What is Digg?262 Comments
- LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"There are 2 things that if apple did them they would very quickly get on top of the OS wars IMO
1. sell Tiger for generic PC's (even if it costs as much as XP, although it be nice if it was cheaper)
2. help out the darwine project or actually do the rumored redbox project so that windows apps could be run right in OSX.
If Apple did those 2 things they kick microshafts ass and be on top in less than a year i bet."
You are so wrong. You expect Apple to compete directly with Microsoft using exactly Microsoft's strategy?
Apple isn't in the business of selling operating systems. Microsoft is almost 100% (except for mice and xboxes) a SOFTWARE company... Microsoft is a horizontal monopoly... but Apple is vertically oriented. They sell the hardware and the software together, and this is what has made their products so competitive so far.
To all of you out there who keep PLEADING with Apple to sell Mac OS X to PCs... it will NEVER happen. You all seem to think that you know a better business model for Apple, but selling copies of Mac OS X will only serve to (1) increase R&D and maintenance costs for Mac OS X (2) kill off Apple's Mac sales.
Apple makes a good profit on every piece of Mac hardware sold today. They really like their Mac margins, which makes up most of their revenue.
The problem with selling Mac OS X is cloning. There is no way that Apple will be able to compete with cheapo clone makers who will buy a license from Apple, and sell hardware that's 1/2 the price, 1/2 the quality... The last time Apple did something like this in the 90s, the company was nearly bankrupt because their Mac sales were being eaten away by Mac OS clones.
Just how many copies of Mac OS X will Apple have to sell to make up for the lost hardware sales alone HUH?
Would it be NICE if all the enthusiasts in the world could go and buy Mac OS X? Sure... but is it a viable business strategy? HELL NO. It's suicide for Apple, and it's not a business plan.
I say, good riddance to OSx86. They deserve what's coming to them if they're so deluded to thinking that they're somehow NOBLE and RIGHTEOUS in trying to FORCE Apple to take up a strategy that can only kill the company and the Mac platform by BREAKING THE LAW.
Apple is doing exactly what they need to do to preserve their own culture, and their own business. All of you fools who just want to geek out with Mac OS X just don't understand the implications. - dotpage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Mr. Jobs, if you or anybody from your staff is reading this, I have no problem(and I believe that a LOT of users think like me) in actually buying a copy of Tiger if you make it available for "generic" PC's.
Thank you. - stoops, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Or maybe because they have cracked the latest version of OS X (Intel Version) and some one's mad?
Anyways, I believe if people enjoy doing this sort of thing and are not "really" harming the sales of the company, then it should be allowed. If someone's intelligent enough to accomplish something like this, it should be allowed. What if hackers didn't purposely go out and find exploits/bugs in an OS, then none of them would have been fixed and if some E.T. alien comes to earth, they'll be able to hack any of our computers at any moment. I know this is highly un-intelligent but I feel that hackers actually make our systems better.
Anyways thats just my 0.02$ but don't hold it against me!
stoops. - FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I figured out why this happened!
Just before the site went down a person posted a working guide for installing 10.4.4 from the System restore DVD.
Maybe we over stepped our boundries. - cubbieco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Apple won't release OSX for generic PC period.
It's simple. Right now they control they hardware, they write the drivers for their hardware and don't have the expensive difficult problem of trying to support every single piece of crap component that people stick in their generic PCs. They have no incentive to try to support it all. I wouldn't either if I were them. - elliotanderson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@bpopp:
They don't give anything back to open-source? I don't think so.
http://www.apple.com/opensource/
I counted just over 185 projects there which Apple makes use of and contributes back to. - SamStone, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Steve started out as a Phone Phreak. How can he sue someone for doing the same type of stuff he did he did in college.
- LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Probably get out of that 5 percent Market Share Hole. No! You cant do that, then the Mac-Heads wouldnt be unique and cool and alternative anymore."
This is not about market share. Market share would be nice, but Apple needs to continue to make money if they are to continue to exist as an innovator.
The fact is, selling their OS to PCs would only serve to hurt Apple financially, and limit them from innovating.
