Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Mac "Big Iron" rumors  (Read 25657 times)
dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #100 on: June 18, 2012, 01:55:35 PM »
ReplyReply

The license itself describe your "rights" and terms of use - as long as they are not at odds with local jurisdiction - they remain in effect.

Your "opinion" is in direct contradiction of apple's license:

A legal decision by anyone rescinding this would be pretty big news - i'm not aware of any.....

I heard that someone put a phrase to the effect of "you hereby sell your soul to us" in the EULA, as a joke.

Meaning, the fact that something is in the EULA doesn't mean it is either binding or enforceable. It can actually be damaging to the company who put it there.
Logged

Danijel
dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #101 on: June 18, 2012, 02:05:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been following the direction this thread has taken with some interest, but previously had no intention of jumping in.  However, even though I'll probably regret doing so now, I think I might have the appropriate background to offer a few useful technical points.

First, my credentials, which I think are germane to this post:

  • I'm agnostic about operating systems.  I run OS X (and iOS), Windows, mainstream UNIX and Linux.  I've managed an IT organization for a U.S. federal agency that supported a multiplatform environment that included all of these, and others.
  • I'm purely an amateur photographer, and don't have any opinion about what might be considered “professional” or “unprofessional” behavior for those of you who make a living at photography.
  • I'm a lawyer—not currently in practice, but with a degree and a license in the United States (District of Columbia).
  • I've been programming computers for more than 45 years.
:snip:

I think your analysis is probably the closest match to how the courts might view this in some real life situation. So basically, the greatest possible harm consists of being sued by Apple and spending a considerable amount of time and money on legal representation.

Quote
However, it seems obvious to me that most people who aren't happy with or interested in Apple's hardware products will simply run Windows.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. Any legal consideration that I might have re: hackintosh pales in comparison with sheer impracticality of actually installing an OS on hardware on which it isn't made to run. Free BSD sounds user friendly in comparison.
Logged

Danijel
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773



WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 18, 2012, 03:12:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the confusion arises from people misunderstanding what a license conveys, it's *not* ownership.  If you choose to install OS X on non Apple hardware you are violating the license agreement that you accept when installing - there is simply no way around it.

Danijel's point about monopoly's is simply wrong; case in point - Apple shutting down Psystar.  Speculating what Apple will or will not do is equally pointless.

Bernard brings up a very cogent point; what happens when an update disable's current functionality?  If you are relying on such a machine to do business, what then?

Boot from a Windows 7 boot disk instead of the OSX boot disk....or boot up another Mac or Windows machine.  Backups...just like camera equipment.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 03:34:35 PM by Craig Lamson » Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 18, 2012, 05:33:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Interestingly, some people are claiming this shouldn't be made personal but they're doing pretty well at that :-)

You can make this as complex as you like in trying to justify breaking an agreement you make with Apple when you purchase a licence to use their software, but you're still just trying to justify breaking an agreement.

I believe it is bad advice to suggest to a professional running a business that they should consider breaking an agreement and go about publicising that fact, particularly when such an agreement reflects the basis of their own business in so much as both revolve around IP and rights to use.

I thin John's point is very important - the misunderstand regarding licensing and ownership (and even after he clarified this, some people still refuse to see).
Logged

Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773



WWW
« Reply #104 on: June 18, 2012, 05:51:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Interestingly, some people are claiming this shouldn't be made personal but they're doing pretty well at that :-)


I believe it is bad advice to suggest to a professional running a business that they should consider breaking an agreement and go about publicising that fact, particularly when such an agreement reflects the basis of their own business in so much as both revolve around IP and rights to use.




I guess that really depends on how one "licenses" their products...
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 773



WWW
« Reply #105 on: June 18, 2012, 06:12:15 PM »
ReplyReply



I thin John's point is very important - the misunderstand regarding licensing and ownership (and even after he clarified this, some people still refuse to see).


Let be very clear here.

