PC?

 

This is the Apple EULA:

 

From the Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard EULA, Section 2A: "This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."

 

 

As long as you put a label on the computer that says "Apple Leopard Inside" then you can install Leopard on the PC.

 

Microsoft has this same requirement. When you buy OEM Windows XP Professional, it comes with a sticker label and instructions

that say you "must" put this label on the outside of the computer case that has Windows XP installed. See?

 

Apple is not restricting you from putting OSX on a PC.

 

Where does this idea that "OSX and MAC" have to be together come from?

 

Nowhere in the EULA does Apple even mention the "MAC". See?.

 

 

 

It's just requiring you to label your computer correctly.

 

There's no requirement to use OSX only on a MAC. Read the EULA again.

 

 

i.e. it's not LINUX installed, is it?

 

If someone looks at your computer, before it's turned on, they know to expect "Apple OS X Leopard" to show up

on boot, when they do turn on the box. That's the point.

 

You can still only install Leopard on 1 computer at a time, but you have to label that computer.

 

The EULA doesn't say "Apple-branded" computer, does it? It's "Apple Labeled" for a reason.

 

The box must have a Label indicating you've installed Leopard on "this machine."

 

If you have several computers, like in an office, but one legal copy of Leopard, then only one of those

computers is allowed to have an "Apple Label". That's the whole point.

 

You must clearly identify the particular computer you've chosen to install Leopard.

 

That's all.

 

So what's all the fuss?

[GTR-33]

I just want apple to recognise my right to install Leopard on my PC. I don't require them to support it for this use, just accept it. That's all.

This is perfect. You DON'T have the right to install it on any old PC. Just because you can doesn't mean you have the right to. Why is this suddenly an issue? It was never an issue with the PPC version and there were PPC computers available that were not Apple computers.

 

So, keep it a quality product. I don't want the quality to drop either. I want to support Apple. There are other people out there willing to support OSX on various other hardware, Apple doesn't have to get involved at all. Only release the restrictions and drop the legal harrasement of those that put in the effort to make OSX even more widely adopted. They are helping Apple.

You don't seem to understand that the bloated and poor hardware third party drivers is exactly what makes Windows the {censored} it is. OS issues in Windows have and still are largely due to hardware conflicts and poor third party drivers. This is good reason OSX works as well as it does. To release it to the general public and let anyone and everyone create drivers for OSX would only turn it into Windows and over time would destroy Apple's image of "It just works" because there would be a lot of people that would try the OS on some POS hack and it won't work as well as the real deal.

 

Nobody is asking Apple to make Mac OS available to everyone, only to recgonise that the EULA is anti-competitive, and that those who pay for Leopard are entitled to use it.

No you are entitled to upgrade what's already on your Mac, not put it on any computer you want. They aren't anti competitive, you can go buy a Dell if you don't like it.

 

As long as you put a label on the computer that says "Apple Leopard Inside" then you can install Leopard on the PC.

No...

[slacker25]

@fa{censored}cat

thanks glad to see someone with good POV on here

 

@eject .......... this is a justice system that protects capitalizim... and there for i would rather this then comunizim ... allowing people to help themselves .. meaning yuo dont like OSX being the way it is fine... go design yuour own Object oriented OS and make your own company apple has earned their right to do their bissuness their way

[jaez]

This is perfect. You DON'T have the right to install it on any old PC. Just because you can doesn't mean you have the right to. Why is this suddenly an issue? It was never an issue with the PPC version and there were PPC computers available that were not Apple computers.

 

It won't install on old PCs. I know. I have two old PCs that Leopard doesn't work on. So, no issue there.

 

OSX needs a new PC.

 

Because I have the software and hardware in my possession, I have the right. Possession is 9/10ths of the law.

 

Because I paid for both, I have the right, both hardware and software creaters have been properly "compensated" for their works.

 

It was never an issue with PPC, because Apple's OS wasn't good enough to be considered at that time.

 

No one wanted to waste time with a myopic application deficit closed proprietary system that had no expandible use and could not be customized to the consumer's preferences.

 

Apple got smart.

 

They looked around the marketplace, saw what was happening, and started to make changes. PPC to INTEL, means lots of hardware product compatibilities with the Apple system.