You have to remember that Apple needs money to develop a new operating system every 1 to 2 years like they've been doing, always pushing the cutting edge. Microsoft makes money by just selling Windows because they have a monopoly... Microsoft haslong exceeded a saturation point where enough people will buy their OS to support the development costs of that OS.
For Apple, they don't have this. Just how many copies of OS X need to be sold to make Apple profitable again after you kill all of their Mac hardware sales?
Secondly, don't you think it would COST Apple more money to develop their OS to target any old PC hardware instead of just their own Mac hardware?
Here's the doomsday scenario as i see it : apple spends a boatload of money and makes their OS available to PCs. Their OS market share will go up slightly... maybe to 8% or something, but their Computer sales will plummit as the competition edges them out...
revenue goes down. Apple starts losing money like crazy... and they don't have enough money to develop Mac OS X to be competitive anymore with Windows... Windows crushes them, like they do everyone else.
Everyone loses, even people who buy Mac OS X for your generic PCs. - FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@stoops
Agreed.
I'm kind of expecting a call from the feds soon though.
Let's just say i'm posting from Safari. - sud0n1m, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's not just the software stupid. When you buy an apple, you are buying the combination of hardware and software. That is their philosophy and that is what has worked so well for them with the ipod. It is the pretty case as much as the interface and interaction with the user that makes it a best seller. By allowing people to run OS X on ugly dells and the like, it dilutes the brand and takes away from the superior experience that every apple owner has when using their computer. I have bought 2 ipods and a powerbook. My Macbook is on the way. I have not regretted $1 spent on apple hardware / software.
- nextsteposx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You already knew this if you were into the scene
http://www.win2osx.net/forum/ - JohnTheLutheran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2*Now* do people see what Richard Stallman's been banging on about for the past twenty-five years?
All this talk of, "I paid for my copy of OS X, I should be allowed to do what I like with it" is totally off-beam. The physical copy of OS X cost next to nothing - what you got for your $100 was a *licence* to use that copy *in accordance with the licence terms*. If you didn't like the terms of that licence, then no-one was forcing you to take it.
I think a licence term that says "for use only on Apple hardware" completely sucks. I think imposing DMCA notices on people who find ways to run otherwise-legitimate OS X copies on x86 hardware completely sucks. But that's why I use a Free OS rather than a proprietary one. You paid your money, you took your choice. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Not theft, nub. Look it up.
We infringe upon copyright.
I refuse to honor any law that is scuplted by a profit motivated corporate machine and put in place by corrupt *****. - aten, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2" Dear God, can we never stay on subject and avoid personal bashing? The damned pre-adolescent nonsense that fills these comments is truly astounding. I haven't even been able to bring myself to look at digg in months, due to the patetic user base, poor or re-posted headlines, broken links, and other avoidable garbage. Thank you t the users who feel where I'm coming from, and good luck, but Digg is dead to me, following one last rant...
Apple is a hardware company at heart. They want to sell their boxes and increase user base. Their OS, wich by chance happens to be one of, if not THE best retail OS on the market, is being used as incentive to buy Mac hardware. Where along the way did people decide it was ok to "steal", and may I stress that word as much as possible, a company's OS and use it. Don't give me this nonsense about "learning" and being "creative". If you "illegally" installed OS X on an x86 based machine, you are a common crook. They hang people for things like that in Asian and Muslim areas. Too bad our capital punishment system isn't more broad...
The "goal" of this project may not have been to "steal" the product, but that is exactly what the project facilitated and thoroughly aided. Therefore, under the DMCA, OSx86 Project was in direct violation of LAWS and needed to be shut down. People no longer have integrity, so we need the DMCA to play police. If the site had been devoted to learning about the OS, playing with its internals WITHOUT cracking, tampering, or in any way reverse engineering the "Software" (Software has a price), it would still be up and going strong. People turned it into a manual on how to steal a popular OS, plain and simple. Good riddance.
On a side note, I have never had a dependable PC, other than one I built myself. Hardware to OS issues arise all the time. Incompatability in desired compnents haunts me. Never had that problem with a Mac. The seamless OS to hardare integration works. It produces rock stable machines, be it because of the vertical integration of the process, or simply by the nature of *nix based OS X. I'll gladly pay for quality. Many of you will undoubtedly disagree, probably start tossing futile personal attcks at me without even mentioning the subject at hand, and then call me an Apple fanboy. Ahh, how I miss the days of blissful ignorance...