In the last two years or so I have purchased for my use, 2-15" 2011 MBP's, 1-Ipad1, 2-Ipad3, two Ipod nanos.  I addition I have purchased for family gifts, 1-Ipad1, 1-Ipad3 and a mac mini. And if the Iphone 5 has a larger screen I'll be replacing my androids.

I also have three w7 laptops and two home built w7 workstation boxes.

My MBP shares my NEC with my W7 workstation and is my daily general business computer.  The workstation is only for photo processing.  

I will however NOT own a Mac Pro or IMac.  Neither suits me.  I'll work in W7 instead.  I installed OXS on my workstation just for fun, from a legally purchased disk, to see if it could really work.  And yes it does. Do I need to run it?  Nope. Is this a crime?  



« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 06:13:52 PM by Craig Lamson » Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #106 on: June 18, 2012, 06:24:05 PM »
ReplyReply


I guess that really depends on how one "licenses" their products...

I think this is absolutely correct.  The T&Cs of the licence are very important.
Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #107 on: June 18, 2012, 06:31:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Is it a crime?  No, I think we're all agreed this is not a criminal matter (unless you start to resell it or something), but that doesn't mean that it's not against the law.  Breach of contract is still illegal (regardless of what some people might assert with regard to "common usage" of the term).

I think I also mentioned that I understand the desire of people from a technical point of view to attempt this to see how it goes.  That's still a breach, but in so much as it's not your professional basis of operating (i.e. you're not producing work from it) it would seem to be of less significance and really isn't the complaint I have (which is breaching the contract and making that the basis of your professional business process and then further publicising that fact - all of which I think is poor business practice).  You're not doing that.

Do I think that Apple is going to pursue a hackintosher?  No (it's not even unlikely, I just can't see it happening at all).  But that's not the point and never has been.  Would I knowingly deal with a business that was deliberately breaching someone's contract?  No.  I wouldn't and I wouldn't recommend them to anyone, either.  Others are free to make their own decisions, of course.  This is just a discussion.
Logged

John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #108 on: June 18, 2012, 08:43:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Agreed!  A discussion - but Craig, lets explore this a bit:

You produce, from what I have seen, excellent product shots of various yacht's, power boats etc.  Presumably you have made arrangements with some party in regards to reproduction, possibly even giving full ownership rights....  In any case the decision you make regarding the distribution of your efforts is entirely up to you.

Software licensing works the same way.....
Logged

Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 19, 2012, 01:02:44 AM »
ReplyReply

It's difficult to discuss the issue without discussing what is and what isn't professional or illegal behaviour.  I don't think we've really delved into the morality of it, beyond the usual link between law and morality.

The EULA clearly states it is only to be installed on Apple hardware.  It hasn't been tested in court that anyone knows, so to that extent it's fair to say that it's not proven, but I don't think anyone doubts the intent of the wording at this point.

I don't think it's insulting to others to say that breaking the EULA is a bad business idea.  We discuss business matters often enough.  In particularly it would be perceived as very hypocritical for a photographer to insist on protection of their own IP whilst ignoring the rights of another IP owner.  When someone makes a recommendation to try a hackintosh (as was done) I think it's entirely relevant to express concerns that may be had with regard to that path, in order to make any readers fully informed.

It's clearly not slanderous with regard to the discussion here.  No one has been identified, no one has been accussed specifically.  It's a discussion about what if and so on.  If someone chooses to identify themselves subsequently as falling into that category, that does not make previous (or even subsequent) statements slanderous - particularly not in the US!  Indeed, the more "robust" the discussion the less likely it is to be taken as actionable and the more likely it is to fall under protected speech.  But that's another story, again :-)

I don't think anyone's name calling here, Steve.  We (or at least I am) saying that on the evidence available it's illegal and an IP related breach which I would consider particularly hypocritical for a photographer to engage in given the reliance on IP for that profession.