 

OpenSource FreeBSD would mean lots of immediate applications to run on the new Apple system.

 

Apple wanted what other people had already.

 

Faster CPUs.

 

Many Apps.

 

Lots of hardware options.

 

So, they took some of the best of the best things out there and built their system around.

 

You know, when Jesus came, he said to Peter, you are the rock, and upon this rock I will build my church

 

Remember that?

 

Well Apple looked around for the best rocks others had and built OSX on top of that.

 

So, it's not really Apple's OSX.

 

It's our OSX.

 

They took the best from us to create OSX, and now it's time to give some back.

 

 

 

You don't seem to understand that the bloated and poor hardware third party drivers is exactly what makes Windows the {censored} it is. OS issues in Windows have and still are largely due to hardware conflicts and poor third party drivers.

 

No. You clearly don't understand, that WINDOWs has "MILLIONS OF APPS" out there, and among that enormous population of adaptations that have been produced, both hardware and software, to work with the windows operating system, you are bound to find many conflicts.

 

Apple has a mere handful of Apps and Harware adapters by comparison, so there's no fair way to compare the two there.

 

 

This is good reason OSX works as well as it does. To release it to the general public and let anyone and everyone create drivers for OSX would only turn it into Windows and over time would destroy Apple's image of "It just works" because there would be a lot of people that would try the OS on some POS hack and it won't work as well as the real deal.

 

In the FreeBSD project, a similar view is taken. It's called the ANTI-LINUX view. In LINUX, everybody and his dog, writes lines of code and puts their hands in the system, making it a total mess (FreeBSD project opinion). So, the FreeBSD developers restrict contributions to a small team of programmers, "to control the quality of the os".

 

FreeBSD just works.

 

But, nobody in the FreeBSD project objects to anyone, like LINUX minded folks, taking the FreeBSD as their starting point to derive a customized variation of it to suit their fancy.

 

Gee, even Apple borrowed from FreeBSD.

 

The solution is right there. Apple control the OSX core, and simply let anyone adapt it to solve the problems they need by extending the core OSX to include their prefered "Bloat".

 

Apple doesn't have to get involved with the bloat at all.

 

 

No you are entitled to upgrade what's already on your Mac, not put it on any computer you want. They aren't anti competitive, you can go buy a Dell if you don't like it.

 

Is Dell still around? I don't buy computers anymore. I build them. Because, it seems, no manufacturer cares about my needs. They all want to sell me what they want to sell. So none of them get my money. I pay the parts manufacturers today.

 

I've been into many computer stores, and when I describe what I was looking for, the sales person typically said, no, we don't have that, but we have this great computer system over here, take a look at this, it can do A,B,C, ... and a whole host of things I have no use for, what do you think? Isn't it a great system? And I say, I really want X,Y, and Z, and the sales person tries to push the "great system in the store" onto me. I just walk out of that store. These people have no concept of customer service. Only people who don't know what they want buy there.

 

It's the same with Apple today.

 

I say, I want one machine that runs many different operation systems, so that I can develop code for all these OSs on one machine, and swap files easily across hard disks and hard disk partitions, like with Windows XP + MacDrive 7 + OS X Leopard, etc,...and I need some other things not available on today's Mac Hardware computers.

 

And Apple is still trying to sell me their EULA.

 

The co. is not interested in the consumer.

 

So, the consumer finds a workaround, and builds his own system, to do EXACTLY WHAT HE NEEDS.

 

You can't sell what you want, you have to sell what the consumer wants.

 

The consumer is going to get what he wants anyway.

 

Why don't you want his cash? That's the puzzle. Apple isn't the only manufacturer of end user products that is clueless.

 

But, I predict, they will change.

 

Only a matter of time.

[slacker25]

@Jaes... wont install on OLD pc's ... thats not what he meant by that and yuo know it ..... sarcazim is a form for argument???? ... .you fail and you know it stop arguing something that is the most 1 sided thing that i can think of a selfish little boys point of view of i want it .... well just cause i said i want it

 

put yourself in apple shoes for once they are in the right and your just not wanting to be told by the people that have rights that yhou dont have rights to somethikng you dont

 

this is simple logic it is illegal if you dont wanna be told your doing something illegal then dont rob a back or a store or install OSX on a non apple hardware