Good bye, and good life.
/rant
"
Agreed on - manfesto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To all the people claiming that Apple MUST release OS X for generics - you should look up what happened to them the last time they did that.
As far as the OSx886 project being shut down - yes, it is quite a shame (there were some passionate hackers amidst those boards), but they were reverse engineering and (as stupid a law as it is) violating the DMCA. Still, don't forget - all they had was information on how to get OS X running on generics, and on the internet, information yearns to be free to those willing to look, so long as people are still hard at work hacking ( http://maxxuss.hotbox.ru/releases.html ). - Rice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Umm, bpopp, cracker does not equal open source developer...
Or am I wrong? - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Experimental
"If you bought an Intel iMac you did receive a single copy of OS X for Intel with the system. Supposedly you were "sold" a license, but don't believe that crap (see http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html ), you own a single copy of the operating system. Now if you want to move that OS to a generic beige box or a piece-of-***** Dell, you have the right to do that to the single copy... with the caveat that you ERASE the OS on the iMac (rendering it unuseable). That's the ONLY legal way to use OS X for x86 on non-Apple hardware... and their lawyers will tell you that it's not legal, but I doubt they'd be able to enforce it"
It's not a legal way to use OSX for x86 on non-Apple hardware, as the terms of the licence agreement explicitly state that you may only use Mac OS X when installed on Apple branded hardware. If you have it installed on non-Apple hardware you are in breach of the licence agreement and are therefore breaking the law!
And besides you don't own a "single copy of the operating system", you own a single "LICENCE" to use that software, as per the terms of the licence agreement.
Also, look at the case of OEM versions of Windows. You may "ONLY use it on the machine it came pre-installed on", if you install it on another box and have to activate it over the phone (ignore CRACKtivation as it isn't legal) MS will not under any circumstances give you the activation key.
Trust me, I tried it once :(
People need to read the licences and "their wording" a bit more carefully. - Maasneotek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1
Experimental, please feel free to stick that PPC version of tiger you own the license to in any x86 machine.... :) thats your right.... IT wont do much but thats what you paid for.
A large amount of confusion comes from what the average (and sometimes not so average) joes idea of what the definitions of License, contract, theft and ownership are when it comes to software- where some people believe linguistic rationalization is enough to warrant their actions. - galore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DMCA. Forbidden information. Forbidden speech. Now that we have conservative Supremes, lets test, if they are really such constructionalists and strike down that platently unconstitutional law.
- Experimental, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@r3zonance - You must have misread my post. Please reread it, closely.
| It's not a legal way to use OSX for x86 on non-Apple hardware,
| as the terms of the licence agreement explicitly state that you may
| only use Mac OS X when installed on Apple branded hardware. If
| you have it installed on non-Apple hardware you are in breach of the
| licence agreement and are therefore breaking the law!
|
| And besides you don't own a "single copy of the operating system",
| you own a single "LICENCE" to use that software, as per the terms
| of the licence agreement.
Contract's CAN be used to restrict a consumer's rights. Contracts are valid if they are agreed to by both parties and do not involve illegal activity. If you buy an (Intel) iMac from CDW, you receive a single copy of the operating system as part of that purchase. You didn't have to sign anything or agree to anything before your purchase. Apple (and every other software company) uses the concept of a "license" to try and get around your rights as a consumer. The big fiction is that you aren't entering into a contract when you purchase a consumer product so your purchase falls within the bounds of the UCC & Copyright law.
Everybody who's studied these issues is clearly aware of these facts. The UCC and Copyright dictate what can be done, not some pseudo-contract "license" that you didn't agree to before the purchase. The fiction that a "contract" that you didn't agree to before purchase supersedes your consumer rights is what you've been led to believe. But it's never been upheld (to my knowledge) and the verdicts have always come down due to COPYRIGHT violations.