Finally, I don't think you can take in isolation only users who have other Mac hardware (and you have to at least consider whether they are using that hardware at the same time as the hackinstosh).  There are people here looking for alternatives to Macs so they are unlikely to wnat to buy a Mac in order to get the software, so they would be using it without following the terms of the EULA.

I have a meeting to go to - but it's a worthwhile discussion and up to and including now I ahven't seen anyone be abusive or name calling, really.

Hi -  I wanted to respond and not leave you hanging before I leave for Thailand tomorrow for 30 days of workshops, wedding, and what not.. I won't have time to pursue this so I'll make a few final comments.

1.  I don't think it's difficult at all to discuss this topic without calling others unprofessional or immoral.. In fact, I would challenge anyone here to tell me how judging others to be immoral or unprofessional is helpful to the discussion at all.  It's all in the tone and how you direct the words.  I have no issues with the way you used them, though I don't see how it was helpful to the discussion.  But in the original post I responded to I feel this person directly targeted specific individuals in a (I don't want to say unprofessional though it did come to mind first) hostile and almost combative manner.  Go back and read it again and I'm sure we can agree to disagree if that's where we end up.

2.   It's not about intent.  It's about if Apple has a right to control a product others pay money for to such an extent.  Microsoft has recently paid out billions globally in judgements to anti-trust suits for far less.  And without consumers challenging Microsoft they would have got away with their antics.  And without the right it can be neither illegal or unprofessional, though I could see the ethics being argued from the moralists.  I would agree it is black and white as to Apple's intent.  I simply don't think they have a legal leg to stand on nor one iota of motivation to find out through pursing those who make hackentosh's for personal use. 

But what is very clear, just because you write your wishes on a piece of paper and put it in the box with a product.. does not make it a law or "illegal" to not follow those wishes.  There must be regulatory laws those wishes are in line with, and even then they can be challenged by someone who doesn't think they have the right.

3.  I'd agree, I think it's actually helpful to politely remind someone they might be able to improve their business practices.  But this is far different from publicly judging someone as a law breaker and immoral to boot.

4.  I'd agree that expressing concerns is appropriate and helpful as well.  Others did this previously in the thread and no one took offence.  Yet, a heavy handed judgement decrying illegal and immoral behavior directly targeted.. well..

5.  It doesn't take much of a twist to reach the slander threshold and such a statement as contained in that post could certainly do it.  All it would take is for one client to google one of the professional photographers targeted by that post and cancel a job out of concern for "illegal and immortal" behavior while referencing that thread and there you are.  We should support the professional lives of other forum members, not take unnecessary risks that might have a negative impact on them just because we feel strongly about something.  We need to exercise more restraint and common sense than that.  Words mean things and they often have consequences.

6.  It's not name calling per se, it's judging.  Fellow professionals were judged harshly and unfairly based on one man's opinions.  You obviously feel a certain way about breaking an EULA in this manner and I feel another.  I'm not going to judge you moronic or uneducated or unprofessional or anything negative at all because we don't agree.  I appreciate we can have an open discussion and present our thoughts and take on the matter at hand without being negative.  I want you to know why I think the way I do, and I want to know why you think the way you do.. especially when it's so different from myself.  These are what's been coined "a teachable moment."  Perhaps this way we'll both learn something, even if it's only the way a fellow professional feels about EULA's. 

I want you to know something.  My response to the post in question was done tongue in cheek.  I delivered a strong judgemental response to a strong judgemental post.  Somehow I thought the person making the post would see/feel the humor, do a mea culpa, and we'd have been back on track.  Clearly I misjudged.  The responses that followed were understandable considering the lack of a response when needed, but the thread took a sharp turn downwards.. and certain individuals are going to look at other individuals differently, and not in a good way, than they did before.  It just wasn't necessary.