There have been cases where defendants used similar arguments to defend piracy related activities, but in every case, they were violating Copyright law too. I'm not aware of a single case where a procedure like I originally described (erasing the OS on the Intel iMac and using the OS on a different machine... or alternatively pulling the hardrive out and installing it in another machine and patching it there) has been upheld... because it's NOT illegal. That's a fair use of a purchased product.
@maasneotek - It WAS a ridiculous analogy wasn't it! ... to illustrate a ridiculous idea.
FYI, I've never downloaded OS X x86 (I use a 17" Powerbook) and have no intention of doing so. But if I wanted to use the operating system out of my Powerbook and experiment with it on an IBM PPC motherboard, I have that right as a consumer. If I want to post PATCHES that will modify the software so that it can be used for another purpose, I can do that too (maybe not now that there's a DMCA...) as long as I don't post the Copyrighted software.
I have no intention of trying to use a PPC License for OS X on an Intel box... mainly because I've got better things to do but also because the idea that I have "license" for something that I bought and paid for is invalid.
Licenses affect how you can distribute copyrighted material, not what you can do with an item that you purchased.
I'm a reasonable guy, outside of the DMCA, which is VERY bad law, show me where I'm wrong? - opera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1jasqwerty, not all countries in europe are in the EU. it's a shame so many are, and the entire union should just vaporize. it does almost no good. it's just a perfect dream for a large corporation to move around, fire people somewhere hire new somewhere else. and it makes these corporations stronger and more willing to lobby for whatever they want.
r2zonance, as I wrote but you didn't read, if UELA breaks the law, it doesn't apply. no company can tell me what to do with what i've paid for. it Might break some EU crap law as jasqwerty "digged" up, but that doesn't mean it applies to all member countries if it is against the law in their country. then it must go to some kind of EU court. This, jaqwert probably didn't know.
And again, I do what the ***** I want. After all, laws don't affect me. I'm a free man, this earth is yours and mine. Let's take it back from the corporations aka governments. - cfazzini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well everyone has said it... OS X isn't sold for Intel machines, so techically, people downloading and cracking/hacking this isn't stealing anything. There is nothing to steal. No sale lost for apple.
- hardran3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I love it. All the x86 people have ripped on Macs forever. Now, OS X can run on x86 and they all cry because they can't have the cool Apple OS. Buy a Mac, or hold your breath till apple releases it for plain x86 boxen, or haxor it, with no support.
- Amishplumber, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2There are 2 things that if apple did them they would very quickly get on top of the OS wars IMO
1. sell Tiger for generic PC's (even if it costs as much as XP, although it be nice if it was cheaper)
2. help out the darwine project or actually do the rumored redbox project so that windows apps could be run right in OSX.
If Apple did those 2 things they kick microshafts ass and be on top in less than a year i bet. - bpopp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Several people have called me out saying that Apple does, in fact, give back to the open source community. They have pointed to Apple's open source listing (http://www.apple.com/opensource/) as proof of this. What they obviously don't realize is that very few, if any of these 182 projects have received any notable contributions from Apple. All this page is telling us is that Apple is making large sums of money from the blood, sweat, and tears of people who never receieve a dime.
And they STILL have the nerve to bite the hands of the people who are reverse-engineering their stuff? If it wasn't for reverse-engineering, they wouldn't have Samba or Open Directory or any of these technologies they have built their entire company around. Ironic, much? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Rice, the guys getting OSX running on Generic X86 machines are actually HACKERS in the correct sense of the word. They're trying to make things work how they want them to.
- blueice03, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You guys don't get it do you? Whether you agree with it or not, OS X is a copyrighted piece of software, and what OSx86 was doing and promoting was the reverse-engineering and unauthorized modification of that software. I get so tired of this attitude on both here and slashdot of, "well, it doesn't work the way we want, so we'll hack it so it does, it is our right to do so." It is not your right and if you insist on doing it be prepared for the consequences. Don't go around blaming Apple or anyone else for the predicament you are now in. It is black and white: if you want OS X then buy a Mac. That's the way it works.
/rant - skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I always wondered how many of the people out there who want to put OSX on their home made machines would actually buy it in the first place. If you pay for it, I say hack away! What you do with the product after you buy it, is your business. The MPAA, RIAA, game and computer industry need to STFU. It's been paid for. If you can figure out how to get it on your own machine, have at it!
I'd still prefer an Apple Mac myself though. - zephyrsyndicate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Tetrachromatic, your stance is disappointing. The digital realm is one of the few remaining places where there isn't outright totalitarian rule, and obviously that itself is changing. Being such an apologist for "protection" only serves to strengthen the case.
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jasqwerty
"Let's just use XP as an example then, because I am more familiar with this. Let's see I buy a copy of XP, get XP to run on my toaster by hacking the code. Are you saying I shouldn't be allowed to do this? As far as I'm concerned I own that piece of code and can do whatever I want with it, aside from distributing it."
Now that's where everything all falls apart. You don't own the code, you actually own the CD that it is on. The content itself is not yours to do what you want with.
Go and by a music ALBUM, rip it and then upload it to your personal webspace, you'll have the RIAA crawling up your ass in a heartbeat.
By your dillusional standards, you OWN Windows XP, which of course you don't, because you didn't invest time and money in the creation of it. That would be Microsoft's PRODUCT, which you are LICENCING.
And you can't say you don't go for the EULA *****. Just by the fact that you use the product in question your are deemed, by law, to have accepted it. - FullMetalMonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I would buy a copy of Tiger for x86.
- dotpage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2guides still here: http://www.profit42.com/guides.php?id=1
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The freedom to do whatever the ***** you want with something you paid for.
- Amplix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I bet they're working on OSX: Dull Little Box Edition
- LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jasqwerty
I agree with the idea of fair use, and i think that the dmca and other corporate creations are counterproductive...
But there's no question that the flip side, that piracy does exist and is a continual challenge. Hacking the Mac OS may be fine and dandy if whoever has an iMac and wants to do cool stuff with it, but you have to acknowledge the reality that doing such a thing will only spur piracy, and it's not sufficient just to turn a blind eye and pretend like there's nothing wrong with it.
What tetrachromatic said before about balance is important. People who wrote the software need to keep control, and deserve to be able to sell their product... but they shouldn't infringe and overly restrict the user. Users need to have freedom to use their software, but they SHOULDN'T pirate it, or make it available to piracy.
It's very easy for you, to all be users instead of people who actually wrote software... to decide that you're being dicked over... but realize you're ignoring that pirates are dicking over everyone.
This is why I hated what OSx86 stood for. They represented a big '***** you' from the side of "users" over the "owners." They want to think that they're promoting some kind of social good, but really, they're starting an arms race which will result in MORE restrictions, not less. - LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"hey asshat, if osx was for sale for generic pc's a huge number or people would buy it, there would be many who pirate it but still a lot would buy it. I would if they provided all the drivers and support for my pc."
And how many Apple Mac hardware sales would Apple sacrifice just to make YOU happy?
Like you said... they'd need to provide all the drivers to support your PC... that's a ton more work than just to support the specific hardware of the Mac. It'll cost them more money to develop the OS, slowing down the pace that Apple releases the Mac OS, while at the same time, they're going to lose money when competitors start selling cheap ass macs. - JohnTheLutheran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ zb0430, aten, somefool:
A legal definition of theft: "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly"
If a person goes into a shop, *buys* a copy of OS X, takes it home and tries to install it on an x86 machine, in what way have they "dishonestly appropriated" somebody else's property? Of what has Apple been "permanently deprived"?
To do so is undoubtedly copyright infringement, but I suggest those who think this constitutes "stealing" check out the entry for "Theft" on this page: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
Perhaps there'd be fewer comments about "Apple fanboys" if a certain type of Apple fan didn't respond to criticisms of Apple in a manner reminiscent of extreme Islamists burning down embassies over a few cartoons. - zb0430, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dear God, can we never stay on subject and avoid personal bashing? The damned pre-adolescent nonsense that fills these comments is truly astounding. I haven't even been able to bring myself to look at digg in months, due to the patetic user base, poor or re-posted headlines, broken links, and other avoidable garbage. Thank you t the users who feel where I'm coming from, and good luck, but Digg is dead to me, following one last rant...