7.  Isolation no.. but very near.  I really don't know anyone who isn't an Apple user/supporter who has created an hackentosh or who even thinks OSx is worth building a machine for.  I don't think we're going to find someone, or many of them, out there with a hackentosh who decided he/she wanted to use OSx based on other than experience with Apple products and at the same time had such rigid hardware requirements that they needed to build their own.  I could be wrong on this one, but so far I haven't ran across such a person.  These days it's hard to find anyone at all who doesn't own an Apple product..

I hope you enjoyed your meeting.  I spent the last 24 hours packing and repacking and testing gear.. I'll have to hit the ground running in Bangkok in a couple days and I'm so heavily booked I'll won't have much time to enjoy my favorite forums. 
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #110 on: June 19, 2012, 01:04:30 AM »
ReplyReply


So basically hackintosh is almost universally Apple's fault, because people want to buy a computer they aren't making.


I wouldn't argue this at all.  I feel Apple really let their customers down and I've had a fair number of my own workstation clients coming from Mac's because of this.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 19, 2012, 01:08:26 AM »
ReplyReply

It might be Apple's "fault" that people are finding a lack of a product that they want, but that doesn't give anyone permission to violate the EULA.

I'll go back to the photog analogy
- if someone has an image and I want it on 30"x40" canvass but they only print on RC papers, do I have a right to just take the image and print it myself?

I don't feel this is a strong analogy.  First, copyright violations are well represented in regulatory law.  Second, you would be losing money if not given the opportunity to provide this print yourself and so far no one has shown me how Apple is losing anything through individual hackentosh builds.. in fact I demonstrated how they profited heavily from it. 

Though.. be careful.  If the marketplace is clamouring for 30x40" canvas prints and all you're offering is 8x10 glossies.. well.. ya know..  Roll Eyes
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 19, 2012, 01:09:50 AM »
ReplyReply

For most part, "IP advocate" is a thieving company that is used to charging people extreme amounts for the decaying carrier media in order to force them to buy the same record again and again, who grew so fat from the profits they made that way, they started blackmailing the authors, who are forced to work for them for pittance. And of course, when their income source became jeopardized by separation of data and carrier, the hypocrites use sympathy for the authors to justify the fascist laws they are lobbying to pass.

Americans have already allowed themselves to be treated like potential terrorists in airports, because their fascist government introduced fascist laws under some vague justification. Now, also under some vague and false justification, the media companies are trying to pass laws that would allow the entire population to be treated like criminals everywhere. I think the concepts such as intellectual property or safety need to be seriously revised.

Go ahead, as far as I'm concerned. They'll ask for more megapixels and reject the submission.


I think I'm going to like you.. Smiley
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 19, 2012, 01:17:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, let's vary the analogy to fit your point.

A photographer grants a museum the right to hang their photo, but insists it can only be done under certain lighting and at a certain location.  The museum decides to hang it in another building under different lighting.  Does the photographer have that right?  Of course.  They own the photo and if the agreement says "XYZ" then "XYZ" are the terms of the agreement, not "ABC".

If you don't like Apple's terms and conditions, don't buy their products.  Your lack of liking their terms and conditions does not give you the right to ignore them and do as you please.

It's very simple.  It really is.  If you believe that as a photographer you own your work, then you MUST respect other people's IP and the conditions under which they allow you to use it.  If you don't agree, don't buy it or use it.

1.  Still doesn't float.  Clearly in your analogy a contract (agreement) between two parties exists.  This is a specific product, single user, two way agreement (contract).  Much different.   I've tried to find a suitable analogy and I can't come up with one without over simplifying the issue.

2.  This is where anti-trust comes in.  It's why Microsoft paid billions in fines.  When your product is basically corning the market you have responsibilities to your customer base that extend further than what you want or feel like doing.

3.  It's not simple unless you're intentionally trying to make it simple for the sake of forcing others to see it your way.  It's a very complex issue to be sure.  Read a bit about the Microsoft anti-trust case.. remarkable stuff..
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 19, 2012, 01:20:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I've been following the direction this thread has taken with some interest, but previously had no intention of jumping in.  However, even though I'll probably regret doing so now, I think I might have the appropriate background to offer a few useful technical points.