Apple is a hardware company at heart. They want to sell their boxes and increase user base. Their OS, wich by chance happens to be one of, if not THE best retail OS on the market, is being used as incentive to buy Mac hardware. Where along the way did people decide it was ok to "steal", and may I stress that word as much as possible, a company's OS and use it. Don't give me this nonsense about "learning" and being "creative". If you "illegally" installed OS X on an x86 based machine, you are a common crook. They hang people for things like that in Asian and Muslim areas. Too bad our capital punishment system isn't more broad...
The "goal" of this project may not have been to "steal" the product, but that is exactly what the project facilitated and thoroughly aided. Therefore, under the DMCA, OSx86 Project was in direct violation of LAWS and needed to be shut down. People no longer have integrity, so we need the DMCA to play police. If the site had been devoted to learning about the OS, playing with its internals WITHOUT cracking, tampering, or in any way reverse engineering the "Software" (Software has a price), it would still be up and going strong. People turned it into a manual on how to steal a popular OS, plain and simple. Good riddance.
On a side note, I have never had a dependable PC, other than one I built myself. Hardware to OS issues arise all the time. Incompatability in desired compnents haunts me. Never had that problem with a Mac. The seamless OS to hardare integration works. It produces rock stable machines, be it because of the vertical integration of the process, or simply by the nature of *nix based OS X. I'll gladly pay for quality. Many of you will undoubtedly disagree, probably start tossing futile personal attcks at me without even mentioning the subject at hand, and then call me an Apple fanboy. Ahh, how I miss the days of blissful ignorance...
Good bye, and good life.
/rant - 4answer2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Apple HAS to aggressively pursue this via legal means.
They are protecting their intellectual property. If a company fails to do that, their rights could erode in future court proceedings. And they could be liable themselves since they failed to defend their shareholders potential earnings.
Of course if they were to, I dunno, donate part of their code to open source, that would be different. Just guessing there though. - Maasneotek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Now the DMCA is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard, but that's NOT the point. There's NO LEGAL WAY to get a copy of OS X for x86 beyond what I mentioned in the first paragraph. If you don't fall into that category then you are a THIEF plain and simple. No other term for it.
If you can rationalize your way around that, then you have bigger problems stemming from your ability to lie to yourself.
For what it's worth, I support the right to post patches and the like that modify legally acquired copies of software without restriction... that's free speech."
Ridiculous analogy aside, I agree, a license for ppc doesnt entitle you to the same operating system on a different platform unless otherwise stated- by the SELLER. Just because you want it to be for sale
doesnt make it true. - scottpatricks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2i know osx is apples "baby", but grow up. most of the world already owns an x86 machine and would love to "switch" without dishing out the extra $$$ for the hardware. *****, I would gladly pay for versions of it for my extra x86 machines. I guess i'll have to stick to my printed out hack. :)
- appdx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1fluffyturtle - "Actually if you already own a intel mac you can get a install on a disk. Although I didn't say I bought the intel version. I went out and purchased a retail copy of osx. I paid them for a OS and I am going to use the intel version.
Nothing was stolen."
This is the kind of thing that should be allowed, if you're smart enough hack it good for you! It's like electronics...If you can hack it to make it do something cool, like a mod or whatever, all it does is void the warranty...Why does apple care what you use YOUR LEGITIMATE COPY OF OS X for. - bedouin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good. I happily pay for an OS that I think rules which is subsidized through hardware sales. No hardware sales? No money to pay engineers to keep OS X light years head of Windows and Linux. If you want to kill a platform, support these folks.
- anjinash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What a bunch of hypocrites. You get on your moral high horse to protect your cult leader's so-called IP, all the while downloading movies, music and so forth.
I like OSX, but the majority of Apple fanboys are stuck up, self inflated jerks. emove the plank from thine own eye before pointing out the speck in mine. - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think we agree with each other more than you realize, but I just refuse to give up my right to use the product however I see fit. Fight piracy as hard as you want, I couldn't care less, since I won't be pirating your goods, but the DMCA screwed over alot of things, and helped fix absolutely nothing. I'm a criminal every time I watch a DVD on my Fedora box, but somehow I doubt I'll be prosecuted for that. Yet I don't feel that the excuse that my local DA doesn't feel like throwing linux movie watchers in jail is sufficient, I rather he not be able to at all.