First, my credentials, which I think are germane to this post:

  • I'm agnostic about operating systems.  I run OS X (and iOS), Windows, mainstream UNIX and Linux.  I've managed an IT organization for a U.S. federal agency that supported a multiplatform environment that included all of these, and others.
  • I'm purely an amateur photographer, and don't have any opinion about what might be considered “professional” or “unprofessional” behavior for those of you who make a living at photography.
  • I'm a lawyer—not currently in practice, but with a degree and a license in the United States (District of Columbia).
  • I've been programming computers for more than 45 years.

Now, first of all, I think it would be best to avoid the terms legal or illegal with respect to the adherence to or violation of a software end-user license agreement.  I think in English (at least as spoken in the United States), there is an imputation that “illegal” refers to a violation of criminal law.

Second, it really doesn't make sense to me to refer to the validity of end-user license agreements except in the context of a particular jurisdiction.  In federated governmental systems, such as the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, India, China, etc., you may need to consult the law of more than one jurisdictional level to determine an outcome.  In multinational federations such as the European Union, there may be an additional adjudicative layer.  And international treaties also come into play in some areas (e.g., copyright) because many national systems give international treaties the force of domestic law.

Third, in the United States, at least, the enforceability of end-user license agreements is not generally settled.  Depending on the way the agreement came into force, it may be considered an “adhesion” contract (no real meeting of the minds) or a binding bilateral agreement that the courts will enforce.  The amount of “consideration” (the fee paid by the licensee) may be an issue, as well as the expectations of the parties about how the license would be used.  The specific terms of the license may be a factor in whether a court in a particular jurisdiction will enforce it, as well as their clarity and the court's notion of their reasonableness.  The statutory law to be applied, the particular court that hears a dispute (state or federal), and whether there is (in the judge's opinion) relevant controlling authority from a higher court will all make a difference.  In general—again, at least in the United States—any blanket statement about the validity or invalidity of these agreements is incorrect.*

Fourth, if Apple wanted to enforce its end-user license agreement for OS X, its remedy in the United States would probably be limited to its actual monetized damages.  In other words, Apple probably couldn't recover more in damages that the revenue it had actually lost.  Of course, the cost to the licensee of defending a lawsuit brought by Apple might be considerable.

Fifth, if Apple wanted to stop people from installing OS X on non-Apple hardware, the company clearly has the engineering talent to develop an effective technical impediment to doing so.  This would be relatively easy to do prospectively, beginning with new hardware releases, but probably very feasible to retrofit to legacy hardware via new OS X releases or patches to existing ones.  (Yes, maybe certain agencies of a few governments could defeat such a scheme, and probably 11 of the most talented teenaged hackers in China, but the government agencies wouldn't be interested and the hackers are too busy selling pirated credit card information to the Russian mob to be bothered with such a niche undertaking.)

Finally, I spend most of my time in an OS X environment because the commercial application software I use the most is available for OS X and I find anything UNIX more congenial than anything Windows.  I have no intention of building a “hackintosh” nor any particular beef with anyone who does.  However, it seems obvious to me that most people who aren't happy with or interested in Apple's hardware products will simply run Windows.  A few computer aficionados may go to the effort to run OS X on generic Intel hardware—probably many of them would assemble their own desktop machines for running Windows—but most end-users want something that runs out-of-the-box.  Apple knows that, which is probably why they haven't taken effective action to stop people from running OS X on third-party hardware.  (That's not to say the won't in the future, of course.)

Chris

_____
* Having said that, I've decided to go out of my way not to refer to them as EULAs, just in case Michael Reichmann should decide that sounds too much like Lu-La and decide to sue me for trademark infringement.