Here's my post from the topic concerning the RIAA saying that making backup CDs is illegal:
"The problem with this is the basic idea behind IP, and that some sort of 'license' exists. That somehow the product is not really yours, you're just allowed to use it; this also extends to EULAs. I don't see why this silly idea was ever accepted when it was first introduced, or why it has been allowed to fester this long. Companies have gotten along just fine for decades with people actually owning what they've bought. Now, don't misread this. I'm actually all for the protection of a business to be able to profit from its creations, but for me the infringements of that privilege are very clear. If I copy it for someone else, free or not, whether they intend to ever purchase it themselves or not, I've infringed that privilege. See, that's where I disagree with the P2P people, just because you can't afford it, or whatever nonsense, doesn't mean you have some right to have it on your own terms. But anything I do with it for my own use should be just that, MY OWN USE OF IT.
Also, STOP ***** STEALING THEIR MUSIC/MOVIES/SOFTWARE/ETC.
I can guarantee they point to threads like this to show just how much more 'protection' they need because all of you ***** idiots think you're sticking it to 'da man' or just too poor to afford it but 'need' to see/have it, but are just screwing us all over in the process. I never did take such a naive stance on P2P so as to defend it as being legitimate. The amount of theft was so clear, I approved of the RIAA and others going after people. But this, this is just stupid." - VikOlliver, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DMCA Only applies to the US, right?
Bring on the Euro and Asian hacking fraternity...
Vik :v) - Treefingers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't think most people here actually understand what happened. I don't agree with a lot of the subprovisions set forth in the DMCA...but it is the law. You can't pick and choose what you want to abide by. However you feel about the DMCA is irrelavent, this software belongs to Apple. This decision was probably not handed down by Apple, if anything, it was derived by some of its lawyers. The Department of Justice prosecutes for DMCA violations, and its the DoJ's choice whether or not they will even press charges.
Apple was very clear about how it wanted its software distrubuted...people can debate what Apple's intentions were/ how its unfair/ whatever you want. The point is Apple gets to choose how they get to distrubute their software. At the present, Apple would like you to buy a Mac in order to run OS X. That is how it is. Regardless of your financial situation, your feelings about big bussiness, your feelings about Microsoft, or your feelings about Apple, if you want to run OS X, go buy a Mac. Its not up for debate.
Somewhere along the line people decided they were entitled to free music, to free movies, to free software. However you feel about the music industry, the film industry, or Microsoft, the property belongs to the creators. Regardless of your ability to pay, you are not entitled to free software just because you disagree with the value that is named by the owner. There is a real problem in society today--people believing they have an implicit right to own intellectual property without paying for it. People do not understand the value of someone's work unless they hold it in their hands. Many forms of media are not tangible, so it never registers that SOMEONE worked very hard on it, and whatever the quality, it is worth some amount of money. This really isn't an argument, that is just the way it is.
Good day. - LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@tetrachromatic
"1. Yes, Apple's market share is low.
2. However, their margins are high. That's the point the OP was making.
3. This has nothing to do with the users. It has to do with the company.
4. If Apple gets trampled by Microsoft, no OSX for anyone.
Stop acting like a dick. Kind of funny how the only people more obnoxious than macolytes are the idiots who typecast everyone into that mode."
You are most wise. Exactly right. - jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Because I do respect copyrights, and a company's right to make a profit off their creative creations.
Just as I don't think you should be able to make copies of a book and distribute it, for profit or not, I don't think you should be able to do it with software.
I have this really kickass book reading lamp, a physical object. I'm sure the company has a patent on it, but I could just as a easily make a copy of it and sell it, though I don't, because I respect their right to do that. I though reserve the right to open it up, and put in a brighter bulb, with a dimmer control. - bpopp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4There's a difference between not supporting it and actively going after people that are hacking around with it. Apple annoys me more and more every day. I see so many people who buy into their drivel. They pretend to be supportive of open standards and big adopters of open source. All they do is take and take from the open source community and give nothing back in return except DMCA notices and legal threats.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 234 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is