Great post. 
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #115 on: June 19, 2012, 01:26:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Interestingly, some people are claiming this shouldn't be made personal but they're doing pretty well at that :-)

You can make this as complex as you like in trying to justify breaking an agreement you make with Apple when you purchase a licence to use their software, but you're still just trying to justify breaking an agreement.

I believe it is bad advice to suggest to a professional running a business that they should consider breaking an agreement and go about publicising that fact, particularly when such an agreement reflects the basis of their own business in so much as both revolve around IP and rights to use.

I thin John's point is very important - the misunderstand regarding licensing and ownership (and even after he clarified this, some people still refuse to see).


I've been thinking about this..  At first I felt strongly your way about this concept in general if not in this instance.  But the more I think about it, what's "professional" is to discuss all relevant choices AND the pros/cons of each.    I have no issue with one professional telling another "there is an EULA with this product stating it should be used this way, but it does work really well this other way and if you chose to use it that way these would be your challenges... "  Totally 100% professional and exactly what was being done up to the point of an over the top judgemental post.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1460



WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 19, 2012, 01:32:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Agreed!  A discussion - but Craig, lets explore this a bit:

You produce, from what I have seen, excellent product shots of various yacht's, power boats etc.  Presumably you have made arrangements with some party in regards to reproduction, possibly even giving full ownership rights....  In any case the decision you make regarding the distribution of your efforts is entirely up to you.

Software licensing works the same way.....

To a degree it is very similar.  But the devil is in the details and this isn't a solid analogy.

I'm heartened we've been able to overcome a rather nasty rock in our pathway and continue a great discussion. 

Sorry for all the posts.. but I wanted to relax and enjoy the discussion a bit before beginning what promises to be a very busy next 30 days. 
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #117 on: June 19, 2012, 02:22:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I think I'm going to like you.. Smiley

LOL Smiley
Logged

Danijel
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #118 on: June 19, 2012, 02:57:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I hardly think Apple can be considered to have cornered the PC market, Steve :-)

That said, to me, it is simple.  If someone makes a product I believe they have a right to sell it on their terms.  If the terms suck, the market won't buy it (really, there's NO way you can contend that Apple has a monopoly on the PC side of things, so that doesn't come into it).

Leaving aside my opinion, the matter of whether a EULA can be enforced or not is not 100% clear in general terms (each needs to be reviewed and even then it's not going to be 100% clear).  On that basis, if you consider business management as an exercise in risk management (and you should) then risking the potential impact on your reputation, (because let's be honest, Apple isn't going to sue you), due to someone pointing out that you're happy to breach an agreement, isn't worth it.  There's nothing OS X can do on a hackintosh compared to Windows or OS X on a Mac that brings that risk weighting to an acceptable level.  It's just bad for merchants of IP to disrespect the wishes of other merchants of IP with regard to how you handle their IP.

Don't like it?  Don't buy it.  Want something more?  Tell them.  They won't produce it?  Get something else or make do.

Enjoy Thailand - my meeting was pretty mundane - hate it when work interferes :-)
Logged

dturina
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #119 on: June 19, 2012, 03:53:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I hardly think Apple can be considered to have cornered the PC market, Steve :-)

They have a specific product that creates a local monopoly within its ecosystem, which means that if you have applications that work for OS X, you can be blackmailed by Apple and you really have no options other than to migrate everything to another platform.

The actual market share doesn't matter much; people always had the option to use a Mac, Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX or whatever instead of Windows, if they didn't like it, but still Microsoft could be penalized under anti-monopoly laws, for blackmailing the users within its ecosystem.

So it's really a slippery slope for Apple, and if I were them, I would clarify the statement in their EULA, to the extent that it doesn't mean that Apple will prosecute people who make a hackintosh, but that they accept no responsibility for improper operation of such unsupported combinations of hardware and software.

This would have a positive side-effect of not insulting people who actually did think different. Smiley
Logged

Danijel
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad